The previous part is here. The first is here.
In this part, I have promised a couple of examples of real sects that may come as a surprise to the reader. Then I realized that there would be one example, since the rest are understood completely in the same way and anyone can do it on their own. A list of other unexpected sects will be given at the end of the article.
So, typical sects, to which everyone is accustomed, do not raise questions from mentally healthy or not too sick people … that is, those who are not members of these sects. It is completely uninteresting to disassemble them, because everything is “according to the textbook”: take it and immediately determine what a sect is in front of you. All such sects can be found in any search engine by request "list of sects" or "catalog of sects", but I am not responsible for the fact that such lists may not contain sects at all. Much less obvious to the reader will be the sect of the Russian Academy of Sciences or the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences (there is no fundamental difference between them), the sect of hedonists, alcoholics, moderate drinkers, swingers, and even university students. Of course, not all people belonging to these communities will be sectarians (see the previous part, where there is a clear criterion at the end), but still, for most people I know, the rule works: a person,referring himself to a certain group, is completely limited in development by the logic of the group's behavior, and therefore turns out to be a sectarian. For example, a student can receive a fake education (economic, sociological, political science) for the sake of a blue or red crust, with which he can then demand from society a certain attitude towards himself, ANYWHERE not justified. Nevertheless, a part of society can readily provide this attitude if it endows the crust with the mystical property of adding it to the master of the brain. This very behavior: getting a crust at any cost, justifying any of your actions (including the diligent study of any bullshit) by the need to have a formal education, is a sign of sectarian behavior, because the student closes all processes around getting an education into limited logic,within which the main thing is to get the crust, and the rest follows from this and closes in on this.
I can talk about students for a long time, but they have to be viewed as a part of society with all the vices inherent in a young age, and it is rather difficult to talk about them in isolation, since you have to make a lot of reservations. Therefore, in this article we will consider a simpler example, where there are almost no reservations: consider a sect of people who drink alcohol in moderation. We will act according to the algorithm from the previous part.
Let's try to find signs of a sect in the community of moderate drinkers, getting to the main sign. You can move through the list in any order, but let me start from the end (it's easier for me personally). Signs that are not in this sect will be marked in red, green - there are. For those who do not distinguish between these colors, there will be an explanation in square brackets
8. [no] Signs of a typical sect
Promotional video:
Naturally, the community of moderate drinkers does not and cannot have such signs, because this is far from a typical sect. The only thing that can sometimes appear is the rituals associated with initiation into future alcoholics or with the procedure of drinking. An eloquent example is described in a humorous video:
In addition to this video, you can watch your moderately drinking friends, you will surely find in them the ritual component of drunkenness: a bottle on Saturdays to relax, drink wine with a girl to get closer, sit with friends, in nature with a barbecue, etc. the culture is arranged so that alcohol is an auxiliary element of some process of obtaining pleasure, which is the main component of sectarian behavior.
7. [no] Hierarchy
In the community of moderate alcoholics, there is no hierarchy in the doctrine of the culture of drinking itself. However, everything is not so simple here. There is elite alcohol, and there is cheap chat. In those distant times, the future rector of our university did not take a bottle for less than ten "haymakers" (by the standards of the early 00s, it was serious money), while in the departments of the university during drunkenness they usually put swill, which was clearly of a lower rank. Between lectures, the teachers were filled with something even simpler: so quickly - bang! - and a lecture. I repeat, there is no hierarchy, but there are expensive wines for the elite, and there is swill for the servants. There is also chatter, which is passed off as elite wine, but this is for sheep who consider themselves wolves. Therefore, the teaching relies on the hierarchy already existing in society, supporting it with the "quality level" of alcohol.
There is another not expressed hierarchy, which also cannot be called complete. Moderate drinkers look rather dismissively at alcoholics, who have completely sunk to unnaturalness, and consider themselves smart, educated people who know when to stop and understand what's what. That is, we have two such steps, from one of which one can disdainfully look at the second. This, too, cannot be called a hierarchy, but this phenomenon cannot be overlooked either.
(We will not say now that it is moderate drinking that leads to the existence of degraded drunks, this is not the topic of the article.)
