Three types of idiocy: intellectual, moral, aesthetic

Social idiocy

Idiocy [gr.
Idioteia - ignorance] is the most severe form of congenital mental underdevelopment - oligophrenia. Speech is usually undeveloped, inarticulate, movements are clumsy and poorly differentiated. The drives are elementary, not correctable...("Great Soviet Encyclopedia", vol. 10, Moscow, Publishing House "Soviet Encyclopedia", 1972) Idiocy (French Idiotisme (idiote) - 1. Feeble-mindedness. 2. Stupidity, nonsense. (Big Dictionary of Foreign Words (ZAO Tsentrpoligraf, 2005)

The word “idiocy” has more than just a medical meaning. When people behave stupidly and senselessly, we say that they are acting like idiots. The basis of social idiocy is people’s adherence to certain patterns of thinking and behavior. Such templates are formed and driven into the heads of millions of people over the centuries by the “world behind the scenes” in order to achieve their goals by the media and means of “mass culture” subordinate to them. You should critically rethink these patterns by turning to your own conscience and intellect. Only after this a person is able to independently make decisions to achieve righteous goals and take responsibility for his judgments and actions.

Let's consider the main types of social idiocy set out in the COB. There are five of them:

1. Jewish admiration.
2. Loyalty.
3. Liberalism.
4. Cleanliness.
5. Nihilism.

Jew's admiration

Judean admiration is envy of the mafiosi in the “law of Moses.” Let’s make it clear right away that by the word “Jews” we do not mean only Jews. We have written about this several times in our newspaper and examined in great detail everything connected with this. Those interested can familiarize themselves with articles on this topic in the newspaper archive on the website www.kpe.ru. Briefly, it can be stated that the word “Jew” is not synonymous with the word “Jew”. This is exactly what the “Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language” by V.I. states. Dahl in the article “Jew”. Nothing national is reflected in this article: only stinginess , which is condemned by Russian folk culture both among Jews (“Jew, have you seen a Jew?”) and among Russians (“by birth a nobleman, but by deeds of Jews”).

The word “Jew” was used in their works by the classics of Russian literature: A. S. Pushkin, N. V. Gogol, I. S. Turgenev, F. M. Dostoevsky.

However, according to a specially created scenario, the majority of the population is forced to believe that only Jews are Jews. According to the same scenario, an opinion like: “Jews are smarter than all the peoples among whom they live”, “civilization owes everything good in the development of culture since ancient times to the Jews” and the like is implanted in people’s minds. Obviously, this is a deliberate lie.

Semitism is also admiration for the Jews - admiration, but not for the Jew - “teacher”, but for the Jew-enslaver. Admiration for Jews is specially “ploughed up” and maintained as a solid psychological barrier, as a borderline on the way to understanding the true role of Jewry in the history of mankind.

The pseudo-national group - the Jews - was created by Egyptian witch doctors during the Sinai “tourist expedition” as a personnel base for the periphery of the international usurious mafia. Jews are not just a blind instrument of aggression, but also the first victim of their creator - the global mafia (“world behind the scenes”). So that the Sinai covenants were not forgotten and the Jews did not become a real nation, Nazi nonsense of the Torah and Talmud, brainwashing in synagogues and Masonic lodges were imposed on them.

From time to time, the global gardener organized a “weeding” in “his garden ,” mercilessly “pruning” those branches of Jewry that tried to imagine themselves free (they did not do well the work assigned to them in enslaving peoples at the expense of usurious loan interest, or even began to live the life of normal people) . Zionism and anti-Semitism are two levers with which the “world behind the scenes” supported the governance of countries and peoples in a satanic regime acceptable to them. Since the global mafia is now completing the preparation of a new management base - Scientologists , the last and final “circumcision” is being prepared for the Jews, including at the hands of the Arabs (follow reports from the Middle East).

The history of the state of Israel shows that this pseudo-nation, even in the 20th century, was unable to overcome its misanthropic ideology and establish itself as a real nation. So there is no reason to admire the “special Jewish mind”. More details on this issue can be found in the works of KOB.

Neil Curtis "On the Ideology of Idiocy"

Idiocy

The term "idiocy" goes back to the ancient Greek idios [ἴδιoϛ]

, meaning “private, private.”
To understand what the word “idiocy” has in common with dogma in the broad sense, as well as with the dogmatic approach to privatization, let’s look at other concepts associated with this word. First:
idios primarily refers to the individual world of a person - it means something private, something that a given person possesses
. Therefore, private property and personal property can be called this way . For my part, I use the term “idiocy” to designate the state of society where the prevailing belief is: “The free use and disposal of private property, that is, economic freedom, is a necessary prerequisite for civil freedom.” The above-mentioned original meaning of the word idios
also contains the connotation of “private life as something fenced”, which marks the boundary between internal and external and thereby denotes something separate, separate. My understanding of the word “idiocy” also has the connotation of “enclosure” because, as mentioned above, the creation of private domains by enclosing resources that were publicly available or owned by the collective has historically been the primary way of securing property for private owners. This method remains to this day the main form of primitive accumulation of property: the fencing of common lands continues at full speed in third world countries, and in parallel, more modern forms of “fencing” are practiced - for example, genetic materials and bioforms are increasingly being patented. So, in its original sense, “idiocy” means the dictatorship of the private and the assignment of ever larger amounts of property to private owners through fencing.

Second: the fencing of private property also allows me to call idiocy dogma, because dogma builds fences, sort of corrals for thinking and practical activity. Incidentally, the ancient Greek δóγμα means “personal or private opinion” and is therefore closely related to ἴδιoϛ

.
“Dogma” goes back to the verb δoκέω
(“to think, assume; imagine”).
It also denotes the external or apparent appearance of things. The related word δóκιμoϛ
introduces an additional meaning: “something revered, sanctioned, approved,” from which our modern “doctrine” is derived - a certain approved, sanctioned way of thinking by authorities (and
δóγματα
- the teachings that describe it).
Well, it is difficult to doubt that privatization has become a dogma or doctrine. Privatization and its associated practices of deregulation, competition and market development have become so entrenched that it is almost impossible to challenge this discourse without being considered retrograde or ignorant, ignorant of modern trends, or an incorrigible romantic or even a political sectarian - in other words, they concluded, that you are unwilling to bend the knee to “corporate absolutism” ( John McMurtry's term)
.

