Yes, I, Shamil Arsenovich Chigoev, am turning 95. Even I can hardly believe it. I was born on September 15, 1930. The fact that I’ve reached this age is nothing extraordinary in itself. What truly matters are the historical events my life has spanned across the Russian Empire and beyond.

I’ve already written in detail about the circumstances of my life and won’t repeat myself here. Instead, I wish to reflect on the problems arising from relations between people of different ethnicities – and whether it’s ever reasonable to create such divisions that breed hatred.

My life journey has been complex, partly because I belong to a small nation (Ossetian) yet have always lived among larger ethnic groups. Personally, I never experienced oppression or humiliation for my ethnicity. That’s simply how my life unfolded.

I was born in an Ossetian village where my mother left me until age three. Thereafter, I grew up in Tbilisi as an ordinary local boy, never feeling any distinction in how I was treated as an Ossetian compared to Georgian boys. My native language became Georgian. I graduated high school with honors and earned a red diploma from the History Department – all in Georgian. I was raised on Georgian culture: its literature, poetry, and folk music. The Georgian people shaped me. My closest friends were Georgian schoolmates, and my one great love – whom I met in 1947 and married in 1952 – was Georgian: Macharashvili. She stood by me through my military service from private to colonel, bore me four daughters, and tragically passed in 2020. Her devotion was unwavering, even during my most challenging postings – though she wasn’t permitted to join my life-threatening assignment in Cuba due to our children.

Ours was a mixed Ossetian-Georgian marriage, common in those days across Georgia and Ossetia.

I lived 61 years under Soviet rule, serving 30 years in the army across seven republics: Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Kapustin Yar, Cuba, the Far North, Ulan-Ude, Krasnoyarsk, and near Moscow. Never did I witness ethnic hostility – save for subdued anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan (where Armenians russified their surnames). The Soviet system suppressed nationalism rigorously.

No one could have imagined such a vast, powerful nation collapsing so swiftly. But the true tragedy wasn’t the dissolution itself – it was the transformation of a “brotherly union” into boundless mutual hatred among Soviet peoples. This phenomenon remains beyond my comprehension.

To be Continued...

As The Temperature Dropped – Cold War History Through a Poetic Lens

Body:

“The winds of change were never warm.”

This piece retells the Cold War’s origin with fire, silence, and human psychology at its core. It’s not just a timeline—it’s a reflection on what happens to a nation when fear replaces memory, and how propaganda shapes the very soul of history.

Free to read, because truth should never be locked away.

Full post on Ko-Fi:

https://ko-fi.com/post/As-The-Temperature-Dropped-W7W5ZSFCE

Direct PDF download:

https://ko-fi.com/s/9f7b5d67cc

Subject index: Cold War, History, Free Download, Truman, Stalin, Political Writing, Educational, E-book, Nonfiction, PDF, Antiwar, Geopolitics, US History, Soviet Union, Storytelling, Poetic Nonfiction

When Tolstoy speaks of Christianity, he's referring to his more objective, philosophical, non-supernatural interpretation of his translation of the Gospels: The Gospel In Brief. For context: https://lemmy.world/post/23133528

These posts serve as additional context if you're interested:

1. The Intoxication Of Power: https://lemmy.world/post/28177344

2. Truth And Auto Suggestion: https://lemmy.world/post/29118589

"Hypocrisy, which had formerly only a religious basis in the doctrine of original sin, the redemption, and the Church, has in our day gained a new scientific basis and has consequently caught in its nets all those who had reached too high a stage of development to be able to find support in religious hypocrisy. So that while in former days a man who professed the religion of the Church could take part in all the crimes of the state, and profit by them, and still regard himself as free from any taint of sin, so long as he fulfilled the external observances of his creed, nowadays all who do not believe in the Christianity of the Church, find similar well-founded irrefutable reasons in science for regarding themselves as blameless and even highly moral in spite of their participation in the misdeeds of government and the advantages they gain from them.

A rich landowner—not only in Russia, but in France, England, Germany, or America—lives on the rents exacted from the people living on his land, and robs these generally poverty-stricken people of all he can get from them. This man's right of property in the land rests on the fact that at every effort on the part of the oppressed people, without his consent, to make use of the land he considers his, troops are called out to subject them to punishment and murder. One would have thought that it was obvious that a man living in this way was an evil, egoistic creature and could not possibly consider himself a Christian or a liberal. One would have supposed it evident that the first thing such a man must do, if he wishes to approximate to Christianity or liberalism, would be to cease to plunder and ruin men by means of acts of state violence in support of his claim to the land. And so it would be if it were not for the logic of hypocrisy, which reasons that from a religious point of view possession or non-possession of land is of no consequence for salvation, and from the scientific point of view, giving up the ownership of land is a useless individual renunciation, and that the welfare of mankind is not promoted in that way, but by a gradual modification of external forms. And so we see this man, without the least trouble of mind or doubt that people will believe in his sincerity, organizing an agricultural exhibition, or a temperance society, or sending some soup and stockings by his wife or children to three old women, and boldly in his family, in drawing rooms, in committees, and in the press, advocating the Gospel or humanitarian doctrine of love for one's neighbor in general and the agricultural laboring population in particular whom he is continually exploiting and oppressing. And other people who are in the same position as he believe him, commend him, and solemnly discuss with him measures for ameliorating the condition of the working-class, on whose exploitation their whole life rests, devising all kinds of possible methods for this, except the one without which all improvement of their condition is impossible, i. e., refraining from taking from them the land necessary for their subsistence. (A striking example of this hypocrisy was the solicitude displayed by the Russian landowners last year, their efforts to combat the famine which they had caused, and by which they profited, selling not only bread at the highest price, but even potato haulm at five rubles the dessiatine (about 2 acres) for fuel to the freezing peasants.

Or take a merchant whose whole trade—like all trade indeed—is founded on a series of trickery, by means of which, profiting by the ignorance or need of others, he buys goods below their value and sells them again above their value. One would have fancied it obvious that a man whose whole occupation was based on what in his own language is called swindling, if it is done under other conditions, ought to be ashamed of his position, and could not any way, while he continues a merchant, profess himself a Christian or a liberal.

But the sophistry [the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving] of hypocrisy reasons that the merchant can pass for a virtuous man without giving up his pernicious [having a harmful effect, especially in a gradual or subtle way] course of action; a religious man need only have faith and a liberal man need only promote the modification of external conditions—the progress of industry. And so we see the merchant (who often goes further and commits acts of direct dishonesty, selling, adulterated goods, using false weights and measures, and trading in products injurious to health, such as alcohol and opium) boldly regarding himself and being regarded by others, so long as he does not directly deceive his colleagues in business, as a pattern of probity [the quality of having strong moral principles] and virtue. And if he spends a thousandth part of his stolen wealth on some public institution, a hospital or museum or school, then he is even regarded as the benefactor of the people on the exploitation and corruption of whom his whole prosperity has been founded: if he sacrifices, too, a portion of his ill-gotten gains on a Church and the poor, then he is an exemplary Christian.

A manufacturer is a man whose whole income consists of value squeezed out of the workmen, and whose whole occupation is based on forced, unnatural labor, exhausting whole generations of men. It would seem obvious that if this man professes any Christian or liberal principles, he must first of all give up ruining human lives for his own profit. But by the existing theory he is promoting industry, and he ought not to abandon his pursuit. It would even be injuring society for him to do so. And so we see this man, the harsh slave-driver of thousands of men, building almshouses with little gardens two yards square for the workmen broken down in toiling for him, and a bank, and a poorhouse, and a hospital—fully persuaded that he has amply expiated [atone for (guilt or sin)] in this way for all the human lives morally and physically ruined by him—and calmly going on with his business, taking pride in it.

Any civil, religious, or military official in government employ, who serves the state from vanity, or, as is most often the case, simply for the sake of the pay wrung from the harassed and toilworn working classes (all taxes, however raised, always fall on labor), if he, as is very seldom the case, does not directly rob the government in the usual way, considers himself, and is considered by his fellows, as a most useful and virtuous member of society. A judge or a public prosecutor knows that through his sentence or his prosecution hundreds or thousands of poor wretches are at once torn from their families and thrown into prison, where they may go out of their minds, kill themselves with pieces of broken glass, or starve themselves; he knows that they have wives and mothers and children, disgraced and made miserable by separation from them, vainly begging for pardon for them or some alleviation of their sentence, and this judge or this prosecutor is so hardened in his hypocrisy that he and his fellows and his wife and his household are all fully convinced that he may be a most exemplary man. According to the metaphysics of hypocrisy it is held that he is doing a work of public utility. And this man who has ruined hundreds, thousands of men, who curse him and are driven to desperation by his action, goes to mass, a smile of shining benevolence on his smooth face, in perfect faith in good and in God, listens to the Gospel, caresses his children, preaches moral principles to them, and is moved by imaginary sufferings.

All these men and those who depend on them, their wives, tutors, children, cooks, actors, jockeys, and so on, are living on the blood which by one means or another, through one set of blood-suckers or another, is drawn out of the working class, and every day their pleasures cost hundreds or thousands of days of labor. They see the sufferings and privations of these laborers and their children, their aged, their wives, and their sick, they know the punishments inflicted on those who resist this organized plunder, and far from decreasing, far from concealing their luxury, they insolently display it before these oppressed laborers who hate them, as though intentionally provoking them with the pomp of their parks and palaces, their theaters, hunts, and races. At the same time they continue to persuade themselves and others that they are all much concerned about the welfare of these working classes, whom they have always trampled under their feet, and on Sundays, richly dressed, they drive in sumptuous [splendid and expensive looking] carriages to the houses of God built in very mockery of Christianity, and there listen to men, trained to this work of deception, who in white neckties or in brocaded vestments, according to their denomination, preach the love for their neighbor which they all gainsay [deny or contradict (a fact or statement)] in their lives. And these people have so entered into their part that they seriously believe that they really are what they pretend to be.

The universal hypocrisy has so entered into the flesh and blood of all classes of our modern society, it has reached such a pitch that nothing in that way can rouse indignation [feeling or showing anger or annoyance at what is perceived as unfair treatment]. Hypocrisy in the Greek means "acting," and acting—playing a part—is always possible. The representatives of Christ give their blessing to the ranks of murderers holding their guns loaded against their brothers; "for prayer" priests, ministers of various Christian sects are always present, as indispensably as the hangman, at executions, and sanction by their presence the compatibility of murder with Christianity (a clergyman assisted at the attempt at murder by electricity in America)—but such facts cause no one any surprise.

There was recently held at Petersburg an international exhibition of instruments of torture, handcuffs, models of solitary cells, that is to say instruments of torture worse than knouts or rods, and sensitive ladies and gentlemen went and amused themselves by looking at them. No one is surprised that together with its recognition of liberty, equality, and fraternity, liberal science should prove the necessity of war, punishment, customs, the censure, the regulation of prostitution, the exclusion of cheap foreign laborers, the hindrance of emigration, the justifiableness of colonization, based on poisoning and destroying whole races of men called savages, and so on.

