consent [Theme]

Woland: - Amazing!

People expect tacit consent and then feel confident in the situation.

Diana Prince was a woman who believed in harmony, friendship, reconciliation, unity. She argued that any outburst of hatred can be eclipsed by the slightest manifestation of love.

“I’m glad,” the girl answered sincerely and thought in surprise: “Why, I wonder, did his consent bring me such joy?”

Everything in creation that I don't know exists without my consent.

Men hate women and women hate women. On this we are in full agreement.

I used to think that in order to satisfy the need for romantic love and sexual relationships, while in marriage, there were only two choices: monogamy or infidelity. None of the options worked for me. It turned out that there is a third solution: polyamory, or emotionally open, conscious and responsible non-monogamy.

Widespread paternalistic sentiments in society. Confidence that all problems should be solved by the state. Or someone else, but not everyone is in their place. The desire to "make oneself", to achieve personal success step by step, is not our national habit. Hence the lack of initiative, the lack of new ideas, unresolved issues, the low quality of public discussion, including critical speeches. Public consent and support is usually expressed in silence. Objections are very often emotional, biting, but at the same time superficial and irresponsible. Well, Russia has been familiar with these phenomena for more than a hundred years.

- ... After all, only I can give you the love that you deserve, Chris. And remember: pain is what connects our hearts with you. That's how everything is arranged.

A person can receive consent from everything that surrounds him.

Written requests are easier to reject, and written orders are easier to give than verbal ones.

He who feeds on acorns picked up under an oak tree, or apples plucked from trees in the forest, undoubtedly made them his own. No one can deny that this food belongs to him. I ask, when did they start to be his? when did he digest them? or when did you eat? or when did you cook? or when did you bring them home? or when did he pick them up? And it is quite clear that if they did not belong to him at the moment when he collected them, then they will no longer be able to belong to him due to anything. His work created a distinction between them and the general; he added to them something beyond what nature, the common mother of all, had created, and thus they became his private right. And who can say that he had no right to these acorns or apples, which he thus appropriated, since he did not have the consent of all mankind to make them his own? Was it a theft to take for oneself in this way what belonged to all together? If such consent were necessary, then the person would die of hunger, despite the abundance that God gave him. We see in cases of common ownership, which remains such by contract, that it is the withdrawal of a part of what is common, and its withdrawal from the state in which nature left it, that initiates property, without which everything common is not useful. And the withdrawal of one or the other part does not depend on the clearly expressed consent of all joint owners. Thus, the grass that my horse nibbled, the sod that my servant cut, and the ore that I mined in any place where I have in common with others, become my property without the prescription or consent of anyone. The labor that was mine, bringing them out of the state of common possession in which they were, established my ownership of them.

The law of the Universe is the agreement between its separate parts. Everything that interferes with the work of the whole organism is suppressed. The Lord God does not try to destroy Evil, because it is impossible, He wants to restore complete balance between Good and Evil.

The processes I have described (taking place in America), on the one hand, and ideology, on the other hand, are in no way connected with each other, and this will not end well. And our task is not to invent something for ourselves and find ourselves in the same situation, but our task is to responsibly and accurately control the course of the historical process, and ideological statements must correspond to this. If we do this, we will maintain social cohesion, which is incredibly important. Remember the problem of the Soviet Union. For 20-30 years the party was talking about one thing, but the processes and the consciousness of people were about something completely different. Now this is the situation in America.