home
Coatings
What does the word redneck mean and who is called that? The meaning of the word cattle in a large modern explanatory dictionary of the Russian language What is cattle

What does the word redneck mean and who is called that? The meaning of the word cattle in a large modern explanatory dictionary of the Russian language What is cattle

11.02.2022

Against the background of the powerful concept of "people", the word "cattle" looks miserable and ugly, often pronounced to emphasize the negative aspects of human society. "Cattle" is a characteristic of the despicable and despised part of the people, not worthy of such a high title as the "people".

According to Ozhegov, these are people who "wordlessly perform hard work for someone." However, the word has since taken on many new meanings. They began to call them not only dumb people, clogged with need and work, but also those who unquestioningly obey all the instructions of the authorities and superiors, despite the illegality of such instructions, and while pursuing their own personal gain. "Cattle" - one whom someone else's will can "force" to go against his people, commit a crime, who can be bought and sold, who can be "driven", like cattle, in the direction necessary for someone else's will or "drive" going nowhere. "Cattle" - the one who is mean himself and makes others mean, who grovels before power and wealth, who robs society, the people in their own selfish interests, who opposes the people and who "compromises" the people.

"Cattle" can be both an educated and uneducated person, high-ranking and not, a politician, a popular star and a worker at the machine. "Cattle" is not a permanent, but a variable and temporary part of society, which from time to time "spoils" this society.

People who lack reflection and critical thinking.
People who mind their own business.
People who believe their opinion is the only true one.
People who judge the majority by the minority.
People whose values are to copulate, get drunk, watch TV, and that's it.
People who blindly believe everything that the media broadcasts.
People who interfere with the lives of others and believe that it should be so.

We think it's that simple. The term "cattle" has three main meanings.

obsolete collected – cattle
collected trans. contempt. - a faceless crowd, people who obediently obey someone else's will, allowing themselves to be exploited.
trans. contempt. - a stupid, rude, uncouth, uncultured person, driven primarily by instincts, neglecting reason and morality.

As you can see, this word has a loaded semantics. If I am forced to submit to the existing regime, I am redneck. And it doesn't matter anymore whether I have education and spiritual values. What if I am uncultured and rude, but do not obey the elite that exploits me? I am also referred to as trash. It turns out that they are not rednecks - these are only those who are educated, highly moral and non-servile. Just the perfect hero turns out!

Many will say that you will not meet such a hero in life. But then an unflattering picture emerges: rednecks are all of us. I am a redneck, you are a redneck, they are a redneck. Cattle are our parents, our children and our relatives. Is it so?

Let's turn to the discourse about cattle. We have collected several rather emotional articles on this topic. Upon careful reading of them, the thought arises that the authors do not have a common opinion about the "phenomenon of cattle". However, in the postmodern tradition, discourse should not lead to unambiguous conclusions. And the answer to this question is up in the air.

We, in turn, will not participate in this discussion. Backmology paid enough attention to the analysis of the postmodern era in order to understand the futility of the approach to draw conclusions from the results of discourse. Discourse is discourse, and the decision on how to live, each person makes individually.

About cattle

Yuri Nesterenko

There is an opinion that cattle are certainly lumpen, gopniks from the proletarian outskirts. This type of redneck is indeed very characteristic, but the redneck is by no means exhausted by it. A redneck can have a higher education and a well-paid job, maybe even be a good specialist in some narrow field - and still remain a redneck. The defining features of the cattle are the following:

Cattle is collectivistic, as follows from the very essence of the term (“cattle” is Polish for “cattle”). Belonging to a team is the highest value for cattle. The values of the collective are accepted axiomatically by the cattle, and the very idea that they can be questioned causes either rage or laughter (sometimes both at the same time). The redneck does not have its own opinion, taking as such a set of ready-made stamps perceived by it, which, in principle, is not subject to analysis and revision.

As a result, the redneck divides the world into Ours and Non-ours. Ours are always right, because they are Ours. Those who are not ours should be hated and despised because they are not ours. Accordingly, no discussion with the Nenashimi (and their defenders, who also automatically become Nenashimi) is impossible in principle, for the redneck the very idea of considering their arguments seriously is blasphemous.

As a result, the redneck is patriotic. Most often this is national-state patriotism, but it can also be religious, corporate, etc. Often all these types of patriotism are combined (giving rise, for example, to combinations such as a staunch communist (who, by definition, must be an internationalist) who hates Jews and Americans). At the same time, the cattle, of course, have no idea about the covenant not to confuse the authorities with the fatherland. On the contrary - cattle, as befits a good herd, sincerely loves his shepherd. Moreover, the more cruel the shepherd (in the terminology of the cattle - "cool"), the more love he deserves. The greatest delight of the cattle, of course, causes cruelty towards Nenashim, but cruelty towards one’s own is met, at a minimum, with understanding, and often with approval. At the same time, if at least one hundredth of what the cattle glorifies their shepherds for, the representative of Nenashi would do with him, the cattle would tear him apart. Redneck knows his history poorly, but he is convinced that it must be respected. The redneck likes to express his patriotic anger or enthusiasm with night screams under the windows of his compatriots and pogroms in his hometown. In all this, the cattle does not see any contradiction.

Cattle aggressive. He just needs someone to hate. Bydlo considers violence, verbal or physical, not only acceptable, but also the most correct response to the arguments of opponents. The redneck explains all his troubles with the intrigues of the Enemies (the Enemies are, of course, Nenashi and the traitors who have gone over to their side, but in no case are the shepherds of the redneck, no matter what they do). The redneck is firmly convinced that the Nenashi hate Ours just as sincerely and passionately as it hates the Nenashi itself, and devote their whole lives (at least, politics, for sure) to harming Ours. If there are no enemies, the redneck invents them. At the same time, those Nenashi, who are clearly too peaceful and far from politics to be considered real Enemies, deserve the sincere contempt of the cattle and serve as the object of constant derogatory ridicule, helping the cattle to revel in the consciousness of their own superiority.

Cattle can not live without rudeness. Cattle loves to swear, not only in anger, but also in a calm conversation. However, the most educated part of the cattle may at first be polite - but only as long as the interlocutor does not express ideas that contradict the worldview of the cattle. This is where the redneck shows itself in all its glory. Cattle considers it obligatory to speak about Nenashi in an insulting and derogatory manner. At the same time, when the old insults from endless repetition cease to be perceived as sharply as before, the redneck invents new ones. “Yankees” and “Khokhols” no longer sound boorish enough, which means that “Pindos” and “Ukrainians” will be used.

Redneck considers himself a bearer of high morality. Such, depending on the cultural level and social status of the cattle, can be called the concepts of the right boys, the moral code of the builder of communism, Orthodox spirituality, corporate ethics, etc.; in any case, the redneck, even with difficulty coming to his senses after a week of hard drinking, considers himself a moral standard, looking down on the rest of the world mired in vice. The slightest deviation from these moral principles (no matter how reasonable and justified they are in themselves) on the part of Nenashi becomes the object of fierce denunciations; moreover, the cattle considers meanness the very existence of an opinion that does not correspond to Our axioms. At the same time, any meanness of Ours in relation to Non-Ours is not only forgiven, but delighted: “That's how we made them!”

Cattle, in principle, is not able to imagine that a point of view, different from his own, can be sincere and disinterested. It is absolutely convinced that anyone who expresses such a point of view does so because he is paid by the Enemies from among Not Ours. At the same time, the fact that Nashi's full-time propagandists certainly do not work for free, even if we talk only about their official income, of course, does not bother the cattle.