6. [is] Quasi-scientific nonsense
There is a great deal of this good in the doctrine of moderate drinking. In the video series "Whom did Zhdanov bitten?" there is an analysis of deliberate forgery in real scientific research. If I remember correctly, it was about 34 scientific articles with errors. Moreover, if someone understands statistics, then he understands that errors of this kind can ONLY be intentional, it is impossible to make them by accident in a SCIENTIFIC article … although, if the reviewer signed a piece of paper for cognac, it may be possible. Our teachers, for example, skated such a technique.
The rest of the delirium you can ask your moderately drinking friends. You will hear the most incredible things that I do not have the slightest desire to repeat here. Naturally, your interlocutor will not be able to confirm any of this reliably enough, but will give references to himself, grandfather Innokenty, who has been drinking for 70 years, and wartime, where moonshine was used for general anesthesia, well, the classic “the doctor advised, he knows, what he says. " That is, in principle, there will be nothing to do with an adequate justification of one's "beer on Saturday".
About myself I will say this: I have not heard a single adequate justification in all my many years of practice of communicating with people. NO ONE that would fit modern realities. All the justifications, upon detailed examination, turned out to be either ordinary delirium, or came from the ignorance of the interlocutor in this matter.
5. [have] Emotional manipulation and simple solutions
Examples of such are in the previous part of the article under paragraphs 5.5 and 5.6. I can add only one thing to the above: alcohol is unconsciously perceived by people as a simple magical solution to their problems. Read more about the magical properties of alcohol in the book by Hans Olaf Fekjaer "Alcohol and other drugs: magical or chemical substances?"
4. [no] Infallibility
This property is absent in the culture of moderate drinkers. However, none of moderate drinkers realizes the sinfulness of their actions, so we can say that infallibility in terms of drinking alcohol is taken for granted. That is, they do not even think about the harm they cause to society.
Further, in the course of a deeper study of the topic, an amusing detail emerged. It turns out that many drinkers consider themselves "smoother" in many other areas of activity. That is, when they allow themselves to drink, thus shitting into society, they automatically allow themselves to shit in other ways, believing that they have the right to do so, moreover, they think that there is nothing wrong with it. This is a kind of infallibility: to shit and not consider it bad. That is, infallibility lies not in the fact that a person endows himself with higher spiritual qualities and pretends to have them, but in the fact that he deliberately refuses to perceive his actions as wrong, and, doing something secretly, does not consider it bad until the secret not disclosed. Examples of such actions, at least one of which makes ANY moderate drinker (as far as I could check):bribes (give, take), smoking, swearing, condemnation of others, the position “I can, but you don’t”, the position “the end justifies the means”, ambivalence or duality in behavior, indulgence of animal values (adultery, porn, promiscuous relationships, desire have their own territory and not let anyone into it, lordly manners, alpha male). All these actions people can easily consider normal and do not consider them bad when they do them themselves, but they can consider them bad if someone else does them. All these actions people can easily consider normal and do not consider them bad when they do them themselves, but they can consider them bad if someone else does them. All these actions people can easily consider normal and do not consider them bad when they do them themselves, but they can consider them bad if someone else does them.
This property does not stem from the teachings of the sect of moderate drinkers, it is a consequence of some vices inherent in people, and these same vices allow them to consume alcohol.
3. [no] Exclusivity, high mission, great purpose
This is also not the case in the teaching of moderate drinkers. But still there is one "BUT". The elite drinking elite swill takes its high mission not from the doctrine of cultural drinking, but by this doctrine maintains its elitism, since they believe that, among other things, elite alcohol is also a distinctive quality of "more even" people. Here, as in a hierarchy that does not exist, exclusivity appears through the demarcation of oneself and the cattle. And to make the line of demarcation more bold, elite alcohol is added to it.
2. [is] Ambivalence, duality and dual doctrine
Ambivalence and duality can be inherent in many, but not all moderate drinking alcoholics, as I mentioned above. However, I personally have NOT met moderate drinkers who are NOT ambivalent or ambivalent. I just admit that there should be such, but I personally have not seen. Absolutely everyone with whom I talked, managed in less than an hour to show one of these qualities in the logic of their reasoning.
