On the Maxim website, between narrow ankles, rounded hips and high Persians, a section called "The Immanent Paradigm Maxim" is deeply lost, consisting of five blocks of short thesis articles, which in a concise form reflect the editorial policy of the entire publication - a kind of constitution, according to which the authors verify your texts.
Could fashion gloss exploiting a basic instinct be an ideological tool? What ideology? An instrument of whose influence? Let's take a look at these issues.
As stated in the introduction to the first part of this article, "MAXIM is a person with his own tastes, principles and habits."
“If you don't have your own attitude to the controversial phenomena of our life, take ours. And go with him to the people. And preach it,”says the preamble to one of the sections. Let's see what the editorial board of the magazine offers to preach.
We will not consider all the provisions, but only the most acute ones and put them into groups. "Commandments" will be quoted sometimes in full, sometimes in part, when the whole point fits in one sentence. So, the first block.
Attitude towards family values
Promotional video:
The propaganda of lust and "free love" as normal male behavior in general is at the heart of the publication. Let's count together how many times marriage, as the union of a man and a woman illuminated by the Lord, will be attacked.
"The promiscuity in which any two people have the right to sleep with each other without regard to society and without any mutual obligations, MAXIM considers the only reasonable device of society at the current stage of its development."
Wedding. "A purely feminine hobby, which we treat with submissive enthusiasm only when there is nowhere else to retreat."
The institution of marriage. “ He is dying off. We are grieving. It is a pity that he dies off so slowly and dramatically. How much easier it would have been to bury him in the end and go about your business!"
Hollywood. “Before, when he wasn't so obsessed with family values, he was much cooler. Terminators babysitting is too much."
So we have four overt and undisguised attacks on family and family values. It turns out that "Maxim" is against the family. What can this mean for our country?
First, it is obvious that the population is shrinking, since they try not to have children outside of marriage. Secondly, the degradation of moral norms, the destruction of a civilized society. After all, it is generally accepted that the promiscuity, for which Maxim so fiercely stands, is the norm of primitive society.
However, there are no observations confirming the existence of promiscuity in the sense of promiscuous sexual relations that preceded the emergence of marriage and family, in the past or among modern peoples with a primitive communal system. I dare to suggest that people of modern appearance did not have any disorder of sexual relations in the communities. It's just that many people really want to find an excuse for themselves in history.
“If you don't have your own convictions, use ours! Back in the hundredth issue, we formulated the postulates of our value system. And nothing has become obsolete since then,”reads another preamble.
The next set of attitudes is the approval of debauchery and drugs
Pornography. “ Another ineradicable hobby of people that does no harm to anyone (see paragraph“Prostitution”). We are for the legal distribution of pornography with two caveats: it should not be distributed where children are walking; children should not be involved in the porn industry. Violation of these restrictions should be imprisoned."
Drugs. “ Yes, they kill and drive you crazy. However, being an adult means having the right to decide for yourself what to do with your life and your consciousness."
Hemp. "MAXIM for the full legalization of hemp!"
Prostitution: “MAXIM demands its complete legalization…. All of us ultimately sell something: muscles, brains, ideas, skillful legs, sensitive ears and dexterous hands. Why are there such claims to the talents in this area?"
Gambling "like most other vices is highly valued by us," the editors write. Regarding pedophilia, the magazine writes the following about adolescents: "… Let them decide for themselves where, with whom and what they want to do."
I want to note that if something becomes legalized, it automatically falls into the hands of teenagers. They both drank vodka at their parties and smoked cigarettes 5 years ago, and they continue to do this, no matter how much the state tries to limit them. Because alcohol and tobacco are legalized. The ban on consumption under 18 is playing a cruel joke - the age restriction creates the effect of the forbidden fruit and privilege for adults. Legalizing marijuana and gambling means addiction to a significant proportion of teenagers. This will not lead to anything good either on a national scale or on a personal level.