Well, the main property of cattle is, of course, stupidity, which is not contradicted even by the presence of a prestigious diploma and professional success in some intellectual field. The intellectual part of the cattle is like a computer that is capable of performing very complex operations according to a given program, but, having no mind, is not able to question this program, much less change it. That's just, unlike most computer programs, the program on which the cattle works is absolutely destructive.

redneck phenomenon

A.A. Pelipenko, I.G. Yakovenko

This material is dedicated to one, at first glance, private, but characteristic phenomenon of today's reality. In the broadest sense, it belongs to the sphere of values and expresses the processes of cultural dynamics. History shows that the emergence and establishment of a new subculture has its own logic. First, the new quality separates itself from the generative soup. coagulation occurs. People of a new worldview recognize each other by their eyes, by elusive details. They unite around common needs, values, lifestyle. The new asserts itself as one of the cultural positions that have the right to exist alongside others. Then - if this subculture belongs to the future - as dominant. This is the general scheme. At the next stage, on the way to dominance, the new quality inevitably stumbles upon the sacred values and fetishes of the old. Their rethinking, namely: profane “renaming” and reinterpretation, is part of the affirmation of the new. The expressive word "scoop", which entered the Russian language in the late 80s, is a pure example of this kind. Our material is devoted to one of the episodes of the establishment of personal consciousness in modern Russia.

There is a word that sounds louder and clearer in private conversations and assessments of what is happening, occasionally breaking through to the pages of printed publications. So far, it has not been uttered at the top of its voice, although the need for this is felt more and more acutely, since there is nothing to replace it. Let's try to make an excursion from the word to the concept, from the concept to understanding without emotions and tantrums.

So, the word "cattle" came from the Polish language - in the meaning of working cattle - which, however, is not important for us, since the meanings of the words go far from the original etymology. So in this case, what is understood in the ordinary lexicon as the word "cattle" is wider and deeper than the original meaning.

Let us ask ourselves the question: why, in fact, this word is so timidly included in the normative circulation. Here we are faced with a little conscious taboo addressed to the nomination of a mystified and deified people. For the cattle are the ruins that remain after the collapse of the mythology of the people. Cattle - a profane hypostasis of the people, and therefore, more terrible and unacceptable in pronunciation than any obscene abuse.

In order to understand the processes that caused the actualization of an old and seemingly long-forgotten word, it is necessary to highlight the cultural meanings behind it. What is meant by cattle? Close concepts - boor, barbarian, slave. That is, a being devoid of an individual-subjective beginning. In a broad sense, the range of meanings associated with the crowd, ohlos, plebs. Once upon a time, there was a good word for expressing similar entities - mob. All this creates a figurative field, but does not reveal essential moments. Let's outline a portrait of cattle as a cultural subject.

First of all, this being is collective in its significant manifestations. He energetically and purposefully moves away from the situation of choice. Cattle rigidly and imperatively participates in the group. Cattle - always a part of some we, with a derogatory attitude towards "I". Your own and especially someone else's. A derogatory attitude towards someone else's "I" is a fundamental trait of cattle. In this regard, a redneck is a person with an extremely active life position. Not being a person in the proper sense of the word, cattle is extremely intolerant and aggressive towards manifestations of the personal principle in another. Historically, the cattle goes back to the communal-tribal man and the natural, consistent environment of his habitat is a closed patriarchal society. In the context of modern civilization, he feels extremely uncomfortable and, therefore, so aggressive.

Cattle denies personality in all its manifestations. And above all, such features as freedom, property and dignity. First of all, freedom is denied. Such a concept in the minds of cattle simply does not exist. There is - nonsense, whim, willfulness, in a word, dangerous evasive behavior. Slavery, total dependence on the social absolute constitute the essence of the worldview of the cattle. A slave can endure anything but his own freedom. Cattle cannot be identified with the social function and scenarios of behavior prescribed from the outside. The choice, which implies freedom, inner independence and reflection, destroys and denies the cattle.

Another, highly characteristic feature of the phenomenon we are studying can be characterized as a specific, barbaric in nature, style of communication. An explanation is needed here. Any mature culture tends to create a special buffer zone. It is formed from the norms of etiquette, stereotypes of behavior, household rituals. Such a buffer allows you not to waste mental energy on endless routine situations. Human forces are spent on solving non-trivial tasks, on essential processes. In cattle, the sphere of cultural stereotypes is minimized. Hence the painful, demanding style of communication. Frequent jumps from aggression to fawning. Not being able to adequately "read" the conventional behavior of other people. Leaps and barbaric spontaneity in the behavior of cattle oppose the mediation of mental reactions by culture, characteristic of a civilized person.

Cattle - the enemy of property. For him, there is his own blood and situationally alien. The boundaries between one's own and another's are momentary. They change as soon as possible. As a rule, the cattle is characterized by the type of behavior that is defined in the everyday lexicon as "cunning". Cunning ass is the shortest distance to achieve selfish goals with minimal violations of the rules of the game set from outside. At the same time, the interests of the people with whom the cattle come into contact are initially and fundamentally ignored (since these interests are not protected from the outside by a given standard).

For a smart-ass cattle, freshly stolen is perceived as their own blood. Since its social leitmotif - to rake under oneself - does not at all mean a civilized attitude towards property.

For cattle there is no human dignity. It not only does not understand, but actively denies distance, privacy, the entire sphere of cultural space that matured and strengthened with the formation of the human personality.

Here we touched on an essential topic: the problem of two modes of the phenomenon under study - the virtuous servant and the evil servant. At all times they exist side by side. But the dynamics of the relationship between the evil and the virtuous is of particular interest. In a stable archaic society, they are more or less balanced, and a virtuous slave can even dominate. But in the era of the historical eradication of traditionalist archaism, the crafty slave literally swells, filling the entire social space with himself. In full accordance with this logic, devoutly-righteous cattle are found less and less lately. Today the crafty slave clearly dominates. In this, in particular, the moral crisis of the obsolete archaism is manifested. There are two ways out of this situation. The few virtuous slaves and cynic slave owners are dragging society into the past they idealize, when, as they see it, the virtuous slave dominated. Bearers of personal consciousness - to the elimination of the crafty slave through the formation of an autonomous personality.

General for cattle is the intention to simplify.

On closer examination, the striving for simplification turns out to be a striving for "syncretization", for the creation of a structure as similar as possible to the traditional patriarchal structure. And, since the redneck is a migrant who found traditional culture at the time of its collapse, his aesthetic ideal is an impoverished and extremely simplified version of traditional culture. The subculture of the settlement, workers' barracks, suburbs.

Cattle proceed from a fundamentally homogeneous picture of the world, the culture of which corresponds to his tastes and ideas. Hence the steady desire to simplify the cultural context and primitivization of culture.

The system of ideas and behavior of the object of our study is based on the indistinguishability of one's individual point of view and the supposed objective one. And this is a universal characteristic of the phenomenon under consideration. Cattle always absolutely sincerely broadcasts on behalf of the Lord God. That is why, in a situation of dynamic development of culture, when the conflict of values and their dialogue turns out to be the most important moment of development, the redneck acts as a ballast, an obstacle in the way of dynamics. It is the very indigestible material to the end, which carries the threat of backward movements.

