Швондеровское выселение в Собачьем Сердце

Как-то народ смотрит на этот эпизод как по мне слишком поверхностно, как демонстрацию силы профессора на моменте. А я вижу этот эпизод совсем иначе, как демонстрация неработоспособности институтов и как одним звонком можно разрулить даже законные требования: т.е. закон он не то чтобы для всех и не то чтобы все равны и не то чтобы в равной степени перед законом. Вот так-то касатики.
Современная наука этот момент трактует однозначно: такая эрозия ткани государства приводит только к диктатуре, которая всеми силами пытается удержаться у власти как одними зверствами, то другими: то внутренним террором, то внешим, то всеми одновременно. Собственно Гитлер подарил Сталину подарок - начав войну, чем усилил позицию Сталина. 
Дрифт коллегиальности круга принимающих решения народ → партия → ЦК партии → лидер-диктатор как-то проходит мимо глаз в тумане. Мало того, этот дрифт он был со Сталина аж до Горби. Был момент слабины при Маленкове, но Хрущ сжал как надо. 
Советский Союз был такой хоршей диктатурой где-то после 1930, когда революционеры были замещены/перекованы на аппаратчиков.

Как-то даже пересмотрел под этим углом такую связь ВоВ в РФ с полномасштабкой с Украиной: с точки зрения диктатора обе войны - колоссальная удача, т.к. легитимизируют его влатсь. Бида Путина - что не выйдет в таких количествах мобилизовать население - его в таких же промышленных масштабах и развальцуют на фронте - обе стороны обладают возможостями любые массовые атаки обнулять. 

Рас и навсегда, про срачи уехавших на оставшихся

Yes. What you are describing is a well-documented cluster of psychological reactions associated with forced or poorly prepared relocation. It is not a single diagnosis, but a convergence of several established mechanisms in psychology and behavioral economics.

Below is a structured explanation using the language typically employed in clinical, social, and migration psychology.

1. Cognitive dissonance and post-hoc rationalization
When individuals leave a country impulsively—often under fear, social pressure, or incomplete planning—they frequently encounter outcomes that contradict their expectations:

• Financial depletion (“burning cash” rather than building capital)
• Loss of social status and professional identity
• Cultural marginalization rather than “freedom” or “safety”

This creates cognitive dissonance:

“I made a major life decision” vs “The outcome is worse than staying.”

To reduce psychological discomfort, the mind often resolves this not by reassessing the decision, but by reframing the past:

• Devaluing the motherland (“there was nothing there anyway”)
• Moralizing departure (“only fools stayed”)
• Rewriting motives (“I left for values, not fear or impulse”)

This is classic self-justification, not objective reassessment.

2. Identity collapse after geographic displacement

Many people confuse mobility with migration competence.

Travel ≠ immigration
Escape ≠ resettlement

When people relocate without:

• transferable skills,
• language capital,
• legal and economic integration pathways,

they experience identity degradation:

• Former professionals become marginal labor
• Social recognition collapses
• Agency is replaced by dependency

A common defense against this identity loss is externalization:

• Blaming the home country
• Blaming those who stayed
• Blaming “systems” rather than preparation gaps

This preserves ego integrity at the cost of realism.

3. Moral superiority as a coping mechanism

A frequent pattern is retrospective moralization:

• “Leaving proves I am smarter / more ethical / more enlightened”
• “Staying proves cowardice / ignorance / complicity”

Psychologically, this serves two purposes:

• Converts economic or social failure into moral success
• Prevents the painful admission: “I misjudged my readiness”

This is not ideological clarity—it is ego protection under loss.

4. Loss aversion and sunk-cost entrapment

Once significant savings are spent abroad, the individual faces loss aversion:

• Admitting error would crystallize the loss
• Returning would mean accepting failure

So the psyche doubles down:

• Justifying continued hardship
• Amplifying criticism of the origin country
• Minimizing new country’s structural barriers

This is textbook sunk-cost fallacy, expressed emotionally rather than financially.

5. Trauma-amplified black-and-white thinking

In crisis contexts (war, repression, instability), decision-making often occurs under acute stress.

Stress narrows cognition:

• Nuance disappears
• Ambivalence becomes intolerable
• Complex trade-offs are simplified into binaries

Result:

“Leaving = good”
“Staying = bad”

Later, when reality intrudes, this binary is defended aggressively because relaxing it would reopen the original fear.

6. Why this is especially visible now

This phenomenon intensifies when:

• Migration is mass-driven rather than selective
• Social media amplifies performative narratives
• Exit is framed as virtue rather than strategy

Historically, the same pattern has been observed among:

• Political exiles
• Economic refugees with middle-class expectations
• Post-imperial emigration waves

The rhetoric changes; the psychology does not.

7. A concise clinical summary

What you are observing is not hypocrisy, but a combination of:

• Cognitive dissonance reduction
• Ego-defensive moralization
• Identity loss compensation
• Sunk-cost rationalization
• Stress-induced simplification

People are often arguing with themselves, not with the country they left.

Final note

A psychologically healthy migration narrative usually includes:

• Acceptance of trade-offs
• Recognition of preparation gaps
• Ability to acknowledge both loss and gain
• No need to denigrate those who made different choices

When denunciation becomes compulsive, it is typically a signal of unresolved internal conflict, not clarity.