McMurtry's work is an excellent analysis of the "primitive syntax" that organizes the dogma of privatization. As McMurtry writes, this worldview is dominated by the formulas “freedom = free market = global corporate system” and, conversely, “opponents of the global corporate system = opponents of the free market = opponents of freedom.” But reducing freedom to the free market is not the only pillar of idiocy as dogma. There is a second pillar—the role that the term “market” itself plays in the discourse. McMurtry writes: “No one notices that the very concept of “market” excludes the possibility of any other markets except the dominant market <...> There is no other market in the face of the Market, just as there are no other gods in the face of Yahweh.” By the way, the fathers of the free market were not at all offended by the idea that their brainchild would have to be worshiped. Friedrich Hayek openly likened the contemplation of the free market to a religious experience. He believed that it was submission to the impersonal forces of the free market that made the development of civilization possible, and further argued that if submission to these forces is necessary, then the humble reverence prescribed by religion is better suited than any kind of rational apprehension of truth. This begs two questions at once. Is it fair to call such a system democratic? Is it possible to interpret democracy as a social counterbalance to such dogmas? I will save these questions for the last chapter of my book.

However, there is an interesting twist to the above-mentioned dogma: one does not have to take a radical or (according to others) “partisan” position to feel alarmed by the spread of this increasingly doctrinaire and simplistic worldview. Reputable economists who have served the establishment for many years are expressing their concerns. In a lengthy essay, “The Economics of Fraud,” published shortly before his death, John Kenneth Galbraith notes that the supposedly impersonal term “market” replaced the word “capitalism,” which had been attached throughout history with negative associations (with crises, oppression of workers, operation). Galbraith argues that the idea that there is no more capitalism, but only an impersonal market, is “not an entirely innocent deception.” “What is not mentioned is that the market is skillfully and comprehensively managed,” he continues. Galbraith goes on to suggest, like McMurtry, that it would be more appropriate to call the market the “Corporate System,” but quickly observes: “The sensitive friends and beneficiaries of this system are reluctant to attribute decisive power to the corporation. It’s better to use the harmless word “market.” Thus, the doctrine strengthened itself and continues to position itself as the only legitimate form of economic, political and social structure. She even introduced the idea that free market economics was something like “second nature.” Today we have all become accustomed to using the words "competition", "efficiency" and "choice" in conversations about our daily concerns. Of course, the implantation of these concepts in our everyday speech is also a kind of fencing, only in society or in culture.

So, the concept of innocence (or lack thereof) is introduced, which refers to another important meaning of the word idios, which has great significance for my personal understanding of the term “idiocy”. The ancient Greek language derived from idios as a designation of the private sphere and left us as a legacy the word idiotes (ἰδιότηϛ). It means a private person, but also a person who has a “private” social status or a “private” position in society. It was from idiotes that we derived its second, derogatory meaning, which has been preserved in the modern semantics of the word “idiot.” Since idiotes means “private person,” the additional meaning of “layman” arises, “a person who does not have special or professional knowledge.” This is where the interpretation of the word “idiot” arose as “not versed in high matters”, “non-specialist”. So, a person with little or mediocre education, with base, vulgar or banal tastes, who is alien to the subtlety of feelings, began to be called an idiot. But this more modern hypostasis of the meaning of the word “idiot” - “a simpleton, a lover of the banal” - should not distract us from the primary meaning - “private, private.” The derogatory version of the root idio- is a reflection of a deep, widespread dislike of simplicity and ordinariness, that is, of the common features that unite us all. And the positive connotations of idio- (going back to another meaning of idios - “peculiar,” “strange”) are reserved for the eccentric features of very peculiar and individualistic behavior, which we call “idiosyncratic,” especially when such non-standard and peculiar behavior is considered a sign of an aristocratic upbringing. Here idiosyncrasy becomes the opposite of “ordinary” in the sense of “common to all,” a symbol of absolute freedom from social conventions and customs, a feature of an independent and creatively gifted mind. I am not going to make complaints about idiosyncrasies - both aristocratic and all the rest, but I think: it’s time to doubt the identity of idiotes and idiocy with the “ordinary” and “general”. Actually, in contrast to the idiocy of our times, it is necessary, on the contrary, to rehabilitate and glorify the common, the ordinary.

Patrick McDonagh, in his excellent study of idiocy, notes that in England the original meaning of the Greek idiotes remained until at least the 14th century: at that time the Court of Chancery used the word idiot as a legal term meaning that a person was no longer fit for public service and could be hired only in the private sector. However, since then the original meaning has been lost, and the pejorative has triumphed, denoting a wide range of conditions and characteristics (innocence, feeble-mindedness, mental retardation and disability). All these words, in turn, at different periods denoted ill health, which justified the expulsion of an individual from society and his imprisonment. Therefore, my most important task is to remove from the word “idiocy” in the sense in which I use it, the imprint of a biased dislike for everything ordinary. Let us assume that associations with the connotations of “stupidity” or “madness” will still remain, but they are generated precisely by the dominance of the “private” and “separate”, and not at all by the “ordinary” and “general”. “Stupidity” (in our usual understanding of the word) is considered synonymous with thoughtlessness, inability to foresee the consequences of actions, or excessive preoccupation with oneself and one’s personal inner world, which does not allow one to imagine what lies beyond it. So, if in my term “idiocy” the meaning of “stupidity” is retained, it is due to the fact that “idiocy” means the self-fencing of the private sphere, its separation from the world. With all this, I must emphasize: I do not intend to use the word “idiocy” in a pejorative sense. True, in the current situation, when our economic, social and environmental systems are so unstable, it seems foolish to argue that we should live as before. But in fact, this demonstrates: when we are dealing with idiocy, the problem is not a lack of knowledge or cannot be reduced to such. There is also an important ontological component that deeply influences our understanding of idiocy as a social condition.

If a person has knowledge or acquires new ones, then it is not a fact that he will be able to break out of the fenced enclosure that he has built for himself. Let me give you an example: let’s say I know that the production of so-called “organic products” is less harmful to the ecology of our planet, and the planet itself now seems to be undergoing climate change, fraught with catastrophic changes for the biosphere. But it’s not a fact that this knowledge will prevent me from choosing not expensive organic products in the supermarket, but cheap “regular” ones: I need to somehow pay off the mortgage, pay for electricity, insurance and God knows what else. Some will consider me flawed: they say, I lack integrity or, perhaps, courage. Perhaps these people are right, but I dare to argue: I lead a normal lifestyle because I am an idiot, and not because I am a moral monster. I am completely overwhelmed by my personal or private anxieties and worries, and I have a very difficult time finding a solution to the problem or a radical alternative to my current way of life. Additionally, in a world that encourages the atomization of society and the individualization of people, my personal anxieties become even more pronounced. So, I could easily change the way I think, but there is something else that dooms my habits and my world to change. Here we need to clarify two important nuances, which we will discuss in more detail below. First: there is something inherent in my world and the everyday practices from which it is composed that encourages it to self-enclose and self-reproduce. The world, although it consists of “I” and “other”, similarities and dissimilarities, is relatively closed. In many ways it is predictable, routine and, by definition, familiar. Therefore, I use the word “idiocy” to denote a self-generating or self-reproducing system. Typically, such reproduction is considered by such a discipline as the criticism of ideology. An excellent example is the work of Louis Althusser (French Marxist philosopher - approx.).

