By Dima Vorobiev, “I worked for Soviet propaganda” If you are a Westerner and talk to us Russians about freedom, you need to know that we understand freedom quite differently from you. In English, there are two complementary words for the topic: “freedom” and “liberty”. We also have a pair, “svoboda” and “volya”. But the complementary meaning for the second one is quite different from “liberty”. “Volya” also means “the will”. Yes, yes, like in the Nazi’s Triumph des Willens. In other words, it’s the ability to do what you want, to impress your will on whatever you have. Vólya also forms the stem of another word, very pleasant to the Russian ear, privólye (an open space, an uncluttered expanse with no unwanted obstacles). This perception of freedom is also worth keeping in mind when you come across all the passionate Russian postings about the yoke of political correctness and stifling liberal oppression that you Westerners must suffer every passing day. For us, having to take into consideration other people, with their annoying habits, pesky demands and petty pretenses is also a form of non-freedom. It is often more oppressing because you can hide from police and taxmen when you really need to. But other people, they are always around! They haunt you everywhere! As our national poet has said, “There is no happiness, but there’s peace and volya”.
Source: Original Site Post
-
Russian Variation on Freedom(from) and Liberty(to)
By Dima Vorobiev, “I worked for Soviet propaganda” If you are a Westerner and talk to us Russians about freedom, you need to know that we understand freedom quite differently from you. In English, there are two complementary words for the topic: “freedom” and “liberty”. We also have a pair, “svoboda” and “volya”. But the complementary meaning for the second one is quite different from “liberty”. “Volya” also means “the will”. Yes, yes, like in the Nazi’s Triumph des Willens. In other words, it’s the ability to do what you want, to impress your will on whatever you have. Vólya also forms the stem of another word, very pleasant to the Russian ear, privólye (an open space, an uncluttered expanse with no unwanted obstacles). This perception of freedom is also worth keeping in mind when you come across all the passionate Russian postings about the yoke of political correctness and stifling liberal oppression that you Westerners must suffer every passing day. For us, having to take into consideration other people, with their annoying habits, pesky demands and petty pretenses is also a form of non-freedom. It is often more oppressing because you can hide from police and taxmen when you really need to. But other people, they are always around! They haunt you everywhere! As our national poet has said, “There is no happiness, but there’s peace and volya”.
-
–“What Is White Sharia (“The White Law”)?”00
—“Pardon my ignorance but what is White Sharia (“The White Law”)?”— Its a neologism for an intolerant, absolutist, expansionist, prosecutorial law of truth, duty, reciprocity, and nationalism. “The law beyond which no religion, state, academy, organization, or individual may tread.” (“Noose, Pike, and Pyre”)
-
–“What Is White Sharia (“The White Law”)?”00
—“Pardon my ignorance but what is White Sharia (“The White Law”)?”— Its a neologism for an intolerant, absolutist, expansionist, prosecutorial law of truth, duty, reciprocity, and nationalism. “The law beyond which no religion, state, academy, organization, or individual may tread.” (“Noose, Pike, and Pyre”)
-
USA: “The Freedom to Make Money”
—“The very first adjustment, that I had to make, the very first time I set foot in the USA, was to redefine ‘freedom’. ‘Freedom’ here means ‘freedom to make money’ – the word has no other meaning. As an immediate afterthought – and ‘God’ is for those who stand in the way of that. I had just landed in Boston, that thought coincided with leaving the airport and hitting the first public road.In Culebra, a tiny island (Virgin Islands) in the grip of the Big Bald Eagle (USA), where I live now, ‘liberty’ only has meaning in the context of its abuse: to take a liberty.”— Paul Franklin
-
USA: “The Freedom to Make Money”
—“The very first adjustment, that I had to make, the very first time I set foot in the USA, was to redefine ‘freedom’. ‘Freedom’ here means ‘freedom to make money’ – the word has no other meaning. As an immediate afterthought – and ‘God’ is for those who stand in the way of that. I had just landed in Boston, that thought coincided with leaving the airport and hitting the first public road.In Culebra, a tiny island (Virgin Islands) in the grip of the Big Bald Eagle (USA), where I live now, ‘liberty’ only has meaning in the context of its abuse: to take a liberty.”— Paul Franklin
-
Lying: The Currency of Cowardice
by Paul Franklin —“In every case I can think of, there is no difference between a liar and a coward (in the meaning of liars we use). In other words, you can judge for one or the other: veracity or cowardice, they are both the same. Basically that’s it. No need for any complicated tomes. I have spent many years, defending myself from cowards, in every place in society, who always unite in their cowardice – with lies being a form of currency over which they might unite. And all too often, it is nearly always some coward – a yellow-backed worm (and I don’t care if he showed bravery elsewhere) – putting some woman up to do his dirty work for him. And I never met a woman who wasn’t up to it. Some women have had the balls themselves to initiate their own attacks. And I know not one single woman who is not utterly shameless when push comes to shove. And you can call that cowardice too.”—Paul Franklin
-
Lying: The Currency of Cowardice
by Paul Franklin —“In every case I can think of, there is no difference between a liar and a coward (in the meaning of liars we use). In other words, you can judge for one or the other: veracity or cowardice, they are both the same. Basically that’s it. No need for any complicated tomes. I have spent many years, defending myself from cowards, in every place in society, who always unite in their cowardice – with lies being a form of currency over which they might unite. And all too often, it is nearly always some coward – a yellow-backed worm (and I don’t care if he showed bravery elsewhere) – putting some woman up to do his dirty work for him. And I never met a woman who wasn’t up to it. Some women have had the balls themselves to initiate their own attacks. And I know not one single woman who is not utterly shameless when push comes to shove. And you can call that cowardice too.”—Paul Franklin