The dual teaching is most striking in the drinking community. For henchmen who drink alcohol, everything is displayed in the most attractive way. For the adepts of the sect, EVERYTHING is done to make them drink. Total propaganda of alcohol and this culture itself, full availability of the most dangerous drug in the world, forgery in scientific papers, deception and the promise of simple ways to get pleasure. If I had been typing for an hour, I would not have listed even one hundredth of a percent of the methods used by the "owners" of the drinking flock to replenish its ranks and keep people already caught in the sect. This is done, of course, not just like that, but because it is profitable for someone. The real meaning that lies in the teaching: to prevent a person from becoming a person, none of the drinkers knows about this, and if they do (which is unlikely), then it is too late,because the potential has been poured into supporting a crowd-elitist system of governance. By the way, the big cities that exist in our time have the same meaning: a more convenient way to control and shear sheep. But it is hundreds of times more difficult to do without alcohol.
In short, there is a hidden part of the teaching, it is rather complicated to fully describe it here, but in short, this whole culture is beneficial to those who control the global historical process at a given historical moment in time. Drinking people, in principle, are not able to realize this, because they do not have enough brains, since they are affected by alcohol.
However, there is an easier part of the hidden teaching that many can understand: the sale of alcohol is a very profitable business within a short period of time. While some drink and suffer disasters, others are fed from this. And the money goes to them NOT only from the sale of alcohol, but also from the sale of all sorts of nonsense that a normal sober person would never buy. That is, making morons out of people and making them consume fashionable things uncontrollably is also part of the alcohol business.
1. [is] A ban on independent thinking
This item is there, but not everyone can see it. Everything seems to be simple: there is a source of information, there is common sense - think and draw conclusions freely … but no, for some reason it does not work. Why? Here are three directions that you can twist to get to the correct answer.
- A doctor in a discussion can put pressure on his authority and say: "who is the doctor here, eh?", And thus substantiate the benefits of red wine. Any scientist can say the same, referring to one of 34 false articles on the benefits of wine. The same can be said by the layman who refers to his doctor or favorite idol (say, an MMA fighter) who recommends alcohol.
- Wild propaganda of alcohol from all sides is an element of blocking independent thinking. A person, especially from childhood, is already so used to the fact that alcohol is a part of culture that for a long time he may not even suspect that he is being fooled. Such aggressive pressure on the psyche is an intentional blockage, albeit an indirect one.
- The convincing charms of alcoholic magic lull the vigilance of young adherents of the sect, and the very action of alcohol blocks the ability to think, as a result of which a person is under the influence of pleasure (not only narcotic, but also social), and not reason. That is, alcohol itself and the culture of drinking it block the mind. This is already a direct blockage at the level of physiology and psychology.
At the same time, note that the very teaching of the sect of moderate drinkers does not contain a prohibition on independent thinking. This prohibition appears as if by itself - it is generated by the very logic of people's thinking.
0. [is] Closing the teaching on itself
Almost no one sees this sign at all, and therefore does not perceive the community of moderate drinkers as a sect. In the first part, I already wrote how difficult it is to see the closure of the doctrine in the thinking of adherents and even gave a personal example, designed to scare away the majority of readers who still cannot understand the topic so that they do not waste time. And to see the closure in this case is even more difficult. So I'm not even sure I can find the right words, but I'll try.
Anyone who drinks alcohol does it voluntarily because he wants to. There can be two reasons: pleasure and stupidity. Moreover, I personally have not met the second one in practice, however, when modeling social processes, I got the image of a person who chokes, spits, but still pours red wine or alcoholic liquor from hawthorn into himself, because someone gave him the thought of an emergency the benefits of such a drink. The third situation, when during the war there is simply NO other way to anesthetize the body, we do not consider due to its irrelevance. We do not consider a situation of the type "for courage" for the reason that it boils down to the pleasure of blocking the feeling of fear and the ability to more simply do what one wanted.
So, 100% of the reasons for moderate alcohol consumption I know are pleasure in its various forms. It may be veiled by some rationale and considerations, but in the end, the chain of thoughts of the people I questioned ALWAYS reached the limit in the form of "I want."
Now let's look further: the culture drinker will logically lock any justifications for his position on “I want”, or (which is the same thing) “I like it”. Even phrases like: “I have to, because I have to play a certain role in the team” or “The boss makes me” still boil down to “I want”, because if I didn't want to, I would easily understand how to get around this ban on independent behavior. Do you already see the closure?.. I'll help you see.