People talk of the time when all men shall profess what is called Christianity (that is, various professions of faith hostile to one another), when all shall be well-fed and clothed, when all shall be united from one end of the world to the other by telegraphs and telephones, and be able to communicate by balloons, when all the working classes are permeated by socialistic doctrines, when the Trades Unions possess so many millions of members and so many millions of rubles, when everyone is educated and all can read newspapers and learn all the sciences. But what good or useful thing can come of all these improvements, if men do not speak and act in accordance with what they believe to be the truth?

The condition of men is the result of their disunion. Their disunion results from their not following the truth which is one, but falsehoods which are many. The sole means of uniting men is their union in the truth. And therefore the more sincerely men strive toward the truth, the nearer they get to unity. But how can men be united in the truth or even approximate to it, if they do not even express the truth they know, but hold that there is no need to do so, and pretend to regard as truth what they believe to be false? And therefore no improvement is possible so long as men are hypocritical and hide the truth from themselves, so long as they do not recognize that their union and therefore their welfare is only possible in the truth, and do not put the recognition and profession of the truth revealed to them higher than everything else." - Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom Of God Is Within You, Chapter Twelve: "Conclusion—Repent Ye, For The Kingdom Of Heaven Is At Hand"

"From my sixth or seventh year up to my sixteenth I was at school, being taught all sorts of things except religion. I may say that I failed to get from the teachers what they could have given me without any effort on their part. And yet I kept on picking up things here and there from my surroundings. The term 'religion' I am using in its broadest sense, meaning thereby self-realization or knowledge of self. Being born in the Vaishnava faith, I had often to go to the Haveli [extravagant mansions or townhouses] But it never appealed to me. I did not like its glitter and pomp. Also I heard rumours of immorality being practised there, and lost all interest in it. Hence I could gain nothing from the Haveli. But what I failed to get there I obtained from my nurse, an old servant of the family, whose affection for me I still recall. I have said before that there was in me a fear of ghosts and spirits. Rambha, for that was her name, suggested, as a remedy for this fear, the repetition of Ramanama (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramanama). I had more faith in her than in her remedy, and so at a tender age I began repeating Ramanama to cure my fear of ghosts and spirits. This was of course, short-lived, but the good seed sown in childhood was not sown in vain. I think it is due to the seed sown by that good woman Rambha that today Ramanama is an infallible remedy for me.

Just about this time, a cousin of mine who was a devotee of the Ramayana (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramayana) arranged for my second brother and me to learn Rama Raksha (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rama_Raksha_Stotra). We got it by heart, and made it a rule to recite it every morning after the bath. The practice was kept up as long as we were in Porbandar. As soon as we reached Rajkot, it was forgotten. For I had not much belief in it. I recited it partly because of my pride in being able to recite Rama Raksha with correct pronunciation. What, however, left a deep impression on me was the reading of the Ramayana before my father. During part of his illness my father was in Porbandar. There every evening he used to listen to the Ramayana. The reader was a great devotee of Rama—Ladha Maharaj of Bileshvar. It was said of him that he cured himself of his leprosy not by any medicine, but by applying to the affected parts bilva leaves which had been cast away after being offered to the image of Mahadev in Bileshvar temple, and by the regular repetition of Ramanama. His faith, it was said, had made him whole. This may or may not be true. We at any rate believed the story. And it is a fact that when Ladha Maharaj began his reading of the Ramayana his body was entirely free from leprosy. He had a melodious voice. He would sing the Dohas (couplets) and Chopais (quatrains), and explain them, losing himself in the discourse and carrying his listeners along with him. I must have been thirteen at that time, but I quite remember being enraptured by his reading. That laid the foundation of my deep devotion to the Ramayana. Today I regard the Ramayana of Tulasidas (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/68903521) as the greatest book in all devotional literature.

A few months after this we came to Rajkot. There was no Ramayana reading there. The Bhagavat, however, used to be read on every Ekadashi day (eleventh day of the bright and the dark half of a lunar month). Sometimes I attended the reading, but the reciter was uninspiring. Today I see that the Bhagavat is a book which can evoke religious fervour. I have read it in Gujarati with intense interest. But when I heard portions of the original read by Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya during my twenty-one days' fast, I wished I had heard it in my childhood from such a devotee as he is, so that I could have formed a liking for it at an early age. Impressions formed at that age strike roots deep down into one's nature, and it is my perpetual regret that I was not fortunate enough to hear more good books of this kind read during that period. In Rajkot, however, I got an early grounding in toleration for all branches of Hinduism and sister religions. For my father and mother would visit the Haveli as also Shiva's and Rama's temples, and would take or send us youngsters there. Jain monks also would pay frequent visits to my father, and would even go out of their way to accept food from us—non-Jains. They would have talks with my father on subjects religious and mundane. He had, besides, Musalman and Parsi friends, who would talk to him about their own faiths, and he would listen to them always with respect, and often with interest. Being his nurse, I often had a chance to be present at these talks. These many things combined to inculcate in me a toleration for all faiths.

Only Christianity was at the time an exception. I developed a sort of dislike for it. And for a reason. In those days Christian missionaries used to stand in a corner near the high school and hold forth, pouring abuse on Hindus and their gods. I could not endure this. I must have stood there to hear them once only, but that was enough to dissuade me from repeating the experiment [Gandhi might of even hated what they were doing, but that didn’t stop him from being open minded enough to at least consider them]. About the same time, I heard of a well-known Hindu having been converted to Christianity. It was the talk of the town that, when he was baptized, he had to eat beef and drink liquor, that he also had to change his clothes, and that thenceforth he began to go about in European costume including a hat. These things got on my nerves. Surely, thought I, a religion that compelled one to eat beef, drink liquor, and change one's own clothes did not deserve the name. I also heard that the new convert had already begun abusing the religion of his ancestors, their customs and their country. All these things created in me a dislike for Christianity. But the fact that I had learnt to be tolerant of other religions did not mean that I had any living faith in God. I happened, about this time, to come across Manusmriti (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manusmriti) which was amongst my father's collection. The story of the creation and similar things in it did not impress me very much, but on the contrary made me incline somewhat towards atheism.

There was a cousin of mine, still alive, for whose intellect I had great regard. To him I turned with my doubts. But he could not resolve them. He sent me away with this answer: 'When you grow up, you will be able to solve these doubts yourself. These questions ought not to be raised at your age.' I was silenced, but was not comforted. Chapters about diet and the like in Manusmriti seemed to me to run contrary to daily practice. To my doubts as to this also, I got the same answer. 'With intellect more developed and with more reading I shall understand it better,' I said to myself. Manusmriti at any rate did not then teach me Ahimsa (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahimsa). I have told the story of my meat-eating. Manusmriti seemed to support it. I also felt that it was quite moral to kill serpents, bugs and the like. I remember to have killed at that age bugs and such other insects, regarding it as a duty [holding the opposite perspective when he became older and wiser].

But one thing took deep root in me—the conviction that morality is the basis of things, and that truth is the substance of all morality. Truth became my sole objective. It began to grow in magnitude every day, and my definition of it also has been ever widening. A Gujarati didactic stanza likewise gripped my mind and heart. Its precept—return good for evil—[Matt 5:38 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=ESV)] became my guiding principle. It became such a passion with me that I began numerous experiments in it. Here are those (for me) wonderful lines:"

• For a bowl of water give a goodly meal;
• For a kindly greeting bow thou down with zeal;
• For a simple penny pay thou back with gold;
• If thy life be rescued, life do not withhold.
• Thus the words and actions of the wise regard;
• Every little service tenfold they reward.
• But the truly noble know all men as one,
• And return with gladness good for evil done.

—Mahatma Gandhi, The Story Of My Experiments With Truth, Part One, Chapter Ten: "Glimpses of Religion"

Gandhi's "Acquaintance With Religions:" https://lemmy.world/post/26685464

The Basis Of Things: https://lemmy.world/post/25358461

When Tolstoy speaks of Christianity, he's referring to his more objective, philosophical, non-supernatural interpretation of his translation of the Gospels: The Gospel In Brief. For context: https://lemmy.world/post/23133528

This is a direct continuation of Tolstoy's "the intoxication of power:" https://lemmy.world/post/28177344

"So, for example, in the case before us, men are going to murder and torture the famishing, and they admit that in the dispute between the peasants and the landowner the peasants are right (all those in command said as much to me). They know that the peasants are wretched, poor, and hungry, and the landowner is rich and inspires no sympathy. Yet they are all going to kill the peasants to secure three thousand rubles for the landowner, only because at that moment they fancy themselves not men but governor, official, general of police, officer, and soldier, respectively, and consider themselves bound to obey, not the eternal demands of the conscience of man, but the casual, temporary demands of their positions as officers or soldiers. Strange as it may seem, the sole explanation of this astonishing phenomenon is that they are in the condition of the hypnotized, who, they say, feel and act like the creatures they are commanded by the hypnotizer to represent. When, for instance, it is suggested to the hypnotized subject that he is lame, he begins to walk lame, that he is blind, and he cannot see, that he is a wild beast, and he begins to bite. This is the state, not only of those who were going on this expedition, but of all men who fulfill their state and social duties in preference to and in detriment of their human duties.

The essence of this state is that under the influence of one suggestion they lose the power of criticising their actions, and therefore do, without thinking, everything consistent with the suggestion to which they are led by example, precept, or insinuation. The difference between those hypnotized by scientific men and those under the influence of the state hypnotism, is that an imaginary position is suggested to the former suddenly by one person in a very brief space of time, and so the hypnotized state appears to us in a striking and surprising form, while the imaginary position suggested by state influence is induced slowly, little by little, imperceptibly from childhood, sometimes during years, or even generations, and not in one person alone but in a whole society. "But," it will be said, "at all times, in all societies, the majority of persons—all the children, all the women absorbed in the bearing and rearing of the young, all the great mass of the laboring population, who are under the necessity of incessant and fatiguing physical labor, all those of weak character by nature, all those who are abnormally enfeebled intellectually by the effects of nicotine, alcohol, opium, or other intoxicants—are always in a condition of incapacity for independent thought, and are either in subjection to those who are on a higher intellectual level, or else under the influence of family or social traditions, of what is called public opinion, and there is nothing unnatural or incongruous in their subjection."

And truly there is nothing unnatural in it, and the tendency of men of small intellectual power to follow the lead of those on a higher level of intelligence is a constant law and it is owing to it that men can live in societies and on the same principles at all. The minority consciously adopt certain rational principles through their correspondence with reason, while the majority act on the same principles unconsciously because it is required by public opinion. Such subjection to public opinion on the part of the unintellectual does not assume an unnatural character till the public opinion is split into two. But there are times when a higher truth, revealed at first to a few persons, gradually gains ground till it has taken hold of such a number of persons that the old public opinion, founded on a lower order of truths, begins to totter and the new is ready to take its place, but has not yet been firmly established. It is like the spring, this time of transition, when the old order of ideas has not quite broken up and the new has not quite gained a footing. Men begin to criticise their actions in the light of the new truth, but in the meantime in practice, through inertia and tradition, they continue to follow the principles which once represented the highest point of rational consciousness, but are now in flagrant contradiction with it.