Although porn is not legalized, however, the entire Internet is loaded to capacity. But this does not mean at all that it now needs to be recognized and freed from the ban. If the ship received a hole, this does not mean at all that you need to open the kingstones in addition.
In the Age of Enlightenment, it became fashionable to think of prostitution as the lesser evil that must be tolerated so that no greater evil occurs. “Prostitutes are a necessity. Otherwise, men would have lashed out at decent women in the streets,”- this is how Napoleon summed up the general idea. But, nevertheless, it has not yet happened to be faced with the fact that, recognizing the need for prostitution, any of the thinkers advocated its legalization. At the time, it seemed just unthinkable. Because to legalize would mean to equalize an honest noble woman and a prostitute. To legitimize vice means to remove the taboo from it. This will deal a crushing blow to the Russian mental code.
And a conniving and even more favorable attitude towards pedophilia at the state level will mean the spiritual end of the people, which will entail a physical one. Any attempt to remove the taboo from this concept, even a hint, must be strictly suppressed.
Sensitive problems through the prism of demography
Religion. “Today, in the 21st century, religion is an absolute evil, a source of endless wars and deaths, a justification for any anti-human laws, a brake on science and a restrictor of freedoms. The only actual function of religion is to comfort the unfortunate, a form of psychotherapy. One should not be proud of one's involvement in religion, but be ashamed of it, like crutches or antidepressants …”.
The authors do not want to draw their attention to the fact that any civilization was built on the basis of a religious core. Religion provided a system of values and guidelines, norms for the interaction of people with each other, the meaning of existence. All of the above fits into the concept of ethics. Without it, the construction and existence of each specific civilization would have been impossible. Removing this foundation means destroying the entire structure.
I especially want to draw your attention to a simple truth: today, in the era of contraception, religion is almost the only stimulus to procreation. That is, to self-reproduction of the population. To oppose religion means to support the extinction of the population.
Abortion. “ They are harmful to women's health, therefore, and only because of this, there is nothing good in them. But MAXIM is not ready to grieve over the untimely death of an almost invisible lump of incomprehensible embryonic flesh. Yes, it could be a human. For example, Hitler. And in general, those who are deeply indifferent to the rights of already existing, real people are usually ready to fiercely respect the rights of embryos."
It seems to me, to put it mildly, strange that MAXIM sees in the embryo, first of all, the embryo of Hitler. Why not Pushkin or Hugo Chavez? A parable about a fly and a bee immediately came to my mind. One has the whole world - excrement and slop, and the other has blossoming gardens and groves.
But the essence of the situation should not escape us. The editors say that there is nothing wrong with almost a million children killed in the womb last year.
Euthanasia. ".. MAXIM for the right of everyone to decide for himself how much to suffer …". The question does seem to be ambiguous. It is important for us to follow the general trend: again they speak in favor of population reduction.
Cloning. "… In any case, MAXIM welcomes all kinds of scientific breakthroughs, even the Hadron Collider."
I had a suspicion: those whose interests are pursued by the immanent paradigm, in the future, intend to subordinate and control the entire fertility of human individuals. This is similar to how it is depicted by Haskli in his surprisingly terrible work of its doom "Brave New World".
"We continue to impose our worldview on you"
Another group - the provisions that shape the political views of the "plebs"
Patriotism. “A true patriot, from the point of view of MAXIM, is not one who endlessly praises his country for everything that has been, is and will be. In this matter, MAXIM is entirely on the side of Henry Thoreau, who wrote in his Treatise on the Duty of Civil Disobedience: “Anyone who calls for reconciliation with an ulcer and vice in his state is not a patriot, but a self-serving traitor. A patriot is obliged to ring the bells when he sees any danger, any injustice, any disease that spreads in his country. If the government issues an unjust law, the patriot is obliged not to obey it and fight it in every possible way."
I believe that being a patriot means realizing your inseparability from the Motherland, from its history, from its present and future. Patriotism is a desire to benefit one's country, it is a view of public and state interests as their own. The question is not at all whether he praises his country or not. The editors deliberately simplify a very important concept, relegating it to a pun.
