RSS
Konstantin Krylov in Moscow, Oct 2018 (own photo).
2020 is becoming quite the bleak year for Russian nationalism in demographic terms. After Limonov’s passing on March 17, he is now followed by leader of the banned National Democratic Party (NDP) party Konstantin Krylov, who has just died at the age of 52 from stroke-related complications possibly aggravated by coronavirus.
He is survived by his wife Natalia Shalimova, who is the secretary of the NDP and a politician in her own right.
I am by no means a Krylov expert, and I only met the man about a couple of times in passing. My sole “involvement” with any of his movement’s political/media structures was a podcast with NDP-Streams a couple of weeks ago in which we discussed masks and IQ. Nonetheless, for Westerners for whom Russian nationalism begins with Dugin and ends at Putler, I hope the following may be nonetheless be informative.
Krylov was perhaps the leading intellectual/thinker of the national democratic/”liberal” wing of the Russian nationalist movement (as Egor Kholmogorov is to its conservative one), his main orienteers being the defense of ethnic Russian interests at home and abroad, and opposition to the “anti-national” policies of the Putin regime.
Quick rundown of his bio:
- He campaigned for a closed borders regime with Central Asia, guns legalization, and against electoral falsification.
- Was one of the main organizers of the “Russian Marches” in their halcyon days before increasing persecution and then Crimea made them irrelevant.
- Was famously convicted of “hate speech” (Article 282) for his statement that it is “time to do away with this strange economic system” at the “Stop Feeding the Caucasus” protest in 2011. It was overturned on appeal.
- In contradistinction to Western tropes that Russians who oppose Putin and entertain liberal social views are invariably their friends, he was nonetheless a strong supporter of Russian irredentism. The NDP was active in supporting the LDNR both materially and informationally, and Krylov himself sometimes visited and wrote about developments in the two insurrectionist republics.
- The human rights NGO ROD-Pravo (“Russian Social Movement”), headed jointly by him and Natalia Kholmogorova, highlights anti-Russian abuses on its website and provides legal help to its victims (e.g. DNR fighters facing deportation to the Ukraine).
- Aside from practical politics and political theory, he was also a sci-fi/fantasy writer, having been noticed and recommended for publication when writing under his nom de plume Mikhail Kharitonov by none other than Sergey Lukyanenko (he of Night Watch fame).
In terms of his outlook on history, Krylov was a staunch anti-Bolshevik:
What are the Bolsheviks? These are the people who killed tens of millions of Russian people (and deliberately so, precisely because they were Russian and the best), the rest they robbed, deprived of property, human rights, kept them in slavery, mercilessly exploited, tore the Russian people into pieces, created from wild tribes new peoples who were fed and entertained at the Russian expense. And in the end – they reassigned all the material assets created by Russians over seventy years of hard labor to a gaggle of foreigners, criminals and spies – and placed themselves on top of this pile. While generously rewarding non-Russians with their own statehood on stolen Russian soil or a privileged position within the so-called Russian Federation.
All this seemed to be done according to the plan and in the interests of the international terrorist organization the International, controlled from somewhere abroad… Note that I have listed well-known facts. The present Bolsheviks and Bolsheviks, of course, try to deny them – in the style of “here we have killed not a million, but only 700,000, you are lying, haha.” But any mentally healthy person understands that such excuses can be seriously considered only by people who are mentally ill. Well, or connoisseurs of Kharms’ work, brilliantly reproducing the Bolshevik logic: “I did not rape Elizaveta Antonovna: firstly, she was no longer a girl, and secondly, I had to deal with a corpse, and she does not have to complain.” (Тhe Bolsheviks say the exact same thing about the Russian Empire they killed).
Sometimes, it seems, his frustrations with the Russian people’s historical amnesia and perceived inability to affirm their own political subjectivity got sufficiently acute to the extent it metamorphosed into a kind of Galkovskian Russophobia. Here is an example of one of his more “powerful” takes in this genre: “In fairness, the Russian language should be forgotten just on account of Lenin having spoken it. As with Russian culture as a whole, which found itself unable to prevent neither 1917, nor 1991. All Russian history is rotten and irredeemable on account of 1917 and 1991, and we ought to entirely reject it, learn English, and consider ourselves historical infants, whom we in fact are.”
Yet even these meltdowns must have been accompanied by a wry self-awareness, given what he wrote about the role of the Russian intelligentsia in his seminal 1997 work “Behavior“, parts of the last chapter of which, “Civilization and its Enemies“, I translated back in 2009:
The “Russian intelligent” – is a person who solves his problems by way of bringing ill to society, if not by weapons, then by words. The intelligentsia behave towards Russian society (and especially towards the Russian state) as a scandal-maker in a queue – he insults everyone present, and expects that he will be allowed to move forwards in line just so that they’d get him to shut up.
This is the basic underlying point behind the intelligentsia’s total criticism of all aspects of Russian life and their purposeful foisting of an irrational sense of guilt on the Russian people… As a rule, this “criticism” uses an array of ideas, created in the West (e.g., liberal socio-economic theories), furthermore in many cases the people leaning on these ideas don’t actually understand them: this is another example in which the tools created by civilization, are used in the fight against civilization.
Therefore there’s no reason to be amazed that completely valid Western ideas acquire a “destructive force” when applied to Russia: they are used for explicitly deconstructive purposes.
We may view Konstantin Krylov as a barbarian under his own schema. But regardless of his eclectic philosophical views (Zoroastrianism) and playful trollishness, he was a barbarian who ultimately fought for Rome – the third and final one.
***
Konstantin Krylov. 1967-2020.
�
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Persian
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Please keep off topic posts to the current Open Thread.
If you are new to my work, start here.
Nice sophism Karlin.
This guys political ideas where anti-patriotic
AK: A commie posting from Canada is the definition of Russian patriotism. Anyhow, I suggest making your comments more substantive (and intelligent), or I’ll be deleting your subsequent ones.
You are a product of White emigree's who presumably had property taken away leaving your family angry. This makes sense. Of course this gives you a natural bias that you seek to confirm anyway you can. This results in an affinity for supporting anybody who is anti-Soviet and calling anybody who says anything positive about the USSR as "commies" or "sovoks". The language an individual uses is indicative of their thought process - by simplifying a complex idea into "commies" and "sovoks", implies that you cannot look past individual biases (admittedly this is difficult).
Furthermore, the use of "sovok"/"commie" disparagingly also plays into the US propaganda machine. How you may ask? Simple. If you read Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky you will realize that one of the ways that the US propaganda machine acts is through control/misrepresentation of language and fact. This was seen with how many "defector" interviews that were set up in the US/Western countries during the Cold War were staged - much like how this is the same case with modern North Korean defectors (Yeon Mi Park was caught in lies multiple times and admitted to forging many of her stories or example), where they tell tall tales because it earns them good money and status.
Next, you focus excessively on a single point of history and use that as proof that "the USSR was horrible bloody where stalin personally killed 1 billion people". This is similar how the Sophist Protagoras speaks in Plato's dialogues - as he presents himself as all knowing and master of everything but ends up being incomplete. The fact of the matter is, many "facts" people think they know about the USSR are not "facts" and have been severely twisted during the cold war. This is a similar case with North Korea, as numerous people (including a Russian lady with her husband) that have move there tell an entirely different story. In fact, the narrative you construct of "Lenin who hated Russia" is entirely different to the way he is presented by others who seem him as a very astute politician and patriot who used the Germans to help propel him to power. So how do we determine which narrative is the correct one? Was he a Russian patriot who used the Germans or was he a traitor who hated Russia like you claim? This is not an easy question to answer - but I lean to the former. Why? Because of the numerous amount of reforms that the fledgling USSR underwent under the Bolshevik rule - from the time NEP was introduced in the USSR to the rise of Stalin, Russia had returned to pre-war levels of wealth. A man who hated the country would not bother improving the livelihoods of the citizens and would have kept a state of War Communism indefinitely.
http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/1670/lenins-new-economic-policy-what-it-was-and-how-it-changed-the-soviet-union
Any true Russian patriot would not use American terms like "human rights", or use terms like "commie". Furthermore, a Russian patriot understands that America can never be Russia's friend and that Russia should ban all American TV/close down internet like China and reorient itself East. A Russian patriot is a proponent of Platonic Euriasianism as proposed by Dugin (read the Fourth Political Theory) and against all forms of liberalism. Being American you have accepted the liberal world view.
https://i.imgur.com/qFLW3kr.jpg
In the interests of keeping this short, I will address your post in OP.1. Although I agree with limiting central asian presence and being self sufficient like the USSR, guns legalization in Russia is a Libertardian wet dream and should not be allowed as it leads to more problems than it solves.
2. The fact that he wants to "stop feeding the Caucasus" makes me suspect this guy is an American shill masquerading as a Russian patriot. Why? Because if Russia stops feeding the Caucasus and gives it independence it will trigger the numerous other republics in Russia to demand their independence and will cause a breakup of Russia. And if there isn't it will have a hotbed of islamic radicalism right under its wing.
3. Yes Russia should restore the territories that formerly belonged to it, but this is insufficient. Russia has a manifest destiny and should have control over the rest of Europe as the Soviet's dreamed (and that they almost achieved twice during Lenin's and Stalin's tenure respectively). This is only possible by moving away from ideals of Americanism (including those of democracy) and reorganizing itself based on the Chinese model.
4. If he was at all intellectually honest he would recognize the great achievements of science and technology and athletics that the USSR achieved AFTER the war and that it was all destroyed by anti-Soviet spies and demagogues such as himself that bought into Americanism.
Although this guy had some good ideas - these ideas are fairly standard in many circles I participate in. Why I think you particularly like him is because of his anti-Bolshevik stance, without it he would hardly be noteworthy in your eyes. This also accounts for why you like svidomiy Ukrainian traitors like AP.
The fact that you were born in the USA and moved to Russia hardly makes you a patriot - just like an Indian born in India and moving to Canada hardly makes a Canadian patriot. You absorbed destructive and toxic Americanism rather than fighting against it. Americanism has destroyed Russia once, and is currently doing it again. The only way to resist it is to reject it in Totality as Guenon says - this rejection is only possible, by either accepting the Soviet position, Duganism/Eurasianism, that of Italian Fascism or radical islamism. Each of these positions are positions of totatlity and by their nature are in opposition to Liberalism.Replies: @Chungus, @Belarusian Dude, @AP, @Anatoly Karlin, @Korenchkin, @Parbes, @Cyrano, @Iris
I really enjoy Krylov/Kharitonov’s novels especially “Uber Alles” that he coauthored with Nesterenko and published online.
https://haritonov.livejournal.com/54691.html
Someone should translate this excellent alternative history novel to English and also upload it to read online because it will probably never be published as a paper book neither in Russia or the West.
His other writings are also quite talented.
The cycle of Sci-Fi novels written as parodies of the Strugatsky brothers’ lore are very clever and quite enjoyable.
His “Buratino” is absolutely hilarious in its brilliant trollishness.
Krylov found it hard to keep a positive outlook on current Russian affairs.
He was disenchanted by the Russian people’s collective inability to stand for their historical rights and today’s interests.
He also had a hard time earning a living for his family, probably because his political views have made him an outcast among other Russian intellectuals and writers.
He clearly struggled the last few years.
Now he is free from it all.
Rest In Peace Konstantin Anatolyevitch.
Мир праху.
Rest in peace
Was he against the Bolsheviks or the (((Bolsheviks)))?
Is Sergey Glazyev some crypto-ultra? If so, then there is hope for Russia. If not, well, I’m sorry but you’ll be Eurasianized (at least you’re not being Westfied).
By the way, Europe should be recolonized in its entirety by Latvians.
But Latvian is too much of a crap language for anything, so Neo Europa shall speak Russian instead.
The cuisine must not be Latvian as well.
Nice sophism Karlin.
This guys political ideas where anti-patriotic
AK: A commie posting from Canada is the definition of Russian patriotism. Anyhow, I suggest making your comments more substantive (and intelligent), or I’ll be deleting your subsequent ones.Replies: @NazBolFren
Alright you want “more substantiative” comments (my post history is already full of well substantiated comments), you asked for it.
You are a product of White emigree’s who presumably had property taken away leaving your family angry. This makes sense. Of course this gives you a natural bias that you seek to confirm anyway you can. This results in an affinity for supporting anybody who is anti-Soviet and calling anybody who says anything positive about the USSR as “commies” or “sovoks”. The language an individual uses is indicative of their thought process – by simplifying a complex idea into “commies” and “sovoks”, implies that you cannot look past individual biases (admittedly this is difficult).
Furthermore, the use of “sovok”/”commie” disparagingly also plays into the US propaganda machine. How you may ask? Simple. If you read Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky you will realize that one of the ways that the US propaganda machine acts is through control/misrepresentation of language and fact. This was seen with how many “defector” interviews that were set up in the US/Western countries during the Cold War were staged – much like how this is the same case with modern North Korean defectors (Yeon Mi Park was caught in lies multiple times and admitted to forging many of her stories or example), where they tell tall tales because it earns them good money and status.
Next, you focus excessively on a single point of history and use that as proof that “the USSR was horrible bloody where stalin personally killed 1 billion people”. This is similar how the Sophist Protagoras speaks in Plato’s dialogues – as he presents himself as all knowing and master of everything but ends up being incomplete. The fact of the matter is, many “facts” people think they know about the USSR are not “facts” and have been severely twisted during the cold war. This is a similar case with North Korea, as numerous people (including a Russian lady with her husband) that have move there tell an entirely different story. In fact, the narrative you construct of “Lenin who hated Russia” is entirely different to the way he is presented by others who seem him as a very astute politician and patriot who used the Germans to help propel him to power. So how do we determine which narrative is the correct one? Was he a Russian patriot who used the Germans or was he a traitor who hated Russia like you claim? This is not an easy question to answer – but I lean to the former. Why? Because of the numerous amount of reforms that the fledgling USSR underwent under the Bolshevik rule – from the time NEP was introduced in the USSR to the rise of Stalin, Russia had returned to pre-war levels of wealth. A man who hated the country would not bother improving the livelihoods of the citizens and would have kept a state of War Communism indefinitely.
http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/1670/lenins-new-economic-policy-what-it-was-and-how-it-changed-the-soviet-union
Any true Russian patriot would not use American terms like “human rights”, or use terms like “commie”. Furthermore, a Russian patriot understands that America can never be Russia’s friend and that Russia should ban all American TV/close down internet like China and reorient itself East. A Russian patriot is a proponent of Platonic Euriasianism as proposed by Dugin (read the Fourth Political Theory) and against all forms of liberalism. Being American you have accepted the liberal world view.
In the interests of keeping this short, I will address your post in OP.
1. Although I agree with limiting central asian presence and being self sufficient like the USSR, guns legalization in Russia is a Libertardian wet dream and should not be allowed as it leads to more problems than it solves.
2. The fact that he wants to “stop feeding the Caucasus” makes me suspect this guy is an American shill masquerading as a Russian patriot. Why? Because if Russia stops feeding the Caucasus and gives it independence it will trigger the numerous other republics in Russia to demand their independence and will cause a breakup of Russia. And if there isn’t it will have a hotbed of islamic radicalism right under its wing.