Everyone remembers how his fundamental study “Ideology and Ideological Apparatuses of the State” begins: “As Marx said, even a child knows that any socio-economic formation that does not reproduce the conditions of production simultaneously with production itself will not survive even a year. A necessary condition for production is the reproduction of the conditions of production.” The fact that capitalism did not collapse under the weight of its own contradictions influenced Antonio Gramsci's studies of hegemony and, in turn, allowed Gramsci to explain how a system that is supposedly too unstable to survive is maintained. Althusser inherits and develops Gramsci's thoughts on this matter, analyzing the function of ideological apparatuses (namely the church and the school) that ensure the continued existence of the world in its current state. However, the axiom of ideology criticism formulated by Althusser is far from indisputable. Firstly, I’m not sure that even a child “knows” this axiom. My child knows a lot, especially about superheroes and dinosaurs, but he has not yet explained to me how his elementary school reproduces the conditions of reproduction of the capitalist system, although it obviously reproduces them. Consequently, criticism of ideology continually falls into the delusion that anyone who is not aware of the mechanisms of self-reproduction of society is worse than an infantile, as if he is an idiot in the pejorative sense.

Secondly, it follows that criticism tends to attach too much importance to knowledge. Another key postulate of Althusser is the idea that we bring into reality our imaginary relationships with the real conditions of existence. This view is characteristic of a school of criticism that believes that capitalism persists due to some kind of false consciousness. The thesis is again heard that we are all being fooled: they say, because of our innocence we are naive or because of our stupidity we do not see the obvious, like blind people. Therefore, change can only be achieved through a program of education and re-education. Very alarming consequences follow from this thesis. However, the main flaw is precisely the understanding of knowledge as the privilege of a few. Even if the critique of ideology does not believe that the masses are even worse than infantiles, then neither the understanding of knowledge as a privilege, nor the thesis about the inferiority of consciousness in any way explains the fact that idiocy as a state of society contains a certain ontological component that feeds its epistemological content. Idiocy is certainly epistemological in the sense that it functions in terms of various images, descriptions, and supposed truths about the nature of man and the structure of society. It is also epistemological in the sense that these discourses become commonplace and are repeated, reproduced and legitimized by a variety of common sayings, gestures and rituals. But the ability of idiocy to embrace everything and everyone is based on the ontological conditions of existence that tie each of us to the world that is familiar and familiar to him.

When Althusser wrote about the embodiment of imaginary relationships with real conditions of existence, he was definitely talking about how we know ourselves and our world. But in this context, the word “imaginary” does not mean that we live in some kind of fantasy world. We would be doing a disservice to Althusser by reducing his understanding of the imaginary to the common interpretation of “false consciousness.” By mentioning the imaginary, Althusser meant the psychological and ontological functions of ideology. In this sense, ideology becomes a functional system that “recruits” subjects through a range of practices and rituals. Here Althusser borrows directly from the writings of Jacques Lacan to explain how ideology reproduces any given system, allowing us to recognize our own place in it. Let me emphasize again: I am not going to demonstrate how we are allegedly being fooled by imposing a given way of thinking and acting. What I'm saying is that our identity is tied to the social system into which we are born, and to the practices and rituals that enable that system to perpetuate itself.

In Lacanian psychoanalysis, the imaginary is an important stage of subjective development: the infant's emerging sense of subjectivity arises from a relationship with the image of another person, which the child begins to recognize as his own. The theory of this phase of mental development, in turn, is borrowed from Hegel and allows us to rethink the struggle between master and slave for recognition - a struggle that Hegel portrays as the engine of history. Hegel’s genius lies in the fact that he came to the idea that a person should be comprehended through the prism of negation, and not through some predetermined positive content that would consolidate identity even before the events have occurred. When there is no pre-determined identity, people at different times position one or another identity, which needs to be confirmed in the process of recognizing it. Consequently, the formation of identity is essentially a social process, since any “I” is dependent on another “I”, which must still confirm the identity chosen by the first “I”. Such an identity is inherently unstable, but instability can be overcome by regular and enduring rituals and practices that affirm who we are. Hegel believed: non-recognition of the subjectivity chosen by the individual has a destructive effect on it, and a crisis occurs, often resulting in violence. In terms of social experience, it looks like this: some individuals or groups refuse to adopt and thereby confirm the subjectivity that society as a whole has preferred. Such individuals and groups are perceived as a threat to social stability, and therefore ideology has another key function - the construction of the concepts of “crime”, “criminality” or “perversion”. It is noteworthy that none of these categories are epistemological. On the contrary, they point to a purely ontological component of the success of any ideology. Idiocy sheds light precisely on this ontological component, which complements the content of ideology.

Let's return to Althusser. He argues that it is the function of ideological recognition that entails “the obviousness that you and I are subjects.” This function also creates the effect that Althusser calls the “practical negation” of the ideological character of ideology by ideology itself; after all, she will never say: “I am ideological.” It is the function of ideological recognition, which Althusser also calls “interpellation”, that firmly binds us to our world, using countless rituals and practices that do not allow us to leave our homes, even if we know that it is unwise to remain there. That is why explanations that refer to a lack of knowledge and the theory of false consciousness are completely unsuitable. The point is different: my subjectivity is so firmly tied to my world that changes in my world will require radical changes in my subjectivity, which cannot be accomplished easily or quickly. The idea that my “I” exists separately from my world and can choose my own “way of life” is in fact the cornerstone of idiocy. Alternatives very often turn out to be not so much genuine alternatives as modified forms of the recognition function: idiocy as a state of society becomes increasingly sensitive to the productivity and profitability of a wide range of “individual lifestyles”, which, however, are modeled as one in the image of some ideal Subject.

In this regard, Althusser argued that the best example of the function of ideological recognition is religion. He wrote: “This whole “procedure” in which the religious subjects of Christianity are brought onto the stage is subject to one rather strange phenomenon: the fact is that such a multitude of possible religious subjects can only exist under the absolute condition that there is another Subject, the only and absolute, that is, God. <…> So, it seems that addressing individuals as subjects presupposes the “existence” of Another Subject, the only and most important one, in whose Name religious ideology addresses all individuals as subjects.”