Then men are in an abnormal, wavering condition, feeling the necessity of following the new ideal, and yet not bold enough to break with the old established traditions. Such is the attitude in regard to the truth of Christianity not only of the men in the Toula train, but of the majority of men of our times, alike of the higher and the lower orders. Those of the ruling classes, having no longer any reasonable justification for the profitable positions they occupy, are forced, in order to keep them, to stifle their higher rational faculty of loving, and to persuade themselves that their positions are indispensable. And those of the lower classes, exhausted by toil and brutalized of set purpose, are kept in a permanent deception, practiced deliberately and continuously by the higher classes upon them.

Only in this way can one explain the amazing contradictions with which our life is full, and of which a striking example was presented to me by the expedtion I met on the 9th of September; good, peaceful men, known to me personally, going with untroubled tranquillity to perpetrate the most beastly, sense less, and vile of crimes. Had not they some means of stifling their conscience, not one of them would be capable of committing a hundredth part of such villainy. It is not that they have not a conscience which forbids them from acting thus, just as, even three or four hundred years ago, when people burnt men at the stake and put them to the rack they had a conscience which prohibited it; the conscience is there, but it has been put to sleep—in those in command by what the psychologists call auto-suggestion; (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autosuggestion) in the soldiers, by the direct conscious hypnotizing exerted by the higher classes.

Though asleep, the conscience is there, and in spite of the hypnotism it is already speaking in them, and it may awake. All these men are in a position like that of a man under hypnotism, commanded to do something opposed to everything he regards as good and rational, such as to kill his mother or his child. The hypnotized subject feels himself bound to carry out the suggestion—he thinks he cannot stop—but the and nearer he gets to the time and the place of the action, the more the benumbed conscience begins to stir, to resist, and to try to awake. And no one can say beforehand whether he will carry out the suggestion or not; which will gain the upper hand? The rational conscience or the irrational suggestion? It all depends on their relative strength. That is just the case with the men in the Toula train and in general with everyone carrying out acts of state violence in our day.

There was a time when men who set out with the object of murder and violence, to make an example, did not return till they had carried out their object, and then, untroubled by doubts or scruples, having calmly flogged men to death, they returned home and caressed their children, laughed, amused themselves, and enjoyed the peaceful pleasures of family life. In those days it never struck the landowners and wealthy men who profited by these crimes, that the privileges they enjoyed had any direct connection with these atrocities. But now it is no longer so. Men know now, or are not far from knowing, what they are doing and for what object they do it. They can shut their eyes and force their conscience to be still, but so long as their eyes are opened and their conscience undulled, they must all—those who carry out and those who profit by these crimes alike—see the import of them. Sometimes they realize it only after the crime has been perpetrated, sometimes they realize it just before its perpetration. Thus those who commanded the recent acts of violence in Nijni-Novgorod, Saratov, Orel, and the Yuzovsky factory realized their significance only after their perpetration, and now those who commanded and those who carried out these crimes are ashamed before public opinion and their conscience. I have talked to soldiers who had taken part in these crimes, and they always studiously turned the conversation off the subject, and when they spoke of it, it was with horror and bewilderment. There are cases, too, when men come to themselves just before the perpetration of the crime. Thus I know the case of a sergeant-major who had been beaten by two peasants during the repression of disorder and had made a complaint. The next day, after seeing the atrocities perpetrated on the other peasants, he entreated the commander of his company to tear up his complaint and let off the two peasants. I know cases when soldiers, commanded to fire, have refused to obey, and I know many cases of officers who have refused to command expeditions for torture and murder. So that men sometimes come to their senses long before perpetrating the suggested crime, sometimes at the very moment before perpetrating it, sometimes only afterward.

The men traveling in the Toula train were going with the object of killing and injuring their fellow-cratures, but none could tell whether they would carry out their object or not. However obscure his responsibility for the affair is to each, and however strong the idea instilled into all of them that they are not men, but governers, officials, officers, and soldiers, and as such beings can violate every human duty, the nearer they approach the place of the execution, the stronger their doubts as to its being right, and this doubt will reach its highest point when the very moment for carrying it out has come." - Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom Of God Is Within You, Chapter Twelve: "Conclusion—Repent Ye, For The Kingdom Of Heaven Is At Hand"

The Basis of Things

"Vanity of vanities; all is vanity." – Solomon (Doing of doings; all is a doing)

"Morality is the basis of things, and truth is the substance of all morality." – Gandhi (Selflessness and selfishness are at the basis of things, and our present reality is the consequence of all mankinds acting upon this great potential for selflessness and selfishness all throughout the millenniums; the extent we've organized ourselves and manipulated our environment thats led to our present as we know it)

If vanity, bred from morality (selflessness and selfishness), is the foundation of human behavior, then what underpins morality itself? Here's a proposed chain of things:

Vanity\Morality\Desire\Influence\Knowledge\Reason\Imagination\Conciousness\Sense Organs+Present Environment

• Morality is rooted in desire,
• Desire stems from influence,
• Influence arises from knowledge,
• Knowledge is bred from reason,
• Reason is made possible by our imagination,
• And our imagination depends on the extent of how conscious we are of ourselves and everything else via our sense organs reacting to our present environment. (There's a place for Spirit here but haven't decided where exactly; defined objectively however: "the nonphysical part of a person which is the seat of emotions and character; the soul.")

"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.” - Albert Einstein

The more open ones mind is to foreign influences, the more bigger and detailed its imagination can potentially become. It's loves influence on our ability to reason that governs the extent of our compassion and empathy, because it's love that leads a conscious mind most willing to consider anything new (your parents divorcing and upon dating someone new your dad goes from cowboy boots only to flip flops for example). Thus, the extent of its ability—even willingness to imagine the most amount of potential variables when imagining themselves as someone else, and of how detailed it is. This is what not only makes knowledge in general so important, but especially the knowledge of selflessness and virtue—of morality. Because like a muscle, our imagination needs to be exercised by practicing using it.

"So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." - Matt 7:12

When someone strikes us, retaliating appeals to their primal instincts—the "barbaric mammal" within us. But choosing not to strike back—offering the other cheek instead—engages their higher reasoning and self-control. This choice reflects the logical, compassionate side of humanity.

Observing Humanity's Unique Potential

What would be the "skin" we use to hold the wine of the knowledge of everything we've ever presently known as a species? Observation. If we look at our world around us, we can plainly see a collection of capable, conscious beings on a planet, presently holding the most potential to not only imagine selflessness to the extent we can, but act upon this imagining, and the extent we can apply it to our environment, in contrast to anything—as far as we know—that's ever existed; God or not.

What would happen if the wine of our knowledge of morality was no longer kept separate from the skin we use to hold our knowledge of everything else: observation, and poured purely from the perspective of this skin? Opposed to poured into the one that it's always been poured into, and that kept it separate at all in the first place: a religion. There's so much logic within religion that's not being seen as such because of the appearance it's given when it's taught and advocated, being an entire concept on what exactly life is, and what the influences of a God or afterlife consist of exactly, our failure to make them credible enough only potentially drawing people away from the value of the extremes of our sense of selflessness—even the relevance of the idea of a God(s) or creator(s) of some kind; only stigmatizing it in some way or another in the process.

There's a long-standing potential within any consciously capable being—on any planet, a potential for the most possible good, considering its unique ability of perceiving anything good or evil in the first place. It may take centuries upon centuries of even the most wretched of evils and collective selfishness, but the potential for the greatest good and of collective selflessness will always have been there. Like how men of previous centuries would only dream of humans flying in the air, or the idea of democracy.

As Martin Luther King Jr. said: "We can't beat out all the hate in the world with more hate; only love has that ability." Love—and by extension selflessness—is humanity's greatest strength.

"They may torture my body, break my bones, even kill me. Then, they will have my dead body; not my obedience!" - Gandhi

"Respect was invented, to cover the empty place, where love should be." - Leo Tolstoy

"You are the light of the world." "You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." - Jesus, Matt 5:14, 48

"The hardest to love, are the ones that need it the most." - Socrates

In summary, humanity's potential for selflessness is unparalleled. By combining observation with moral reasoning—and grounding it in love—we can unlock our greatest capacity for good.

https://www.reddit.com/r/TolstoysSchoolofLove/s/MwcuAmnNnl

"The time has now come to bring these chapters to a close. My life from this point onward has been so public that there is hardly anything about it that people do not know. Moreover, since 1921 I have worked in such close association with the Congress leaders that I can hardly describe any episode in my life since then without referring to my relations with them. For though Shraddhanandji, the Deshabandhu, Hakim Saheb and Lalaji are no more with us today, we have the good luck to have a host of other veteran Congress leaders still living and working in our midst. The history of the Congress, since the great changes in it that I have described above, is still in the making. And my principal experiments during the past seven years have all been made through the Congress. A reference to my relations with the leaders would therefore be unavoidable, if I set about describing my experiments further. And this I may not do, at any rate for the present, if only from a sense of propriety. Lastly, my conclusions from my current experiments can hardly as yet be regarded as decisive. It therefore seems to me to be my plain duty to close this narrative here. In fact my pen instinctively refuses to proceed further.

It is not without a wrench that I have to take leave of the reader. I set high value on my experiments. I do not know whether I have been able to do justice to them. I can only say that I have spared no pains to give a faithful narrative. To describe truth, as it has appeared to me, and in the exact manner in which I have arrived at it, has been my ceaseless effort. The exercise has given me ineffable [too great or extreme to be expressed or described in words] mental peace, because it has been my fond hope that it might bring faith in Truth and Ahimsa (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahimsa) to waverers [a person who is unable to make a decision or choice].

My uniform experience has convinced me that there is no other God than Truth. And if every page of these chapters does not proclaim to the reader that the only means for the realization of Truth is Ahimsa, I shall deem all my labour in writing these chapters to have been in vain. And, even though my efforts in this behalf may prove fruitless, let the readers know that the vehicle, not the great principle, is at fault. After all, however sincere my strivings after Ahimsa may have been, they have still been imperfect and inadequate. The little fleeting glimpses, therefore, that I have been able to have of Truth can hardly convey an idea of the indescribable lustre of Truth, a million times more intense than that of the sun we daily see with our eyes. In fact what I have caught is only the faintest glimmer of that mighty effulgence [radiant splendor: brilliance]. But this much I can say with assurance, as a result of all my experiments, that a perfect vision of Truth can only follow a complete realization of Ahimsa.

To see the universal and all-pervading Spirit of Truth face to face, one must be able to love the meanest of creation as oneself [Matt 7:12 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7&version=ESV), Matt 5:43]. And a man who aspires after that cannot afford to keep out of any field of life. That is why my devotion to Truth has drawn me into the field of politics; and I can say without the slightest hesitation, and yet in all humility, that those who say that religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion means.