3. Yes Russia should restore the territories that formerly belonged to it, but this is insufficient. Russia has a manifest destiny and should have control over the rest of Europe as the Soviet’s dreamed (and that they almost achieved twice during Lenin’s and Stalin’s tenure respectively). This is only possible by moving away from ideals of Americanism (including those of democracy) and reorganizing itself based on the Chinese model.
4. If he was at all intellectually honest he would recognize the great achievements of science and technology and athletics that the USSR achieved AFTER the war and that it was all destroyed by anti-Soviet spies and demagogues such as himself that bought into Americanism.
Although this guy had some good ideas – these ideas are fairly standard in many circles I participate in. Why I think you particularly like him is because of his anti-Bolshevik stance, without it he would hardly be noteworthy in your eyes. This also accounts for why you like svidomiy Ukrainian traitors like AP.
The fact that you were born in the USA and moved to Russia hardly makes you a patriot – just like an Indian born in India and moving to Canada hardly makes a Canadian patriot. You absorbed destructive and toxic Americanism rather than fighting against it. Americanism has destroyed Russia once, and is currently doing it again. The only way to resist it is to reject it in Totality as Guenon says – this rejection is only possible, by either accepting the Soviet position, Duganism/Eurasianism, that of Italian Fascism or radical islamism. Each of these positions are positions of totatlity and by their nature are in opposition to Liberalism.
The dead guy's point is spot on: start speaking english, you're not a people anymore, you were annihilated, wiped out, in the 20th century.
A demoralised people, another historical victim of the Jews in two occasions even: 1917, when they robbed Russia of its future as THE Superpower in all areas, and in 1991, when there occured another pillage.
The only way for Russia is the Chinese one: Become a Nationalist Dictatorship with right-wing social views and economic models. The greatest Chinese glory was to abandon Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao and all the other shitheads and instead just implement de Nazi economics of Friedrich List, explicitly.Replies: @NazBolFren
Otherwise it is a very sad case.Replies: @NazBolFren
I don't recall where I said I "support" Krylov. I tried to give him a fair and balanced obit, as appropriate to someone broadly in my ideological camp on the day of his death.
You might also want to get some things about my bio right. Unfortunately, I don't have any significant Whites in my immediate family tree that I know of. I was born in Russia and emigrated with my parents to the West at the age of 6, in the 1990s. Thanks to sovoks who sold out "their" own country to the West for jeans and Big Macs. Many of whom then left for the West themselves, like I assume your parents.Replies: @NazBolFren
VERY good post. You absolutely nailed it with your description of the psychology, motivations and mental processes of this guy Anatoly Karlin. BRAVO! A five-star post.
AK: So I don't know why you'd waste your time commenting here then. I'll take the liberty of relieving you of that temptation in the future.
1. The October revolution in 1917.
2. The Nazi invasion of 1941.
3. The arrival of “democracy” in 1991.
Guess which one cost Russia the most demographically? Actually not just Russia but the Slavic component of the USSR? Number 3.
Thanks to the wonderful idea of “democracy” finally gracing Russia with its presence, the Slavic population of USSR declined by close to 40 million people. More than there were lost during the October revolution and definitely more than the 27 million lost during the WW2.
At the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia had about 155 million. The number today is about 142. Ukraine fared way worse. I think they were close to 60 million at the break-up of the USSR, and now they are down to sub 40 million.
“Democracy” did more damage to the Slavs of the USSR than both the Bolsheviks and the Nazis combined. I don’t care for that s**ty idea - "democracy". It’s all phony, and at its core it has a hatred for the Slavs – when applied to Slavic lands.Replies: @Ano4
What you call "sophists" are people who actually attack Russia as a nation while pretending to attack the USSR as a political regime. This is why they indiscriminately and ridiculously picture anything related to the USSR as negative.
Their "sophism" is not accidental but deliberate, and only expresses the prejudiced ideology of Cold War 2.0.Replies: @Korenchkin
You are a product of White emigree's who presumably had property taken away leaving your family angry. This makes sense. Of course this gives you a natural bias that you seek to confirm anyway you can. This results in an affinity for supporting anybody who is anti-Soviet and calling anybody who says anything positive about the USSR as "commies" or "sovoks". The language an individual uses is indicative of their thought process - by simplifying a complex idea into "commies" and "sovoks", implies that you cannot look past individual biases (admittedly this is difficult).
Furthermore, the use of "sovok"/"commie" disparagingly also plays into the US propaganda machine. How you may ask? Simple. If you read Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky you will realize that one of the ways that the US propaganda machine acts is through control/misrepresentation of language and fact. This was seen with how many "defector" interviews that were set up in the US/Western countries during the Cold War were staged - much like how this is the same case with modern North Korean defectors (Yeon Mi Park was caught in lies multiple times and admitted to forging many of her stories or example), where they tell tall tales because it earns them good money and status.
Next, you focus excessively on a single point of history and use that as proof that "the USSR was horrible bloody where stalin personally killed 1 billion people". This is similar how the Sophist Protagoras speaks in Plato's dialogues - as he presents himself as all knowing and master of everything but ends up being incomplete. The fact of the matter is, many "facts" people think they know about the USSR are not "facts" and have been severely twisted during the cold war. This is a similar case with North Korea, as numerous people (including a Russian lady with her husband) that have move there tell an entirely different story. In fact, the narrative you construct of "Lenin who hated Russia" is entirely different to the way he is presented by others who seem him as a very astute politician and patriot who used the Germans to help propel him to power. So how do we determine which narrative is the correct one? Was he a Russian patriot who used the Germans or was he a traitor who hated Russia like you claim? This is not an easy question to answer - but I lean to the former. Why? Because of the numerous amount of reforms that the fledgling USSR underwent under the Bolshevik rule - from the time NEP was introduced in the USSR to the rise of Stalin, Russia had returned to pre-war levels of wealth. A man who hated the country would not bother improving the livelihoods of the citizens and would have kept a state of War Communism indefinitely.
http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/1670/lenins-new-economic-policy-what-it-was-and-how-it-changed-the-soviet-union
Any true Russian patriot would not use American terms like "human rights", or use terms like "commie". Furthermore, a Russian patriot understands that America can never be Russia's friend and that Russia should ban all American TV/close down internet like China and reorient itself East. A Russian patriot is a proponent of Platonic Euriasianism as proposed by Dugin (read the Fourth Political Theory) and against all forms of liberalism. Being American you have accepted the liberal world view.
https://i.imgur.com/qFLW3kr.jpg
In the interests of keeping this short, I will address your post in OP.1. Although I agree with limiting central asian presence and being self sufficient like the USSR, guns legalization in Russia is a Libertardian wet dream and should not be allowed as it leads to more problems than it solves.
2. The fact that he wants to "stop feeding the Caucasus" makes me suspect this guy is an American shill masquerading as a Russian patriot. Why? Because if Russia stops feeding the Caucasus and gives it independence it will trigger the numerous other republics in Russia to demand their independence and will cause a breakup of Russia. And if there isn't it will have a hotbed of islamic radicalism right under its wing.
3. Yes Russia should restore the territories that formerly belonged to it, but this is insufficient. Russia has a manifest destiny and should have control over the rest of Europe as the Soviet's dreamed (and that they almost achieved twice during Lenin's and Stalin's tenure respectively). This is only possible by moving away from ideals of Americanism (including those of democracy) and reorganizing itself based on the Chinese model.
4. If he was at all intellectually honest he would recognize the great achievements of science and technology and athletics that the USSR achieved AFTER the war and that it was all destroyed by anti-Soviet spies and demagogues such as himself that bought into Americanism.
Although this guy had some good ideas - these ideas are fairly standard in many circles I participate in. Why I think you particularly like him is because of his anti-Bolshevik stance, without it he would hardly be noteworthy in your eyes. This also accounts for why you like svidomiy Ukrainian traitors like AP.
The fact that you were born in the USA and moved to Russia hardly makes you a patriot - just like an Indian born in India and moving to Canada hardly makes a Canadian patriot. You absorbed destructive and toxic Americanism rather than fighting against it. Americanism has destroyed Russia once, and is currently doing it again. The only way to resist it is to reject it in Totality as Guenon says - this rejection is only possible, by either accepting the Soviet position, Duganism/Eurasianism, that of Italian Fascism or radical islamism. Each of these positions are positions of totatlity and by their nature are in opposition to Liberalism.Replies: @Chungus, @Belarusian Dude, @AP, @Anatoly Karlin, @Korenchkin, @Parbes, @Cyrano, @Iris
Nothing you said even remotely works against the idea that the Soviet Union was a mistake of history, and a civilisational death to Russia.
The dead guy’s point is spot on: start speaking english, you’re not a people anymore, you were annihilated, wiped out, in the 20th century.
A demoralised people, another historical victim of the Jews in two occasions even: 1917, when they robbed Russia of its future as THE Superpower in all areas, and in 1991, when there occured another pillage.
The only way for Russia is the Chinese one: Become a Nationalist Dictatorship with right-wing social views and economic models. The greatest Chinese glory was to abandon Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao and all the other shitheads and instead just implement de Nazi economics of Friedrich List, explicitly.
You are a product of White emigree's who presumably had property taken away leaving your family angry. This makes sense. Of course this gives you a natural bias that you seek to confirm anyway you can. This results in an affinity for supporting anybody who is anti-Soviet and calling anybody who says anything positive about the USSR as "commies" or "sovoks". The language an individual uses is indicative of their thought process - by simplifying a complex idea into "commies" and "sovoks", implies that you cannot look past individual biases (admittedly this is difficult).
Furthermore, the use of "sovok"/"commie" disparagingly also plays into the US propaganda machine. How you may ask? Simple. If you read Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky you will realize that one of the ways that the US propaganda machine acts is through control/misrepresentation of language and fact. This was seen with how many "defector" interviews that were set up in the US/Western countries during the Cold War were staged - much like how this is the same case with modern North Korean defectors (Yeon Mi Park was caught in lies multiple times and admitted to forging many of her stories or example), where they tell tall tales because it earns them good money and status.
Next, you focus excessively on a single point of history and use that as proof that "the USSR was horrible bloody where stalin personally killed 1 billion people". This is similar how the Sophist Protagoras speaks in Plato's dialogues - as he presents himself as all knowing and master of everything but ends up being incomplete. The fact of the matter is, many "facts" people think they know about the USSR are not "facts" and have been severely twisted during the cold war. This is a similar case with North Korea, as numerous people (including a Russian lady with her husband) that have move there tell an entirely different story. In fact, the narrative you construct of "Lenin who hated Russia" is entirely different to the way he is presented by others who seem him as a very astute politician and patriot who used the Germans to help propel him to power. So how do we determine which narrative is the correct one? Was he a Russian patriot who used the Germans or was he a traitor who hated Russia like you claim? This is not an easy question to answer - but I lean to the former. Why? Because of the numerous amount of reforms that the fledgling USSR underwent under the Bolshevik rule - from the time NEP was introduced in the USSR to the rise of Stalin, Russia had returned to pre-war levels of wealth. A man who hated the country would not bother improving the livelihoods of the citizens and would have kept a state of War Communism indefinitely.
http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/1670/lenins-new-economic-policy-what-it-was-and-how-it-changed-the-soviet-union
Any true Russian patriot would not use American terms like "human rights", or use terms like "commie". Furthermore, a Russian patriot understands that America can never be Russia's friend and that Russia should ban all American TV/close down internet like China and reorient itself East. A Russian patriot is a proponent of Platonic Euriasianism as proposed by Dugin (read the Fourth Political Theory) and against all forms of liberalism. Being American you have accepted the liberal world view.
https://i.imgur.com/qFLW3kr.jpg
In the interests of keeping this short, I will address your post in OP.1. Although I agree with limiting central asian presence and being self sufficient like the USSR, guns legalization in Russia is a Libertardian wet dream and should not be allowed as it leads to more problems than it solves.
2. The fact that he wants to "stop feeding the Caucasus" makes me suspect this guy is an American shill masquerading as a Russian patriot. Why? Because if Russia stops feeding the Caucasus and gives it independence it will trigger the numerous other republics in Russia to demand their independence and will cause a breakup of Russia. And if there isn't it will have a hotbed of islamic radicalism right under its wing.
3. Yes Russia should restore the territories that formerly belonged to it, but this is insufficient. Russia has a manifest destiny and should have control over the rest of Europe as the Soviet's dreamed (and that they almost achieved twice during Lenin's and Stalin's tenure respectively). This is only possible by moving away from ideals of Americanism (including those of democracy) and reorganizing itself based on the Chinese model.
4. If he was at all intellectually honest he would recognize the great achievements of science and technology and athletics that the USSR achieved AFTER the war and that it was all destroyed by anti-Soviet spies and demagogues such as himself that bought into Americanism.
Although this guy had some good ideas - these ideas are fairly standard in many circles I participate in. Why I think you particularly like him is because of his anti-Bolshevik stance, without it he would hardly be noteworthy in your eyes. This also accounts for why you like svidomiy Ukrainian traitors like AP.
The fact that you were born in the USA and moved to Russia hardly makes you a patriot - just like an Indian born in India and moving to Canada hardly makes a Canadian patriot. You absorbed destructive and toxic Americanism rather than fighting against it. Americanism has destroyed Russia once, and is currently doing it again. The only way to resist it is to reject it in Totality as Guenon says - this rejection is only possible, by either accepting the Soviet position, Duganism/Eurasianism, that of Italian Fascism or radical islamism. Each of these positions are positions of totatlity and by their nature are in opposition to Liberalism.Replies: @Chungus, @Belarusian Dude, @AP, @Anatoly Karlin, @Korenchkin, @Parbes, @Cyrano, @Iris
How does it feel to have somebody living in your head without paying a single penny of rent
The dead guy's point is spot on: start speaking english, you're not a people anymore, you were annihilated, wiped out, in the 20th century.
A demoralised people, another historical victim of the Jews in two occasions even: 1917, when they robbed Russia of its future as THE Superpower in all areas, and in 1991, when there occured another pillage.
The only way for Russia is the Chinese one: Become a Nationalist Dictatorship with right-wing social views and economic models. The greatest Chinese glory was to abandon Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao and all the other shitheads and instead just implement de Nazi economics of Friedrich List, explicitly.Replies: @NazBolFren
>Nothing you said even remotely works against the idea that the Soviet Union was a mistake of history, and a civilisational death to Russia.
On the contrary – the Soviet Union prolonged and strengthened Russian civilization. It’s achievements were so many that it made the world shake. It put first people into space, launched the first space station, made the first nuclear power plant, housed millions of peasants and gave them an education, did the fist surgery on bone extension, developed LED lights, came up with the idea of the internet, and came out with some amazing books/films like Tarkovsky’s Solaris or Roadside Picnic, etc.
Staying any longer under the oppressive Tsardom would have spelled the end to Russian civilization.
What was a civilizational death to Russia was its betrayal by anti-Soviet elements in the government.
>. The greatest Chinese glory was to abandon Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao and all the other shitheads and instead just implement de Nazi economics of Friedrich List, explicitly.
China has never abandoned Marx, Engels, Mao or Lenin as it is still strongly based on Leninist/Moaist thought and was the basis for its growth through the implementation of a modified form of Lenin’s NEP.
However, we are in agreement that the way forward is a rejection of American liberalism and economic thought.