He then repeats after Lacan that God is the “sole and absolute Subject,” and also that God is the Subject, and all his subjects-subjects are his “reflections.” Regarding our current state, we can say that we are created in the image and likeness of the big idiot in heaven. God is a complete example of idiotes. His ways are inscrutable (that is, “idiomatic” in the sense of “peculiar, untranslatable”), he freely uses and distributes his personal property, which extends to the entire created world. God alone exists separately from the created world, being its sole creator. Having applied his efforts to the tehom ("abyss"), in order to give external form to all things and beings, he became the owner of all things. And everywhere there is present, although separately from God, a private Subject, which all other private subjects strive to become. It is therefore not surprising that religion fits well into the worldview of many, if not all, proponents of capitalism.

Idiocy and politics

There has always been a close connection between idios and polis. From ancient times, when the prototype of our concept of “democracy” was born in Ancient Greece, until the twentieth century, when universal suffrage was introduced, ownership of private property was the main condition for the status of “citizen” and full participation in political life. The material position of the owner, which gave the right to participate in public life, was complemented, so to speak, by a more existential status - the opportunity to retire in one’s private world, in the peace and quiet (oχoλή) of private reflection, favored the fruitful relationship between philosophy and politics and created the necessary space for replenishment energy without which, it was believed, it would be impossible to carry out the difficult duties of a political leader. Solving public problems through the private sphere also has a long history (it is outlined in the second chapter of my book), but it was not until 1989, when the fall of the Berlin Wall supposedly heralded the death of communism, that idiocy entered a phase of maturity. Only at that moment could it finally be finally and forever declared that the Western model of formally democratic liberal capitalism had clearly won the battle. True, there were countries where communist ideology remained, but the only major player, apart from the USSR, the People's Republic of China, had even earlier set a course for openness to the world and the introduction of a dual path: a capitalist economy under communist politics, a system that Ayn Rand would have preferred call it fascism. By that time, China had already partly proven the West right, at least on the economic plane, and economics is the main thing. However, the fall of the Berlin Wall was accompanied by an overture of hyperbolic statements by scientists, the best example of which is Francis Fukuyama's essay and book The End of History and the Last Man. True, Fukuyama himself was forced to reconsider his theses after Islamism gained strength in politics and culture, the alter-globalism movement arose and radically new technologies were introduced. But his arguments remained among the commonplaces of idiocy.

This is partly surprising, since the main argument of Fukuyama's book is based on an absurd premise. However, the absurdity is quite appropriate. It should not be assumed that history has passed into some final state that arose naturally. Not at all: the story was simply declared over. The title of Fukuyama's book was a performative rather than a descriptive statement. It was an action on several fronts at once, announcing not only the end of history, but also the end of public life in its previous understanding. The fact that the public sphere has always been closely linked to the ownership of private property meant that while political life was predominantly characterized by the defense of privilege and efforts to maintain the status quo, due to its fundamentally antagonistic character it was also accompanied by the periodic implementation of profound, if not revolutionary, changes. responding to important questions of social life, including “What does it mean to be human?” and “What is the nature of the Righteous Society?” However, since 1989, these disputes have been declared over. In some respects, these questions are still raised - for example, when people argue about the ethics of using human biological materials and in general about genetics and cloning, but these debates are predominantly epiphenomenal, in which neither established views on human nature nor the idea are challenged. that formal democratic capitalism optimally corresponds to this nature. Alternatives to capitalism—even alternative models of capitalism such as Keynesianism—were assumed to be a thing of the past. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, there was only one political goal left - the complete globalization of the free market: the task of spreading the good news of a free market that solves all problems to every corner of the Earth. The free market was supposed to become ἡ oἰκoυμέvη - the entire inhabited part of the globe. And yet Fukuyama got something right, at least partially: although the debate about how best to live and organize ourselves has been resolved, in practice in the future the number of formally democratic capitalist countries will not increase, but only authoritarian capitalism will develop . In many ways this is true. Contrary to what some conservative Fukuyama allies write, everything is in our field of view: be it the Chinese system, or mafia capitalism, or the oligarchy in Russia, or the numerous capitalist despots who supported Bush and Blair's invasion of Iraq to liberate , or rather liberalization - all these harmonious alliances of authoritarianism with capitalism confirm that Fukuyama is right. But not everything about Fukuyama is correct: he did not foresee, or perhaps was unwilling to foresee, that formerly liberal capitalist states such as the United States and Great Britain might become increasingly authoritarian.

Idiocy in the sphere of politics is the very transition from social pluralism to the dogmatic imposition of privatization solutions, the transformation of everything into goods, the uniform goal of making profit in all aspects of public life. This is a question of both ideology and organization (I will consider both points). In academic debates in some disciplines, this dual process is now referred to as depoliticization. At a certain level, science records the transition from political life, understood as polemical interest in social problems, to an imaginary consensus based on a privatized model of consumer choice, where the main concern is which school to send little Johnny to study. But depoliticization is nothing more than a constellation of related processes, among which is the ideological theory of the “post-political world” - the thesis that humanity has already chosen the best method of social organization for itself. Associated with this are two more closely interrelated features that reflect the functioning or organization of idiocy as dogma. The first sign is the fact that managerialism has come to all sectors of public life. Typically, managerialism is associated with the massive bureaucracies of collective or state enterprises, but today we are seeing a form of decentralized managerialism, a kind of micromanagement whose task is to ensure that all sectors of society, especially those that are still considered socially important, begin to repeat the new mantra of profitability, proper customer service, monetization of results, competition and markets in all areas of activity. The ubiquitous mantra of idiocy is that decentralization is equivalent to greater flexibility and freedom, when in fact decentralization is a more agile method of introducing a uniform goal. Perhaps each institution will be given the autonomy to operate as a separate firm, but for this to happen, managers must instill in the workforce the right mindset that will motivate the institution to serve the same purpose of making a profit. Interconnected with this phenomenon is the formation of what Leslie Skler and others have called the “transnational capitalist class” (TCC). This class includes not only those who sit on corporate boards, but also politicians, industrialists, regulatory officials, media moguls, managers, military generals and high-ranking officials. This class represents the interests of various agents who are needed both for the global circulation of discourses and images that optimally propagate their ideology, and for the organization of key socio-political institutions responsible for decisions, methods and technologies that allow the unhindered pursuit of surplus value in all spheres . Managerialism is one of the key disciplinary mechanisms that ensures that society collectively acts in the interests of the CPC.

Translation: Svetlana Silakova.

https://primerussia.ru/article_materials/176

Subscribe to our channel in Yandex.Zen!

Click “Subscribe to channel” to read “Tomorrow” in the Yandex feed

LOYALTY

Key phrases of this type of social idiocy: “Don’t think! The one who will decide everything for us is with us!” and “I am a small person.”

