submission [Theme] Page 1

They didn't have to love her. They had to obey.

IMPORTANT EVENTS: Born, died, died, died, died, died, died, died, died, died, died, died, died, died, took some type of body, died again, and died again, as always died, became a man, stopped being a man, died, died, became a woman, cool!

How frustrating it is to rely on weapons that don't obey orders.

Since there is power, then there are domination and subordination, those who command, and those who must obey. The masses are the bearers of subordination, the gentlemen are the commanding, no matter how they camouflage themselves.

He grinned, but I understood: years of servile submission to the two-legged ensure that he will treat me with some degree of respect due to the fact that I, too, walk on two legs.

Beasts should know only two words:
training and obedience!

There is nothing easier than obeying the rules of the company.

We all say what America will do about Russia. And my question is: what will Russia do about America? Can we articulate any goals for America? Unfortunately, no. And this is the weakness of our position. There are three options. First. Complete submission. This option is absolutely unacceptable. The second option is roughly what we're doing now. You don't touch us, and we don't touch you. That's a pretty weak position. We will have to constantly discuss what other measures America will take against us. And the third position is to do something about America yourself. The crisis in America opens up certain opportunities. And against this background, writing reports on how we reconcile with NATO will only play in their favor. So the third position is as follows. if we constantly talk about readiness for dialogue, we place ourselves in the position of the victim in advance. Think. that America will stop enmity with us, and stop attacking us... It won't be like that. And since such opportunities open, and maybe try? How - that's another question. Stop being a potential victim. our attitude towards America. First. Define a goal. What do we want to be inside America? Second. What do we want on the outer circuit? Third. We are waiting for provocations from America. Or maybe arrange a provocation yourself?

When uniforms are donned by inhumanity and lawlessness, it is the duty of every person to disobey.

Fly with us! Become Rebels!

If we impose our requests as demands, then in return we will receive either submission or rebellion, not contact.

What does it mean to "believe in a person"? What can such faith be based on and what can it be? And then - what kind of person are we talking about? About some abstract, a team man with a capital letter, who does not yet exist and who will appear, so to speak, in the future? Or about each individual, living, specific person? From a Christian point of view, there are no difficulties here. When Christianity speaks of man, it really means every single living person. For his sake, it is said in the Gospel, ninety-nine other people must be abandoned, he is clothed with the image and likeness of God, he is called to eternity, and therefore his fate, the fate of even the most insignificant and socially insignificant person, is as important as the fate of the leader, genius, scientist. Even the Christian doctrine of death and salvation, the doctrine over which the propagandists of godlessness are so fond of mocking, is based on faith in the personal responsibility of each person and on faith in his freedom: I want - I am saved, I want - I die; and no one, not even God, can do anything against this freedom. I repeat: when Christianity talks about faith in man, it is clear. This doctrine can not be shared, it can be argued with, but it is impossible to deny that it is based on the affirmation of each individual human person as an infinite value, and value, moreover, eternal. "What good is it for a man if he acquires the whole world, and damages his soul?" (Matthew 16:26). As long as these words are heard on earth, as long as people remember the paradoxical Evangelical arithmetic, according to which one is always more valuable and more important than ninety-nine, it will not be possible to destroy the human personality, it will not be possible, therefore, to build to the end an already collectivized humanity, which will call its slavery freedom, its subordination to the impersonal benefit - rights, its prison - an earthly paradise. How terrible that so many do not yet understand that totalitarianism in all its forms is opposed on our earth only one thing - faith in God, who created man in His image and in his likeness, who called him to freedom and to eternity - this, and nothing else. The dispute of our age is a religious dispute and a dispute about religion; not to understand this, not to see the connection of all the terrible problems of our time with the depths of religious worldview - this is the same as hiding your head in the likeness of an ostrich under the wing. Distant or near? Man or humanity? Where to start, in the name of what to create? - Here are the questions that sooner or later, but will have to be answered by all mankind.

Addressing the clarification of the phenomenon of authority, A. Kojève distinguishes between political tyranny and despotism. Tyranny and Wisdom (1950) analyzes the secret desire of the tyrant (and of any politician) to direct a person's choice through the organization of "obedience without coercion." Submission to a politician is all the more connected with "authority", the less the authorities resort to pure violent power (including the threat thereof). In other words, the politician seeks recognition from equals - insofar as the alleged "equality" does not turn into a threat to his very power. Since a politician (as a politician) is driven by the desire for recognition, and the value of recognition is directly proportional to the degree of his inherent "voluntariness", the ideal to which a politician aspires is defined by "universal recognition" in its form. Thus, the “reasonable tyrant” seeks to abolish tyranny, to the extent that this abolition is not utopian at the present moment in time, as well as to build an effective network of social communication that eliminates the excessive use of force.

Question: since there are different level of spirits, is there among them a hierarchy of power, and subject to whether the lower spirits higher?
Answer: Yes, perfumes have the power of one over the other, corresponding to their superiority, which is an irresistible moral influence.
Question: Lower spirits can evade obedience to the highest?
Answer: I said, their influence is insurmountable.