I'll "poast" reading material here, faux-BAPist:
https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1992/eirv19n01-19920103/eirv19n01-19920103.pdf
http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=68D46952563F85497DECCDE0CC70B0D7
http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=7976EB4C8A58D52ADA4ABD1E18059400
The greatest impediment to the Tsar's reforms were actually the Rural Nobility, and also the facilitators of the Bolshevik Coup along with International Bankers. If the Russian Nobility were more like the Industrial British and Japanese, history would be completely different today. Fact is, WWI and WWII were wars to destroy Germany and Russia, and nothing more, because they were threats.Replies: @NazBolFren
You are a product of White emigree's who presumably had property taken away leaving your family angry. This makes sense. Of course this gives you a natural bias that you seek to confirm anyway you can. This results in an affinity for supporting anybody who is anti-Soviet and calling anybody who says anything positive about the USSR as "commies" or "sovoks". The language an individual uses is indicative of their thought process - by simplifying a complex idea into "commies" and "sovoks", implies that you cannot look past individual biases (admittedly this is difficult).
Furthermore, the use of "sovok"/"commie" disparagingly also plays into the US propaganda machine. How you may ask? Simple. If you read Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky you will realize that one of the ways that the US propaganda machine acts is through control/misrepresentation of language and fact. This was seen with how many "defector" interviews that were set up in the US/Western countries during the Cold War were staged - much like how this is the same case with modern North Korean defectors (Yeon Mi Park was caught in lies multiple times and admitted to forging many of her stories or example), where they tell tall tales because it earns them good money and status.
Next, you focus excessively on a single point of history and use that as proof that "the USSR was horrible bloody where stalin personally killed 1 billion people". This is similar how the Sophist Protagoras speaks in Plato's dialogues - as he presents himself as all knowing and master of everything but ends up being incomplete. The fact of the matter is, many "facts" people think they know about the USSR are not "facts" and have been severely twisted during the cold war. This is a similar case with North Korea, as numerous people (including a Russian lady with her husband) that have move there tell an entirely different story. In fact, the narrative you construct of "Lenin who hated Russia" is entirely different to the way he is presented by others who seem him as a very astute politician and patriot who used the Germans to help propel him to power. So how do we determine which narrative is the correct one? Was he a Russian patriot who used the Germans or was he a traitor who hated Russia like you claim? This is not an easy question to answer - but I lean to the former. Why? Because of the numerous amount of reforms that the fledgling USSR underwent under the Bolshevik rule - from the time NEP was introduced in the USSR to the rise of Stalin, Russia had returned to pre-war levels of wealth. A man who hated the country would not bother improving the livelihoods of the citizens and would have kept a state of War Communism indefinitely.
http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/1670/lenins-new-economic-policy-what-it-was-and-how-it-changed-the-soviet-union
Any true Russian patriot would not use American terms like "human rights", or use terms like "commie". Furthermore, a Russian patriot understands that America can never be Russia's friend and that Russia should ban all American TV/close down internet like China and reorient itself East. A Russian patriot is a proponent of Platonic Euriasianism as proposed by Dugin (read the Fourth Political Theory) and against all forms of liberalism. Being American you have accepted the liberal world view.
https://i.imgur.com/qFLW3kr.jpg
In the interests of keeping this short, I will address your post in OP.1. Although I agree with limiting central asian presence and being self sufficient like the USSR, guns legalization in Russia is a Libertardian wet dream and should not be allowed as it leads to more problems than it solves.
2. The fact that he wants to "stop feeding the Caucasus" makes me suspect this guy is an American shill masquerading as a Russian patriot. Why? Because if Russia stops feeding the Caucasus and gives it independence it will trigger the numerous other republics in Russia to demand their independence and will cause a breakup of Russia. And if there isn't it will have a hotbed of islamic radicalism right under its wing.
3. Yes Russia should restore the territories that formerly belonged to it, but this is insufficient. Russia has a manifest destiny and should have control over the rest of Europe as the Soviet's dreamed (and that they almost achieved twice during Lenin's and Stalin's tenure respectively). This is only possible by moving away from ideals of Americanism (including those of democracy) and reorganizing itself based on the Chinese model.
4. If he was at all intellectually honest he would recognize the great achievements of science and technology and athletics that the USSR achieved AFTER the war and that it was all destroyed by anti-Soviet spies and demagogues such as himself that bought into Americanism.
Although this guy had some good ideas - these ideas are fairly standard in many circles I participate in. Why I think you particularly like him is because of his anti-Bolshevik stance, without it he would hardly be noteworthy in your eyes. This also accounts for why you like svidomiy Ukrainian traitors like AP.
The fact that you were born in the USA and moved to Russia hardly makes you a patriot - just like an Indian born in India and moving to Canada hardly makes a Canadian patriot. You absorbed destructive and toxic Americanism rather than fighting against it. Americanism has destroyed Russia once, and is currently doing it again. The only way to resist it is to reject it in Totality as Guenon says - this rejection is only possible, by either accepting the Soviet position, Duganism/Eurasianism, that of Italian Fascism or radical islamism. Each of these positions are positions of totatlity and by their nature are in opposition to Liberalism.Replies: @Chungus, @Belarusian Dude, @AP, @Anatoly Karlin, @Korenchkin, @Parbes, @Cyrano, @Iris
I hope for your sake that you are simply some sort of bright 15 year old who has read some big books you half-understand and that this semi-understanding gives you the illusion that you are smarter than you are. In this case you will grow up and you maybe have some potential.
Otherwise it is a very sad case.
Otherwise it is a very sad case.Replies: @NazBolFren
>I hope for your sake that you are simply some sort of bright 15 year old who has read some big books you half-understand and that this semi-understanding gives you the illusion that you are smarter than you are. In this case you will grow up and you maybe have some potential.
Let’s see what you read. Clearly you haven’t read Plato, because you seem to be a caricature straight out of Protagoras or Gorgias . Poast bookshelf
Had you read Das Kapital you would understand my criticism of American economic thought and would not be so staunchly anti-Soviet (assuming intellectual honesty of course)
You are a product of White emigree's who presumably had property taken away leaving your family angry. This makes sense. Of course this gives you a natural bias that you seek to confirm anyway you can. This results in an affinity for supporting anybody who is anti-Soviet and calling anybody who says anything positive about the USSR as "commies" or "sovoks". The language an individual uses is indicative of their thought process - by simplifying a complex idea into "commies" and "sovoks", implies that you cannot look past individual biases (admittedly this is difficult).
Furthermore, the use of "sovok"/"commie" disparagingly also plays into the US propaganda machine. How you may ask? Simple. If you read Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky you will realize that one of the ways that the US propaganda machine acts is through control/misrepresentation of language and fact. This was seen with how many "defector" interviews that were set up in the US/Western countries during the Cold War were staged - much like how this is the same case with modern North Korean defectors (Yeon Mi Park was caught in lies multiple times and admitted to forging many of her stories or example), where they tell tall tales because it earns them good money and status.
Next, you focus excessively on a single point of history and use that as proof that "the USSR was horrible bloody where stalin personally killed 1 billion people". This is similar how the Sophist Protagoras speaks in Plato's dialogues - as he presents himself as all knowing and master of everything but ends up being incomplete. The fact of the matter is, many "facts" people think they know about the USSR are not "facts" and have been severely twisted during the cold war. This is a similar case with North Korea, as numerous people (including a Russian lady with her husband) that have move there tell an entirely different story. In fact, the narrative you construct of "Lenin who hated Russia" is entirely different to the way he is presented by others who seem him as a very astute politician and patriot who used the Germans to help propel him to power. So how do we determine which narrative is the correct one? Was he a Russian patriot who used the Germans or was he a traitor who hated Russia like you claim? This is not an easy question to answer - but I lean to the former. Why? Because of the numerous amount of reforms that the fledgling USSR underwent under the Bolshevik rule - from the time NEP was introduced in the USSR to the rise of Stalin, Russia had returned to pre-war levels of wealth. A man who hated the country would not bother improving the livelihoods of the citizens and would have kept a state of War Communism indefinitely.
http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/1670/lenins-new-economic-policy-what-it-was-and-how-it-changed-the-soviet-union
Any true Russian patriot would not use American terms like "human rights", or use terms like "commie". Furthermore, a Russian patriot understands that America can never be Russia's friend and that Russia should ban all American TV/close down internet like China and reorient itself East. A Russian patriot is a proponent of Platonic Euriasianism as proposed by Dugin (read the Fourth Political Theory) and against all forms of liberalism. Being American you have accepted the liberal world view.
https://i.imgur.com/qFLW3kr.jpg
In the interests of keeping this short, I will address your post in OP.1. Although I agree with limiting central asian presence and being self sufficient like the USSR, guns legalization in Russia is a Libertardian wet dream and should not be allowed as it leads to more problems than it solves.
2. The fact that he wants to "stop feeding the Caucasus" makes me suspect this guy is an American shill masquerading as a Russian patriot. Why? Because if Russia stops feeding the Caucasus and gives it independence it will trigger the numerous other republics in Russia to demand their independence and will cause a breakup of Russia. And if there isn't it will have a hotbed of islamic radicalism right under its wing.
3. Yes Russia should restore the territories that formerly belonged to it, but this is insufficient. Russia has a manifest destiny and should have control over the rest of Europe as the Soviet's dreamed (and that they almost achieved twice during Lenin's and Stalin's tenure respectively). This is only possible by moving away from ideals of Americanism (including those of democracy) and reorganizing itself based on the Chinese model.
4. If he was at all intellectually honest he would recognize the great achievements of science and technology and athletics that the USSR achieved AFTER the war and that it was all destroyed by anti-Soviet spies and demagogues such as himself that bought into Americanism.
Although this guy had some good ideas - these ideas are fairly standard in many circles I participate in. Why I think you particularly like him is because of his anti-Bolshevik stance, without it he would hardly be noteworthy in your eyes. This also accounts for why you like svidomiy Ukrainian traitors like AP.
The fact that you were born in the USA and moved to Russia hardly makes you a patriot - just like an Indian born in India and moving to Canada hardly makes a Canadian patriot. You absorbed destructive and toxic Americanism rather than fighting against it. Americanism has destroyed Russia once, and is currently doing it again. The only way to resist it is to reject it in Totality as Guenon says - this rejection is only possible, by either accepting the Soviet position, Duganism/Eurasianism, that of Italian Fascism or radical islamism. Each of these positions are positions of totatlity and by their nature are in opposition to Liberalism.Replies: @Chungus, @Belarusian Dude, @AP, @Anatoly Karlin, @Korenchkin, @Parbes, @Cyrano, @Iris
Good to know you consider Lenin, a foreign financed proto-color revolutionary, a patriot. Very happy not to be one then (by your definitions).
I don’t recall where I said I “support” Krylov. I tried to give him a fair and balanced obit, as appropriate to someone broadly in my ideological camp on the day of his death.
You might also want to get some things about my bio right. Unfortunately, I don’t have any significant Whites in my immediate family tree that I know of. I was born in Russia and emigrated with my parents to the West at the age of 6, in the 1990s. Thanks to sovoks who sold out “their” own country to the West for jeans and Big Macs. Many of whom then left for the West themselves, like I assume your parents.
Lenin was very much a patriot in the same way that modern Ukranian color-revolutionaries are misguided patriots (especially during Maidan).
For the most part, his actions (after taking power) indicate that he threw off the German yoke and do not indicate a malicious intent towards Russia proper (corruption notwithstanding - corruption is attributable to any system).
>You might also want to get some things about my bio right. Unfortunately, I don’t have any significant Whites in my immediate family tree that I know of. I was born in Russia and emigrated with my parents to the West at the age of 6, in the 1990s.
Ah. Apologies. I remember reading an article about someone with similar ideas as yours and talking about Solzhenitsyn, I assumed it was you.
>Thanks to sovoks who sold out “their” own country to the West for jeans and Big Macs. Many of whom then left for the West themselves, like I assume your parents.
On the contrary, many "sovoks" (again, read my comment on why this is sophism), supported the USSR if referendum's are any indication and would not take any action to bring it down. It was 'dissidents' like Sakharov that were traitors and whose toxic ideas brought it down.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Soviet_Union_referendum
If referendums are any indication >70% of people voted to preserve the Union. So 'sovoks' didn't bring it down, it was anti-sovetchik's that did.Replies: @AltSerrice
Seems like a very decent guy, based in the info provided here. RIP.
Read about Sergei Witte and Pyotr Stolypin. The Tsars were targeted for death precisely because they were against the Anglo-Zionist economic model and globalist cabal.
I’ll “poast” reading material here, faux-BAPist:
https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1992/eirv19n01-19920103/eirv19n01-19920103.pdf
http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=68D46952563F85497DECCDE0CC70B0D7
http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=7976EB4C8A58D52ADA4ABD1E18059400
The greatest impediment to the Tsar’s reforms were actually the Rural Nobility, and also the facilitators of the Bolshevik Coup along with International Bankers. If the Russian Nobility were more like the Industrial British and Japanese, history would be completely different today. Fact is, WWI and WWII were wars to destroy Germany and Russia, and nothing more, because they were threats.
There is little indication that Stolypin's reforms would have succeeded. Many historians agree that even without the disruption of WW1, there would be little effect from Stolypin's agrarian reforms. Why? Because Russian peasants were very conservative, afraid of leaving the Obschina to farm for themselves. Furthermore, most farms in Russia remained as 'strip farms' with only 10% of strip farms consolidated into farms. Next, Stolypin was known for his brutal treatment of peasants - from the fact that he had dossiers on every able bodied male in Saratov Gubernia when he was Governor to the 1905 pogroms in Balashov to the Black Hundred Gangs he organized. Stolypin lost his position as minister of interior even before he died as the Ministry of Agriculture had lost faith in his reforms.
Regarding Witte, although he had some successful reforms these were insufficient to halt the Revolution of 1905. Also, he was a liberal who copied European policies, when Russia had its own long history. Moreover, it can be argued that it was Witte's fault entirely that the Russian Empire collapsed as he over-estimated Russian military prowess, ordered the occupation of Manchuria and set the Russian Empire and a previously friendly Japan to conflict. He also, proposed Russia give up its border provinces writing, " It might be better for us Russians, I concede, if Russia were a nationally uniform country and not a heterogeneous Empire. To achieve that goal there is but one way, namely to give up our border provinces, for these will never put up with the policy of ruthless Russification".
When placed as the head of the Russian Imperial cabinet, he could not make it functional and it was essentially inept.
However, Witte correctly recognized that the reason why 50% of Jews were revolutionary was due to their poor treatment by the Tsar and the aristocracy, who viewed Anti-semitism as "fashionable". For example, the Chief of St Petersburg Police instigated the St Petersburg pogroms, by giving rioters arms, vodka and organizing them. In 1906, Durnovo was allowed by the Tsar to carry out repriasals against the Peasants for the 1905 revolution (which too was caused by Peasant mistreatment and firing of the Imperial Guard on peaceful protestors).
So revolutionary jews and the creation of the Soviet, can be laid at the feet of the Tsar and Lenin was merely a reactionary who wanted succeeded where both Witte and Stolypin failed.Replies: @AltSerrice, @Ano4, @Philip Owen
For Russian speakers, here’s Kholmogorov’s obit: https://tsargrad.tv/articles/rycar-russkogo-uma-pamjati-konstantina-krylova_253284
As well as a “Krylov Reader”: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10223568266580281&set=a.1847813240595&type=3
I don't recall where I said I "support" Krylov. I tried to give him a fair and balanced obit, as appropriate to someone broadly in my ideological camp on the day of his death.