We proceed from the fact that in the cultural memory of every person from birth there are blocks of programs and models corresponding to all stages and phases of cultural development from archaism and barbarism to a developed personality. The ratio of these blocks varies richly depending on the combination of many factors, the analysis of which is a separate big problem. Further, at the age of three to six years, a qualitative choice occurs in the direction of one or another mental program of self-realization. The birth and reproduction of the cattle is given primarily by the social environment in which the reflexes, scripts and a priori present unconscious programs of the cattle turn out to be adaptive. It is noteworthy that children growing up in an environment that generates cattle can show extraordinary abilities, brightness of mind, the rudiments of a personal worldview, which one day (15-17 years old) completely disappear without a trace, giving way to a spineless position of drifting along the flow of life with more or less active rowing under themselves. Sometimes using all the talents released by the Creator in order not to become a person.

Today, despite all the rhetoric, the government assumes cattle as the main social subject. Focusing on his social psychology and value orientations, the authorities, thereby, reproduce a dead-end, hopeless situation. As long as the mythologeme “all the people” is in use, behind this mystified image there will be a mug of cattle. It must be stated with all certainty that "the whole people", or "common people" about which we have heard all our lives, does not exist in nature. The mythologeme of the “people” is a sign for designating an archaic integrity, what philosophers call a social absolute. Strictly speaking, it did not exist even before, although Soviet society was poorly aware of its heterogeneity. Today, the idea of a certain unity of the “people” is a pure myth.

There is a society consisting of qualitatively heterogeneous groups with fundamentally different interests and different attitudes towards civilization in general. And there can be no compromise between the subject of modern civilization - that is, the personality - and the cattle. Policies are equally suited to both, just the same. The triumph of the ideas of privatism, freedom, property and the dignity of each member of society cannot be combined with archaic barbarism. Cattle is not taught and not changeable. He cannot be persuaded, pacified and remade. A lackey can grow out of a hard-trained cattle, but not a man of civilization.

So far, the infantile fear of the natural stratification of society has not yet been overcome. Nonsensical variations on the theme of universal unity are reproduced. Inexpressive symbols of this unity are being worked out, again addressed to the figurative-symbolic consciousness of the cattle. And, in general, the language spoken by the authorities is still the language of cattle. It westernized, but did not leave its roots.

The authorities are doing everything and a little more than that to slow down and strangle the formation of independent public institutions, an autonomous person, legal, civil and property independence. The government gives society into the hands of the mafia, which wages a war of annihilation against legal, non-criminal private property. Power does not create legal guarantees for the individual, and so on.

It seems that the consciousness of the bearers of power is absorbed by the chimera: "we" - the people at the helm - will become individuals, win our freedoms and gain dignity. "They" - should remain in the stall and not interfere with us doing our business. It must be said with all certainty that this is the purest illusion. First of all, the idea of a class society was three hundred years late.

Secondly, there can be nothing more or less stable guaranteeing "their" status and property, except for legal guarantees of the individual - and they are fundamentally universal - cannot be. Separately, those who broke through to the helm can work out the strategy of "grabbed - left." But as a social stratum, as a whole, they will be able to maintain their positions only within the framework of the liberal evolution of the country.

Let's summarize. Cattle - a product of the decomposition of a patriarchal society placed in an inadequate urban context, and surrounded by people representing personal culture. The concept of "cattle" is the result of understanding this phenomenon and at the same time an assessment sounded from the space of personal consciousness.

The affirmation of the image of the "cattle" marks the twilight of the two-hundred-year-old myth of the "people". The riddle over which the generations of Russian intellectuals suffered and the ideal from the mismatch with which they suffered has been solved. The authors of the riddle renounce the fundamental myth and the basic value of intellectual consciousness.

In this sense, the assertion of the image of the cattle marks the death of the Russian intellectual. The intellectual existed in the universe, set by the coordinates of the sacred Power and the sacred People. Power/People, Due/existent - the coordinates of the intelligentsia space. And when in place of the image of the great, boundless in its qualities, embracing everything and all substance containing all ends and all beginnings, the ineffable People, there appears cattle - one can testify: the intelligentsia is over. The bourgeois intellectual who is replacing the Russian intellectual is rethinking the sacred values of his predecessors. And in this rethinking, the myth of the people turns into cattle. What can be said about this. The Twilight of the Gods is a special time.

To the question of cattle

S. Ovchinnikov

Smart worthy people on the planet are only about 5%. 95% of people are trash. This ratio is not determined by profession or social class. Among all categories of people who call themselves human, there are 95% of bydlovaty citizens. And the higher the social level occupied by a humanoid individual, the higher the percentage of cattle among them. It is not difficult to guess that there are practically no people left among the presidential corps or among the shadow financial magnates.

A person becomes a cattle not in society, as many are sure, but rather already at birth. And only generations of selection in families of smart, worthy parents give birth to the very 5% of real people who, due to the peculiarities of their intellectual development in the Cattle Society, will never reach their rightful roles.

Thus, I argue that cattle is not so much a social phenomenon, but to a greater extent - biological, genetically determined, if you like.

So what is "cattle" really? This is a question that has been worrying me for a very long time, because I have to live and work in such a specific environment.

At first I thought that these were beer and vodka alcoholics, individuals who smoke and swear at every opportunity, employed in not the most intellectual professions (usually workers). But in fact, my conclusion was not the most successful. I paid attention only to some details of the "appearance" of the redneck individuals.

Then, after reading and looking, I sinfully thought about whether the level of cattle does not correlate depending on nationality. It seemed to me, for example, that among Russians (more precisely, those who define themselves as Russians), the percentage of cattle is prohibitively high. But among the Tatars and Bashkirs it is much lower. With the Jews, the issue is much more complicated - they have turned into Russians so much and are so smart that I am still confused about this category of people. I only know that these smartest people have a well-developed team spirit, fate beat them repeatedly, which only rallied this nation. They are relatively closed in themselves (isolated) and their history spans more than one millennium, which allows us to talk about systematic and long-term selection work.

Then they explained to me that, most likely, rednecks are just people who do not think about the consequences of their actions, who do not care at all about their well-being and the well-being of the people living next to them. The wording seemed interesting to me, but somewhat vague. It seems that the key phrase here is “people who do not think”. By the way, on the topic: the biological species to which we all belong is called Homo sapiens, which just implies the presence of a certain intellectual level in individuals of this species. So, the wording given above about the essence of cattle means only one thing (in fact) - cattle is extremely poorly developed intellectually. That intellectual construction over the animal essence, which God endowed man, is unexpressed, weak and shaky in this category of persons. That and look - it will fall apart.

Is it right that the cattle for the most part is poorly able to think and analyze? Let the redneck fill in any analytical table and the initial data for it - this will put him into a stupor. But at the same time, it seems to me, one should not clearly understand that any glorious representative of the “progressive” redneck community is poorly intellectually developed. This is a serious mistake! The fact is that poor intellectual development is one of the traits of cattle individuals, but not at all mandatory. I draw the attention of the 5% category of the population to this. It's just that the term redneck needs to be understood much deeper and more extensively than just as "not thinking" individuals. Many "glorious" representatives of the cattle are much more intellectual than some of the worthy people! Just what is their mind focused on? ..

Sounds creepy, doesn't it?

My myth about smoking beer alcoholics finally dispelled into smoke. As well as the myth of redneck-ability among various nations. It turns out that redneck is a more complex phenomenon than is commonly believed. And among the cattle can be any of us. Criteria for cattle, of course, there are. Otherwise, the very term "cattle" has no right to exist. But these criteria turned out to be completely unexpected, even for me.