Loyalty is the thoughtless confidence that if all members of society follow a higher authoritative leadership , without deviating from its instructions, without interfering in matters prescribed by the leadership, then the whole society will prosper. The question is:

1. Where does such unshakable confidence in the good intentions of the authorities come from?
2. Can the best boss write instructions for all occasions?

In 1917, the people got rid of faith in the “good tsar” . But, as practice shows, faith in the “good leader” has not yet been completely eliminated. It would seem that the Yeltsin regime should have killed this faith completely. No! Not so! As for V. Putin, with all his sincere desire to revive the country, he will not be able to do this alone, in the absence of active independent actions of the broad masses.

When a person goes to the polls and, with a feeling of honestly fulfilling his duty, votes for “his master” - the owner of a factory, city, region, preventing the implementation of a fair people's concept of life - what diagnosis will we make? Loyalty. Are you satisfied with the bondage of your feudal lord? Why do you think that he will suddenly start caring about you and not about his pocket?

Another example of loyalty: treating the Bible as God's true revelation and treating church hierarchs as God's authorized representatives on Earth. It is known that the Prophets themselves did not write anything in principle; they taught people a living faith in the living God. The Bible contains much more malicious human innuendo than the words of Jesus. How can we distinguish the prophetic gospel in the Bible from the co-authorship imposed on Jesus? This can only be done according to your personal morality. Open your Bible and read again:

“You shall not lend to your brother (i.e., a Jew) silver, bread, or anything else that can be lended at usury; you shall lend it to a foreigner at usury; but you shall not lend it to your brother at usury” (Deuteronomy 23: 19.) “...and you will lend to many nations, but you will not borrow [and you will rule over many nations, but they will not rule over you.] (Deuteronomy 28:12.) “Then the sons of foreigners will build walls yours, and their kings to serve you, the people and kingdoms that do not want to serve you will perish, and such nations will be completely exterminated.” (Isaiah 60:10 - 12.)

Read - and differentiate! Whom do church hierarchs represent—God or the international usurious mafia—when they show off at parties of the political “elite”? when they bless her for satanic deeds? when believers are led away from issues of self-government of society? when different religious denominations are pitted against each other? You should learn to independently answer such questions and give an independent assessment of phenomena at a regional, state, and global level of significance.

LIBERALISM

Liberalism [lat. Liberalis - relating to freedom] - a system of economic and political views that expressed the interests of the industrial bourgeoisie during the period of its struggle against the feudal-serf system, in the era of bourgeois revolutions; liberalism demanded a constitution, a limitation of the absolute monarchy by parliament, the admission of the bourgeoisie to participate in government, and the abolition of class privileges of the nobility and clergy. — Large dictionary of foreign words in Russian. M.: Yunves, 1999.

Liberty (English) - 1) freedom; 2) liberty, unceremoniousness.

Liberalism is the thoughtless confidence of many people that if all such verbiage liberals are given the right to chat about anything, then this will make it possible to continuously find solutions to existing and also continuously arising problems in society, and society will prosper immediately after the liberals take state power into one's own hands.

But for twenty years now, such “liberals” as M. Gorbachev, B. Yeltsin, E. Gaidar, V. Chernomyrdin, E. Primakov, S. Kiriyenko, B. Nemtsov, V. Zhirinovsky and other. But their liberalism, stemming from an “elite” irresponsible ignorance of sociological matters, was in practice expressed in a sharp deterioration in the quality of life of the entire population as a result of “their” “liberal” “reforms” (for example, due to inflation of 2,000% per year, sanctioned and organized by the government of E. Gaidar or due to the default of “August 17, 1998” by S. Kiriyenko). At the same time, the activities of liberals are combined with their extreme aggressiveness and contempt for all those who do not share the liberal way of life. So, for example, V. Novodvorskaya, speaking on January 22, 2001 (repeat broadcast) on TV-6, in the “Scandals of the Week” program, said that the Russian people are “frols” (I wonder what she put into this concept?) , and since they (the people) are for the anthem proposed by Russian President Putin, then all these people must ( ! ) die (?!).

This is what liberalism is in practice.

Causes of idiocy

The reasons that caused idiocy can be different:

- accidental damage to the head of a newborn;

- an infectious disease complicated by inflammation of the brain;

- genetic predisposition to mental and nervous diseases;

- drunkenness during conception;

- illnesses or moral shocks of the expectant mother during pregnancy;

- parental relationship;

- hereditary syphilis;

- delayed embryonic brain development;

- poor hygienic conditions, insufficient nutrition, excessive head wrapping;

- the use of vodka and opium in lulling a child.

PURITY

Cleanliness is a thoughtless belief in the “indecency” in a “decent” society to be interested in the substantive side of certain phenomena (the Jewish question, sources of income, the nature of someone’s connections abroad, with relatives, with the mafia, with other people’s intelligence services).

Typical attitude of a purist: “Politics is a dirty business! I will not delve into the dirty laundry of state and global tycoons. If you get involved with crap, you’ll end up like crap!” To such an “attitude,” all these “shits” echo the purists: “Why do you need to dirty your clean hands? We will deal with this dirty business (politics) without you neaties!” As long as our people adhere to such views, unscrupulous politicians will decide the fate of the planet with their dirty hands, and men will die in various military and political conflicts.

Another example of a cultivated purist opinion: “I will not trick and maneuver in all this crap of modern society. I’d rather die with my head held high!” And this “shit” rejoices: “That’s right! Die! Less people - more oxygen!” But why give in to occupation propaganda? We need to live and fight!

Cleanliness does not allow “decent” people to see and openly talk about the fact that the country is controlled from abroad through various non-governmental (essentially SUPER-governmental) organizations - the economic forum in Davos, the IMF, the EBRD, Soros foundations, environmental organizations like Greenpeace, etc. Cleanliness does not allow us to loudly declare that officials have actually merged with the mafia and, in order to earn more money , are trading in state interests and secrets, selling the future of their country and the entire people wholesale and retail.

In order not to allow the “world behind the scenes” to control people in accordance with their satanic interests, we, the most ordinary “ordinary people”, must ourselves show interest in the mechanism of power, master the means of control and, above all, information control and more actively intercept this control in our own purposes. This is exactly what the KPE proposes to do: boldly go into politics, carry and implement the ideas of KOB.

NIHILISM

Nihilism is a withdrawal from one’s personal participation in the life of the country and society, participation in social processes. It manifests itself in two lines of behavior :

1. “I don’t trust anyone and I stand up for myself.” “I am outside of politics.” “The people around me are enemies, I don’t want to have anything in common with them.”

But, nevertheless, they will get you too!