You might also want to get some things about my bio right. Unfortunately, I don't have any significant Whites in my immediate family tree that I know of. I was born in Russia and emigrated with my parents to the West at the age of 6, in the 1990s. Thanks to sovoks who sold out "their" own country to the West for jeans and Big Macs. Many of whom then left for the West themselves, like I assume your parents.Replies: @NazBolFren
>Good to know you consider Lenin, a foreign financed proto-color revolutionary, a patriot
Lenin was very much a patriot in the same way that modern Ukranian color-revolutionaries are misguided patriots (especially during Maidan).
For the most part, his actions (after taking power) indicate that he threw off the German yoke and do not indicate a malicious intent towards Russia proper (corruption notwithstanding – corruption is attributable to any system).
>You might also want to get some things about my bio right. Unfortunately, I don’t have any significant Whites in my immediate family tree that I know of. I was born in Russia and emigrated with my parents to the West at the age of 6, in the 1990s.
Ah. Apologies. I remember reading an article about someone with similar ideas as yours and talking about Solzhenitsyn, I assumed it was you.
>Thanks to sovoks who sold out “their” own country to the West for jeans and Big Macs. Many of whom then left for the West themselves, like I assume your parents.
On the contrary, many “sovoks” (again, read my comment on why this is sophism), supported the USSR if referendum’s are any indication and would not take any action to bring it down. It was ‘dissidents’ like Sakharov that were traitors and whose toxic ideas brought it down.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Soviet_Union_referendum
If referendums are any indication >70% of people voted to preserve the Union. So ‘sovoks’ didn’t bring it down, it was anti-sovetchik’s that did.
>Lenin: *disbands military and gives away 1/3 of the country to Germany at Brest-Litovsk*
Lmao retard. Read some books.Replies: @NazBolFren
Sc-fi writer and nationalist. Rest in peace brother.
You’re a fan of those that hold strong irredentist views that include supporting LDNR separatists, both materially and financially? Hmmmm….
Thank you my friend, educational post, unlike Lord of Thrones. I think Russia cases are growing, so this is just the beginning (although you might have been running low on older men anyway) .
Lenin was very much a patriot in the same way that modern Ukranian color-revolutionaries are misguided patriots (especially during Maidan).
For the most part, his actions (after taking power) indicate that he threw off the German yoke and do not indicate a malicious intent towards Russia proper (corruption notwithstanding - corruption is attributable to any system).
>You might also want to get some things about my bio right. Unfortunately, I don’t have any significant Whites in my immediate family tree that I know of. I was born in Russia and emigrated with my parents to the West at the age of 6, in the 1990s.
Ah. Apologies. I remember reading an article about someone with similar ideas as yours and talking about Solzhenitsyn, I assumed it was you.
>Thanks to sovoks who sold out “their” own country to the West for jeans and Big Macs. Many of whom then left for the West themselves, like I assume your parents.
On the contrary, many "sovoks" (again, read my comment on why this is sophism), supported the USSR if referendum's are any indication and would not take any action to bring it down. It was 'dissidents' like Sakharov that were traitors and whose toxic ideas brought it down.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Soviet_Union_referendum
If referendums are any indication >70% of people voted to preserve the Union. So 'sovoks' didn't bring it down, it was anti-sovetchik's that did.Replies: @AltSerrice
>his actions indicate he threw off the German yoke
>Lenin: *disbands military and gives away 1/3 of the country to Germany at Brest-Litovsk*
Lmao retard. Read some books.
"By 1917, Germany and Imperial Russia were stuck in a stalemate on the Eastern Front of World War I and the Russian economy had nearly collapsed under the strain of the war effort. The large numbers of war casualties and persistent food shortages in the major urban centers brought about civil unrest"
"Following the disastrous failure of the Kerensky Offensive, discipline in the Russian army deteriorated completely."
"The defeat and ongoing hardships of war led to anti-government riots in Petrograd"
" Lenin was for signing rather than having an even more ruinous treaty forced on them after a few more weeks of military humiliation."
". Joffe became the Soviet ambassador to Germany. His priority was distributing propaganda to trigger the German revolution"
Joffe was the previous Soviet Minister of Foreign Affairs and his role was to sow dissent and seeds of revolution in Germany - if Lenin/Soviet's were German shills, why would they attempt to sow discord in Germany?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Brest-Litovsk
Go read a book yourself.Replies: @Korenchkin, @Chungus, @AltSerrice
Ukraine is better off without those areas. It should have been without them from the beginning. In addition to being a cesspool of crime and immorality, they were the anchor that prevented Ukraine from moving westward earlier.
I'll "poast" reading material here, faux-BAPist:
https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1992/eirv19n01-19920103/eirv19n01-19920103.pdf
http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=68D46952563F85497DECCDE0CC70B0D7
http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=7976EB4C8A58D52ADA4ABD1E18059400
The greatest impediment to the Tsar's reforms were actually the Rural Nobility, and also the facilitators of the Bolshevik Coup along with International Bankers. If the Russian Nobility were more like the Industrial British and Japanese, history would be completely different today. Fact is, WWI and WWII were wars to destroy Germany and Russia, and nothing more, because they were threats.Replies: @NazBolFren
>Read about Sergei Witte and Pyotr Stolypin.
There is little indication that Stolypin’s reforms would have succeeded. Many historians agree that even without the disruption of WW1, there would be little effect from Stolypin’s agrarian reforms. Why? Because Russian peasants were very conservative, afraid of leaving the Obschina to farm for themselves. Furthermore, most farms in Russia remained as ‘strip farms’ with only 10% of strip farms consolidated into farms. Next, Stolypin was known for his brutal treatment of peasants – from the fact that he had dossiers on every able bodied male in Saratov Gubernia when he was Governor to the 1905 pogroms in Balashov to the Black Hundred Gangs he organized. Stolypin lost his position as minister of interior even before he died as the Ministry of Agriculture had lost faith in his reforms.
Regarding Witte, although he had some successful reforms these were insufficient to halt the Revolution of 1905. Also, he was a liberal who copied European policies, when Russia had its own long history. Moreover, it can be argued that it was Witte’s fault entirely that the Russian Empire collapsed as he over-estimated Russian military prowess, ordered the occupation of Manchuria and set the Russian Empire and a previously friendly Japan to conflict. He also, proposed Russia give up its border provinces writing, ” It might be better for us Russians, I concede, if Russia were a nationally uniform country and not a heterogeneous Empire. To achieve that goal there is but one way, namely to give up our border provinces, for these will never put up with the policy of ruthless Russification”.
When placed as the head of the Russian Imperial cabinet, he could not make it functional and it was essentially inept.
However, Witte correctly recognized that the reason why 50% of Jews were revolutionary was due to their poor treatment by the Tsar and the aristocracy, who viewed Anti-semitism as “fashionable”. For example, the Chief of St Petersburg Police instigated the St Petersburg pogroms, by giving rioters arms, vodka and organizing them. In 1906, Durnovo was allowed by the Tsar to carry out repriasals against the Peasants for the 1905 revolution (which too was caused by Peasant mistreatment and firing of the Imperial Guard on peaceful protestors).
So revolutionary jews and the creation of the Soviet, can be laid at the feet of the Tsar and Lenin was merely a reactionary who wanted succeeded where both Witte and Stolypin failed.
The conservatism of the peasantry was a product of the failed emancipation and as strong a factor in Russia's failure to reform as the rural nobility. Only Serbia produced more hopeless peasants.Replies: @Epigon
You are a product of White emigree's who presumably had property taken away leaving your family angry. This makes sense. Of course this gives you a natural bias that you seek to confirm anyway you can. This results in an affinity for supporting anybody who is anti-Soviet and calling anybody who says anything positive about the USSR as "commies" or "sovoks". The language an individual uses is indicative of their thought process - by simplifying a complex idea into "commies" and "sovoks", implies that you cannot look past individual biases (admittedly this is difficult).
Furthermore, the use of "sovok"/"commie" disparagingly also plays into the US propaganda machine. How you may ask? Simple. If you read Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky you will realize that one of the ways that the US propaganda machine acts is through control/misrepresentation of language and fact. This was seen with how many "defector" interviews that were set up in the US/Western countries during the Cold War were staged - much like how this is the same case with modern North Korean defectors (Yeon Mi Park was caught in lies multiple times and admitted to forging many of her stories or example), where they tell tall tales because it earns them good money and status.
Next, you focus excessively on a single point of history and use that as proof that "the USSR was horrible bloody where stalin personally killed 1 billion people". This is similar how the Sophist Protagoras speaks in Plato's dialogues - as he presents himself as all knowing and master of everything but ends up being incomplete. The fact of the matter is, many "facts" people think they know about the USSR are not "facts" and have been severely twisted during the cold war. This is a similar case with North Korea, as numerous people (including a Russian lady with her husband) that have move there tell an entirely different story. In fact, the narrative you construct of "Lenin who hated Russia" is entirely different to the way he is presented by others who seem him as a very astute politician and patriot who used the Germans to help propel him to power. So how do we determine which narrative is the correct one? Was he a Russian patriot who used the Germans or was he a traitor who hated Russia like you claim? This is not an easy question to answer - but I lean to the former. Why? Because of the numerous amount of reforms that the fledgling USSR underwent under the Bolshevik rule - from the time NEP was introduced in the USSR to the rise of Stalin, Russia had returned to pre-war levels of wealth. A man who hated the country would not bother improving the livelihoods of the citizens and would have kept a state of War Communism indefinitely.
http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/1670/lenins-new-economic-policy-what-it-was-and-how-it-changed-the-soviet-union
Any true Russian patriot would not use American terms like "human rights", or use terms like "commie". Furthermore, a Russian patriot understands that America can never be Russia's friend and that Russia should ban all American TV/close down internet like China and reorient itself East. A Russian patriot is a proponent of Platonic Euriasianism as proposed by Dugin (read the Fourth Political Theory) and against all forms of liberalism. Being American you have accepted the liberal world view.
https://i.imgur.com/qFLW3kr.jpg
In the interests of keeping this short, I will address your post in OP.1. Although I agree with limiting central asian presence and being self sufficient like the USSR, guns legalization in Russia is a Libertardian wet dream and should not be allowed as it leads to more problems than it solves.
2. The fact that he wants to "stop feeding the Caucasus" makes me suspect this guy is an American shill masquerading as a Russian patriot. Why? Because if Russia stops feeding the Caucasus and gives it independence it will trigger the numerous other republics in Russia to demand their independence and will cause a breakup of Russia. And if there isn't it will have a hotbed of islamic radicalism right under its wing.
3. Yes Russia should restore the territories that formerly belonged to it, but this is insufficient. Russia has a manifest destiny and should have control over the rest of Europe as the Soviet's dreamed (and that they almost achieved twice during Lenin's and Stalin's tenure respectively). This is only possible by moving away from ideals of Americanism (including those of democracy) and reorganizing itself based on the Chinese model.
4. If he was at all intellectually honest he would recognize the great achievements of science and technology and athletics that the USSR achieved AFTER the war and that it was all destroyed by anti-Soviet spies and demagogues such as himself that bought into Americanism.
Although this guy had some good ideas - these ideas are fairly standard in many circles I participate in. Why I think you particularly like him is because of his anti-Bolshevik stance, without it he would hardly be noteworthy in your eyes. This also accounts for why you like svidomiy Ukrainian traitors like AP.
The fact that you were born in the USA and moved to Russia hardly makes you a patriot - just like an Indian born in India and moving to Canada hardly makes a Canadian patriot. You absorbed destructive and toxic Americanism rather than fighting against it. Americanism has destroyed Russia once, and is currently doing it again. The only way to resist it is to reject it in Totality as Guenon says - this rejection is only possible, by either accepting the Soviet position, Duganism/Eurasianism, that of Italian Fascism or radical islamism. Each of these positions are positions of totatlity and by their nature are in opposition to Liberalism.Replies: @Chungus, @Belarusian Dude, @AP, @Anatoly Karlin, @Korenchkin, @Parbes, @Cyrano, @Iris
There is little indication that Stolypin's reforms would have succeeded. Many historians agree that even without the disruption of WW1, there would be little effect from Stolypin's agrarian reforms. Why? Because Russian peasants were very conservative, afraid of leaving the Obschina to farm for themselves. Furthermore, most farms in Russia remained as 'strip farms' with only 10% of strip farms consolidated into farms. Next, Stolypin was known for his brutal treatment of peasants - from the fact that he had dossiers on every able bodied male in Saratov Gubernia when he was Governor to the 1905 pogroms in Balashov to the Black Hundred Gangs he organized. Stolypin lost his position as minister of interior even before he died as the Ministry of Agriculture had lost faith in his reforms.
Regarding Witte, although he had some successful reforms these were insufficient to halt the Revolution of 1905. Also, he was a liberal who copied European policies, when Russia had its own long history. Moreover, it can be argued that it was Witte's fault entirely that the Russian Empire collapsed as he over-estimated Russian military prowess, ordered the occupation of Manchuria and set the Russian Empire and a previously friendly Japan to conflict. He also, proposed Russia give up its border provinces writing, " It might be better for us Russians, I concede, if Russia were a nationally uniform country and not a heterogeneous Empire. To achieve that goal there is but one way, namely to give up our border provinces, for these will never put up with the policy of ruthless Russification".
When placed as the head of the Russian Imperial cabinet, he could not make it functional and it was essentially inept.
However, Witte correctly recognized that the reason why 50% of Jews were revolutionary was due to their poor treatment by the Tsar and the aristocracy, who viewed Anti-semitism as "fashionable". For example, the Chief of St Petersburg Police instigated the St Petersburg pogroms, by giving rioters arms, vodka and organizing them. In 1906, Durnovo was allowed by the Tsar to carry out repriasals against the Peasants for the 1905 revolution (which too was caused by Peasant mistreatment and firing of the Imperial Guard on peaceful protestors).
So revolutionary jews and the creation of the Soviet, can be laid at the feet of the Tsar and Lenin was merely a reactionary who wanted succeeded where both Witte and Stolypin failed.Replies: @AltSerrice, @Ano4, @Philip Owen
Are all these posts in fact a strategy to make Karlin walk back on asking you to make more substantive comments?
>Lenin: *disbands military and gives away 1/3 of the country to Germany at Brest-Litovsk*
Lmao retard. Read some books.Replies: @NazBolFren
LOL have you considered there was a reason for this?
“By 1917, Germany and Imperial Russia were stuck in a stalemate on the Eastern Front of World War I and the Russian economy had nearly collapsed under the strain of the war effort. The large numbers of war casualties and persistent food shortages in the major urban centers brought about civil unrest”
“Following the disastrous failure of the Kerensky Offensive, discipline in the Russian army deteriorated completely.”
“The defeat and ongoing hardships of war led to anti-government riots in Petrograd”
” Lenin was for signing rather than having an even more ruinous treaty forced on them after a few more weeks of military humiliation.”