Identification with everything that lives is impossible without self-purification; without self-purification the observance of the law of Ahimsa must remain an empty dream; God can never be realized by one who is not pure of heart. Self-purification therefore must mean purification in all the walks of life. And purification being highly infectious, purification of oneself necessarily leads to the purification of one's surroundings.

But the path of self-purification is hard and steep [Matt 7:13 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7&version=ESV)]. To attain to perfect purity one has to become absolutely passion-free in thought, speech and action; to rise above the opposing currents of love and hatred, attachment and repulsion. I know that I have not in me as yet that triple purity, in spite of constant ceaseless striving for it. That is why the world's praise fails to move me, indeed it very often stings me. To conquer the subtle passions seems to me to be harder far than the physical conquest of the world by the force of arms. Ever since my return to India I have had experiences of the dormant passions lying hidden within me. The knowledge of them has made me feel humiliated though not defeated. The experiences and experiments have sustained me and given me great joy. But I know that I have still before me a difficult path to traverse. I must reduce myself to zero. So long as a man does not of his own free will put himself last among his fellow creatures, there is no salvation for him. Ahimsa is the farthest limit of humility.

In bidding farewell to the reader, for the time being at any rate, I ask him to join with me in prayer to the God of Truth that He may grant me the boon [a thing that is helpful or beneficial] of Ahimsa in mind, word and deed." - Mahatma Gandhi, The Story Of My Experiments With Truth, the final chapter: Farewell

I recently spoke with a friend who was still dwelling on something that happened thirty years ago. “Why do you care?” I asked him. “That was four versions of you ago. That person doesn’t exist anymore. Move on.”

I find this way of thinking inspiring. I'm definitely going to share it with friends and loved ones.

When Tolstoy speaks of Christianity, he's referring to his more objective, philosophical, non-supernatural interpretation of his translation of the Gospels: The Gospel In Brief. For context: https://lemmy.world/post/23133528

"They say that the Christian life cannot be established without the use of violence, because there are savage races outside the pale of Christian societies in Africa and in Asia (there are some who even represent the Chinese as a danger to civilization), and that in the midst of Christian societies there are savage, corrupt, and, according to the new theory of heredity, congenital [(of a disease or physical abnormality) present from birth] criminals. And violence, they say, is necessary to keep savages and criminals from annihilating our civilization. But these savages within and without Christian society, who are such a terror to us, have never been subjugated [bring under domination or control, especially by conquest] by violence, and are not subjugated by it now. Nations have never subjugated other nations by violence alone. If a nation which subjugated another was on a lower level of civilization, it has never happened that it succeeded in introducing its organization of life by violence. On the contrary, it was always forced to adopt the organization of life existing in the conquered nation. If ever any of the nations conquered by force have been really subjugated, or even nearly so, it has always been by the action of public opinion, and never by violence, which only tends to drive a people to further rebellion.

When whole nations have been subjugated by a new religion, and have become Christian or Mohammedan, such a conversion has never been brought about because the authorities made it obligatory (on the contrary, violence has more often acted in the opposite direction), but because public opinion made such a change inevitable. Nations, on the contrary, who have been driven by force to accept the faith of their conquerors have always remained antagonistic to it. It is just the same with the savage elements existing in the midst of our civilized societies. Neither the increased nor the diminished severity of punishment, nor the modifications of prisons, nor the increase of police will increase or diminish the number of criminals. Their number will only be diminished by the change of the moral standard of society. No severities could put an end to duels and vendettas in certain districts. In spite of the number of Tcherkessess executed for robbery, they continue to be robbers from their youth up, for no maiden will marry a Tcherkess youth till he has given proof of his bravery by carrying off a horse, or at least a sheep. If men cease to fight duels, and the Tcherkessess cease to be robbers, it will not be from fear of punishment (indeed, that invests the crime with additional charm for youth), but through a change in the moral standard of public opinion. It is the same with all other crimes. Force can never suppress what is sanctioned by public opinion. On the contrary, public opinion need only be in direct opposition to force to neutralize the whole effect of the use of force. It has always been so and always will be in every case of martyrdom.

What would happen if force were not used against hostile nations and the criminal elements of society we do not know? But we do know by prolonged experience that neither enemies nor criminals have been successfully suppressed by force. And indeed how could nations be subjugated by violence who are led by their whole education, their traditions, and even their religion to see the loftiest virtue in warring with their oppressors and fighting for freedom? And how are we to suppress by force acts committed in the midst of our society which are regarded as crimes by the government and as daring exploits by the people? To exterminate such nations and such criminals by violence is possible, and indeed is done, but to subdue them is impossible.

The sole guide which directs men and nations has always been and is the unseen, intangible, underlying force, the resultant of all the spiritual forces of a certain people, or of all humanity, which finds its outward expression in public opinion. The use of violence only weakens this force, hinders it and corrupts it, and tries to replace it by another which, far from being conducive to the progress of humanity, is detrimental to it.

To bring under the sway of Christianity all the savage nations outside the pale of the Christian world—all the Zulus, Mandchoos, and Chinese, whom many regard as savages—and the savages who live in our midst, there is only one means. That means is the propagation among these nations of the Christian ideal of society, which can only be realized by a Christian life, Christian actions, and Christian examples. And meanwhile, though this is the one only means of gaining a hold over the people who have remained non-Christian, the men of our day set to work in the directly opposite fashion to attain this result.

To bring under the sway of Christianity savage nations who do not attack us and whom we have therefore no excuse for oppressing, we ought before all things to leave them in peace, and in case we need or wish to enter into closer relations with them, we ought only to influence them by Christian manners and Christian teaching, setting them the example of the Christian virtues of patience, meekness, endurance, purity, brotherhood, and love. Instead of that we begin by establishing among them new markets for our commerce, with the sole aim of our own profit; then we appropriate their lands, i. e., rob them; then we sell them spirits, tobacco, and opium, i. e., corrupt them; then we establish our morals among them, teach them the use of violence and new methods of destruction, i. e., we teach them nothing but the animal law of strife, below which man cannot sink, and we do all we can to conceal from them all that is Christian in us. After this we send some dozens of missionaries prating [talk foolishly or at tedious length about something] to them of the hypocritical absurdities of the Church, and then quote the failure of our efforts to turn the heathen to Christianity as an incontrovertible proof of the impossibility of applying the truths of Christianity in practical life.

It is just the same with the so-called criminals living in our midst. To bring these people under the sway of Christianity there is one only means, that is, the Christian social ideal, which can only be realized among them by true Christian teaching and supported by a true example of the Christian life. And to preach this Christian truth and to support it by Christian example we set up among them prisons, guillotines, gallows, preparations for murder; we diffuse [spread or cause to spread over a wide area or among a large number of people] among the common herd idolatrous superstitions to stupify them; we sell them spirits, tobacco, and opium to brutalize them; we even organize legalized prostitution; we give land to those who do not need it; we make a display of senseless luxury in the midst of suffering poverty; we destroy the possibility of anything like a Christian public opinion, and studiously try to suppress what Christian public opinion is existing. And then, after having ourselves assiduously [showing great care and perseverance] corrupted men, we shut them up like wild beasts in places from which they cannot escape, and where they become still more brutalized, or else we kill them. And these very men whom we have corrupted and brutalized by every means, we bring forward as a proof that one cannot deal with criminals except by brute force.

We are just like ignorant doctors who put a man, recovering from illness by the force of nature, into the most unfavorable conditions of hygiene, and dose him with the most deleterious drugs, and then assert triumphantly that their hygiene and their drugs saved his life, when the patient would have been well long before if they had left him alone. Violence, which is held up as the means of supporting the Christian organization of life, not only fails to produce that effect, it even hinders the social organization of life from being what it might and ought to be. The social organization is as good as it is not as a result of force, but in spite of it. And therefore the champions of the existing order are mistaken in arguing that since, even with the aid of force, the bad and non-Christian elements of humanity can hardly be kept from attacking us, the abolition of the use of force and the substitution of public opinion for it would leave humanity quite unprotected.

They are mistaken, because force does not protect humanity, but, on the contrary, deprives it of the only possible means of really protecting itself, that is, the establishment and diffusion of a Christian public opinion. Only by the suppression of violence will a Christian public opinion cease to be corrupted, and be enabled to be diffused without hinderance, and men will then turn their efforts in the spiritual direction by which alone they can advance." - Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom Of God Is Within You, Chapter Ten: "Evil Cannot Be Suppressed By The Physical Force Of The Government—The Moral Progress Of Humanity Is Brought About Not Only By Individual Recognition Of Truth, But Also Through The Establishment Of A Public Opinion"

"The intoxication produced by such stimulants as parades, reviews, religious solemnities, and coronations, is, however, an acute and temporary condition; but there are other forms of chronic, permanent intoxication, to which those are liable who have any kind of authority, from that of the Tzar to that of the lowest police officer at the street corner, and also those who are in subjection to authority and in a state of stupefied servility. The latter, like all slaves, always find a justification for their own servility, in ascribing the greatest possible dignity and importance to those they serve. It is principally through this false idea of inequality, and the intoxication of power and of servility resulting from it, that men associated in a state organization are enabled to commit acts opposed to their conscience without the least scruple or remorse.

Under the influence of this intoxication, men imagine themselves no longer simply men as they are, but some special beings—noblemen, merchants, governors, judges, officers, tzars, ministers, or soldiers—no longer bound by ordinary human duties, but by other duties far more weighty—the peculiar duties of a nobleman, merchant, governor, judge, officer, tzar, minister, or soldier. Thus the landowner, who claimed the forest, acted as he did only because he fancied himself not a simple man, having the same rights to life as the peasants living beside him and everyone else, but a great landowner, a member of the nobility, and under the influence of the intoxication of power he felt his dignity offended by the peasants' claims. It was only through this feeling that, without considering the consequences that might follow, he sent in a claim to be reinstated in his pretended rights.

In the same way the judges, who wrongfully adjudged the forest to the proprietor, did so simply because they fancied themselves not simply men like everyone else, and so bound to be guided in everything only by what they consider right, but, under the intoxicating influence of power, imagined themselves the representatives of the justice which cannot err; while under the intoxicating influence of servility they imagined themselves bound to carry out to the letter the instructions inscribed in a certain book, the so-called law. In the same way who take part in such an affair, from the highest representative of authority who signs his assent to the report, from the superintendent presiding at recruiting sessions, and the priest who deludes the recruits, to the lowest soldier who is ready now to fire on his own brothers, imagine, in the intoxication of power or of servility, that they are some conventional characters. They do not face the question that is presented to them, whether or not they ought to take part in what their conscience judges an evil act, but fancy themselves various conventional personages—one as the Tzar, God's anointed, an exceptional being, called to watch over the happiness of one hundred millions of men; another as the representative of nobility; another as a priest, who has received special grace by his ordination; another as a soldier, bound by his military oath to carry out all he is commanded without reflection. Only under the intoxication of the power or the servility of their imagined positions could all these people act as they do. Were not they all firmly convinced that their respective vocations of tzar, minister, governor, judge, nobleman, landowner, superintendent, officer, and soldier are something real and important, not one of them would even think without horror and aversion of taking part in what they do now.