-
The Origins of Paternalism: War
I have a terrible habit, developed over many years, from defending myself, my management and staff, and my companies, and out of pure necessity, of changing from argument to defense against litigation. In other words, from working with friends, allies, and customers, to fighting against enemies. Any politician, negotiator, or litigator develops this talent (and must), and many if not all lawyers must develop a lighter version of it. And that is to create a defensive frame (narrative) and speak and act within the defensive frame, such that all evidence that you leave behind in word and deed corresponds to the narrative. This is not truthful. It’s lying. But it’s lying in the context of war. Once you have decided you are no longer cooperating, nor no longer negotiation, but actively engaged in self defense by a hostile party with malincentives, there is no question of crime, ethics, morality or evil with one’s opponents. We are just at war. And courts are quite stupid really, and they follow the evidence (results of framing) and develop their frame (network of decidability) from that evidence. So in almost all cases politicians, negotiators, and litigators develop and leave evidence correspondent and consistent with the frame. I view this behavior on my part as (a) a result of my rather difficult childhood as defending myself from an abusive alcoholic father, (b) my obsessive study of weapons, warfare, and history from the second grade onward, (d) my early career work almost exclusively with a (((certain))) demographic (e) my membership in the “Wall Street” generation of Yuppies, and the litigation that resulted from my risk taking, and (f) My prosecution of members of said (((demographic))) by the Justice Department, (g) the later career constant defense of the company from frivolous lawsuits with progressive origins (h) self defense in divorce. In this sense I have a very martial (international) bias to my ethics and morality (pessimistic). Whereas the average person as a more familial and civic ethics and morality (optimistic). International law, and in particular, war, has no test other than reciprocity. It’s the family (female) and male (civic) ethics and morality of those who have had few resources, few responsibilities, and few risks of devastating outcome or exceptional reward that can afford to mistakenly extend the economics ethics and morality of the family and community of competition to the international arena of conflict, where the difference is not simply one of lost or gained opportunity, but one of lost or gained severity. For this reason, paternalism is necessary until such a point that all, or at least most men, are one again trained in the art of war, so that they understand the difference between the economics, ethics and morality of the family, the polity, and those against whom we war.
-
The Origins of Paternalism: War
I have a terrible habit, developed over many years, from defending myself, my management and staff, and my companies, and out of pure necessity, of changing from argument to defense against litigation. In other words, from working with friends, allies, and customers, to fighting against enemies. Any politician, negotiator, or litigator develops this talent (and must), and many if not all lawyers must develop a lighter version of it. And that is to create a defensive frame (narrative) and speak and act within the defensive frame, such that all evidence that you leave behind in word and deed corresponds to the narrative. This is not truthful. It’s lying. But it’s lying in the context of war. Once you have decided you are no longer cooperating, nor no longer negotiation, but actively engaged in self defense by a hostile party with malincentives, there is no question of crime, ethics, morality or evil with one’s opponents. We are just at war. And courts are quite stupid really, and they follow the evidence (results of framing) and develop their frame (network of decidability) from that evidence. So in almost all cases politicians, negotiators, and litigators develop and leave evidence correspondent and consistent with the frame. I view this behavior on my part as (a) a result of my rather difficult childhood as defending myself from an abusive alcoholic father, (b) my obsessive study of weapons, warfare, and history from the second grade onward, (d) my early career work almost exclusively with a (((certain))) demographic (e) my membership in the “Wall Street” generation of Yuppies, and the litigation that resulted from my risk taking, and (f) My prosecution of members of said (((demographic))) by the Justice Department, (g) the later career constant defense of the company from frivolous lawsuits with progressive origins (h) self defense in divorce. In this sense I have a very martial (international) bias to my ethics and morality (pessimistic). Whereas the average person as a more familial and civic ethics and morality (optimistic). International law, and in particular, war, has no test other than reciprocity. It’s the family (female) and male (civic) ethics and morality of those who have had few resources, few responsibilities, and few risks of devastating outcome or exceptional reward that can afford to mistakenly extend the economics ethics and morality of the family and community of competition to the international arena of conflict, where the difference is not simply one of lost or gained opportunity, but one of lost or gained severity. For this reason, paternalism is necessary until such a point that all, or at least most men, are one again trained in the art of war, so that they understand the difference between the economics, ethics and morality of the family, the polity, and those against whom we war.