“. Joffe became the Soviet ambassador to Germany. His priority was distributing propaganda to trigger the German revolution”
Joffe was the previous Soviet Minister of Foreign Affairs and his role was to sow dissent and seeds of revolution in Germany – if Lenin/Soviet’s were German shills, why would they attempt to sow discord in Germany?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Brest-Litovsk
Go read a book yourself.
>let's completely sabotage the war effort and let the enemy surge into our lands
>also let's not build a single monument to the fallen soldiers of the Great War, because we're Russian patriots!
Anatoly is correct, you should make more substantive comments, you're basically shitposting this whole thread.Replies: @NazBolFren
That may be your opinion, however, there are many from the area that feel differently. The point is not whether these areas should belong to Ukraine or to Russia, but the manner that they’re being disassociated from Ukraine. You don’t believe that the Ukrainian government should just acquiesce to these barbaric land grabs that have been perpetrated by Russia using brute force, do you? Western European countries also happen to have some controversial drawn up borders, but none of the countries therein feels threatened that tomorrow morning a couple of divisions of “little green men” will pay their country a visit and rearrange borders based on long outdated irredentist claims.
What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
My personal take on the matter is that there should have never been any borders between Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and northern Kazakhstan.
Regardless of cultural differences, the populations inhabiting these regions are genetically very close and ethnically quite compatible.
Maybe Halychina should become an independent country though, so everyone else might have peace.
Of course, Bolsheviks believed otherwise, just as corrupt post Soviet oligarchs did, and so here we are with Eastern Slavs killing each other again, while their enemies rub their hands gleefully.Replies: @Mr. Hack, @AP
There have been three options from 2014 regarding DNR/LNR in Donbas:
1. Russia does nothing (including not arming or facilitating the appearance of volunteers), Ukraine takes over quickly, conflict ends after a few hundred deaths and not much destruction. Ukraine once again owns this shithole populated mostly by people who are more loyal to Russia than to Ukraine. Loss of Crimea means all presidents will be pro-Western, but pro-Russians will own about 40% of the parliament in perpetuity, so they will always be spoilers and will always be able to block constitutional reforms.
2. Russia treats these territories like Crimea, takes over, conflict ends after a perhaps a hundred or so deaths and not much destruction. Russia now owns this shithole populated mostly by people who are more loyal to Russia than to Ukraine. There is no more war as in Crimea, Ukraine appeals to UN or whoever but bloodshed is over and Ukraine moves on.
3. Russia provides enough assistance to keep the rebels from losing but not enough to end the conflict. Thousands of deaths, constant trickle of deaths of Donbas people, devastation experienced by these people who are more loyal to Russia than to Ukraine. Ukraine also experiences a constant financial drain and trickle of soldier lives lost.
Options (1) and (2) would have been the most humane, the Russian State chose option (3).
Why wouldn't a decent Russian nationalist want option 2? Wouldn't you, if you were a Russian nationalist, want to save thousands of Russian lives and prevent a lot of misery for your own people, even if it meant losing a lot of money?
So I think Krylov is a decent Russian nationalist for preferring option 2.
The Russian State's choice of option 3 makes sense from a purely non-nationalist state perspective. Donbas will be very expensive to fix and Russia's funds are not unlimited, Donbas is a demographic black hole, and there would be extreme international political implications. Since Ukraine is a rival now it is useful to bleed it. Moreover, there is always a chance that some day this pro-Russian "anchor" may be reattached to the Ukrainian state to the Ukrainian State's own detriment. For these reasons, from the cold perspective of the interests of Russian State, the suffering and deaths of Russians in Donbas who want to join Russia but who will be denied this wish may be worth it. Sure, these Russians and pro-Russian Ukrainians will continue to be sacrificed and will die, but a few Ukrainian soldiers will die too, and Ukraine will continue to lose money there forever.Replies: @The Big Red Scary, @Mr. Hack, @Philip Owen
"By 1917, Germany and Imperial Russia were stuck in a stalemate on the Eastern Front of World War I and the Russian economy had nearly collapsed under the strain of the war effort. The large numbers of war casualties and persistent food shortages in the major urban centers brought about civil unrest"
"Following the disastrous failure of the Kerensky Offensive, discipline in the Russian army deteriorated completely."
"The defeat and ongoing hardships of war led to anti-government riots in Petrograd"
" Lenin was for signing rather than having an even more ruinous treaty forced on them after a few more weeks of military humiliation."
". Joffe became the Soviet ambassador to Germany. His priority was distributing propaganda to trigger the German revolution"
Joffe was the previous Soviet Minister of Foreign Affairs and his role was to sow dissent and seeds of revolution in Germany - if Lenin/Soviet's were German shills, why would they attempt to sow discord in Germany?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Brest-Litovsk
Go read a book yourself.Replies: @Korenchkin, @Chungus, @AltSerrice
>We’re stalemated
>let’s completely sabotage the war effort and let the enemy surge into our lands
>also let’s not build a single monument to the fallen soldiers of the Great War, because we’re Russian patriots!
"By 1917, Germany and Imperial Russia were stuck in a stalemate on the Eastern Front of World War I and the Russian economy had nearly collapsed under the strain of the war effort. The large numbers of war casualties and persistent food shortages in the major urban centers brought about civil unrest"
"Following the disastrous failure of the Kerensky Offensive, discipline in the Russian army deteriorated completely."
"The defeat and ongoing hardships of war led to anti-government riots in Petrograd"
" Lenin was for signing rather than having an even more ruinous treaty forced on them after a few more weeks of military humiliation."
". Joffe became the Soviet ambassador to Germany. His priority was distributing propaganda to trigger the German revolution"
Joffe was the previous Soviet Minister of Foreign Affairs and his role was to sow dissent and seeds of revolution in Germany - if Lenin/Soviet's were German shills, why would they attempt to sow discord in Germany?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Brest-Litovsk
Go read a book yourself.Replies: @Korenchkin, @Chungus, @AltSerrice
So, instead of reading you just went somewhere a normie would and posted crap?
Anatoly is correct, you should make more substantive comments, you’re basically shitposting this whole thread.
And what crap did I post? That Stolypin was governor of saratov and was known for his repressive methods against peasants? Or that witte fucked up with Russo-Japanese war?
I will read the books you posted, I don't read that fast to be able to finish two books in a few hours lol
"By 1917, Germany and Imperial Russia were stuck in a stalemate on the Eastern Front of World War I and the Russian economy had nearly collapsed under the strain of the war effort. The large numbers of war casualties and persistent food shortages in the major urban centers brought about civil unrest"
"Following the disastrous failure of the Kerensky Offensive, discipline in the Russian army deteriorated completely."
"The defeat and ongoing hardships of war led to anti-government riots in Petrograd"
" Lenin was for signing rather than having an even more ruinous treaty forced on them after a few more weeks of military humiliation."
". Joffe became the Soviet ambassador to Germany. His priority was distributing propaganda to trigger the German revolution"
Joffe was the previous Soviet Minister of Foreign Affairs and his role was to sow dissent and seeds of revolution in Germany - if Lenin/Soviet's were German shills, why would they attempt to sow discord in Germany?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Brest-Litovsk
Go read a book yourself.Replies: @Korenchkin, @Chungus, @AltSerrice
You know no one takes you seriously right? No matter how long a comment you post. Like a fart in a hurricane.
>brb we’re stalemated
>brb our economy will collapse
>brb there will be revolution if we continue
>brb lets continue the war and have everything entirely collapse –> YOU
LOL makes perfect sense
There is little indication that Stolypin's reforms would have succeeded. Many historians agree that even without the disruption of WW1, there would be little effect from Stolypin's agrarian reforms. Why? Because Russian peasants were very conservative, afraid of leaving the Obschina to farm for themselves. Furthermore, most farms in Russia remained as 'strip farms' with only 10% of strip farms consolidated into farms. Next, Stolypin was known for his brutal treatment of peasants - from the fact that he had dossiers on every able bodied male in Saratov Gubernia when he was Governor to the 1905 pogroms in Balashov to the Black Hundred Gangs he organized. Stolypin lost his position as minister of interior even before he died as the Ministry of Agriculture had lost faith in his reforms.
Regarding Witte, although he had some successful reforms these were insufficient to halt the Revolution of 1905. Also, he was a liberal who copied European policies, when Russia had its own long history. Moreover, it can be argued that it was Witte's fault entirely that the Russian Empire collapsed as he over-estimated Russian military prowess, ordered the occupation of Manchuria and set the Russian Empire and a previously friendly Japan to conflict. He also, proposed Russia give up its border provinces writing, " It might be better for us Russians, I concede, if Russia were a nationally uniform country and not a heterogeneous Empire. To achieve that goal there is but one way, namely to give up our border provinces, for these will never put up with the policy of ruthless Russification".
When placed as the head of the Russian Imperial cabinet, he could not make it functional and it was essentially inept.
However, Witte correctly recognized that the reason why 50% of Jews were revolutionary was due to their poor treatment by the Tsar and the aristocracy, who viewed Anti-semitism as "fashionable". For example, the Chief of St Petersburg Police instigated the St Petersburg pogroms, by giving rioters arms, vodka and organizing them. In 1906, Durnovo was allowed by the Tsar to carry out repriasals against the Peasants for the 1905 revolution (which too was caused by Peasant mistreatment and firing of the Imperial Guard on peaceful protestors).
So revolutionary jews and the creation of the Soviet, can be laid at the feet of the Tsar and Lenin was merely a reactionary who wanted succeeded where both Witte and Stolypin failed.Replies: @AltSerrice, @Ano4, @Philip Owen
Don’t even try going there my friend…
The Black Centuria were the true Russian Patriots.
And they paid a heavy price at the hands of the revolutionary terrorists prior to 1917 revolution and at the hands of the CheKa torturers afterwards.
You really should learn a lot more before you understand what happened to Russia in the XIX century.
Russian Empire was betrayed by its westernized massonic elites who moved against a Slavophile Orthodox Tsar and People.
They backstabbed their country when it was less than a year away from the victory in the First World War.
This blogger has a lot of amazing information about the years prior to First World War in Russian Empire:
https://a-kaminsky.livejournal.com/
Then the westernized communist elites betrayed USSR and backstabbed it at the moment when the Russian people started to retake control of the Communist Party and started to try to stir its policies it into a more Russophile direction.
Read about Русская партия в КПСС.
https://rus-istoria.ru/component/k2/item/809-russkaya-partiya
Both times anti-Russian elements worked towards the destruction of Russian population and degradation of Russian culture.
Both times it was a genocide.
And I don’t even mention the fact that without the fall of Russian Empire and the Bolshevik revolution the Thrid Reich would have been unthinkable.
And that without the fall of USSR the current geopolitical turmoil would have been unthinkable too.
Idk, maybe don't let weird astrologers dictate policy.
Reagan did similar things, and look where that got us.Replies: @Ano4
>brb our economy will collapse
>brb there will be revolution if we continue
>brb lets continue the war and have everything entirely collapse --> YOU
LOL makes perfect senseReplies: @Korenchkin
A Civil War and millions more dead is not total collapse to you?
Anatoly is correct, you should make more substantive comments, you're basically shitposting this whole thread.Replies: @NazBolFren
I use normie sources because an anti-Soviet view is a normie view, so normie sources is what normie’s best understand.
And what crap did I post? That Stolypin was governor of saratov and was known for his repressive methods against peasants? Or that witte fucked up with Russo-Japanese war?
I will read the books you posted, I don’t read that fast to be able to finish two books in a few hours lol
For many centuries the Ruthenian/Western Ukrainian nationalism was based on exactly that: long outdated irredentist claims.
What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
My personal take on the matter is that there should have never been any borders between Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and northern Kazakhstan.
Regardless of cultural differences, the populations inhabiting these regions are genetically very close and ethnically quite compatible.
Maybe Halychina should become an independent country though, so everyone else might have peace.
Of course, Bolsheviks believed otherwise, just as corrupt post Soviet oligarchs did, and so here we are with Eastern Slavs killing each other again, while their enemies rub their hands gleefully.
At the time they did not know that Civil War would happen.
They did not have the benefit of 20/20 vision, like we do in retrospect.
In other words, we cannot judge them for what will happen in the future. How were they supposed to know a Civil War would happen…when they didn’t magically have foresight
What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
My personal take on the matter is that there should have never been any borders between Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and northern Kazakhstan.
Regardless of cultural differences, the populations inhabiting these regions are genetically very close and ethnically quite compatible.
Maybe Halychina should become an independent country though, so everyone else might have peace.
Of course, Bolsheviks believed otherwise, just as corrupt post Soviet oligarchs did, and so here we are with Eastern Slavs killing each other again, while their enemies rub their hands gleefully.Replies: @Mr. Hack, @AP
Your ideas about Ukrainian nationalism and the role of Galicia in promoting it are sorely inadequate and by spreading long outdated memes about its symbiosis you reveal your paucity of knowledge about the subject matter. Ukrainian nationalism began in the Eastern parts of the country in the 1830’s by the offspring of Hetmanite starshyna and later in its more virulent and fascistic forms by Dimitri Dontsov from Southern Ukraine (Melitopol). The Ukrainian national idea is to be found all over Ukraine, so you need to greatly widen your scope.
Maybe you should try reading my previous comment again?
Just saying...
Be well.Replies: @Mr. Hack
Was never fully in accord with some of Mr. Krylov’s policies or ideas. At best, I could say that he was adjacent in outlook. But I respected him and always viewed him as someone who genuinely loved his country. And what material of his I came across I always found worthy of attention.
Always very sad to see someone in the broader constellation of interesting minds cut down.
Especially at the age of 52.
Вечная память.
I believe I could say same thing about you.
Maybe you should try reading my previous comment again?
Just saying…
Be well.
https://youtu.be/qpLSN-D05Z8
Anything else?Replies: @Ano4
That’s from technology either looted from the Germans, or things that the US/UK allowed the USSR to steal, if it wasn’t explicitly given away.
I will freely admit that your Buran was better.
California is our Alsace-Lorraine, and not a single GOP politician seems to notice that it has been ethnically cleansed.
The Tsar sucked up to liberal France, and declined to renew the Three Emperors League.
Idk, maybe don’t let weird astrologers dictate policy.
Reagan did similar things, and look where that got us.
Maybe you should try reading my previous comment again?
Just saying...
Be well.Replies: @Mr. Hack
I reread it, and see that you subscribe to the vistas foreseen by John Lennon:
Anything else?
I will try to explain: while Mohawk and Wendat braves were busy killing each other, the White settlers (both French and British) stole their lands and took their women.
You get it now?
If not, I quit.
You also got my tastes wrong, they are more along these lines:
https://youtu.be/ZaQqshZbtEQ
Idk, maybe don't let weird astrologers dictate policy.
Reagan did similar things, and look where that got us.Replies: @Ano4
The Tsar refused to suck up to the Rothschilds, Leib and Kuhn.
He was a true gentleman and thought that English and Prussian nobility along the French and American politicians had enough decency to avoid plunging the European Civilization, of which Russian Empire was then an integral part, into a bloody mess.
He did not forsee how corrupt and blind the Western Elites and their Russian high society lackeys have already become back then.
The “weird astronomer” you refer to had warned him strongly and repeatedly against involving himself in WWI.
If only he would have listened to the crazy moozhick from Siberia, the world would have been a much better place.