The conventional positions, established hundreds of years, recognized for centuries and by everyone, distinguished by special names and dresses, and, moreover, confirmed by every kind of solemnity, have so penetrated into men's minds through their senses, that, forgetting the ordinary conditions of life common to all, they look at themselves and everyone only from conventional point of view, and are guided in their estimation of their own actions and those of others by this conventional standard.

Thus we see a man of perfect sanity and ripe age, simply because he is decked out with some fringe, or embroidered keys on his coat tails, or a colored ribbon only fit for some gayly dressed girl, and is told that he is a general, a chamberlain, a knight of the order of St. Andrew, or some similar nonsense, suddenly become self-important, proud, and even happy, or, on the contrary, grow melancholy and unhappy to the point of falling ill, because he has failed to obtain the expected decoration or title. Or what is still more striking, a young man, perfectly sane in every other matter, independent and beyond the fear of want, simply because he has been appointed judicial prosecutor or district commander, separates a poor widow from her little children, and shuts her up in prison, leaving her children uncared for, all because the unhappy woman carried on a secret trade in spirits, and so deprived the revenue of twenty-five rubles, and he does not feel the least pang of remorse. Or what is still more amazing; a man, otherwise sensible and good-hearted, simply because he is given a badge or a uniform to wear, and told that he is a guard or customs officer, is ready to fire on people, and neither he nor those around him regard him as to blame for it, but, on the contrary, would regard him as to blame if he did not fire. To say nothing of judges and juries who condemn men to death, and soldiers who kill men by thousands without the slightest scruple merely because it has been instilled into them that they are not simply men, but jurors, judges, generals, and soldiers.

This strange and abnormal condition of men under state organization is usually expressed in the following words: "As a man, I pity him; but as guard, judge, general, governor, tzar, or soldier, it is my duty to kill or torture him." Just as though there were some positions conferred and recognized, which would exonerate us from the obligations laid on each of us by the fact of our common humanity." - Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom Of God Is Within You, Chapter Twelve: "Conclusion—Repent Ye, For The Kingdom Of Heaven Is At Hand"

Vanity: 1. excessive pride in or admiration of one's own appearance or achievements. 2. the quality of being worthless or futile.

"Vanity of vanities; all is vanity. What profit hath a man of all his labor which he taketh under the sun? One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever...The thing that hath been, it is that that shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. Is there anything whereof it may be said, See, this is new? It hath been already of old time, which was before us. There is no remembrance of former things, neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after. I Ecclesiastes (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesiastes) was king over Israel in Jerusalem. And I gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven: this sore travail hath God given to the sons of man to be exercised therewith. I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and behold all is vanity and vexation [the state of being annoyed, frustrated, or worried] of spirit...I communed with mine own heart saying, Lo, I am come to great estate, and have gotten more wisdom than all they that have been before me in Jerusalem: yea, my heart had great experience of wisdom and knowledge. And I gave my heart to know wisdom, and to know madness and folly: I perceived that this also is vexation of spirit. For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

I said in mine heart, Go to now, I will prove thee with mirth [amusement, especially as expressed in laughter] and will rejoice in good deeds: and, behold, this also is vanity. I said of laughter, It is mad: and of mirth, What doeth it? I sought in mine heart to give myself unto wine, yet acquainting mine heart with wisdom; and to lay hold on folly, till I might see what was that good for the sons of men, which they should do under the heaven all the days of their life. I made me great works; I builded me houses; I planted me vineyards: I made me gardens and orchards, and I planted trees in them of all kind of fruits: I made me pools of water, to water therewith the wood that bringeth forth trees: I got me servants and maidens, and had servants born in my house; also I had great possessions of great and small cattle above all that were in Jerusalem before me: I gathered me also silver and gold, and the jewels of kings and the provinces: I got me men singers and women singers, and the delights of the sons of men—musical instruments of all sorts. So I was great, and increased more than all that were before me in Jerusalem: also my wisdom remained with me. And whatsoever mine eyes desired I kept not from them, I withheld not my heart from any joy.

...Then I looked on all the works that my hands had wrought, and on the labor that I had labored to do: and, behold, all was vanity and vexation of spirit, and there was no profit under the sun. And I turned myself to behold wisdom, and madness, and folly. But I perceived that one event happeneth to them all. Then said I in my heart, As it happeneth to the fool, so it happeneth even to me; and why was I then more wise? Then I said in my heart, that this also is vanity. For there is no remembrance of the wise more than of the fool forever; seeing that which now is in the days to come shall all be forgotten. And how dieth the wise man? As the fool. Therefore I hated life; because the work that is wrought under the sun is grievous unto me: for all is vanity and vexation of spirit. Yea, I hated all my labor which I had taken under the sun: because I should leave it unto the man that shall be after me....For what hath man of all his labor, and of the vexation of his heart, wherein he hath labored under the sun? For all his days are sorrows, and his travail grief; yea, his heart taketh not rest in the night. This is also vanity. It is not given to a man to have the blessing that he should eat and drink, and that he should make his soul enjoy good in his labor..

All things come alike to all: there is one event to the righteous, and to the wicked; to the good and to the clean, and to the unclean; to him that sacrificeth, and to him that sacrificeth not: as is the good, so is the sinner; and he that sweareth, as he that feareth an oath. This is an evil among all things that are done under the sun, that there is one event unto all: yea, also the heart of the sons of man is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live, and after that they go to the dead. For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion. For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not anything, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion forever in anything that is done under the sun." - King Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Chapters 1, 2, and 9; Leo Tolstoy, Confession, Chapter Six

The Basis Of Things: https://lemmy.world/post/25358461

My Reflections on Putin’s Previous Press Conferences Ahead of the New "Direct Line"

I anticipated the content of the “press conference” and warned it would be nothing but fiction - a political vaudeville act unworthy of the name. Over my 90+ years, I’ve witnessed and participated in countless political events. What the president orchestrates today is a mockery of our trusting people.

Millions agonized over how to phrase questions that might reach him without causing offense, desperate to expose the injustices plaguing their lives. For two decades, citizens have pleaded, “Mr. President, save us!” Yet this charade persists, a cruel joke on the nation. Mr. Peskov, the Kremlin’s master director, ensured every detail was scripted. A performance for sheep.

The president recycled tired tropes: “We’re better than the West.” Better at what? Dying? With 13% of Russians - 22 million people - living below the poverty line, why did he ignore the stark contrast between their suffering and the obscene wealth of his cronies and family? He casually claims poverty will drop to 6% by 2030 (still 9 million souls). How? No answers.

I know poverty. My parents were working-class: a chimney sweep and a school cleaner. I rose to become a retired colonel. The 1930s brought industrialization, collectivization, and famine. The war demanded sacrifice: “Everything for the front!” Post-1946 famine, rebuilding was grueling. Yet by 1948, food prices fell yearly until Stalin’s death.

You boast of reducing poverty by 2000—to 22 million. Who created that crisis? Your idol, the man who appointed you, whose family lives richer than the Romanovs. He should stand trial for crimes against the state. Instead, he gets monuments.

Today, Russian athletes are banned from representing their country. The president himself is barred from the Olympics. Who answers for this shame? Not Putin - his cronies like Mutko (Putin’s ally, still living large) orchestrated this disgrace. Putin will fade, but Russia’s humiliation remains.

Our global standing has collapsed. Where was our “authority” during the Karabakh bloodshed? We’ve turned allies into enemies under St. Petersburg’s “wise” leadership, then blame “Russophobia.” But who sowed its roots?

I served 30 years in air defense, including during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Back then, we never brandished missiles or threatened annihilation. Our nuclear forces were shields, not swords.

When Leaders Lie

Journalists lie for profit - that I understand. But when a 68-year-old president of a nation as vast as Russia lies, it chills me. How can a man who swore to defend this country, who received free education here, spew such brazen falsehoods?

He claims Soviet retirees who worked received no pensions. Nonsense. I retired at 50 in 1980, drew a pension, and worked at a research institute. My wife did the same. Every pensioner I knew worked and collected pensions. Why lie? To paint the past as bleak and your rule as salvation?

Your “salvation” means 22 million in poverty, meager pensions, and elders burning alive in privatized nursing homes. Eleven died days ago - just another “ordinary” tragedy. Who licenses these death traps? Does the state check safety, staffing, or fire protocols? No. Privatizing elder care cuts costs and enriches owners. Profitable, indeed.

The Rot Runs Deep

These annual press spectacles solve nothing. When fixing a broken pipe requires presidential intervention, the system is rotten. Centralizing power won’t heal corruption—it fuels it.

Russia needs systemic change, not scripted theatrics.

Afterword

Yet I still hope.

I hope President Putin will continue removing oligarchs from power and appointing young leaders who understand ordinary people’s lives - not out-of-touch fat cats who think they rule the world.

I likely won’t live to see that day. But what matters is that my grandchildren grow up with integrity and help build a fairer society.

Colonel Chigoev

Over 2,000 years ago, Plato described prisoners in a cave, shackled and forced to watch shadows on a wall, mistaking these illusions for reality. When one prisoner escapes and sees the real world, the truth is overwhelming. But when he returns to free the others, they reject him.

Now, swap the cave for a smartphone. The shadows for social media, curated feeds, and AI-driven content. Are we any different from Plato’s prisoners? We consume reality through screens, shaped by algorithms that decide what we see, think, and believe. Our attention is bought and sold, our perceptions manipulated.

If you were shown the "real world" beyond this digital illusion, free from biases, dopamine loops, and controlled narratives. Would you even believe it? Or would you, like Plato’s prisoners, reject the truth in favor of comforting shadows?

Are we still chained? Or is there a way out?

"One thing only is needful: the knowledge of the simple and clear truth which finds place in every soul that is not stupefied by religious and scientific superstitions—the truth that for our life one law is valid—the law of love (seen in the sense of things like the laws of physics), which brings the highest happiness to every individual as well as to all mankind. Free your minds from those overgrown, mountainous imbecilities which hinder your recognition of it, and at once the truth will emerge from amid the pseudo-religious nonsense that has been smothering it." - Leo Tolstoy, A Letter To A Hindu, December of 1908 (roughly two years before his death): https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7176/7176-h/7176-h.htm

Tolstoy believed that an objective interpretation of the Sermon On The Mount - Matt 5-7, and its precepts—including to "not take an oath at all," holds the potential of becoming a kind of constitution for our conscience so to speak—for our hearts, as a species.

Leo Tolstoy's Wiki: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Tolstoy

There is no 'the answer'... or we don't know 'the answer'... or we don't know if there is a 'the answer'... or we don't know if we can know the 'the answer'? 4 kinds of agnosticism, all different.

Which famous philosopher said this before me? I'm sure I'm not the first to have thought about it this way.