Usually we, worthy people (5%), operate only with external criteria of the redneck community. You drink and smoke, you swear - that means cattle. You spit, excuse me, you piss and shit under your feet, you leave household garbage at the entrance - that means cattle. To spit on others, ignoring everything and everyone, the eternal "light bulb" state - that means cattle. If you don't respect old age, you mock the weak, that means you're a redneck. A thief and a corrupt official means cattle. A member of the United Russia party or an official (which is now synonymous) means cattle. Wait! But after all, these are just some particular external, descriptive, far from unambiguous, complete and reliable criteria. What can I say - after all, even in the "United Russia" sometimes there are worthy people (as we now know - 5%)! Does this mean that our criteria are more superficial than we previously thought?

Then what underlies the very concept of "cattle"? Why do cattle with some of the features described above really exist? Why are rednecks among the human population an alarming 95%? Why is the percentage of rednecks high among any social stratum of the population? We emphasize - among any social stratum! Why cattle even more among the managers? Why are cattle families with a high degree of probability raised by cattle-children - future cattle-citizens of a cattle-country? Why is it beneficial for the government of any country to increase the livestock population of the redneck community to 100% gold? Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit...

Where is the answer to all these difficult questions?

I learned my answer from a simple book by a biologist, popularizer of domestic ethology (the science of animal behavior), Viktor Dolnik.

The essence of the book boils down to the fact that nature took only about 40 thousand years for the evolution of man. For evolutionary processes, this is an extremely short period. During this time, man managed to take a colossal step from a monkey to a thinking, inventive, intellectually gifted ... monkey! We send aircraft to surf the vastness of space, we land people on the moon, we create works of art, we completely change the environment, but in the depths, most of us remain a monkey, the worst "monkey" qualities of which are refracted through the prism of the mind and become especially perverted and wild .

We still have strong instinctive programs. This is our deep subconscious (which Sigmund Freud also wrote about). Without part of the instincts, we would not be able to live: we breathe, eat, walk, multiply. These instincts allow us to survive as a species.

But a number of instincts (with the same genes) we inherited from our close simian relatives, not the most well-behaved animals. These are atavistic instincts - we would have lived much more peacefully in modern society without them, we no longer need them, they prevent us from living and working, they turn us into cattle, but these instincts are hard-coded in our genes. And 40 thousand years of evolution is too short a period for a biological species with such a low reproduction rate and fertility as Homo sapiens to forever remove "harmful" and useless monkey instinctive programs from our genes.

Knowing about such monkey instinctive programs, we should be able to suppress them in ourselves. To do this, each of your controversial actions must be subjected to introspection, to identify the instinctive "virus" and change your behavior. However, as you understand, for this you need not only to know which virus programs can change your behavior, but also to have not a hefty willpower from birth to death in order to overcome them, remaining a worthy person, and not sliding back into a two-legged monkey that sits deep inside each of us! Moreover, having mastered the method of constant introspection of actions and correcting their behavior, you need to teach this to your children until they independently learn to understand the true motives of their behavior.

Units have learned to control the monkey inside themselves. I call them worthy people (5% of the human population). Someone approached the solution of the problem from the side of psychoanalysis, and someone, like me, got acquainted with ethological literature. In any case, the result is the same - we have learned to suppress the monkey inside us. And this small achievement is a result that has surpassed any major scientific discovery of the last centuries. Perhaps this is the greatest achievement of modern man, which is both very personal and very civilly significant!

So what "monkey" atavistic instinctive programs does the cattle implement?

I'll try to list them in order of importance. It is quite possible that after carefully reading Viktor Dolnik's book "The Naughty Child of the Biosphere" or the works of Sigmund Freud, you will determine for yourself other "viral" ancestral programs of behavior that you consider necessary to get rid of. I will name the most important from my point of view.

1. Herding. It's no secret that monkeys are herd animals. Together they fight off predators, protect their families, collect food. Herds have changed a lot since ancient times. Now civil society is the herd. Whether this is good or bad is as difficult to say as deciding whether it is good or bad to divide the planet into separate states. I am interested in something completely different here: the herd instinct often leads to the complete destruction of one's own opinion on this or that phenomenon of the surrounding reality. The herd shouts: “Be like everyone else! Support the common decision! Therefore, before making any decision that offhand seems right to you, carefully analyze whether this is your own opinion, or this is the opinion of the monkey majority - cattle. If this turns out to be the decision of the redneck, it is better, at least, to refrain from supporting such a decision.

- Certainly! - said Mr. Titov. - Better this man! ..

- Than that? I clarified.

- Not! What a mess!" - writes the correspondent of "Kommersant" Andrey Kolesnikov. And this is already a joke!

Or let us recall the history of one recent obscurantism initiated by the Russian Orthodox Church. Herding is the engine not only of states, but also of religions. Primitive instinctive monkey programs forced hundreds of thousands of people to stand in lines in the cold, in order to simply pass under a piece of body belt of dubious origin. While another smaller fragment of the same belt has long been kept in a nearby temple, where it was not so popular. Turns out size does matter. Believe me, such queues "in the world" used to stand only behind the new iPhone!

The statistics of those who fell ill in the queue and were healed under the belt - to the studio! I would like to compare numbers. Or did believers first get sick and then automatically heal? Then 0:0, a draw.

2. Hierarchy. The monkey knows exactly what place he occupies in the herd. Or is it a six - an errand monkey and a "whipping boy"; or is it the hierarch of the herd, constantly proving in every act who is in charge here. Basically, showing fangs and personal belongings. By the way, that is why the entire obscene vocabulary of the modern "man" revolves around the genitals and the actions associated with them. We no longer demonstrate them to the enemy, replacing this action with a word.

Any monkey is very respectful of the hierarchy established in the herd. It's in the instincts. And of course, only a very bad monkey does not want to climb up this hierarchical ladder. Any monkey dreams of becoming a hierarch. And for this she is ready to go to any tricks, intrigues and humiliations. Today they punish her for the slightest fault, and tomorrow she will pardon and punish herself. Tomorrow she may have power. The sweetest thing a monkey can get is power over a herd. And that means: to get access to the sharing of all the food produced together. And just the opportunity to give a slap or reward every moment of time.

Now transfer all of the above to human society. It's not the prettiest picture. Cattle in the best monkey traditions seeks power by all available means, goes to power over the heads of lower ranks and intensively licks its way through other commanding places. From here intrigues and intrigues are born, long gossip over mugs of tea right at the workplace (this is the true evil: a smoke break and tea), slander and titanic work to remove people who are objectionable to themselves, rich officials with minors in saunas, widespread corruption. After all, I am in power, and if no one limits my instincts (the prosecutor's office, for example), then I can take what I dispose of. The iron logic of the monkey hierarch!

Mikhail Voslensky in his wonderful book "Nomenclature" quotes from I.E. Steinberg, People's Commissar of Justice in Lenin's first government: “On one side is the intoxication of power: arrogance and impunity, mockery of a person and petty malice, narrow vindictiveness and sectarian suspicion, an ever deeper contempt for the lower, in a word, domination. On the other side - oppression, timidity, fear of punishment, impotent anger, quiet hatred, servility, relentless deception of elders. End of quote.

3. Malice. Monkeys are perhaps a few of the animals who can take a stick and, united with others of their own kind, beat to death a weaker, sicker and simply lower rank. Sometimes simply because the hierarch punished them. Anger rolls down the hierarchical ladder. Appetite comes with eating: inflamed, with screams, more and more individuals of the herd get involved in the beating until they finish the poor fellow.