Your slogan is “I am out of politics?” Don't you go to the polls? Do you “don’t care?” But those “who need to” still go to the polls; choose those “who are needed”; “the chosen ones” act “as they should.” As a result, the politicians you hate, those “who need all this,” turn off your lights and heating, increase your prices for bread and milk, tariffs for transport and housing, and destroy all those who are “outside politics!”

1. Personality degradation in drunkenness, drug addiction, voluptuousness. “There is no happiness in life”, “Fuck you all...”, “Go to hell.”

At work, the boss scolded me, they don’t give me a salary, at home my wife is nagging - “Where is the money?”, The children are “double-minded”. “Yes, let it all go to waste! I’ll go to my friends, maybe they’ll pour me some.”

And the “friends” happily rub their hands: “Okay, Russian pigs, get drunk, smoke, smoke...” And they will give you a free cigarette on the street (in the form of advertising), and at school they will teach your child to use a condom, and they will give you a dose “for free”, and a glass will be brought.

Three types of idiocy: intellectual, moral, aesthetic

Idiocy first, intellectual. This is when a person does not distinguish what is from what is not, what can happen from what cannot happen. In the most severe forms, he directly accepts the non-existent as existing, in less severe forms - with reservations: “What if?”, “Well, it happens,” “I want to believe,” etc. This is the stage of development when a person believes fairy tales. For children - naturally, for adults - only when they have not grown up.

To believe that there are elections in the Russian Federation is just such idiocy. To believe that an opponent of the government, whom the government fears and who has two convictions and two suspended sentences, is at large and is fighting this government is another example of intellectual idiocy. For example, the belief that the gopnik who met you at night: “Lend me, you bastard, ten obliques, I’ll return them tomorrow,” will actually return them, is much less idiocy. Well, really, whatever happens! This is simply an inability to correctly assess the probability of the unlikely. This is not complete ilioism yet. It is idiocy to consider something possible that cannot exist in principle. All our talk about the opposition’s chances in the elections, about whom to vote for or not to vote for, about watching or not watching, especially with the sentence about “something needs to be done” – this is intellectual idiocy.

But in our situation, intellectual idiocy is not the worst thing. Intelligence, like the ability to build roads, has never been our strong point. Moral idiocy is much worse.

This is when good is declared bad and bad is declared good. Putin began turning us into moral idiots as soon as he emerged. And he has been doing this for exactly 18 years. The degradation of the country and society is declared to be rising from its knees, a bloodbath is declared to be the restoration of territorial integrity, paralysis is declared to be stability, mediocrity is declared to be talent, theft is declared to be salvation, aggression is to be defended, spiritual regression is to be declared to be a religious revival, the murderers of the country are to be patriots, and real patriots are trying to save the country. , – foreign agents, etc. and so on..

A huge part of the country, and not much that is huge - growing all the time, lives like moral idiots: it considers good to be bad and bad to be good. How many are there? Tens of percent. And here it doesn’t matter whether it’s four dozen or eight tens. And forty percent of moral idiots make the prognosis for society unfavorable.

In electoral behavior, moral idiocy is manifested in the readiness to vote for non-angels - where can we find angels? And in particular - for skillful manipulators, for “anyone except”: for fascists, Stalinists and others, excuse the harsh word, bastard, and also for whom the leader says. All our “I don’t like him, but” are manifestations of moral idiocy. Which makes us eat, sorry again, crap because we've been told it's healthy.

But moral idiocy is not the worst thing. Much worse is aesthetic idiocy.

This is when the ugly does not cause physiological rejection. When aesthetic differences are ignored. When the aesthetic feeling is generally suppressed. When a person no longer responds with a gag reflex to the ugliness of vulgarity.

Putin’s television has also been cultivating aesthetic idiocy for exactly 18 years. Gradually dragging the most seemingly innocent programs into abomination. This is what all cultural production is aimed at. There are almost no islands of resistance. Yes, there were few of them.

The people whose hands carry out this aesthetic dumbing down - and this is a huge group of people - deserve the most irreconcilable public condemnation. However, “they deserve” is not entirely accurate here. Such condemnation is a natural, reflexive act, like vomiting. Just “judgment”, that is, there is no intellectual component in it. Without thinking or thinking, the body rids itself of the ingested muck. If, of course, he is healthy.

Among the media leaders, conductors of Putin’s policy of commonality, one of the most striking faces is the daughter of the first mayor of the center of the Leningrad region (I don’t pronounce “Petersburg” in relation to this city; in Soviet times, “Peter” was easily said, but now “Petersburg” is well, not at all). Ksyusha cannot even be called an apologist for vulgarity - she is an apostle of vulgarity. The real, true face of Putinism. She cannot even be considered an agent; she is the closest person to Putinism. Not so much for Putin personally, but for the system he built. And it’s hard to imagine a more native person for this system.

I pay tribute to the creativity of the Department of Internal Policy of the AP. They are very capable guys. They work great! And five years ago, when they made Ksyusha the leader of the opposition, an ally of Navalny and, hee hee, Yashin. And they worked especially well now. If you want an opposition candidate, you will get it. It’s not enough for you to be old, forgive me a thousand times for the expression, ..... Yavlinsky, get ..... younger. Just come. Vote for whoever you want, just show up. And it doesn’t matter whether you come or not. Just don’t organize anything parallel! Just don’t make a parallel protest!

This is the only thing they are afraid of. Not this or that election outcome. There can be no outcome to elections when there are no elections themselves. They are afraid of the growth of protest sentiments, and most of all - the self-organization of protest. Even if in the form of an active boycott. Several million signatures under the declaration “This is not an election, but a ....stvo” (sorry a million times) - that’s what they are afraid of. And, in order to prevent this, they will do anything - repression, murder, whatever you want... But first, of course, cunning.

With such support, Ksyusha’s triumphal march is guaranteed. And she will collect signatures, and the donkeys will sing loud praises to her, and the goats will sweep the road for the beards. And the audience will sob and cry.

Naturally, the trolls will set the tone. But there will also be many sincere sympathizers.

The scale of the epidemic of aesthetic idiocy in our country is wider than that of the epidemic of moral idiocy, and than that of the epidemic of intellectual idiocy.

Kaleidoscopic idiocy

of social idiocy are varieties of kaleidoscopic idiocy . The basis of kaleidoscopic idiocy is a violation of the integrity of both worldview and process-based thinking.

The fundamental difference between a kaleidoscope and a mosaic is that removing, adding, or simply rearranging the constituent elements in a kaleidoscope fundamentally changes the WHOLE picture, the WHOLE idea of ​​the world around us. But in a mosaic, adding, deleting, rearranging elements does not fundamentally change , it remains recognizable and, if desired, can be restored in thoughts. This fundamental difference also shows the way to overcome social idiocy in society - you need to master the holistic worldview that KOB gives.