Man initially put his pleasure above ALL, I emphasize, ABSOLUTELY ALL other values. Further, from the set of arguments that are available to him (both “for” and “against”), he chooses ONLY those that lead to a conclusion that is pleasant for him, that is, “for”. All other arguments that are “against” are refuted by some meaningless reasoning like: “Grandfather Innokenty has been drinking for 70 years, and nothing; and in Quiet Don they also boozed there, and nothing; do you think fishermen are absolutely idiots that they take vodka with them for winter fishing? Thus, the CHOICE IS ALREADY MADE, and the argumentation is adjusted to this pre-formed conclusion in order to remain within the framework of the teaching. And the teaching says that personal pleasure is above all. This position did not come to the doctrine of cultural drinking as an independent thought,but as a product of our self-centered culture, and it was laid in the very foundation of the sect of moderate drinkers.
To better understand the presence of a closure, try asking around ANY of your acquaintance who drinks and make him go through the chain of inferences as deep as possible. Forcing you to give the rationale for ALL theses so that you can see the sources of his thoughts. As a rule, these will be unverified links to dubious sources on the Internet, links to authorities, attempts to imitate someone, some dubious stories that add points to alcohol, etc. If your ability to get to the source is strong enough, then you will certainly bring a person to the state "Because I want it!", and this "want" will be reduced to personal pleasure. However, the closure of logic can happen earlier, say, like this:
- Many things cannot be learned on our own, we can only trust someone who has walked this path and knows the answer, so I trust the doctor who said that a little red wine before dinner is always useful. I am a specialist in another field, I cannot understand medicine in the same way as a doctor can do.
- How do you choose an authority to listen to? After all, you can be wrong.
- I trust those whom other authoritative experts have pointed out to me.
- So you rely on authority to choose authority?
- Well, yes, but you can somehow differently?
- No, no, everything is logical for you, you'd better keep drinking.
So, at the heart of the sectarian doctrine of cultural drinking is the pleasure of the followers of the sect. The pleasure is not only physiological, but also psychological. The choice of an adept in favor of drinking is ALREADY justified by this pleasure, and all other conclusions are logically closed on the choice already made. This FULLY proves that all moderate drinkers are sectarians.
For some of them, this sect can become an impetus for personal growth, although in most cases it only leads to the degradation of untapped potential. That is, to the state when the potential is there, but it will never be revealed. In this case, the drinker has the right not to consider himself a sectarian … but you and I know …
List of other sects
I promised to give you a list of unexpected sects. I repeat that in accordance with the previous part (if someone mastered it to the end), almost all communities of people form sects. The process of this education is objective, but the management of this process is subjective. Everyone can choose such a logic of social behavior to be both within the community and not be a sectarian. Agree, it will be rather strange if I now start listing all the existing communities, so let me list only those that I most often have to deal with (it doesn't matter why):
- culture drinkers, alcoholics, smokers, representatives of free sexual relations;
- teetotal fanatics, vegans, vegetarians, raw foodists, fruit eaters, whatever-else-food;
- RAS, RANS, and all other scientific, alternative and anti-scientific communities that explore the world (I am among them);
- skeptics (I am among them too);
- Marxists, materialists, atheists and any other -ists, -ans, -als of any classical or non-traditional religions (I am probably also among them);
- parasites of all stripes;
- esoterics;
- professional athletes.
Now comes the fun part. Is social forestry a sect? Well, if you consider that only my concept is the only correct one, and that I am sensei here, then yes. Welcome, my dears, now I will tell you how to easily and quickly solve any of your problems. First, forget everything that you have heard or read elsewhere, remove all other resources from your bookmarks, these are all harmful sects, and I will show you what the world really looks like. It will only take years until all infection is completely gone from you. Wait patiently and do as I say.
Bow, curtain … and somewhere far away a faint voice is heard "Run, you fools …"
Okay, jokes aside. But for consumers of information, the SL community is definitely a sect, and this is no longer a joke. Only my sect has one important advantageous difference from others: I can tell right away what awaits you.
You think you are consuming my content for fun, but in reality I am squeezing you dry. And don't say you didn't know.
"Run fools…"
Author: Artyom Karavaev