Think of the story of the tyrant Muammar Gaddafi, or the recent riots in England and Egypt. This video is not about people, this is a video about monkeys, only instead of sticks and fangs they have machine guns, Molotov cocktails. Look at any militant demonstrators. They shout for a long time, waving their arms, lunging towards the police and immediately cowardly distancing themselves from the close ranks of the special forces. These are not people - these are monkeys, these are rednecks!

There would be a skilled instigator and it would be easy to turn any rally into a crowd of evil cattle, ready to destroy everything in its path. Only because the implementation of this ancient instinctive program brings great pleasure. Anger and hatred are in the hands of those who have a nuclear bomb in their bosom. This combination of ancient instinct and the intellectual "achievement" of mankind is explosive.

So, from my point of view, cattle is the result of the accelerated development of human civilization; 95% of the population, unable to control their own atavistic monkey instincts, and characterized by a pronounced herd instinct, respect for hierarchy and boundless malice towards the weak.

That's what cattle is.

Redneck theory

Alexander Buryak

There is a "theory of elites" (or "theory of the elite"), cultivated by pseudo-scientists who serve the ideological needs of the rotten "social elites" and curry favor with those in power and the rich. The very crooked name of this “theory” speaks about the relationship between science and pseudoscience in the “theory of elites”: as a rule, the so-called “elites” do not have any significant chosenness, either literally or figuratively.

So, if the “theory of elites” wanders through not very strong minds, then why not launch the “theory of cattle” (or “the theory of cattle”?!), reflecting that part of society , what remains minus the "tops", which are supposedly "elites"?

Yes, the word "redneck" when applied to people is evaluative and emotionally colored, but it is no more evaluative and emotionally colored than the word "elite".

In fact, it would be more correct to talk about the existence of the scientific field of "bydlovedenie", which may include various competing "theories of cattle", and we will do just that, and not be led by pseudo-scientists who feed on the so-called theory of the so-called elites .

The disdainful attitude towards the plebs, expressed in the word "cattle", is part of the subject of the study of cattle studies. Thus, the word "cattle" appears in bydlovedenie not as an insult, but as a term.

To distinguish the "theory of cattle" considered here from possible competing theories, it can be called revolutionary. Unlike the "theory of elites", the "theory of cattle" (or "the theory of cattle" - the terminology has not yet settled down) does not express currying in front of the object of its consideration - if only because if you call someone in person a cattle, then you usually have to measure strength, blow away legs or prepare for a lawsuit to protect "honor and dignity", because the advanced "cattle" supposedly also have them (and if at least one of the cattle still explained what is the difference between them, and if it exists, then why can't it be that "honor" is hurt, but "dignity" is not - or vice versa?). Due to this difference, the cultivation of the “theory of elites” is more suitable for people of an adaptive warehouse, and the cultivation of the “theory of cattle” is more suitable for people of a heroic and / or revolutionary warehouse.

In Polish, the word "bydlo" (bydlo) means "cattle". Among the gentry of the Commonwealth, when applied to people, it acted as a rude synonym for such words as “plebs”, “common people”, “mob”. It entered the Russian language in its figurative meaning - perhaps even before the "first partition" of the Commonwealth. The rudeness of the word is explained by the fact that a significant part of the gentry was poor, and for it the main means of distancing themselves from the "ignoble" was a defiantly hostile attitude towards them. Often, the poorer the pan was, the more ambitious: let him shovel manure out of the barn, but with a saber dangling on his side.

Calling or not calling the bulk of the people cattle is a matter of style, mood, politeness, the notorious political correctness, but not a question of truth. People are essentially not the same in their mental qualities, morality, ideological attitudes, intellectual skills: there are more strong-willed, intelligent, capable of independent judgment - and there are noticeably inferior to them in these qualities. The former gravitate towards leadership, or at least to maintaining their special position, the latter prefer to be led, to experience the joy of belonging to the crowd. The second is always the majority: in any society, in any era. The word "redneck" when applied to people is only a negatively colored synonym for the expression "majority of the people."

The use of the word “cattle” in relation to other people is either a painful reaction to the intolerance of the masses in relation to thinking individuals, to their unwillingness to understand them, to the inability of most people to develop, or a physiologically determined act of admiring oneself against the background of not very developed fellow citizens, or providing yourself with a kind of psychological refuge (“but at least I’m not a redneck”).

Cattle are not publicly called cattle in the mood only by those who themselves are cattle, and those who seek to use the cattle byness, that is, officials, populist politicians and all sorts of implicit scammers acting as entrepreneurs, public figures, authoritative specialists, etc. .P.

Of course, rednecks will not vote in elections for people who publicly call him rednecks. Therefore, for example, Adolf Hitler never publicly called the main part of the German people cattle, but only cautiously hinted sometimes at this essence of it. A person who publicly calls the people cattle deprives himself of the chance to get into an elected public office, that is, he is freed from the need to pretend to be a figure in the popular taste, to find it difficult to compose profitable lies and can afford to focus on more useful and more interesting activities for society. He crosses the Rubicon and removes the mountain from his shoulders - and only through the use of the word "cattle" several times for its intended purpose. There are many other specific words (of three or more letters), the public use of which leads to a similar liberating effect, but the word "redneck" allows, in addition, to enjoy a keen sense of one's own nobility (perhaps illusory, but perceived as real!).

Behind the word "cattle" is an inconvenient brute truth. In a society in which everyone is accustomed to manipulate and be manipulated, it is not included in the set of recognized political fictions, and in a society in which people would not need to manipulate each other, situations in which this word would be asked to speak would simply disappear.

Those who call cattle cattle are often cattle themselves, but either advanced in education, or belonging to some especially flawed, but solidary minority, such as homosexuals, absurdists, etc.

Not belonging to the cattle does not mean being especially valuable or just a good person. Belonging to cattle does not mean being bad at all. Cattle are called cattle when they emphasize the vicious qualities of the bulk of the people. They emphasize not only for the sake of experiencing their own greatness, but also in the faint hope of pushing at least some to correct.

Of course, life does not fit into simple schemes, so there is a half-cattle, a quarter-catch, and so on.

The desire to disassociate oneself from the cattle behind the use of the word "cattle" is commendable, even if the individual who manifests it suffers from an overestimation of self-esteem.

The opposite of cattle is higher. The use of words such as “elite”, “chosen ones” by the higher is not accurate, because no one, as a rule, elects the higher to a special role, but they fall into it themselves due to their characteristics, while the “chosen ones” are chosen by the people or superiors - often turn out to be the worst kind of cattle.

Some of the higher ones are shepherds, aristocracy; some are hermits, the aristocracy of the spirit.

The nominal affiliation of an individual to the authorities does not make this individual the highest, nominal subordination does not make him a cattle. In shepherds, cattle often have the same cattle, only more energetic and driven to work by greed and a sense of their own inferiority. Shepherds partly adjust to the cattle, partly try to lead or drive him in the direction they need. Sometimes adjustment prevails in society, sometimes leading, sometimes persecution. It is easier for representatives of the cattle to break into the first shepherds in a democracy, because such individuals are “spiritually” closer to the bulk of the people, more understandable to her.

Aristocrats of the spirit are often portrayed as dusty people and / or with an underdeveloped conscience, who categorically do not want or are not able to engage in simple honest work and abuse the respectful attitude of respectable cattle to the highest. In addition, there are honestly mistaken individuals who mistakenly classify themselves (and are mistakenly considered by others) to be the aristocracy of the spirit on the grounds that their intellectual production is very similar to the intellectual production of the aristocrats of the spirit, although in fact it is absurd.