"In my search for the answers to the question of life ["I am a human, therefore, how should I live? What do I do?"] I had exactly the same feeling as a man who has lost his way in a forest. He has come out into a clearing, climbed a tree, and has a clear view of limitless space, but he sees that there is no house there and that there cannot be one; he goes into the trees, into the darkness, and sees darkness, and there too there is no house. In the same way I wandered in this forest of human knowledge between the rays of light of the mathematical and experimental sciences, which opened up clear horizons to me but in a direction where there could be no house, and into the darkness of the speculative sciences, where I was plunged into further darkness the further I moved on, and finally I was convinced that there was not and could not be any way out.

As I gave myself up to the brighter side of the sciences, I understood that I was only taking my eyes off the question. However enticing and clear the horizons opening upon before me, however enticing it was to plunge myself into the infinity of these sciences were, the less they served me, the less they answered my question. "Well, I know everything that science so insistently wants to know," I said to myself, "but on this path there is no answer to the question of the meaning of my life." In the speculative sphere I understood that although, or precisely because, sciences aim was directed straight at the answer than the one I was giving myself: "What is the meaning of my life?" "None." Or: "What will come out of my life?" "Nothing." Or: "Why does everything exist that exists, and why do I exist?" "Because it exists."

Asking questions on one side of human science, I received a countless quantity of precise answers to questions I wasn't asking: about the chemical composition of the stars; the movement of the sun toward the constellation Hercules; the origin of species and of man; the forms of infinitely small atoms; the vibration of infinitely small, weightless particles of ether—but there was only one answer in this area of science to my question, "In what is the meaning of my life?": "You are what you call your life; but you are an ephemeral, casual connection of particles. The interaction, the change of these particles produces in you what you call your life. This connection will last some time; then the interaction of these particles will stop—and what you call your life will stop and all your questions will stop too. You are a lump of something stuck together by chance. The lump decays. The lump calls this decay its life. The lump will disintegrate and the decay and all its questions will come to an end." That is the answer given by the bright side of science, and it cannot give any other if it just strictly follows its principles. With such an answer it turns out the answer doesn't answer my question. I need to know the meaning of my life, but it's being a particle of the infinite not only gives it no meaning but destroys any possible meaning.

The other side of science, the speculative, when it strictly adheres to its principles in answering the question directly, gives and has given the same answer everywhere and in all ages: "The world is something infinte and unintelligible. Human life is an incomprehensible piece of this incomprehensible 'whole'." Again I exclude all the compromises between speculative and experimental sciences that constitute the whole ballast of the semi-sciences, the so-called jurisprudential, political, and historical. Into these sciences again one finds wrongly introduced the notions of development, of perfection, with the difference only that there it was the development of the whole whereas here it is of the life of people. What is wrong is the same: development and perfection in the infinite can have neither aim nor direction and in relation to my question give no answer.

Where speculative science is exact, namely in true philosophy—not in what Shopenhauer called "professorial philosophy" which only serves to distribute all existing phenomena in neat philosophical tables and gives them new names—there where a philosopher doesn't lose sight of the essential question, the answer, always one and the same, is the answer given by Socrates, Solomon, Buddha...

• "The life of the body is evil and a lie. And therefore the destruction of this life of the body is something good, and we must desire it," says Socrates.
• "Life is that which ought not to be—an evil—and the going into nothingness is the sole good of life," says Shopenhauer.
• "Everything in the world—folly and wisdom and riches and poverty and happiness and grief—[vanity of vanities] all is vanity and nonsense. Man will die and nothing will remain. And that is foolish," says Solomon.
• "One must not live with the awareness of the inevitability of suffering, weakness, old age, and death—one must free oneself from life, from all possibility of life," says Buddha.

And what these powerful intellects said was said and thought and felt by millions and millions of people like them. And I too thought and felt that. So that my wanderings in science not only did not take me out of despair but only increased it. One science did not answer the question of life; another science did answer, directly confirming my despair and showing that the view I had reached wasn't the result of my delusion, of the morbid state of mind—on the contrary, it confirmed for me what I truly thought and agreed with the conclusions of the powerful intellects of mankind. It's no good deceiving oneself. All is vanity. Happy is he who was not born; death is better than life; one needs to be rid of life." - Leo Tolstoy, Confession, Chapter six

The simple yet profound meaning Tolstoy found within our philosophy of morality (religion), in my opinion: https://lemmy.world/post/25969548

Tolstoy wasn't religious, however: "One thing only is needful: the knowledge of the simple and clear truth which finds place in every soul that is not stupefied by religious and scientific superstitions—the truth that for our life one law is valid—the law of love (seen in the sense of things like the laws of physics), which brings the highest happiness to every individual as well as to all mankind. Free your minds from those overgrown, mountainous imbecilities which hinder your recognition of it, and at once the truth will emerge from amid the pseudo-religious nonsense that has been smothering it." - Leo Tolstoy, A Letter To A Hindu, December of 1908 (roughly two years before his death): https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7176/7176-h/7176-h.htm

A minimalist philosophy for everyday.

Principle: Most that comes out is to be disposed of. Everything that goes in must be considered. The area around each hole must be kept clean.

Part 1: https://lemmy.ml/post/26366649

Part 2: https://lemmy.ml/post/26569540

I have somewhat digressed from the topic of spiritual wealth, but a person’s spiritual richness or poverty still depends, to some extent, on the spiritual state of the society in which that individual lives. I spent the majority of my life under Soviet rule. Undoubtedly, the ideology of Marxism-Leninism significantly influenced my worldview. Our generation did not have the opportunity to critically evaluate the dominant ideology. I fervently believed in socialism and communism, especially until the mid-1970s, and I perceived spiritual nourishment through the lens of Marxism-Leninism. Everything that fit into the Procrustean bed of Marxism was considered correct, and everything else was discarded. Considering that I was the number one communist in my household, you can understand that I had to adhere to Marxism as devoutly as a priest adheres to the Bible. It’s especially hard to realize that during the best years of my life, I was like a blind kitten. I’ve somewhat strayed from the theme of “my years, my wealth,” but indirectly, I’m still answering what kind of wealth our generation’s years held. Perhaps these words imply that my wealth is measured by the number of years I’ve lived? I disagree with that. The richest person is a newborn. The greatest wealth is the time allotted to you for life, and the more years I live, the poorer I become. I’ll soon be 80, so I’m on the brink of poverty. Soon, not only my wealth but I myself will be gone. What can you do? That’s how nature works. The old fades away, and the new is born and thrives.

And that’s how it should be. Otherwise, there would be complete chaos on Earth. Death, as paradoxical as it may sound, is a necessary phenomenon for the normal existence of humanity. Therefore, we should approach it more calmly and philosophically. If a person reaches an advanced age—80, 90, or 100—and passes away, there’s no need to make it a tragedy. Of course, it’s always sad when someone leaves, but it’s natural. However, when young people die—whether violently, from illness, accidents, or other causes—it’s truly a tragedy. There’s no justification for that. A person should live at least until 100. That’s normal, and I strive for that. I have a wife who has been with me for over 60 years and guards my health like the apple of her eye. She truly does everything to ensure I exist on this sinful Earth for as long as possible. We have a direct need for this. The thing is, sooner or later, we might have a great-grandchild from Katya. The question is: Who will take them for walks in the stroller? Of course, it will be my wife and me. Katya will need to work, and the great-grandchild’s grandmother will also be working, so it’s up to us—the great-grandfather and great-grandmother. So, nothing works without us. It’s good to have many children. Someone will always need you. And when you’re needed, that feeling contributes to prolonging life. I don’t believe it when some people roll their eyes and say, “Oh, I don’t want to live anymore; I’m tired of life.” That’s not true! Everyone wants to live, and as long as possible. And there’s no need to fear death. I often ponder questions of life and death. Of course, our older generation will pass, but we also remain. My wife and I have four daughters, three grandsons, five granddaughters, two great-grandsons, and three great-granddaughters. In each of them, there’s a piece of our flesh and blood. That’s where we live on. That’s immortality.

As for material wealth, I’d like to quote a poem by the grandson of Nicholas I, Grand Duke Konstantin Konstantinovich:

I am fortune’s darling, from my birth,

Wealth and honors, rank and worth,

Called me to heights, to lofty aims,

Destined for greatness, by noble claims.

But what are riches, gold, or might?

The grave consumes all, day or night.

The glittering show, the fleeting gleam,

Will vanish like a wave’s brief dream.

I don’t think one could say more accurately or profoundly about the role and significance of earthly blessings. The poem is taken from the book Heartfelt Secrets of the House of Romanov, page 6.

I wanted to end this theme of “My Years, My Wealth” here, but on September 19, an event related to my years occurred, and I cannot help but mention it. The fact is that on September 15, 2010, I turned 80. Since the date, from a certain perspective, isn’t very cheerful, I didn’t want to celebrate it in a grand way. I didn’t want any formality. But my youngest daughter, born in the village of Tiksi, convinced her sisters, and on September 19, they gathered everyone at the Georgian restaurant “Amirani”. The restaurant is small, very cozy, and beautiful. I expected the usual clichéd toasts, various praises, and comments about how wonderful I am, and so on. But what my daughter Fatima and her husband Artem organized exceeded all expectations. It wasn’t about the table set or the drinks, though all that was there. The main thing was the expression of respect and love for us, the great-grandmother and great-grandfather, from our children, sons-in-law, grandsons, granddaughters, great-grandsons, and great-granddaughters. But what delighted my wife and me wasn’t just how wonderfully my anniversary was organized. We were thrilled by the warmth and love everyone showed each other at this event. Relationships between children are not a simple matter. I’m proud of my children, grandsons, granddaughters, great-grandsons, and great-granddaughters. All four of my daughters have higher education, as do all my sons-in-law. My grandson Alexey graduated from a military university. My granddaughters Tatyana, Oksana, Alena, and Natasha also have higher education. My grandson Zhenya is a second-year student at Moscow State University. My granddaughter Ekaterina is a second-year student at the Higher School of Economics University. And the most important thing is that every single one of them entered university without any connections or favors. How can one not be proud of such descendants?

"Towards the end of my second year in England I came across two Theosophists (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosophy), brothers, and both unmarried. They talked to me about the Gita. They were reading Sir Edwin Arnold's translation—The Song Celestial—and they invited me to read the original with them. I felt ashamed, as I had read the divine poem neither in Sanskrit not in Gujarati. I was constrained to tell them that I had not read the Gita, but that I would gladly read it with them, and that though my knowledge of Sanskrit was meagre, still I hoped to be able to understand the original to the extent of telling where the translation failed to bring out the meaning. I began reading the Gita with them. The verses in the second chapter made a deep impression on my mind, and they still ring in my ears:

• "If one
• Ponders on objects of the sense, there springs
• Attraction; from attraction grows desire,
• Desire flames to fierce passion, passion breeds
• Recklessness; then the memory—all betrayed—
• Let's noble purpose go, and saps the mind,
• Till purpose, mind, and man are all undone."