But Tsar was a gentleman and as you probably know: noblesse oblige…
https://youtu.be/qpLSN-D05Z8
Anything else?Replies: @Ano4
You got me wrong.
I will try to explain: while Mohawk and Wendat braves were busy killing each other, the White settlers (both French and British) stole their lands and took their women.
You get it now?
If not, I quit.
You also got my tastes wrong, they are more along these lines:
What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
My personal take on the matter is that there should have never been any borders between Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and northern Kazakhstan.
Regardless of cultural differences, the populations inhabiting these regions are genetically very close and ethnically quite compatible.
Maybe Halychina should become an independent country though, so everyone else might have peace.
Of course, Bolsheviks believed otherwise, just as corrupt post Soviet oligarchs did, and so here we are with Eastern Slavs killing each other again, while their enemies rub their hands gleefully.Replies: @Mr. Hack, @AP
The same argument had been applied by thoughtful Poles and Ukrainians about their own mutual killings, starting from the disastrous Khmelnytsky rebellion.
In fact this whole Eastern Slavs infighting should have definitely ended in XX century under Tsardom.
The mixed Belarusian, Polish, Russian and Ukrainian population would today number in hundreds of millions, half a billion maybe.
They would together own an enormous territory and live of its riches.
Their cultures would shine all over the world (already did in the beginning of the XX century under Tsardom).
Their voice would be heard and respected in the world affairs.
The WWII and its killing fields would have been averted.
But instead we had the 1917 revolution which was planned and executed by the enemies of the Slav.
And as a consequence, all of the above in now just wishful thinking....
I start from the facts that Ukraine is better off without Donbas and Crimea, that much of its post-Soviet problems (i.e., Kuchma and Yanukovich in power, Yushchenko’s paralyzed governing) are due to these regions having been part of Ukraine and its voters determining Ukraine’s government, and that the loss of these regions is largely responsible for Ukraine’s post-Maidan improvement. How this occurred is secondary to what occurred and its positive impact on the country.
Sure. Russia violated international law and in the process of doing so Ukraine suffered losses (Ukrainians lost property they owned, Russia grabbed a bunch of gas wells in the Black Sea Ukraine had built) for which it deserves compensation and for which Ukraine ought to continue to hold Russia accountable. Hopefully these details will be worked out some day. But the big picture is a good one for Ukraine.
No, the Ukrainian government is obligated to defend its territory and to prevent further incursions. It is obligated to respond to rebel attacks. To a certain extent this conflict has been a “test” to see which parts of Ukraine want to be in Ukraine and which do not. The current de facto borders seem to reflect that. If Ukraine were utterly pacifist it would have been evidence that the Ukraine people aren’t interested in having a state at all.
There have been three options from 2014 regarding DNR/LNR in Donbas:
1. Russia does nothing (including not arming or facilitating the appearance of volunteers), Ukraine takes over quickly, conflict ends after a few hundred deaths and not much destruction. Ukraine once again owns this shithole populated mostly by people who are more loyal to Russia than to Ukraine. Loss of Crimea means all presidents will be pro-Western, but pro-Russians will own about 40% of the parliament in perpetuity, so they will always be spoilers and will always be able to block constitutional reforms.
2. Russia treats these territories like Crimea, takes over, conflict ends after a perhaps a hundred or so deaths and not much destruction. Russia now owns this shithole populated mostly by people who are more loyal to Russia than to Ukraine. There is no more war as in Crimea, Ukraine appeals to UN or whoever but bloodshed is over and Ukraine moves on.
3. Russia provides enough assistance to keep the rebels from losing but not enough to end the conflict. Thousands of deaths, constant trickle of deaths of Donbas people, devastation experienced by these people who are more loyal to Russia than to Ukraine. Ukraine also experiences a constant financial drain and trickle of soldier lives lost.
Options (1) and (2) would have been the most humane, the Russian State chose option (3).
Why wouldn’t a decent Russian nationalist want option 2? Wouldn’t you, if you were a Russian nationalist, want to save thousands of Russian lives and prevent a lot of misery for your own people, even if it meant losing a lot of money?
So I think Krylov is a decent Russian nationalist for preferring option 2.
The Russian State’s choice of option 3 makes sense from a purely non-nationalist state perspective. Donbas will be very expensive to fix and Russia’s funds are not unlimited, Donbas is a demographic black hole, and there would be extreme international political implications. Since Ukraine is a rival now it is useful to bleed it. Moreover, there is always a chance that some day this pro-Russian “anchor” may be reattached to the Ukrainian state to the Ukrainian State’s own detriment. For these reasons, from the cold perspective of the interests of Russian State, the suffering and deaths of Russians in Donbas who want to join Russia but who will be denied this wish may be worth it. Sure, these Russians and pro-Russian Ukrainians will continue to be sacrificed and will die, but a few Ukrainian soldiers will die too, and Ukraine will continue to lose money there forever.
Crimea should be returned to English rule. It was happiest under its first English administration in the 11th and 12th centuries. The 10th century return was only ever intended to be temporary.Replies: @AnonFromTN, @AP
He seems like he was a good Russian patriot, although I have to disagree with his views on Communism. Nobody can deny the enormity of the sacrifices that Russia made under Communism, but I don’t think that they were in vain.
In fact I think that if it wasn’t for communism, maybe the same scale of sacrifices would have been made – without producing the desired results. Because, let’s face it, by the outbreak of WW1, Russia was the most backward of the great powers in Europe, and if communism never happened, I can’t see what would have propelled the Russians to modernize faster – especially if they kept the Czar in power.
Either way, I wish Russia followed the Chinese model – keep the Communist party in power – switch the economy to capitalism. I am not sure they would have gotten the same tacit approval as the Chinese did, but it looks like that model is more successful than the so called “democracy”.
Democracy is so easy to fake, maybe because the whole concept is fake to begin with. Back in the 80’s I was wondering why the USSR didn’t try to fake “democracy” – because supposedly that was the biggest obstacle to improving relations with the “west”.
This is how it could have been done: Establish 2 political parties (supposedly the bare minimum for theoretically functioning “democracy”). Name one of the parties Socialist, the other Communist and let the people vote every 4-5 years.
The Socialist party would have played the role of “right” wing party, and the Communists would have been the “left” wing. There wouldn’t have been any differences between the 2 parties – exactly like it is in the US. Of course the whole thing would have been an exercise in futility, but then again – that’s exactly what democracy is.
Krylov was a narcissistic freak who attracted attention with outrageous behavior. He (supposedly nationalist) has publicly expressed deep aversion which he feels for the Russian language, Russian culture, Russian people. Krylov also really wanted Russia occupied, by the US army (because according to Krylov, the U.S. army would protect the white race in Russia from “colored people”). Krylov actually successfully attracted attention and also successfully discredited the word “nationalist”.
Of course, it is sad that people are dying, but Krylov’s political activity is a phenomenon that is not worth mourning.
(He was not, of course, a genuine Zoroastrian).
Can a Zoroastrian be a Russian, and a Russian nationalist at that?
Donbass, apparently a “shithole”, somehow was the industrial heart of Ukraine. With the “shithole” absent, hopeless Ukraine is already reduced to selling land, with last vestiges of service economy it had(unqualified labor and prostitutes) already being largely extracted by the neighboring states. Even chinese technovultures are not interested in soviet-era IP anymore.
Such is the logical endpoint of svidomism, you can jump now if you still want to.
RIP weirdo Krylov.
http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=7573
I’ll quote from that writer, who went on to write for Rolling Stone magazine, and who had a column about his experiences. I apologize to readers for the vulgarity, it’s not my words:
“Lola, my whore, came from Severodonetsk, a toxic dump in the Lugansk oblast, the Russified east of Ukraine.I rented her late on Sunday, November 28th — the same day that the Ukrainian governors of several pro-Yanukovich regions were holding a congress in Severodonetsk, threatening to create a breakaway southeastern Ukrainian republic if the “orange” revolution in Kiev succeeded. It was one of those coincidences that writers invent to give a sordid story some relevance — but invention in this case isn’t necessary. We’re talking about whores here, folks. Any john in Moscow knows that Yanukovich country, the pro-Russian southeast of Ukraine, is the snapper-basket of Europe, the white world’s most fertile breeding ground for whores, the Golden Triangle of prostitution production.”Replies: @Mikhail
And they were right.
In fact this whole Eastern Slavs infighting should have definitely ended in XX century under Tsardom.
The mixed Belarusian, Polish, Russian and Ukrainian population would today number in hundreds of millions, half a billion maybe.
They would together own an enormous territory and live of its riches.
Their cultures would shine all over the world (already did in the beginning of the XX century under Tsardom).
Their voice would be heard and respected in the world affairs.
The WWII and its killing fields would have been averted.
But instead we had the 1917 revolution which was planned and executed by the enemies of the Slav.
And as a consequence, all of the above in now just wishful thinking….
Such is the logical endpoint of svidomism, you can jump now if you still want to.RIP weirdo Krylov.Replies: @AP, @Philip Owen, @Dmitry
It had coal and produced steel, a major source of foreign currency. I would compare it to shithole Gary Indiana.
I..e., farmland can now be sold to private citizens like in any normal country. Vestige of Sovok collectives is removed.
Especially Donbas.
http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=7573
I’ll quote from that writer, who went on to write for Rolling Stone magazine, and who had a column about his experiences. I apologize to readers for the vulgarity, it’s not my words:
“Lola, my whore, came from Severodonetsk, a toxic dump in the Lugansk oblast, the Russified east of Ukraine.I rented her late on Sunday, November 28th — the same day that the Ukrainian governors of several pro-Yanukovich regions were holding a congress in Severodonetsk, threatening to create a breakaway southeastern Ukrainian republic if the “orange” revolution in Kiev succeeded. It was one of those coincidences that writers invent to give a sordid story some relevance — but invention in this case isn’t necessary. We’re talking about whores here, folks. Any john in Moscow knows that Yanukovich country, the pro-Russian southeast of Ukraine, is the snapper-basket of Europe, the white world’s most fertile breeding ground for whores, the Golden Triangle of prostitution production.”
https://www.unz.com/akarlin/imperial-russian-terrorists/#comment-3831257Replies: @AP
There have been three options from 2014 regarding DNR/LNR in Donbas:
1. Russia does nothing (including not arming or facilitating the appearance of volunteers), Ukraine takes over quickly, conflict ends after a few hundred deaths and not much destruction. Ukraine once again owns this shithole populated mostly by people who are more loyal to Russia than to Ukraine. Loss of Crimea means all presidents will be pro-Western, but pro-Russians will own about 40% of the parliament in perpetuity, so they will always be spoilers and will always be able to block constitutional reforms.
2. Russia treats these territories like Crimea, takes over, conflict ends after a perhaps a hundred or so deaths and not much destruction. Russia now owns this shithole populated mostly by people who are more loyal to Russia than to Ukraine. There is no more war as in Crimea, Ukraine appeals to UN or whoever but bloodshed is over and Ukraine moves on.
3. Russia provides enough assistance to keep the rebels from losing but not enough to end the conflict. Thousands of deaths, constant trickle of deaths of Donbas people, devastation experienced by these people who are more loyal to Russia than to Ukraine. Ukraine also experiences a constant financial drain and trickle of soldier lives lost.
Options (1) and (2) would have been the most humane, the Russian State chose option (3).
Why wouldn't a decent Russian nationalist want option 2? Wouldn't you, if you were a Russian nationalist, want to save thousands of Russian lives and prevent a lot of misery for your own people, even if it meant losing a lot of money?
So I think Krylov is a decent Russian nationalist for preferring option 2.
The Russian State's choice of option 3 makes sense from a purely non-nationalist state perspective. Donbas will be very expensive to fix and Russia's funds are not unlimited, Donbas is a demographic black hole, and there would be extreme international political implications. Since Ukraine is a rival now it is useful to bleed it. Moreover, there is always a chance that some day this pro-Russian "anchor" may be reattached to the Ukrainian state to the Ukrainian State's own detriment. For these reasons, from the cold perspective of the interests of Russian State, the suffering and deaths of Russians in Donbas who want to join Russia but who will be denied this wish may be worth it. Sure, these Russians and pro-Russian Ukrainians will continue to be sacrificed and will die, but a few Ukrainian soldiers will die too, and Ukraine will continue to lose money there forever.Replies: @The Big Red Scary, @Mr. Hack, @Philip Owen
I mostly agree, but you declined to describe the flip side of 3., which is that the Ukrainian government’s handling of the Donbass situation is even more cynical than that of the Russian government: we shell you because we care.
There is some of that (IIRC there were videos circulating of Ukrainian troops shelling indiscriminately, without a pretext, a clear war crime) , but a lot of the Ukrainian shelling involves shooting back at rebel positions (often in civilian areas) after their own positions were shelled. Such tragedies are the rebels’ fault.
http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=7573
I’ll quote from that writer, who went on to write for Rolling Stone magazine, and who had a column about his experiences. I apologize to readers for the vulgarity, it’s not my words:
“Lola, my whore, came from Severodonetsk, a toxic dump in the Lugansk oblast, the Russified east of Ukraine.I rented her late on Sunday, November 28th — the same day that the Ukrainian governors of several pro-Yanukovich regions were holding a congress in Severodonetsk, threatening to create a breakaway southeastern Ukrainian republic if the “orange” revolution in Kiev succeeded. It was one of those coincidences that writers invent to give a sordid story some relevance — but invention in this case isn’t necessary. We’re talking about whores here, folks. Any john in Moscow knows that Yanukovich country, the pro-Russian southeast of Ukraine, is the snapper-basket of Europe, the white world’s most fertile breeding ground for whores, the Golden Triangle of prostitution production.”Replies: @Mikhail
Leave it to a sugar coated svido to positively link to a Limonov admirer . Rhetorical payback:
https://www.unz.com/akarlin/imperial-russian-terrorists/#comment-3831257
https://www.unz.com/akarlin/imperial-russian-terrorists/#comment-3831257Replies: @AP
The author of that piece was of course a degenerate, but he is an expert and authority about what he was writing about.
Would you comment on this?
http://www.fa.ru/Documents/Glaziev_Chaos.pdf
There have been three options from 2014 regarding DNR/LNR in Donbas:
1. Russia does nothing (including not arming or facilitating the appearance of volunteers), Ukraine takes over quickly, conflict ends after a few hundred deaths and not much destruction. Ukraine once again owns this shithole populated mostly by people who are more loyal to Russia than to Ukraine. Loss of Crimea means all presidents will be pro-Western, but pro-Russians will own about 40% of the parliament in perpetuity, so they will always be spoilers and will always be able to block constitutional reforms.
2. Russia treats these territories like Crimea, takes over, conflict ends after a perhaps a hundred or so deaths and not much destruction. Russia now owns this shithole populated mostly by people who are more loyal to Russia than to Ukraine. There is no more war as in Crimea, Ukraine appeals to UN or whoever but bloodshed is over and Ukraine moves on.
3. Russia provides enough assistance to keep the rebels from losing but not enough to end the conflict. Thousands of deaths, constant trickle of deaths of Donbas people, devastation experienced by these people who are more loyal to Russia than to Ukraine. Ukraine also experiences a constant financial drain and trickle of soldier lives lost.
Options (1) and (2) would have been the most humane, the Russian State chose option (3).