The word "cattle" will lose its political relevance when such a form of social structure is established, in which "above" will be predominantly worthy people and these people will fully take care of the well-being and development of the majority, as well as timely give way to others, even more worthy. – as those appear on the political horizon. Guess it won't happen soon.

Revolutions always happen because in power - as a result of decomposition, degeneration or too democratic will - it turns out to be cattle, that is, individuals with a limited outlook, uncreative, unable to provide the rest of the cattle with tolerable conditions of existence, and the non-cattle - the opportunity to manifest themselves for the benefit of society .

Some very difficult questions:

- How to divide people into the best and the worst?

- What to do with the worst?

- How can society be organized so that it can benefit the most from the best and the worst?

Different living conditions require different human qualities. If some individuals have shown themselves to be the best, this does not mean that they (or other people with the same set of qualities) will turn out to be the best in the future. To determine which people are better for the future, one must have an idea of the conditions in which these people will find themselves.

Any quality of an individual "works" only in interaction with other qualities and therefore cannot be evaluated without taking them into account. For example, physical strength is not beneficial in itself, but only within a certain “size” group, otherwise all animals would be the weight of elephants (on land) or whales (on sea). It is beneficial to be stronger among those of the same size as you, but if you become larger to ensure your greater strength, you risk falling out of your "ecological niche" and being generally more vulnerable than less powerful kindred organisms.

Members of the same species may have different survival strategies. Otherwise, it is probably impossible to explain why, for example, honesty or, conversely, meanness, are not among the rudimentary human qualities.

Since people live in societies, it is quite possible that it is optimal to have not a single type of people, but several mutually complementary types, each of which has its own, so to speak, ideal of a person.

Uncertainty in dividing people into the best and worst leaves room for natural selection, and natural selection acts slowly, at great cost and is able to drive humanity into an evolutionary dead end. But, on the other hand, such uncertainty is preferable to erroneous certainty, which existed, for example, in Nazi Germany: in conditions of uncertainty, individuals who objectively represent a significant value for society, but are not perceived by society as such, have more opportunities to survive and realize themselves.

Cattle and bastard

Yuri Stepanovich Ivanov

Predatory, of course, consider themselves superior to non-predatory people. One way or another, they “respect” each other. "Thieves in law" call themselves - "people". All this, in a completely paradoxical way, coexists with their ultimate egoism and mutual humiliation (and mutual destruction).

The self-names of most "wild peoples" and isolated tribes are also translated as "people." This is an echo of the earliest, completely "undocumented" period of human history. There was a deadly struggle with biological paleoanthropes-adelfophages, which then spread by inertia to human societies. All neighboring ethnic groups were both potentially and actually dangerous to each other. Each of the tribes, in an atmosphere of general hostility, did not mutually consider their neighbors to be people, singling out only themselves in this capacity. Now it is already quite a rare occurrence. Only his atavistic rarities remained - among other nationalities, in the "elites" of societies and in criminal circles.

Hardened criminals call all other people (i.e., mostly non-predatory) “fraers”. At the same time, they cannot call them "cooler", more insultingly. They do not have the logical ability to afford to define these same "fraers" as animals, not people. At the same time, they themselves all have such zoological and other "flattering" characteristics, and, moreover, they are numerous. "Subhuman", "murderers", "vipers", "jackals" ...

True, sometimes the authorities can afford the luxury of "taking their souls off" and expressing the most "brutal compliments" to the masses of the people, and as loud as they like. Because they themselves find themselves in the role of "outcast and oppressed." These are periods of popular uprisings and revolutions. Then, driven to despair, the enraged people cheerfully carry on the peaks the heads and scrotums of rulers, oppressors and their henchmen who did not have time to escape abroad, pluck peacocks in manor estates, invent more and more new "symbols and joys of freedom." But he does all this again under the "wise" guidance of predatory opposition leaders - demagogues. By apt definition, a demagogue is “a talker who seeks to make capital on public discontent and gain political influence” (suggestor, in a word).

This "abusive flow" speaks of people's awareness of the existence of an interspecies spiritual abyss. There is even an objective assessment of its "size" - "who is who", with a nominal indication and definition. But, to the greatest regret, this realization has a figurative, frivolous character. As if something insulting, but said in a temper. Ordinary people cannot understand that all this is extremely serious and incredibly scary! If they themselves are even "cattle", then they are already such a "scoundrel", that there is nowhere else to go. They themselves talk about this (as well as about many other things). Their thieves "swearing" is well known: "I will be a bastard!" This means that they promise in front of "their" not to behave extremely meanly, they swear to remain within the framework of "local" rules, although they are capable of anything, since they have to promise. And the fact that they are already archipudlo, this moment they do without silence. All this “crowned, financial and criminal beast” is really not people (!!). Not people in the sense in which this word should only be correctly understood.

Humans are humane rational beings. But the predatory, evil world does not allow people to lead a decent, kind life, does not let them out of the permanent state of "cattle".

"Cattle" to "scoundrel" - this is precisely the basic division of all communities on the Earth.

For representatives of predatory power, external symbols and attributes of their superiority and dominance are extremely important. External ostentatious paraphernalia for demonstrating their own social superiority is vital for them. They, bastard, are higher than ordinary people, this "cattle", and how can this be proved? After all, they do not have beautiful branched horns or a magnificent multi-colored tail! They are classified as "ugly" predators like hyenas, not lions or snow leopards. Vultures, in a word. So it remains for them, firstly, to demonstrate their own well-being in every possible way (this is not always easy), and secondly. (this is always possible!) they additionally, in order to increase the “difference”, need in any way and mercilessly oppress, humiliate bonded people, and thereby distance themselves from those whom they call “rabble”, “common people”, “dog krev” , "cattle". Therefore, the houses of the nobility were always higher than those of other strata of society. You can also add majestic tombs (“rest homes” of rulers after death) - the mounds of Europe, the mausoleums of Asia, the pyramids of Egypt and pre-Columbian America. All sorts of noticeable differences in clothing, expensive trinkets, etc., personal belongings - this is also their "style".

And at the same time, they will not tolerate if one of the "lower-ranking individuals" allows himself something like that. For them, this is a terrible blow, right in the breath. As if it suddenly turned out that their diamonds are no longer worth anything, now everyone has them, the boys play with them. P. Bazhov describes how a certain gentleman saw that the children of one serf were wearing boots, so he rotted this whole hard-working family. This sense of superiority arises in the predators from early childhood and they show extraordinary ingenuity in choosing the means of demonstrating their own "greatness". An illustrative account of an eyewitness about the morals that existed in a certain domestic orphanage. The bosses (informal leaders) of the children's team, for lack of anything (!), Except for satin shorts (south of the country, summer, heat), nevertheless managed to invent "symbols of power". No one, except for the juvenile ringleader and his several henchmen, had the right to lower his underpants at the back, exposing the buttocks, and so in a peculiar way “decollete”. It was their exclusive privilege. Violations of such "subordination" were mercilessly pursued. The only exception for whom an exception was made was for the son of the director of that orphanage (a “young escape” of the future, already an “adult” fusion of criminal structures with official power).