The book struck me as one of priceless worth. The impression had ever since been growing on me with the result that I regard it today as the book par excellence for the knowledge of Truth. It had afforded me invaluable help in my moments of gloom. I have read almost all the English translations of it, and regard Sir Edwin Arnold's as the best (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Song_Celestial). He has been faithful to the text, and yet it does not read like a translation. Though I read the Gita with these friends, I cannot pretend to have studied it then. It was only after some years that it became a book of daily reading." - Mahatma Gandhi, The Story of My Experiments With Truth, Part 1, Chapter 20: "Acquaintance With Religions"

~~

The Basis of Things: https://lemmy.world/post/23294152

When Tolstoy speaks of Christianity, he's refering to his more objective, philosophical, non supernatural interpretation of his translation of the Gospels: The Gospel In Brief. For context: https://lemmy.world/post/25679868

"State violence can only cease when there are no more wicked men in society," say the champions of the existing order of things, assuming in this of course that since there will always be wicked men, it can never cease. And that would be right enough if it were the case, as they assume, that the oppressors are always the best of men, and that the sole means of saving men from evil is by violence. Then, indeed, violence could never cease. But since this is not the case, but quite the contrary, that it is not the better oppress the worse, but the worse oppress the better, and since violence will never put an end to evil, and there is, moreover, another means of putting an end to it, the assertion that violence will never cease is incorrect. The use of violence grows less and less and evidently must disappear. But this will not come to pass, as some champions of the existing order imagine, through the oppressed becoming better and better under the influence of government (on the contrary, its influence causes their continual degradation), but through the fact that all men are constantly growing better and better of themselves, so that even the most wicked, who are in power, will become less and less wicked, till at last they are so good as to be incapable of using violence.

The progressive movement of humanity does not proceed from the better elements in society siezing power and making those who are subject to them better, by forcible means, as both conservatives and revolutionists imagine. It proceeds first and principally from the fact that all men in general are advancing steadily and undeviantingly toward a more and more conscious assimilation of the Christian theory of life; and secondly, from the fact that, even apart from conscious spiritual life, men are unconsciously brought into a more Christian attitude to life by the very process of one set of men grasping the power, and again being replaced, by others.

The worse elements of society, gaining possession of power, under the sobering influence which always accompanies power, grow less and less cruel, and become incapable of using cruel forms of violence. Consequently others are able to seize their place, and the same process of softening and, so to say, unconscious Christianizing goes on with them. It is something like the process of ebullition [a sudden outburst of emotion or violence]. The majority of men, having the non-Christian view of life, always strive for power and struggle to obtain it. In this struggle the most cruel, the coarsest, the least Christain elements of society over power the most gentle, well-disposed, and Christian, and rise by means of their violence to the upper ranks of society. And in them is Christ's prophecy fulfulled: "Woe to you that are rich! Woe unto you that are full! Woe unto you when all men shall speak well of you!" For the men who are in possession of power and all that results from it—glory and wealth—and have attained the various aims they set before themselves, recognizing the vanity of it all and return to the position from which they came. Charles V., John IV., Alexander I., recognizing the emptiness and evil of power, renounced it because they were incapable of using violence for their own benefit as they had done.

But they are not the solitary examples of this recognition of the emptiness and evil of power. Everyone who gains a position of power he has striven for, every general, every minister, every millionaire, every petty official who has gained the place he has coveted for ten years, every rich peasant who had laid by some hundred rubles, passes through this unconscious process of softening.

And not only individual men, but societies of men, whole nations, pass through this process.

The seductions of power, and all the wealth, honor, and luxury it gives, seem a sufficient aim for men's efforts only so long as they are unattained. Directly a man reaches them and sees all their vanity, and they gradually lose all their power of attraction. They are like clouds which have form and beauty only from the distance; directly one ascends into them, all their splendor vanishes.

Men who are in possession of power and wealth, sometimes even those who have gained for themselves their power and wealth, but more often their heirs, cease to be so eager for power, and so cruel in their efforts to obtain it.

Having learnt by experience, under the operation of Christian influence, the vanity of all that is gained by violence, men sometimes in one, sometimes in several generations lose the vices which are generated by the passion for power and wealth. They become less cruel and so cannot maintain their position, and are expelled from power by others less Christian and more wicked. Thus they return to a rank of society lower in position, but higher in morality, raising thereby the average level of Christian conciousness in men. But directly after them again the worst, coarsest, least Christian elements of society rise to the top, and are subjected to the same process as their predecessors, and again in a generation or so, seeing the vanity of what is gained by violence, and having imbibed [absorb or assimilate (ideas or knowledge)] Christianity, they come down again among the oppressed, and their place is again filled by new oppressors, less brutal than former oppressors, though more so than those they oppress. So that, although power remains externally the same as it was, with every change of the men in power there is a constant increase of the number of men who have been brought by experience to the necessity of assimilating the Christian [divine] conception of life, and with every change—though it is the coarsest, cruelest, and least Christian who come into possession of power, they are less coarse and cruel and more Christian than their predecessors when they gained possession of power.

Power selects and attracts the worst elements of society, transforms them, improves and softens them, and returns them to society.

Such is the process by means of which Christianity, in spite of the hinderances to human progress resulting from violence of power, gains more and more hold of men. Christianity penetrates to the conciousness of men, not only in spite of the violence of power, but also by means of it.

And therefore the assertion of the champions of the state, that if the power of government were suppressed the wicked would oppress the good, not only fails to show that that is to be dreaded, since it is just what happens now, but proves, on the contrary, that it is governmental power which enables the wicked to oppress the good, and is the evil most desirable to suppress, and that it is being gradually suppressed in the natural course of things." - Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom Of God Is Within You

Could a Life Learning to Desire For the Least, Be What Ultimately Leads to a Life of the Most? https://lemmy.world/post/22510415

This essay by Evald Vasilyevich Ilyenkov (1924–79), “On the Coincidence of Logic with Dialectics and the Theory of Knowledge of Materialism,” was published in his most widely known work, Dialectical Logic: Essays on Its History and Theory (first edition in Russian, 1974). The English translation by H. Campbell Creighton is from the edition published by Progress Publishers, Moscow 1977. In this adapted essay, Ilyenkov discusses the idea of the coincidence of dialectics, logics, and theory of knowledge, which was one of the hallmarks of the Ilyenkovian current in post-Stalin Soviet philosophy. Originally, the idea was jotted down by V. I. Lenin in his Philosophical Notebooks when he was reading G. W. F. Hegel in 1914 and 1915, as a critique against the separation of the theory of knowledge from other fields of philosophy.

Ilyenkov was one of the most important and controversial Soviet Marxist philosophers. He contributed substantially to the Marx Renaissance that emerged in the so-called Thaw Period and aimed at the reconstruction of Marx’s original methodology. In 1960, his first book, The Dialectics of the Abstract and the Concrete in Marx’s “Capital,” was published, to be followed by important articles and studies on the concept of the ideal and on problems of dialectical logic. Ilyenkov was known as an ardent critic of technocratic tendencies in the Soviet Union. He stressed that socialist society should express humanist values and not merely be an engineering project. Although Ilyenkov had constant problems with the Soviet philosophical establishment, which viewed his innovatory ideas with suspicion, he did not regard himself as a dissident and remained a member of the Party. He died by his own hands on March 21, 1979.

Part 1: https://lemmy.ml/post/26366649

And in general, we need to define what wealth is. How is this wealth measured? Of course, any of us wants to live well. But what does it mean to live well? For some, it is enough to have a good apartment, a dacha (summer cottage), a car, and healthy children who do not have bad habits and stand firmly on their feet in life. For others, even millions of dollars are not enough—they want billions. So how much money and property does one need to feel satisfied in this life, and for their years to be their wealth? I suppose no one can answer this question. But there is wealth that is not just material. To know oneself, to understand the world around us, to explore the art created by humanity—literature, music, and so on. Isn’t that wealth? I have already mentioned that I come from a very poor family, but I did not pay much attention to my poverty and did not worry about being poor as some young people do.

Since childhood, I loved reading. Not far from our home, there was a decent library. At that time, the library mainly had classical literature. I read foreign, Russian, Georgian, and Armenian classical literature, of course, what was printed in the Georgian language. That is wealth. It is impossible to list all the authors whose works I read—there are too many of them. Since childhood, I had a strong desire to read. We lived on the outskirts of the city, and frankly, apart from reading books, I had no other entertainment. I had no money or decent clothes to go to the city center for movies, and the cinemas were far from our home. We didn’t have a TV or even a radio. A radio was installed in our shack around 1948. So books, and only books, were my source of knowledge about the world. However, I must say that the radio greatly expanded my knowledge, especially in music. The radio broadcast amazing musical programs—opera music by Verdi, Tchaikovsky, Paliashvili, Gounod, Mussorgsky, Puccini, Beethoven, Glinka, Mozart, and many others. At first, I did not appreciate opera or classical music. I thought it was not for us, or at least not for me. But something interesting happened in my life.

I wrote in my memoirs that I was born in the mountains of South Ossetia, in the village of Jvaris-Ubani. The thing is, my mother, who already lived in Tbilisi, was in Jvaris-Ubani for the summer when she went into labor. At the same time, my father was arrested. Well, it was 1930! My mother also had my older brother, who was 2 years old at the time. So my mother left me in the village with a woman from the Plievi family and returned to Tbilisi. Since she was a healthy woman and had breast milk to spare, she was hired to breastfeed the son of another woman. This woman was a veterinarian and worked in market sanitation, checking the quality of meat. Sometimes she even threw us some pieces of meat, though this was after the war. So, around 1947 or 1948, I became curious about who had drunk my milk. My mother gave me their address, and I went to meet my milk brother. He turned out to be a very good boy, and we became friends. His father had been repressed, which was quite common in those years. They lived on Rustaveli Avenue. The apartment wasn’t great, but it was near the opera house. It turned out that the ticket checker at the opera was a good friend of his mother. Naturally, Nodari, my milk brother, started taking me to the opera on weekends, and sometimes on other days, for daytime performances. We went there because this woman let us in without tickets. I had no musical education or understanding of what opera was.

The first opera I listened to was The Tsar’s Bride. Everything was nice and cozy, with soft, comfortable seats. The only bad thing was that the Tsar’s bride had a very loud voice, and I couldn’t fall asleep for a long time. Eventually, I did fall asleep. The next time, we went to listen to Rigoletto. Since I had already figured out how to “listen,” I fell asleep instantly. I woke up specifically for the Duke’s aria, La donna è mobile. But with Carmen, the music captivated me from the overture, and I listened with delight until the very end. Later, I listened to operas by Tchaikovsky, Glinka, Mussorgsky, Gounod, and other composers. Opera music fascinated me so much that when I later attended a drama theater performance, I missed the music and musical accompaniment. I realized how much music enhances the perception of what is happening on stage. Much later, when I was an officer and on leave in Tbilisi, I listened to Paliashvili’s opera Daisi (Evening Glow, in Georgian). I left the opera house feeling enlightened, cleansed of everyday dirt. I wanted to do something good for people. I thought that a person who listened to such music as Daisi, Tchaikovsky’s First Piano Concerto, Rachmaninoff’s Second Concerto, Grieg’s Peer Gynt, or the works of other great composers, could not do anything dirty or vile. In my opinion, classical music, if understood, cleanses the soul like a prayer spoken before God in a state of deep emotional excitement. I am deeply grateful to those who introduced me to such spiritual wealth as opera and classical music, and I sincerely feel sorry for those who reject or refuse to appreciate such treasures, preferring only material goods.