Why wouldn't a decent Russian nationalist want option 2? Wouldn't you, if you were a Russian nationalist, want to save thousands of Russian lives and prevent a lot of misery for your own people, even if it meant losing a lot of money?
So I think Krylov is a decent Russian nationalist for preferring option 2.
The Russian State's choice of option 3 makes sense from a purely non-nationalist state perspective. Donbas will be very expensive to fix and Russia's funds are not unlimited, Donbas is a demographic black hole, and there would be extreme international political implications. Since Ukraine is a rival now it is useful to bleed it. Moreover, there is always a chance that some day this pro-Russian "anchor" may be reattached to the Ukrainian state to the Ukrainian State's own detriment. For these reasons, from the cold perspective of the interests of Russian State, the suffering and deaths of Russians in Donbas who want to join Russia but who will be denied this wish may be worth it. Sure, these Russians and pro-Russian Ukrainians will continue to be sacrificed and will die, but a few Ukrainian soldiers will die too, and Ukraine will continue to lose money there forever.Replies: @The Big Red Scary, @Mr. Hack, @Philip Owen
I too agree with a lot of what you state, and even like yourself don’t have a good plan for Ukraine’s further involvement in this area. On the one hand you state:
But then you spend most of your time explaining how keeping these territories will continue to be a drag on Ukraine’s further ability to evolve. Fighting to keep “further incursions and rebel attacks” at bay only to reincorporate a “shithole” doesn’t make any sense, and neither does just fighting endlessly with no reincorporation of these areas?
I know next to nothing about Krylov. However, he is mentioned along with Limonov. In my book, it’s a mixed blessing. Limonov was certainly a talented guy, but his views were quite weird. Even the name of NazBol (National Bolsheviks) party he founded was a contradiction in terms. NazBols aren’t all bad, though: they did some admirable things, like actually helping Donbass freedom fighters. Still, their ideology is confused. But there must be something in it to attract talented people: Prilepin, who is arguably the most talented writer in Russian at the moment, is a former NazBol. Now Prilepin founded his own party. I hope it has a more coherent worldview than NazBols. Russia does need a coherent constructive patriotic opposition, w/o traitorous “liberasts” (the closest English equivalent is “libtard”; English speakers, at least those who know rudimentary French, can guess what two words were combined in this Russian word).
coherent constructive patriotic opposition can be found in duganism...many young people in russia and abroad are subscribing to it and I personally believe it is the way forward especially if combined with fascism.Replies: @AnonFromTN
Essentially, Ukraine ought to (and does) hold its lines but should not retake Donbas, even if Russia left and doing so became possible.
There is little indication that Stolypin's reforms would have succeeded. Many historians agree that even without the disruption of WW1, there would be little effect from Stolypin's agrarian reforms. Why? Because Russian peasants were very conservative, afraid of leaving the Obschina to farm for themselves. Furthermore, most farms in Russia remained as 'strip farms' with only 10% of strip farms consolidated into farms. Next, Stolypin was known for his brutal treatment of peasants - from the fact that he had dossiers on every able bodied male in Saratov Gubernia when he was Governor to the 1905 pogroms in Balashov to the Black Hundred Gangs he organized. Stolypin lost his position as minister of interior even before he died as the Ministry of Agriculture had lost faith in his reforms.
Regarding Witte, although he had some successful reforms these were insufficient to halt the Revolution of 1905. Also, he was a liberal who copied European policies, when Russia had its own long history. Moreover, it can be argued that it was Witte's fault entirely that the Russian Empire collapsed as he over-estimated Russian military prowess, ordered the occupation of Manchuria and set the Russian Empire and a previously friendly Japan to conflict. He also, proposed Russia give up its border provinces writing, " It might be better for us Russians, I concede, if Russia were a nationally uniform country and not a heterogeneous Empire. To achieve that goal there is but one way, namely to give up our border provinces, for these will never put up with the policy of ruthless Russification".
When placed as the head of the Russian Imperial cabinet, he could not make it functional and it was essentially inept.
However, Witte correctly recognized that the reason why 50% of Jews were revolutionary was due to their poor treatment by the Tsar and the aristocracy, who viewed Anti-semitism as "fashionable". For example, the Chief of St Petersburg Police instigated the St Petersburg pogroms, by giving rioters arms, vodka and organizing them. In 1906, Durnovo was allowed by the Tsar to carry out repriasals against the Peasants for the 1905 revolution (which too was caused by Peasant mistreatment and firing of the Imperial Guard on peaceful protestors).
So revolutionary jews and the creation of the Soviet, can be laid at the feet of the Tsar and Lenin was merely a reactionary who wanted succeeded where both Witte and Stolypin failed.Replies: @AltSerrice, @Ano4, @Philip Owen
Stolypin remains popular and respected in Saratov province. His policy divided the peasants but it was not unsuccessful in terms of uptake. The peasants who didn’t take the step and borrow the money resented the prosperity of those who did. My oldest friend in Russia had grandparents who owned 5 cows and their own barn. They escaped with their lives because the Mir peasants were too busy burning the barn.
The conservatism of the peasantry was a product of the failed emancipation and as strong a factor in Russia’s failure to reform as the rural nobility. Only Serbia produced more hopeless peasants.
Congratulations, you are a living meme.Replies: @Philip Owen
There have been three options from 2014 regarding DNR/LNR in Donbas:
1. Russia does nothing (including not arming or facilitating the appearance of volunteers), Ukraine takes over quickly, conflict ends after a few hundred deaths and not much destruction. Ukraine once again owns this shithole populated mostly by people who are more loyal to Russia than to Ukraine. Loss of Crimea means all presidents will be pro-Western, but pro-Russians will own about 40% of the parliament in perpetuity, so they will always be spoilers and will always be able to block constitutional reforms.
2. Russia treats these territories like Crimea, takes over, conflict ends after a perhaps a hundred or so deaths and not much destruction. Russia now owns this shithole populated mostly by people who are more loyal to Russia than to Ukraine. There is no more war as in Crimea, Ukraine appeals to UN or whoever but bloodshed is over and Ukraine moves on.
3. Russia provides enough assistance to keep the rebels from losing but not enough to end the conflict. Thousands of deaths, constant trickle of deaths of Donbas people, devastation experienced by these people who are more loyal to Russia than to Ukraine. Ukraine also experiences a constant financial drain and trickle of soldier lives lost.
Options (1) and (2) would have been the most humane, the Russian State chose option (3).
Why wouldn't a decent Russian nationalist want option 2? Wouldn't you, if you were a Russian nationalist, want to save thousands of Russian lives and prevent a lot of misery for your own people, even if it meant losing a lot of money?
So I think Krylov is a decent Russian nationalist for preferring option 2.
The Russian State's choice of option 3 makes sense from a purely non-nationalist state perspective. Donbas will be very expensive to fix and Russia's funds are not unlimited, Donbas is a demographic black hole, and there would be extreme international political implications. Since Ukraine is a rival now it is useful to bleed it. Moreover, there is always a chance that some day this pro-Russian "anchor" may be reattached to the Ukrainian state to the Ukrainian State's own detriment. For these reasons, from the cold perspective of the interests of Russian State, the suffering and deaths of Russians in Donbas who want to join Russia but who will be denied this wish may be worth it. Sure, these Russians and pro-Russian Ukrainians will continue to be sacrificed and will die, but a few Ukrainian soldiers will die too, and Ukraine will continue to lose money there forever.Replies: @The Big Red Scary, @Mr. Hack, @Philip Owen
Except more people in th eDonbass, prior to the insurgency, leant towards Ukraine. Not even all the 40% who were ethinic Russians supported annexation by Russia.
Crimea should be returned to English rule. It was happiest under its first English administration in the 11th and 12th centuries. The 10th century return was only ever intended to be temporary.
Looks like Orwell knew his fellow Brits better than anyone – his “1984” was not a dystopia, but a UK documentary.
2. The more rural, pro-Ukrainian parts of Donbas are under Ukrainian control, while the more pro-Russian parts have left.Replies: @Belarusian Dude
Such is the logical endpoint of svidomism, you can jump now if you still want to.RIP weirdo Krylov.Replies: @AP, @Philip Owen, @Dmitry
Coal and mass produced steel were already in decline by the time of the Donbass insurgency by Russian nationalists. To compete, it was necessary to accept Chinese living standards. The Soviet steel industry was always a generation behind the rest of Europe. It modernized by importing Germans, Scots or Welsh rather than local innovation.
Crimea should be returned to English rule. It was happiest under its first English administration in the 11th and 12th centuries. The 10th century return was only ever intended to be temporary.Replies: @AnonFromTN, @AP
Don’t you think that the people living in Crimea now (not 800-900 years ago) should decide where it belongs? Or are you the proponent of “democracy” that does not give a hoot about people’s opinions? Self-appointed “mother” knows best?
Looks like Orwell knew his fellow Brits better than anyone – his “1984” was not a dystopia, but a UK documentary.
The conservatism of the peasantry was a product of the failed emancipation and as strong a factor in Russia's failure to reform as the rural nobility. Only Serbia produced more hopeless peasants.Replies: @Epigon
“Let me tell you about the history of your people and your nation…”
Congratulations, you are a living meme.
Of course, it is sad that people are dying, but Krylov's political activity is a phenomenon that is not worth mourning.Replies: @Epigon, @Anatoly Karlin, @Dmitry
So he was a mental/political Ukrainian?
Well, its “line” today is half of Donbas and as Philip Owen puts forth in comment #63 “more people in the Donbass, prior to the insurgency, leant towards Ukraine. Not even all the 40% who were ethnic Russians supported annexation by Russia.”
Also, I think that a lot of the initial support for a reorientation towards Russia had to do with the falsely propagated idea that somehow all of the retired residents of Donbas were going to get larger pension checks from Moscow, like in the Crimea. This has never occurred, and as far a I know, the existent pension checks have been made (if not regularly) by Kyiv. By doing so, I think that Kyiv has maintained more than a tenuous hold on those pensioners that still live there.
You are a product of White emigree's who presumably had property taken away leaving your family angry. This makes sense. Of course this gives you a natural bias that you seek to confirm anyway you can. This results in an affinity for supporting anybody who is anti-Soviet and calling anybody who says anything positive about the USSR as "commies" or "sovoks". The language an individual uses is indicative of their thought process - by simplifying a complex idea into "commies" and "sovoks", implies that you cannot look past individual biases (admittedly this is difficult).
Furthermore, the use of "sovok"/"commie" disparagingly also plays into the US propaganda machine. How you may ask? Simple. If you read Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky you will realize that one of the ways that the US propaganda machine acts is through control/misrepresentation of language and fact. This was seen with how many "defector" interviews that were set up in the US/Western countries during the Cold War were staged - much like how this is the same case with modern North Korean defectors (Yeon Mi Park was caught in lies multiple times and admitted to forging many of her stories or example), where they tell tall tales because it earns them good money and status.
Next, you focus excessively on a single point of history and use that as proof that "the USSR was horrible bloody where stalin personally killed 1 billion people". This is similar how the Sophist Protagoras speaks in Plato's dialogues - as he presents himself as all knowing and master of everything but ends up being incomplete. The fact of the matter is, many "facts" people think they know about the USSR are not "facts" and have been severely twisted during the cold war. This is a similar case with North Korea, as numerous people (including a Russian lady with her husband) that have move there tell an entirely different story. In fact, the narrative you construct of "Lenin who hated Russia" is entirely different to the way he is presented by others who seem him as a very astute politician and patriot who used the Germans to help propel him to power. So how do we determine which narrative is the correct one? Was he a Russian patriot who used the Germans or was he a traitor who hated Russia like you claim? This is not an easy question to answer - but I lean to the former. Why? Because of the numerous amount of reforms that the fledgling USSR underwent under the Bolshevik rule - from the time NEP was introduced in the USSR to the rise of Stalin, Russia had returned to pre-war levels of wealth. A man who hated the country would not bother improving the livelihoods of the citizens and would have kept a state of War Communism indefinitely.
http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/1670/lenins-new-economic-policy-what-it-was-and-how-it-changed-the-soviet-union
Any true Russian patriot would not use American terms like "human rights", or use terms like "commie". Furthermore, a Russian patriot understands that America can never be Russia's friend and that Russia should ban all American TV/close down internet like China and reorient itself East. A Russian patriot is a proponent of Platonic Euriasianism as proposed by Dugin (read the Fourth Political Theory) and against all forms of liberalism. Being American you have accepted the liberal world view.
https://i.imgur.com/qFLW3kr.jpg
In the interests of keeping this short, I will address your post in OP.1. Although I agree with limiting central asian presence and being self sufficient like the USSR, guns legalization in Russia is a Libertardian wet dream and should not be allowed as it leads to more problems than it solves.
2. The fact that he wants to "stop feeding the Caucasus" makes me suspect this guy is an American shill masquerading as a Russian patriot. Why? Because if Russia stops feeding the Caucasus and gives it independence it will trigger the numerous other republics in Russia to demand their independence and will cause a breakup of Russia. And if there isn't it will have a hotbed of islamic radicalism right under its wing.
3. Yes Russia should restore the territories that formerly belonged to it, but this is insufficient. Russia has a manifest destiny and should have control over the rest of Europe as the Soviet's dreamed (and that they almost achieved twice during Lenin's and Stalin's tenure respectively). This is only possible by moving away from ideals of Americanism (including those of democracy) and reorganizing itself based on the Chinese model.
4. If he was at all intellectually honest he would recognize the great achievements of science and technology and athletics that the USSR achieved AFTER the war and that it was all destroyed by anti-Soviet spies and demagogues such as himself that bought into Americanism.
Although this guy had some good ideas - these ideas are fairly standard in many circles I participate in. Why I think you particularly like him is because of his anti-Bolshevik stance, without it he would hardly be noteworthy in your eyes. This also accounts for why you like svidomiy Ukrainian traitors like AP.
The fact that you were born in the USA and moved to Russia hardly makes you a patriot - just like an Indian born in India and moving to Canada hardly makes a Canadian patriot. You absorbed destructive and toxic Americanism rather than fighting against it. Americanism has destroyed Russia once, and is currently doing it again. The only way to resist it is to reject it in Totality as Guenon says - this rejection is only possible, by either accepting the Soviet position, Duganism/Eurasianism, that of Italian Fascism or radical islamism. Each of these positions are positions of totatlity and by their nature are in opposition to Liberalism.Replies: @Chungus, @Belarusian Dude, @AP, @Anatoly Karlin, @Korenchkin, @Parbes, @Cyrano, @Iris
VERY good post. You absolutely nailed it with your description of the psychology, motivations and mental processes of this guy Anatoly Karlin. BRAVO! A five-star post.
AK: So I don’t know why you’d waste your time commenting here then. I’ll take the liberty of relieving you of that temptation in the future.
You are a product of White emigree's who presumably had property taken away leaving your family angry. This makes sense. Of course this gives you a natural bias that you seek to confirm anyway you can. This results in an affinity for supporting anybody who is anti-Soviet and calling anybody who says anything positive about the USSR as "commies" or "sovoks". The language an individual uses is indicative of their thought process - by simplifying a complex idea into "commies" and "sovoks", implies that you cannot look past individual biases (admittedly this is difficult).