But to ensure the reliable functioning of criminal structures, predatory power does everything. To do this, she first needs the corruption of society. Alcohol, drugs, pornography, unbridled sex, stupidity, primitivization of people. All this is throwing them off, dragging them to their predatory, soulless level. Pulling into your swamp. The fight against crime is the purest appearance, a pseudo-sanitary measure. Losers are removed and beginners “finish their studies” in special schools - prisons.

In criminal caps, the performers are soldered, "put on a needle", corrupted. Unbridledness becomes their natural, unfettered behavior. Only on the "case" they are recommended to go in "form". In the same way, predatory power in every possible way lowers the moral level of the masses (the same performers). In the most undisguised form, this is exactly what is happening in our country right now. Fooling, corruption is going on in all areas of spiritual life. Religion did not escape this terrible fate. Many people, especially young people, find themselves in the networks of totalitarian sects. Every day, early in the morning, demonic performances “in Christ” by Western TV preachers-rogues are broadcast. These vile "theo-TV shows" are being forced on people, in addition to our homegrown Chumaks, "Chumichkas" and other evil spirits. Sorcerers, astrologers, witches, prophetesses, and other "psychotherapy". TV shows "Global forecast", "Third eye". "Pah, pah, pah" ... Indeed, I want to spit. Everyone's faces are cunning, vile, they are obviously nonsense. It can be seen that these are swindlers, swindlers. But people, poor fools, believe. Moreover, not some obscurantists believe, but also educated people. I know highly educated people who believe that the magic tricks from the television series The Miracles of David Copperfield are genuine miracles. Consider the talented American parody film "Zelig" really documentary. It took a lot of work to convince them. That's the power of the "screen" impact!

If the authorities wish, the fight against crime is not only possible, but has already been implemented, there is a positive experience. In the USSR of the 1960s, all thieves in law were placed in common areas, transferred to bread and water, forced to work, played against each other directly. And in a huge country for many years (that way for 15 years - almost a generation!) There was no organized crime of the gangster type. It is enough just to isolate the leaders, organizers, and law-abiding citizens can sleep peacefully.

But predatory power, as it turns out, crime is simply necessary. Only in this case does it have a “material and technical justification” for the presence of powerful punitive structures: they say, to ensure law and order. Although strong despotic governments (physical dictatorship) crime, especially “external”, street crime, is “not really needed”. They are strong and so, and they have absolutely no need to "justify" to someone. There is no one and no need to prove their need to restore and protect order in society. The people do not resist, but the "enemy" is needed. Predatory power is always purely instinctively looking for the "enemy", it is like a kind of unbearable itch. That is why powerful despotisms can "afford" a merciless spectacular fight against crime, allegedly "to the fullest." Cutting off hands, heads, public executions, etc.

The same was once "strong" and Soviet power. The fight against crime was carried out "in all seriousness" - albeit illegally, but effectively. Almost a whole generation did not know organized crime. Such measures, despite all their “quasi-legality”, always evoke enthusiastic approval from the broadest public. Apparently, this non-legal element is still necessary. According to the principle of "wedge by wedge". Law enforcement agencies are well aware of all the leaders of the criminal world, and "knit" them only for "non-payment of taxes" and for improper parking of cars. Otherwise, within the framework of the laws it is impossible.

Although it is clear that it is unrealistic to completely get rid of crime. Many crimes are committed by innocent people. From hopelessness, when life's tragic circumstances force you to commit a crime. Even more - out of stupidity, in a drunken shop, out of jealousy. Similarly, juvenile delinquency is ineradicable. It is directly related to the powerful, irresistible surge of sexuality in the maturing organism. But, in principle, if desired, it is easy to redirect most of this hard-to-control "puberty" energy of youth into harmless channels. This can be done with non-predatory reasonable power and, conversely, in totalitarian societies. Extremes meet. In “communist” Albania, obedient, disciplined youth went home as early as 10 pm. After the collapse of the system, the predatory government, overdoing it in robbing people, caused a popular uprising. But it’s okay, sooner or later the people’s cattle will be pacified, it won’t go anywhere from its stall (that, by the way, are the real, genuine (zoo) thoughts of the rulers there).

Another indestructible branch of crime is corruption. It will flourish as long as the state and money exist in the world. It is thanks to it that powerful “untouchable” layers of super-organized, practically unrevealed crime arise and prosper, having patrons at the very top: at high state levels. It has already become an unshakable, textbook axiom that sad fact that if the “strings” are pulled high enough during the investigation of any case, then the investigation will be in any way, up to the physical elimination of “too inquisitive”, but it will be necessarily covered up.

The only way to combat this very "elite" branch of crime in the existing conditions is "Stalinist", in its ideal version. The strictest control, capture and punishment of criminals in all echelons of power, regardless of rank. As it is always demagogically declared, everyone is equal before the law. In fact, criminal officials have many opportunities to circumvent these same laws, for them "the law is like a drawbar." A rigid mechanism for fighting crime is also unthinkable in the notorious Western democracy. There, too, only an appearance is created. The Stalinist method, for all its ruthlessness, really hit the wrong targets, mostly small fry came across. But on the other hand, unlike the Western punitive system of justice, large sharks were often rewarded “according to merit” here. And this is a gratifying fact, although it does not decide anything, but simply in itself, like a beautiful illustration in a terribly boring book.

It is here that the roots of the nation's ardent love for Stalin grow. For his alleged justice and tireless, vigilant catching of all sorts of filth among the authorities. The mere appearance of justice for the people's consciousness turned out to be quite enough. And this love still lingers, despite any idle reminiscences about “camp dust”, about “black crows”, about unfortunate people “without the right to correspond”, etc. Everything was forgiven to Stalin - even those who were subjected to flagrant arbitrariness did not blame him. Non-predatory people are quick-witted and forgiving. For a diffuse look, it's like "unrequited love." Albeit to a not very worthy object, but - love. And diffuse people cannot be blamed for the fact that they are looking for a tyrant. This is a natural manifestation of the herd instinct. They vitally need leaders. But they need good, non-predatory leaders, and these vacancies are mainly filled by predatory monsters. A buffalo herd should be led by the best buffalo, not a pack of spotted hyenas.

"PRISON EXPERIMENT"

Predatory rulers, these relic "Caesars" and "satraps" of the modern world do not need true knowledge about man. For them, only the psychological methods of manipulating the "herd, cattle" are important. And they hinder human self-knowledge in every possible way, feeling perfectly well that this is not in their interests. “Power and truth do not mix. This is the bitter truth."

Notable in this regard is the famous "prison experiment" conducted in the early 1970s. Two dozen student volunteers, under the supervision of the American psychologist Philip Zimbardo, participated in a kind of game of "prison". They were divided by lot into two groups, who played the roles of guards and prisoners in mock prison conditions. To participate in the experiment, people were selected with normal indicators for all the tests presented to them, however, after spending only a few days in the “prison”, they behaved strangely, abnormally. way. "Guards", at first simply imperious, began to treat the "prisoners" cruelly, sometimes sadistically. The "prisoners" reacted to this show of power with behavioral disorganization, a sense of helplessness, and, ultimately, dull submissiveness. The experiment, designed for two weeks, had to be interrupted after only six days due to a dramatic change in the personality and moral values of the subjects that had taken place in the "prison" conditions. Everyone was traumatized, and even Zimbardo himself felt that he was beginning to take the interests of his "prison" too seriously. The requirements of the social role turned out to be stronger than the moral imperatives and ideas of the individual about himself. How is it possible that people, having distributed these roles by tossing a coin, so easily got used to them? It came to violent conflicts, fights, beatings, bullying, etc. The participants in the experiment reached the "norm" that exists in real prisons. And the experiment was involuntarily terminated.