It is also MANDATORY to take into account that social idiocy of any kind is not a personal matter for each of the kaleidoscopic idiots, because the entire society as a whole suffers from “their” kaleidoscopic idiocy. Therefore, getting rid of social idiocy in society is the job of everyone who wants to be a free person, plan their future and not be someone’s slave working for the interests of an unknown (or known) owner, and whose well-being can instantly change depending on their interests owner.

Fatal human idiocy...

I never cease to be amazed at human idiocy, which sometimes goes off scale and leads to...

In a word, read...

Deadly dive.

(July 4, 1998, Texas), Americans living in private homes can afford to have their own pool. One pool owner was swimming with his friends and celebrating US Independence Day at the same time. In a fairly drunk state, he decided to show his friends what a tough guy he was, climbed to the roof of the house and dived from there into the pool. The man was 180 tall. His pool was only one and a half meters deep. At the time his head reached the bottom, his legs were still sticking out of the water up to his knees. The man died from a broken spine. An interesting fact is that his family sued the company that installed the pool, but lost the case.

Investigative experiment.

(1982, Texas) At the Amarillo fairgrounds, some buildings needed painting and local painters were hired to do the job. One of the buildings was located on a hill, and the painters' wheeled scaffolding tended to roll down the mountain, so the painters removed the wheels on the scaffolding and decided to move it by hand. The workers were in the process of moving the scaffolding when its metal base touched a transformer panel protruding from the ground. The painters were killed.

The city authorities decided to conduct an investigation and began it with an investigative experiment. Two officials seized the scaffolding in the same location as the two painters, began moving the scaffolding... and were quickly electrocuted.

Airmail home.

Criminal charges have been filed against a man who flew from New York to Dallas in the compartment of a cargo plane to visit his parents. McKinley, a young clerk working in New York, sent himself to his parents by airmail. A delivery driver picked up the box at the Dallas Airport and brought it to McKinley's parents' home in the suburbs.

When the driver went to unload the 150-kilogram box from the truck, he saw a pair of eyes through the crack and thought there was a body inside. When the box was opened and McKinley emerged, his mother was stunned and the delivery driver called the police.

Airport security officials arrived at the prison to interview him in detail about his journey. Since the terrorist attack on September 11, the government has been trying to minimize the vulnerability of air transport to terrorists, and McKinley's story will help close the gaps in the security system.

McKinley said he was homesick and was looking for a cheap way to visit his parents. Then he came up with the idea of ​​sending himself home by mail.

Death for justice.

Clement Wallandigham was a prominent Northern Democrat who campaigned for states' rights during the Civil War. In 1863, he was convicted of treason and exiled to the South, where he continued to express his political views.

After the war, Wallandigham became a lawyer. In his last courtroom appearance, he represented a client convicted of murder. The accused man's defense was that the victim pulled his own gun in a manner that caused the gun to fire (self-shot). To prove the defense's argument, Wallandigham demonstrated the method by which the victim took the weapon. A firearm shot at the lawyer during the show, and he lost his life - but proved the defendant's innocence.

Revenge of the dump truck.

(September 7, 1990, Sydney, Australia), Men like big cars. What else could explain the actions of a 34-year-old thief who decided to take possession of the box of an old Bedford tipper? The truck was parked outside the protected area of ​​one of the construction companies. It generally takes three men to remove a gearbox of this size, but our enterprising thief decided he could do it himself. He crawled under the truck and began to loosen the bolts.

Suddenly the unit broke free and landed on the thief's face, killing him on the spot. Police determined he had at least one accomplice, based on pools of vomit found under nearby bushes. An employee discovered the body early the next morning. The manager said the truck was going to be written off. “If he came and asked me for it, I would give him this dump truck for free.

Forgetful skydiver.

(North Carolina, 1987), Ivan, an experienced skydiver with 800 jumps under his belt, was videotaping a private lesson for a wealthy trainee. He attached a video camera to his helmet so that it captured the entire process, and the power supply and recorder were in a heavy backpack on his back.

The group boarded the plane, and the teacher began preparing the newcomer for the jump. Ivan carefully filmed everything on camera. The moment to jump came and Ivan jumped from the tail section after the student. A few heartbeats later, Ivan realized that he had been so focused on filming the jump that he had forgotten to put on his own parachute. The investigator suggested that the video equipment strapped to his back may have been mistaken for a parachute.

Birthday gift.

(November 22, 1980, Missouri), City Gate Arch rises 200 meters above St. Louis. A young man, Kenneth, 33 years old, wanted to impress his wife on her birthday.

His plan was to parachute to the top of the arch. Kent didn't care that the city rejected his request for this scam. Kenneth already had 1,600 jumps under his belt and was a professional skydiver. He asked his wife to come and photograph his triumph. At 8:55 he jumped from a light aircraft and landed safely on top of the monument. The first part of the crazy plan went well. However, the guy clearly didn’t think about how to descend from a height of 200 meters. He began to roll off the northern support of the arch, trying to slow down with a reserve parachute. But a gust of wind caught his parachute and carried him away from the arch along with his owner. Kenneth died at a local hospital approximately one hour after completing his jump.

Death of a curious robber.

A petty thief broke into the home of a World War II veteran and stole the rare .45 caliber pistol he used in battle in the 1940s. The hooligan, emboldened by impunity, decided to rob a local mini-market and burst in, waving his new pistol. The cashier obeyed and handed over the entire cash register. Our thug took the money and turned to leave, but suddenly decided that it was not worth leaving witnesses. He aimed the cashier's pistol and pulled the trigger... There was a click, but the shot did not fire. The puzzled idiot turned the barrel towards himself and looked into the barrel... A shot rang out and a hole at least 15 centimeters in diameter appeared in the guy’s skull. An interesting fact is that the criminal’s corpse was identified only by fingerprints. It subsequently turned out that the delay in the shot was due to old cartridges that the veteran had loaded into the pistol unknown how many years ago. The expired gunpowder caught fire a few seconds later, killing the curious robber.

Unlucky Munchausen.

In 1986, Britain was hit by the worst storm in 350 years. Wind speeds exceeded 90 mph and caused incredible damage to property and people, with millions of trees uprooted by the storms.

In Margate in Kent, one unfortunate homeowner's life was ruined by three massive poplar trees. The wind cut down one, which was in the garden behind the house. Another poplar was tilted so that its crown caught on the roof and the foliage was blocking the upstairs bedroom windows, and something had to be done.

The owner of the house decided to cut down the tree and climbed to the top, sitting astride the trunk opposite the gutter of his roof. It took him 20 minutes to saw off the snagged area, the tree trunk straightened and shot the guy with the energy equivalent of a small cannon charge.

