The trend to use Western terms is dangerous: it confuses and leads away from the goal
Positive discrimination (PD) is a term coined by the Anglo-Saxons and first used by John Kennedy’s advisors. The hundreds (!) of failed attempts on Fidel Castro’s life speak well of the level of those advisors.
If ‘human rights’ were invented by the Anglo-Saxons as a bludgeon against their opponents — the entire socialist camp, then the PD was intended to bully their own people. Distract them from the point.
How did it start working there? There is real long-term discrimination against blacks. Let’s do this: we won’t admit, or compensate, or apologise, or anything like that. Instead, we will give black people some benefits and preferences, but let’s call this downright reverse discrimination.
Although no, that’s also bad. They, ungrateful people, don’t want to read and listen carefully and still shout about oppression, segregation and other inequality. They don’t appreciate that we already said: ‘reverse’. Then let’s call this our state (!) policy affirmative actions. And there is no longer any discrimination in our states, not at all.
I repeat: this is not just a term — it is often a policy. Now not only Anglo-Saxons, but also united Europeans. State policy, supported by all public (and there is no need to harbour illusions — by all private too) means.
Distorted meanings at the core
Moreover, the PD (for some reason) does not apply to Asia, Africa and Latin America as a whole. But Europe has been oppressing these countries and continents for a long, long time, depleting them, killing them, taking advantage of them... but somehow it’s in no hurry to deal with reverse discrimination. Maybe because the process is still ongoing?
In coming up with terms that ennoble obscenity (for example, calling a frenzied rebellion an ‘overturn vote’ or a bloody coup a ‘dandelion revolution’), the Anglo-Saxons, admittedly, were adept. Why, they are the best on the planet when it comes to juggling words.
Other nations, trying to somehow maintain common sense, translate affirmative actions as ‘positive discrimination’, PD? Well, okay. They are acting like apes themselves, but it’s better for us.
Over time, terms (especially terms supported by the entire Anglo-Saxon power: the world’s media, Hollywood, academia, culture and libraries) begin to take on a life of their own. And they form the basis of Western values. Which, as we have seen from our own experience, are simply alien to us.
“Neoliberal values,” Aleksandr Lukashenko recalled, “divide society into castes, give privileges to the chosen few, throw peoples into an immoral, soulless abyss in the pursuit of profit.” These are not our values. “We are dangerous for them... an example of the absence of a gap between rich and poor, an example of social security for all citizens, an example of a healthy society and traditional values.” And if they are dangerous, they won’t leave us alone.
We need to watch the terms
It would seem that PD is a minor issue, not worth attention. However, remember how the inaccurate use of this in relation to state languages caused a flurry of eruptions from foreign extremists — but that would be okay — and quite hysteria among some pro-government bloggers, Opinion Leaders, even journalists and experts.
They, Western terms (as well as Western values), are designed to do just that — to breed bad blood! Only the Anglo-Saxons can interpret them correctly, and everyone else, by definition, will always wait for the final verdict from the rulers of the world. This is how the ‘world created according to the rules’ works — according to their rules. Which everyone else is obliged to fulfil (without coming to an agreement on the content) under the threat of sanctions, exceptions, suspensions, restrictions and other things. And they will change the rules for themselves at any moment.
Why should we indulge them in this regard? Why drag a poisoned bone planted into the house specifically for this purpose? To then swear for a long time about other people’s trifles, distracting from your main thing?
It’s better in general, as my mother taught, not to put it in your mouth. As, by the way, ‘systemic nationalism’ is another new beast. Like ‘systemic’, is it better than ‘animal’, although it is not clear how it grows out of ‘simple everyday’?
The first analogy that comes to mind is the neighbour’s ‘systemic liberalism’. And such systemic liberals as Gaidar, for example, or Chubais, or Shulman are ominous figures not only for Russians, but also for Belarus.
Let’s be simply patriotic statesmen where it needs to be articulated. Quite enough.
In the beginning was the Word
Finally, about word usage. A person who uses this term (PD) in his native land (within, say, the CIS or the Union State) usually strives to impart a scientific quality to his speech — and is mistaken. One might even say that he or she does not know the intricacies of the Russian language.
After all, the connotation of the term ‘discrimination’ in Russian is purely negative; no amount of positive addition can change this. How can you sweeten an already spoiled barrel with even a good apple? With Western values, for example.
The point here is also this: Russians (more broadly, Slavs) for centuries, in fact, did not engage in discrimination. And if there is no subject, there is no term. Whereas for the Anglo-Saxons, discrimination is a historically established way of life expansion, a modus operandi. And now, in the global world, the time has come for them to ‘excuse themselves’ — hence the PD.
Discrimination by definition is different treatment of people (groups of people) on some basis, right? All other things being equal, this is what is very important! Otherwise, there is a comparison between sour and square.
For example, if we say that the state supports orphans and thereby 'conducts PD in relation to other children’, the logic will be lame and the conditions of comparison will disappear. It is necessary to compare (if for some reason this is done publicly) orphans with each other, then it will work. Or rather, it won’t work, this will be the correct answer.
We do not engage in discrimination — neither negative nor positive, nor any. Moving your grandmother across the road is not PD in relation to young girls, you don’t understand, it’s different!
And yes — there is no PD language, neither Russian nor Belarusian. There is bilingualism officially enshrined in the Constitution — and that’s all, there’s nothing to argue about.
Instead of mindlessly adopting their terms, we need to do this: “Form an intelligent, thinking person who can look at external propaganda from top to bottom, because he or she will think more complexly than the systems that are trying to impose on him or her,” Kirill Koktysh, Doctor of Science, professor at MGIMO.
Let’s think more complexly than the simple Western concepts offered to us. Designed, like decoy candy, to scientifically stupefy the neophyte. Among such concepts, PD (positive, you know, discrimination) is certainly included.
A proposal was made in a domestic telegram channel a while back: “In the future, we will have to think very hard about who should be allowed to be called an expert” — that’s right, as they say, I fiercely agree. One of the criteria may be ‘mentioning Anglo-Saxon socio-political terms in vain’. After all, PD (among other Western values constructed by our enemies) is designed to liquefy the brains of uncritical users, always remember this.
Sorry, I just had to rant about that.