I am generally amazed by the abundance of great figures in music, literature, painting, and art in the 19th century. The 20th century also produced great works of art, but the 19th century is unparalleled in this regard. At least, the pseudo-art that emerged in the 20th century and flourished in the 21st did not exist in the 19th century. My generation had the fortunate opportunity to engage with real art, not pseudo-art as we see today. Of course, this does not mean that everything was good then and everything is bad now. That would be an incorrect conclusion. There was also a lot of negativity and even repulsive things in the life of my generation. We were raised in the spirit of loyalty to the cause of Lenin and Stalin. We didn’t fully understand what Lenin and Stalin were up to, but we shouted that we were faithful to their cause. If we had said otherwise, things would have gone badly for us. Unfortunately, in our time, all aspects of life, including art, literature, and music, were limited by the postulates of Marxism-Leninism. Stalin’s statements on any issue were considered the ultimate truth. If you objected, you would become a gold miner in Kolyma or a lumberjack—neither of which was pleasant, and the living conditions were harsh. So, even if we disagreed with Stalin, we expressed enthusiastic admiration for the fact that such a genius was leading our country. Unfortunately, in our time, the opinion of one person determined what we should read, listen to, or see. Anything that did not align with his views was considered bad and dangerous for the people. That’s how the “father of nations” cared for our moral and ideological education. I well remember a number of decisions by the Central Committee of the Communist Party regarding literature and art, where the works of writers, musicians, and artists were subjected to devastating criticism. By the late 1940s, a campaign against cosmopolitanism and admiration for the West had begun. It’s interesting—if Comrade Stalin could see what is happening in our country today in terms of cosmopolitanism and admiration for the West, he wouldn’t just turn in his grave—he’d spin like a fan.

I have dwelled on Stalinism in such detail because Stalinism also contributed its terrible share to the spiritual education of the younger generation in the 1930s and 1940s of the last century, and the consequences of such education are still felt today.

To be continued...

Tolstoy: "I am a man [human]. How should I live? What do I do?"

Salt and Light

“You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people's feet."

“You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven." - Matt 5:13, 14

The Salt

We're humans. Therefore, how should we live? What do we do? Well, what good is salt if it's lost the reason for its existence—to preserve foods or make them taste better?Considering humans unparalleled potential for selflessness in contrast to any other living thing that's (supposedly) ever existed, wouldn't it become incredibly obvious what the reason for a creature as conscious and capable as a human is made to live for? Objectively, God or not: to strive to be as selfless as possible; to be able to acknowledge any of its more barbaric and selfish thoughts or behaviors—at all in the first place—and abstain from them, for a purpose outside of itself. This is the "salt": Selflessness; what good is a human that's lost its purpose? What good are humans as a whole if we've lost our purpose as a whole? Crippling ourselves, defiling our own minds from the images of our past or potential futures we create in our heads via the double edged sword that is our imagination, governing so much over how we feel and behave today; our desires and vanities for the sake of ourselves taking precedence over our design, i.e., building your house (your life) on the sand—like most people—opposed to on the rock, like Jesus or Socrates did.

Why don't we ever see birds, for example, sitting around all day, stimulating their sense organs or crippling themselves—opposed to being birds, as they do; chasing each other, havin a time—sad about how they didn't fulfill xyz desire or vanity for the sake of themselves via the way mankind has manipulated its environment and organized itself? Because the extent of how much less conscious birds (nature in general) are of themselves. Could you imagine what would happen if bees stopped doing what they were made to do? In favor of what they want out of their lives? Life on Earth, yet again, would be led to be extinguished, as it did roughly six other times over the last 14 billion years. Is there anything unique that humans, as a whole, bring to the table, similar to how the species of bees do for all life on Earth?

"Your Kingdom come, your will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven." - Matt 6:9

A day, even millenniums from now, where violence, at the very least, is considered a laughable part of our past as the idea of a King is to us now for example; not by supernatural means, but seen in the sense of Tolstoy's personal, social, and divine conceptions of life: https://lemmy.world/post/23133528. Through a painfully slow millenniums long transitioning into it. Without humans, life on Earth continues as it did for the last 14 billion years, with no great potential for anything to act upon itself or everything else: selfishness or selflessness (morality) upon an environment. This is what makes more conscious, capable beings—on any planet, unique: It's capacity for morality (selfishness and selflessness) in contrast. But what if these beings begin to do the opposite of what they were designed for? As salt is useless without its taste, so would humans—from the point of view of a God(s) or creator(s) of some kind, even from an atheists point of view—be useless without its purpose: selflessness, to even and especially, the most extreme degrees. Opposed to incessantly choosing itself all throughout its life as—out of inherency—a more conscious monkey would (selfishness); and when the storm of death begins to slowly creep toward the shore of your conscience, where will you have built your house (your life)? Out on the sand? As most people would be inherently drawn to? "And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.” - Matt 7:27

The Golden Rule

"Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction [selfishness], and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life [selflessness], and those who find it are few." - Matt 7:13

Beautiful words from a famous song performed by an equally famous singer from Georgia. But perhaps my years are not wealth, but a heavy burden weighing me down with the ailments of old age or heavy thoughts. The question is not simple. On one hand, it seems wonderful that I have lived to be 80 years old. After all, not many reach such an age, and perhaps I should rejoice in having lived to what is called an advanced age. Yes, logically, I should be happy, but unfortunately, there is little joy at this age. It feels as though I am sitting in a death row cell, waiting for either an angel or a devil to come for me, depending on where I will be dragged—to heaven or hell. Well, I have little hope for heaven. I was raised by our socialist system as an atheist and spent my whole life fighting against the "opium of the people," that is, religion. So, there is no hope for heaven. And I don’t want to go to hell. The best scenario would be if there is nothing there. These not-so-joyful thoughts constantly creep into my mind. Hence the gloomy moods, the irritability, and the depression. Unfortunately, the younger generation does not always take into account the emotional state of the older generation and does not understand the seemingly causeless irritability of the elderly. In self-criticism, I must say that we, too, when we were young, did not fully understand the emotional state of the older generation.

But still, not everything is so bad in old age. There are joys unique to the older generation. We rejoice when our children are doing well. We rejoice at the arrival of grandchildren and great-grandchildren. After all, in each of them, there is a piece of grandparents, great-grandparents. Perhaps this is our immortality. We leave, but we remain in our continuation—in our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. Perhaps this is the main essence of our lives: to continue ourselves in our descendants.

Yes, it is a great joy to live to see great-grandchildren and to feel relatively well at the same time. I say "relatively" because at this age, it is impossible not to have some ailments. But for now, I can walk on my own and take care of myself. This is also very important. Much has changed during my time on this earth. I remember when a car appeared on our street, we children would run after it, shouting, "A car! A car!" For us, a car was a kind of wonder. In 1937, the first elections to the Supreme Soviet of the USSR took place. As part of the propaganda campaign, small planes, so-called "corn planes," flew over the city and dropped leaflets urging people to participate in the elections. After that, whenever a plane flew over us, we children would shout for it to drop papers. How far away all that seems now! Much has remained in my memory, but much has also faded.

I remember June 22, 1941, very well. I was 11 years old. I was at my aunt's place near Tbilisi, in a village. I saw everyone running to the center of the settlement where a loudspeaker was hanging. Back then, homes and apartments were not equipped with radios, so loudspeakers were installed in populated areas. I ran there too. I saw people standing with their heads bowed, listening to the radio in complete silence. The announcer was broadcasting Molotov's speech about the treacherous attack of Nazi Germany on the Soviet Union. This happened around noon. The day was bright and sunny. On the square stood men and women, and there was complete silence. A heavy, anxious silence. What left a deep impression on me was not Molotov's speech but this oppressive, crushing silence in the square where several hundred people stood. This terrible silence told me that something had happened that truly threatened us all with death.

From that heavy day, my life changed radically, and for the worse. The struggle for survival began. Even before the war, we lived quite poorly. My mother was a cleaner at a school, and my father was a chimney sweep who also enjoyed Georgian wine a bit too much. There were four of us children. The room we lived in, if you could call it a room, was 12 square meters. All the conveniences and inconveniences were outside. My brother and I slept on the floor, under the table—there was no other space. And despite this poverty, I remember the pre-war years as somehow bright and warm. Perhaps those were the best years of my life. Before the war, food started appearing in stores. Most importantly, there was enough bread. And for us, bread was the main dish. I didn’t think much about how poor we were because I had never known any other life. Everyone lived at about the same level as we did. Some were a little better off, some a little worse. There were no particularly rich people on our street. There was a German family living in the neighboring yard who had a piano—they were considered rich in our eyes. Or if someone had a gramophone, they were also considered rich. There was no one to envy. Perhaps that’s why relationships between people before the war were friendly. There were no locks on the doors. People shared their last piece of bread with each other. In the evenings, all the residents of our courtyard would gather under the mulberry tree and talk about various topics. Often, they discussed whether there would be a war with Germany. Someone would bring a fresh newspaper, and I was asked to read it aloud. So, this is where my political work began. And all this calm, peaceful life disappeared in an instant. WAR.

In the fall, my father was drafted to the front. There were four of us children: 13, 11, and two 3-year-olds, and we all wanted to eat. How we survived these difficult war years and the post-war years, I write about in more detail in my memoirs. Here, I just want to ask myself: were these years my wealth? No. God forbid anyone such wealth. For Kikabidze, of course, the years of his childhood and adolescence were wealth. He did not have to live through the war years. And it’s somehow offensive that the theme of "children of war," what they had to endure—not just in the Leningrad blockade, which undoubtedly deserves special attention—has not been fully addressed. But this issue needs to be raised in general. What did the children of war in the Soviet Union have to endure? How "wealthy" were their childhood years! Back then, the country did everything it could to support the front. The question of our existence as a people, as a country, was at stake. That’s why we lived by the law: "Everything for the front, everything for victory." We had no childhood, no youth. It’s hard to consider these years our wealth. But that’s not all. When we reached retirement age and thought we were entering a well-deserved rest, with a happy old age ahead, life turned 180 degrees, and those who were nobody became everything. We, who built factories, cities, and defended the country, became nobodies. And they threw us a beggarly pension, like throwing a dog a bare bone. There’s no room for wealth here. So, our years, which were impoverished in childhood, turned out to be even more impoverished in old age. So, unfortunately, it doesn’t work out: my years, my wealth.

To be Continued