This is what is suspicious. Why was the experiment suddenly stopped, and not corrected and moved on?! It could not be stopped, it was necessary to find out whether its participants would come out of their roles “with honor”, would they come to their senses? But it was stopped, and the fact that “ordinary guys” unexpectedly for everyone (including themselves) became incredibly cruel and therefore the experiment had to be stopped, this was exactly what was exaggerated in the press for a long time.

How to explain this cruelty, which manifested itself during the experiment? Its roots should be sought in the "diffuse insufficiency" of its participants. Here, as in a drop of water, the situation in the whole society was reflected. A society can sustain a certain amount of carnivores in its ranks. And even those in such peaceful communities try not to “stick out” too much. Are hiding. But when a certain quantitative threshold is exceeded, an avalanche-like growth of aggressiveness, crime, and immorality follows. The same thing is observed, as A. Tocqueville noted, with the weakening of social ties in society. (This is what is happening now in our country). The same, in miniature, happened in Zimbardo's experiment. The predatory component among its participants turned out to be excessive (as well as the extremely predatory rules of the "game" itself).

From a specific position, the "prison experiment" was carried out with blatant incorrectness and extremely primitive. So the question arises - is it not on purpose ?! We must also take into account the fact that psychologists and psychiatrists, as a rule, are suggestors. But it is no longer possible to determine who was who in those two dozen students recruited for the ill-fated experiment.

Urla, mob, rabble, rabble, gopota, boorish people, common people, scum, plebs, bastard Dictionary of Russian synonyms. cattle n., number of synonyms: 52 most of the people (4) ... Synonym dictionary

Cattle, ah, cf. (simple. contempt.). About people who wordlessly perform for someone. hard work. Explanatory dictionary of Ozhegov. S.I. Ozhegov, N.Yu. Shvedova. 1949 1992 ... Explanatory dictionary of Ozhegov

redneck- 1. A person of low spiritual culture, poorly educated. Do not behave like a cattle, at least here in the theater! Youth slang 2. A person who thinks all the time in a conditional modality. Yur, well, enough already: “Now if yayaaaa, but if ... ... Dictionary of modern vocabulary, jargon and slang

Cattle, southern, western; Ukrainian beadlo, blr. redneck, Polish bydɫo - the same. In east. glory. loans. from Polish. Wed Czech bydlo residence, residence, c. puddles bydɫo flat, n. puddles bydɫo. The last words are related to lit. būkla accommodation,… … Etymological Dictionary of the Russian Language by Max Fasmer

I cf. 1. Working cattle. 2. trans. People who do hard work and occupy a low social position. II cf. 1. unfold reduced Spiritually undeveloped, wordlessly submissive people who obey someone else's will and allow themselves to be exploited. ... ... Modern explanatory dictionary of the Russian language Efremova

Cattle, cattle, cattle, cattle, cattle, cattle, cattle, cattle, cattle, cattle, cattle, cattle (Source: "Full accentuated paradigm according to A. A. Zaliznyak") ... Forms of words

redneck- it would be crazy, but ... Russian spelling dictionary

BUT; cf. collected [from Polish. bydło cattle] Despise. About people dutifully submitting to someone else's will and spending their lives in hard, exhausting labor for someone else. / About people from the lower social strata. ● Initially, the word was used contemptuously for ... ... encyclopedic Dictionary

redneck- 1) a physically strong person; 2) well working in ITU; 3) a rude, uncouth person; 4) a person with an abnormal psyche ... Thieves' jargon

redneck- a; Wed, collected. (from Polish bydło cattle); despises. a) About people dutifully submitting to someone else's will and spending their lives in hard, exhausting labor for someone. b) ext. About people from the lower social strata. Initially, the word was used contemptuously ... Dictionary of many expressions

Books

Stories about Modern Heroes of Russia and Ukraine, . Usually, when reading about some modern "heroes" (representatives of show business, artists, politicians and other representatives of glamor), we plunge our minds into something dirty, because the goal of these people ...
In whose interests Putin is acting, Yuri Mukhin. Yuri Ignatievich Mukhin is a well-known opposition politician and publicist, writer. In 2015, he was placed in a pre-trial detention center for trying to hold a referendum on confidence in the authorities in Russia and then released under ...

7 In everyday speech, many words are used that offend the honor and dignity of any individual. However, not everyone knows the true meaning, and even more so the origin of such terms. Therefore, add our website to your bookmarks so that you can visit us from time to time. Today we will analyze such a popular word in narrow circles as Cattle, which means you can read a little lower.
However, before you continue, I would like to recommend you some sensible articles on the topic of insults. For example, who is Lashpak, which means the word Outsider, who is called Skin, which means pasty, etc.
So let's continue what does bydlo mean? This term has West Slavic roots, the original meaning remained in the Czech language "bydlo", which can be translated as "seat", " being". Much later, this word came into Polish speech, and at first meant "dwelling", then "property", "property", and in the end, starting from the 14th century, it began to mean "livestock" (bydle). Ukrainians borrowed this word " beadlo", for them it began to mean" people equated to cattle. "Already from the Ukrainian language, it got into Russian, where it acquired today's meaning.

redneck- a person with a low level of development and needs, easily influenced by others

redneck- these are people with the attributes of an animal, for example, cattle, which are characterized by herding, insensitivity to other people's experiences, stupidity, rudeness. The language of power, the only one they can understand and understand

redneck- this is a person who, with his disgusting and unpredictable behavior, hurts the feelings of the surrounding citizens. His interests and motivations are closed only on himself.

Synonym of the word Cattle: marginal, lumpen, gopnik.

Example:

I was returning home at night, I was harassed, some three rednecks.

Every day, passing by the neighboring entrance, I see a company of rednecks who sit there from morning until evening. What they live on is not clear, muddy personalities.

Stop throwing trash past the bin, because you don't want everyone to consider you a cattle.

The advantage of cattle is that against its background anyone will feel their perfection.

For " cattle ordinary" tend to violate the foundations of society, not obey anyone, and offend those who follow the public order. For these people, only their leader, who is distinguished by real strength and the ability to destroy other people's destinies or even lives in a particularly cruel way, is the authority. "skin", makes these outcasts imitate their idol in order to become kindly treated by him and enter the inner circle.The appearance of the cattle is very characteristic, they usually wear sweatpants with "abibass" stripes, squat, smoke sizhki and gnaw seeds. All of them behavior is fraught with a hidden threat, and it is better to bypass such types in another way.
The phenomenon of cattle is now spreading among all strata of society, from schoolchildren to intelligent and educated people. Redneck defiantly tries to separate himself from power and society, doing the strangest things, starting with throwing garbage out of the window or nailing his scrotum to the paving stones. Any gopnik is a cattle, but not all cattle is gopniks.

Today we can observe the birth of another subspecies of cattle, the so-called "liberal cattle". We all know that liberals, for the most part, are narrow-minded, and in some places completely stupid citizens who can be influenced. However, the irony is that liberal redneck, considers himself intelligent and very erudite people. Watching this subspecies of cattle for several years, I made an amazing conclusion - they are cerebral palsy, and the most natural,

Cattle

Working cattle.

People who do hard work and occupy a low social position.

1. decel.-decrease.

Spiritually undeveloped, wordlessly submissive people who obey someone else's will and allow themselves to be exploited.

It is used as a derogatory or abusive word.

Large modern explanatory dictionary of the Russian language. 2012