Interestingly, if "Maxim" persistently proposes to legalize drugs, prostitution, assert the right of everyone to have sex without obligations, support abortion, etc. logic falls into the category of "self-serving traitors"? Good question.
Putin's regime. “MAXIM doesn't like him. And the point is not even that it interferes with our personal and personal life now. It doesn’t interfere: we are not engaged in business, we don’t particularly promote human rights, and we don’t even suffer from censorship (we are not a TV channel). And, nevertheless, it seems to us that everything that is happening now will have very unpleasant consequences later. When, for example, the price of oil again drops to $ 10, as in the late 80s, and the mighty sirloin of devastation will cover our cities and towns.."
Great position. We don't know why, but it seems to us. Absolutely not understanding either the global economy or the international situation, they nevertheless draw some conclusions. And most importantly, they offer the reader to "preach" these positions!
I wonder what you, dear ones, did yourself to serve the country? Excuse me, naked young ladies you print and articles about this and that, here and there? Or maybe you ring the bells at the sight of injustice? Isn't it a diabolical injustice to be innocently killed in the womb? And your bells are silent.
Stalin. “.. MAXIM believes that it was Stalin’s policy to a large extent that allowed the Nazis to develop on such a scale, so that his“merits”in World War II can be safely equated with the merits of the person who started a fire in the house, burned half of the household, but saved the cat, giving her a kick, from which she flew out the window, charred, but alive."
I don't think I need to debunk here the myths about Stalin as a child eater and the main culprit of the Second World War. I am very glad that on April 23, 2014, the State Duma adopted in the second and third readings the law “on prohibiting the rehabilitation of fascism,” and, as it was said in the news, it will have an article on punishment for defamation of the role of the USSR in World War II. It must be said that the time for the adoption of this law has come a long time ago. Now there is an opportunity to bring slanderers to justice.
Soviet Union. “In a hundred years this geopolitical formation will be able to evoke nostalgia, interest and other archaeological enthusiasm. But it's too early. The fact is that a considerable part of our editorial staff managed to live properly with him. And if we were offered to return there again, then in five seconds we would have packed our bags with wild cries and fled - even to Canada, even to Mars. The worst thing about the USSR was that, among other things, it was incredibly boring there."
USA. In general, we like them. If we remove from there Protestant Puritanism, the dominance of lawyers, caricatured political correctness, this idiotic fight against smoking and a few other things that spoil the picture, then this would be the best place to live on Earth. True, then it would not have been the United States.
Putin is bad, Stalin is a sadist, the USSR is boring, the USA is generally pretty. The logic can be traced clearly. Conclusions suggest themselves.
Now comes the fun part. What the magazine writes about itself. Heading "did you know?":
It is stated that this detailed instruction on self-liquidation is the most widely read men's magazine in Russia. And I'm afraid they are not lying here.
Let me remind you that at the very beginning the authors declare: “MAXIM is a person with his own tastes, principles and habits. These tastes do not even coincide quite often with the tastes and convictions of our editor-in-chief, but he bows his proud neck and dutifully rewrites his letters when they point him with a finger and say: "Is this MAXIM?" Whose finger is this, what uncle? Who determines the policy of the publication, forcing the editor-in-chief to submit to certain "principles"? And the latter even disowns his own magazine, does not want to bear moral responsibility.
As a result, we have an open challenge to our entire society, social norms, as algorithms for maintaining the life and vitality of our civilization. Most of the non-political postulates, one way or another, carry the idea of population reduction and the denial of once traditional values. Politicians generally give out the magazine with their heads.
I urge those who are members of patriotic organizations to raise the issue of bringing to justice the editorial board of "Maxim". Personally, I saw several open violations of the law: insulting the feelings of believers and slander (against Comrade Stalin). And according to the law "on the prohibition of the rehabilitation of fascism" - they can be attracted for the fact that they blame Stalin for the War and, consequently, on the USSR.
Igor Ilyin