His body was found in a neighbor's garden about 80 meters from the scene. The police surgeon said that the guy's neck was broken during the flight, and he died before reaching the ground.

Revenge of the cactus.

(February 1982, Arizona) Desert shooters target the trunk of the giant Cereus cactus so often that the state government was forced to make this “sport” a criminal offense. Criminals risk a $100,000 fine and three years in prison. But that doesn't stop snipers like David, 27, who was trying to impress friends when he came close to shooting at Cereus gigantea. He reportedly fired a double shotgun, cutting through the base of the cactus. The six-meter trunk fell straight on the guy, piercing his head with sharp thorns.

Fatal curiosity.

On the eighteenth floor of a skyscraper under construction, an engineer was inspecting the structure of the building. He asked one of the workers to stand on the scaffolding, which hung outside the building through an open window opening. With the worker acting as a counterweight, the engineer went out onto the scaffolding, checked the outside and returned to the premises.

After the engineer left, curiosity got the better of the worker. He walked through the scaffolding outside to see what the engineer was looking at... the falling worker luckily didn't hit any pedestrians! He did not know what a counterweight was, which was the reason for his death.

Deadly sex in the air.

An amateur pilot and an instructor gathered to conduct a training flight and took off into the sky in a two-seater plane. After some time, witnesses noticed that the plane was tilting towards the ground... An examination of the crash and the bodies showed that both pilots were partially clothed, and the front seat of the plane was in an inclined position. [The pilots converted the co-pilot's seat into a bed.] Seat belts were not fastened. [They were lying on the bed]. An examination of the clothing showed that there were no tears, so they took it off voluntarily. The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause of this accident as follows: The pilot allowed his attention to be diverted to other activities unrelated to the conduct of the flight during the flight. [The pilot and co-pilot had sex without anyone flying the plane]. The absence of a pilot led to an uncontrolled flight and disaster.

Karateka vs lion.

In late 1989 in Australia, a rather impressionable kung fu student listened with rapt attention as his teacher abruptly informed the class, “Now that you have reached this level in your training, you can kill wild animals with your bare hands!”

The martial arts trainee took the statement as gospel and headed to Melbourne Zoo to test his mettle against the world's most dangerous animal - the lion. In the darkness of the night, he slipped into the zoo, climbed into the lion's cage and took a fighting stance... Zoo employees found his remains - two arms - the next morning, with scraps of red fur clutched in his hands.

Death by horns.

(1985, Montana) Two local residents decided to increase their income by illegally exporting a shipment of elk antlers from Yellowstone Park. The horns sell for approximately $15 per kilogram, and one horn can weigh up to 15 kilograms, making theft a lucrative enterprise. It was too dangerous to use a car because there was a ranger checkpoint on the roads. It was impossible to carry the trophies in backpacks and they decided to use a boat, or rather a rubber raft. At night, after loading the raft with sharpened horns, the men sailed away from the shore. It was spring time, so the river, dangerous in all seasons, now had a doubly stormy current. They managed to swim a little before the horns pierced the raft. The poachers, deprived of their watercraft, had to swim to the shore. One swam well and an hour later he was walking along the road to the city. The other one was not so successful. A week later he surfaced on a local beach.

Death of Dracula.

A college student dressed up as Dracula for Halloween. As a finishing touch, he decided to hammer a knife into a piece of wood under his shirt, supposedly piercing his heart. But the poor guy didn’t calculate the strength and thickness of the plywood and really hammered it into his heart. Leaving the room, he managed to say before his death, “I really did it!”

Stupid death from the paws of a pig.

James, Billy and Ashley were killed early Friday after their blue van overturned on a country road. Thieves, hogs and alcohol were to blame...

The evening before the tragedy, the guys were drinking at a local celebration, until one of them had the drunken idea of ​​stealing a hog from a local pig farm, which he informed his comrades about.

At 23:00 they drove up to the farm, broke the fence, tied the stolen pig with a rope to a truck, and drove away. After three miles, the hog got tired and began to slow down, and the vehicle jerked sharply to the side... None of the passengers survived, nor did the pig.

Psychic versus train.

(September 1989, USSR), The Soviet Union is home to a growing number of psychics. One of them, E. Frenkel, believed that he could stop any vehicle thanks to his psychic abilities and would not receive any damage. As proof of his paranormal skills, he decided to stop a freight train.

The train driver who ran over Frenkel saw that he had thrown away his briefcase and stood on the rails, straining his body. The engineer applied the emergency brakes, but it was too late.

An absurd victim of the desert.

(July 26, 1991) Patrick planned a record-breaking 20-mile hike through the Salt Valley, the hottest place on earth. He made it 19.5 miles into his hike before falling and never rising again. A video camera and an empty three-quart water bag were found near his body.

The Lake Rescue Team located Patrick's scorched body on his forty-first birthday, nearly two weeks after he went on a desert excursion. He was found only half a mile from his red truck, where gallons of fresh water lay. Patrick, a healthy 80-kilogram tourist, was dehydrated up to 45 kilograms by the scorching sun.

Homicide was ruled out by an autopsy, and suicide seems unlikely since this was his third attempt to complete the trek. He most likely wanted to set a record for becoming the first person to do so without the help of a guide.

And the extra water is so heavy!

Before his doomed excursion, he boasted to several friends that he had calculated the exact amount of water he would need to complete the route. Miscalculating, he was only carrying three quarts of water, which was simply not enough to survive the trek.

Killed my dick with cocaine.

Doctors are warning of a dangerous new method of cocaine abuse: injecting the drug directly into the urinary tract. Doctors from New York-Cornwell Hospital Medical Center reported the case of a 34-year-old man who suffered severe bleeding under the skin after cocaine was pumped into his urethra. This led to complications that destroyed his penis, nine fingers, and part of his legs. "They fill an eye dropper or syringe with cocaine and inject it into the penis," said Dr. Samuel Perry, a clinical professor of psychiatry. Interestingly, the man injected cocaine before a date to increase libido. He was hospitalized because his penis remained erect for three days, resulting in a painful inability to urinate. The medical term for a long-term boner is “priapism.” Over the next 12 hours, blood seeped into the tissue of his legs, arms, genitals, back and chest. Blood clotting caused the tissue to die.

Doctors were forced to amputate the man's legs above the knee and all but one of his fingers to stop the spread of gangrene. The patient's penis was also reduced.

Warning: This news is taken from here. Copyright does NOT belong to Muz4in.Net. When using, please cite THIS LINK as the source.

Did you like the article? Just follow the advertisement after the article. There you will find what you were looking for, and for us a bonus...

By