Furthermore, the use of "sovok"/"commie" disparagingly also plays into the US propaganda machine. How you may ask? Simple. If you read Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky you will realize that one of the ways that the US propaganda machine acts is through control/misrepresentation of language and fact. This was seen with how many "defector" interviews that were set up in the US/Western countries during the Cold War were staged - much like how this is the same case with modern North Korean defectors (Yeon Mi Park was caught in lies multiple times and admitted to forging many of her stories or example), where they tell tall tales because it earns them good money and status.
Next, you focus excessively on a single point of history and use that as proof that "the USSR was horrible bloody where stalin personally killed 1 billion people". This is similar how the Sophist Protagoras speaks in Plato's dialogues - as he presents himself as all knowing and master of everything but ends up being incomplete. The fact of the matter is, many "facts" people think they know about the USSR are not "facts" and have been severely twisted during the cold war. This is a similar case with North Korea, as numerous people (including a Russian lady with her husband) that have move there tell an entirely different story. In fact, the narrative you construct of "Lenin who hated Russia" is entirely different to the way he is presented by others who seem him as a very astute politician and patriot who used the Germans to help propel him to power. So how do we determine which narrative is the correct one? Was he a Russian patriot who used the Germans or was he a traitor who hated Russia like you claim? This is not an easy question to answer - but I lean to the former. Why? Because of the numerous amount of reforms that the fledgling USSR underwent under the Bolshevik rule - from the time NEP was introduced in the USSR to the rise of Stalin, Russia had returned to pre-war levels of wealth. A man who hated the country would not bother improving the livelihoods of the citizens and would have kept a state of War Communism indefinitely.
http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/1670/lenins-new-economic-policy-what-it-was-and-how-it-changed-the-soviet-union
Any true Russian patriot would not use American terms like "human rights", or use terms like "commie". Furthermore, a Russian patriot understands that America can never be Russia's friend and that Russia should ban all American TV/close down internet like China and reorient itself East. A Russian patriot is a proponent of Platonic Euriasianism as proposed by Dugin (read the Fourth Political Theory) and against all forms of liberalism. Being American you have accepted the liberal world view.
https://i.imgur.com/qFLW3kr.jpg
In the interests of keeping this short, I will address your post in OP.1. Although I agree with limiting central asian presence and being self sufficient like the USSR, guns legalization in Russia is a Libertardian wet dream and should not be allowed as it leads to more problems than it solves.
2. The fact that he wants to "stop feeding the Caucasus" makes me suspect this guy is an American shill masquerading as a Russian patriot. Why? Because if Russia stops feeding the Caucasus and gives it independence it will trigger the numerous other republics in Russia to demand their independence and will cause a breakup of Russia. And if there isn't it will have a hotbed of islamic radicalism right under its wing.
3. Yes Russia should restore the territories that formerly belonged to it, but this is insufficient. Russia has a manifest destiny and should have control over the rest of Europe as the Soviet's dreamed (and that they almost achieved twice during Lenin's and Stalin's tenure respectively). This is only possible by moving away from ideals of Americanism (including those of democracy) and reorganizing itself based on the Chinese model.
4. If he was at all intellectually honest he would recognize the great achievements of science and technology and athletics that the USSR achieved AFTER the war and that it was all destroyed by anti-Soviet spies and demagogues such as himself that bought into Americanism.
Although this guy had some good ideas - these ideas are fairly standard in many circles I participate in. Why I think you particularly like him is because of his anti-Bolshevik stance, without it he would hardly be noteworthy in your eyes. This also accounts for why you like svidomiy Ukrainian traitors like AP.
The fact that you were born in the USA and moved to Russia hardly makes you a patriot - just like an Indian born in India and moving to Canada hardly makes a Canadian patriot. You absorbed destructive and toxic Americanism rather than fighting against it. Americanism has destroyed Russia once, and is currently doing it again. The only way to resist it is to reject it in Totality as Guenon says - this rejection is only possible, by either accepting the Soviet position, Duganism/Eurasianism, that of Italian Fascism or radical islamism. Each of these positions are positions of totatlity and by their nature are in opposition to Liberalism.Replies: @Chungus, @Belarusian Dude, @AP, @Anatoly Karlin, @Korenchkin, @Parbes, @Cyrano, @Iris
There were roughly 3 big calamitous events in the Russian history in the 20th century:
1. The October revolution in 1917.
2. The Nazi invasion of 1941.
3. The arrival of “democracy” in 1991.
Guess which one cost Russia the most demographically? Actually not just Russia but the Slavic component of the USSR? Number 3.
Thanks to the wonderful idea of “democracy” finally gracing Russia with its presence, the Slavic population of USSR declined by close to 40 million people. More than there were lost during the October revolution and definitely more than the 27 million lost during the WW2.
At the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia had about 155 million. The number today is about 142. Ukraine fared way worse. I think they were close to 60 million at the break-up of the USSR, and now they are down to sub 40 million.
“Democracy” did more damage to the Slavs of the USSR than both the Bolsheviks and the Nazis combined. I don’t care for that s**ty idea – “democracy”. It’s all phony, and at its core it has a hatred for the Slavs – when applied to Slavic lands.
>coherent constructive patriotic opposition
coherent constructive patriotic opposition can be found in duganism…many young people in russia and abroad are subscribing to it and I personally believe it is the way forward especially if combined with fascism.
coherent constructive patriotic opposition can be found in duganism...many young people in russia and abroad are subscribing to it and I personally believe it is the way forward especially if combined with fascism.Replies: @AnonFromTN
I don’t know much about Dugin. What little I know seems weird and totally unworkable. As to fascism, depends what you mean. If you mean Mussolini’s policies, they deserve discussion (although Greeks and Abyssinians would strongly disagree). If you mean Nazism (quintessence of which is “my tribe is better than you tribe”), the discussion should be with a psychiatrist.
You are a product of White emigree's who presumably had property taken away leaving your family angry. This makes sense. Of course this gives you a natural bias that you seek to confirm anyway you can. This results in an affinity for supporting anybody who is anti-Soviet and calling anybody who says anything positive about the USSR as "commies" or "sovoks". The language an individual uses is indicative of their thought process - by simplifying a complex idea into "commies" and "sovoks", implies that you cannot look past individual biases (admittedly this is difficult).
Furthermore, the use of "sovok"/"commie" disparagingly also plays into the US propaganda machine. How you may ask? Simple. If you read Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky you will realize that one of the ways that the US propaganda machine acts is through control/misrepresentation of language and fact. This was seen with how many "defector" interviews that were set up in the US/Western countries during the Cold War were staged - much like how this is the same case with modern North Korean defectors (Yeon Mi Park was caught in lies multiple times and admitted to forging many of her stories or example), where they tell tall tales because it earns them good money and status.
Next, you focus excessively on a single point of history and use that as proof that "the USSR was horrible bloody where stalin personally killed 1 billion people". This is similar how the Sophist Protagoras speaks in Plato's dialogues - as he presents himself as all knowing and master of everything but ends up being incomplete. The fact of the matter is, many "facts" people think they know about the USSR are not "facts" and have been severely twisted during the cold war. This is a similar case with North Korea, as numerous people (including a Russian lady with her husband) that have move there tell an entirely different story. In fact, the narrative you construct of "Lenin who hated Russia" is entirely different to the way he is presented by others who seem him as a very astute politician and patriot who used the Germans to help propel him to power. So how do we determine which narrative is the correct one? Was he a Russian patriot who used the Germans or was he a traitor who hated Russia like you claim? This is not an easy question to answer - but I lean to the former. Why? Because of the numerous amount of reforms that the fledgling USSR underwent under the Bolshevik rule - from the time NEP was introduced in the USSR to the rise of Stalin, Russia had returned to pre-war levels of wealth. A man who hated the country would not bother improving the livelihoods of the citizens and would have kept a state of War Communism indefinitely.
http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/1670/lenins-new-economic-policy-what-it-was-and-how-it-changed-the-soviet-union
Any true Russian patriot would not use American terms like "human rights", or use terms like "commie". Furthermore, a Russian patriot understands that America can never be Russia's friend and that Russia should ban all American TV/close down internet like China and reorient itself East. A Russian patriot is a proponent of Platonic Euriasianism as proposed by Dugin (read the Fourth Political Theory) and against all forms of liberalism. Being American you have accepted the liberal world view.
https://i.imgur.com/qFLW3kr.jpg
In the interests of keeping this short, I will address your post in OP.1. Although I agree with limiting central asian presence and being self sufficient like the USSR, guns legalization in Russia is a Libertardian wet dream and should not be allowed as it leads to more problems than it solves.
2. The fact that he wants to "stop feeding the Caucasus" makes me suspect this guy is an American shill masquerading as a Russian patriot. Why? Because if Russia stops feeding the Caucasus and gives it independence it will trigger the numerous other republics in Russia to demand their independence and will cause a breakup of Russia. And if there isn't it will have a hotbed of islamic radicalism right under its wing.
3. Yes Russia should restore the territories that formerly belonged to it, but this is insufficient. Russia has a manifest destiny and should have control over the rest of Europe as the Soviet's dreamed (and that they almost achieved twice during Lenin's and Stalin's tenure respectively). This is only possible by moving away from ideals of Americanism (including those of democracy) and reorganizing itself based on the Chinese model.
4. If he was at all intellectually honest he would recognize the great achievements of science and technology and athletics that the USSR achieved AFTER the war and that it was all destroyed by anti-Soviet spies and demagogues such as himself that bought into Americanism.
Although this guy had some good ideas - these ideas are fairly standard in many circles I participate in. Why I think you particularly like him is because of his anti-Bolshevik stance, without it he would hardly be noteworthy in your eyes. This also accounts for why you like svidomiy Ukrainian traitors like AP.
The fact that you were born in the USA and moved to Russia hardly makes you a patriot - just like an Indian born in India and moving to Canada hardly makes a Canadian patriot. You absorbed destructive and toxic Americanism rather than fighting against it. Americanism has destroyed Russia once, and is currently doing it again. The only way to resist it is to reject it in Totality as Guenon says - this rejection is only possible, by either accepting the Soviet position, Duganism/Eurasianism, that of Italian Fascism or radical islamism. Each of these positions are positions of totatlity and by their nature are in opposition to Liberalism.Replies: @Chungus, @Belarusian Dude, @AP, @Anatoly Karlin, @Korenchkin, @Parbes, @Cyrano, @Iris
Great comment.
What you call “sophists” are people who actually attack Russia as a nation while pretending to attack the USSR as a political regime. This is why they indiscriminately and ridiculously picture anything related to the USSR as negative.
Their “sophism” is not accidental but deliberate, and only expresses the prejudiced ideology of Cold War 2.0.
The entire point of this blog for decades now has been to defend Russia against prejudice, misinformation and hostile ideologies
Trying to claim otherwise is a downright denial of reality, but hey that is nothing new for Communists
NazBolFren attacks the Russian religion, their Centuries old systems of Government, he spits on the memory of the millions who died in World War 1, the Russian Civil war and in the repressive Communist dictatorship (even by official Cheka, NKVD and KGB numbers the number of dead is in the millions)
Obsessing over 70 years of Russian history while denying the successes of the previous 800 and the 30 that came after is not "true Russophilia" nor is it a fight against prejudice
It wasn't even the position that a lot of the Communists themselves held, Stalin praised the Russian Tsars for building such a vast Empire, for without so much land and high human capital it could not be a world power and it could not be used as an instrument to spread Socialism across the planet
There is no point in having discussions if your only answer is to call us rude names and then make outlandish claims which do not stand up to scrutiny (or as you call it "sophistry")Replies: @Dmitry
1. The October revolution in 1917.
2. The Nazi invasion of 1941.
3. The arrival of “democracy” in 1991.
Guess which one cost Russia the most demographically? Actually not just Russia but the Slavic component of the USSR? Number 3.
Thanks to the wonderful idea of “democracy” finally gracing Russia with its presence, the Slavic population of USSR declined by close to 40 million people. More than there were lost during the October revolution and definitely more than the 27 million lost during the WW2.
At the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia had about 155 million. The number today is about 142. Ukraine fared way worse. I think they were close to 60 million at the break-up of the USSR, and now they are down to sub 40 million.
“Democracy” did more damage to the Slavs of the USSR than both the Bolsheviks and the Nazis combined. I don’t care for that s**ty idea - "democracy". It’s all phony, and at its core it has a hatred for the Slavs – when applied to Slavic lands.Replies: @Ano4
I hope that you realize that the Nazi invasion is a direct consequence of Russian revolution and that the Perestroika was a product of the CPUS nomenklatura?
I mean Gaidar and Chubais were both functionaries of the Komsomol and offspring of the Soviet elite.
Yakovlev (a probable CIA asset) was also a member of the higher ranks of the Communist Party.
Yeltsin was a also a high level communist apparatchik before rebranding himself as a “democrat”.
The root of all evil that befell the Eastern Slavs in the XX century is the February revolution of 1917 and the ensuing Bolshevik coup.
Without these terrible events the other Russian tragedies of the last century and even of the present time (war in Eastern Ukraine) would have been averted.
Hundreds of millions of people would have been born and lived a peaceful and prosperous life.
If only the revolution had failed…
Furthermore, the rise of Nazism can be directly attributed to the Treaty of Versailles and WW2 would likely have occurred anyway because even before the Third Reich made any moves against Russia, they were already struggling with France over the Rhine (read how cleverly Hitler conquered the Rhine). Every action of the Nazi leadership was geared to an eventual great European War. It would have occurred had there been a USSR or not.Replies: @Ano4
Or are you saying that the Germans wouldn’t have attacked a democratic Russia out of respect for their democracy, even though Nazi Germany wasn’t one and there was no camaraderie between fellow democracies of which Margaret Thatcher so highly spoke (No 2 democracies have ever gone to war with each other – yeah right).
If it is any of those 2 assumptions – they are both wrong. Hitler would have attacked Russia, even if Russia had won a Nobel prize for democracy.Replies: @Ano4
Crimea should be returned to English rule. It was happiest under its first English administration in the 11th and 12th centuries. The 10th century return was only ever intended to be temporary.Replies: @AnonFromTN, @AP
1. A plurality supported autonomy within Ukraine on terms that would be unacceptable for any normal state (like freedom to join Eurasian Customs Union with Russia, which would have meant veto power over Ukraine’s integration with EU).
2. The more rural, pro-Ukrainian parts of Donbas are under Ukrainian control, while the more pro-Russian parts have left.
I was referring to the superfascisto movement of Italian Fascism that was represented by men such as Julius Evola. The superfascisto ideas he represents would give Russia a spiritual direction (as Julius Evola was less of a political ideologue and focused more on the effects of ideology on the spirit) as well as a political one. Combining this with Dugin’s ideas on the future of Russia (that he outlines in the Fourth Political Theory), gives a coherent picture around which Russia can construct both an internal and external policy (although admittedly Putin has already been essentially following the Fourth Political Theory in his foreing policy – he does not go far enough in internal policy).
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DfGQhNkUYAI3Na7.jpg
The woman on the left was sent packing, its time to do the same to the man on the right.Replies: @AP
You do realize that Tsarist policies would not have led to success, industrialization (Stolypin’s reforms were considered failures by his own Ministry and he was removed from his post) would not have occurred and Tsardom would have collapsed anyway from WW1? In addition, the Provisional Government headed by Witte was impotent from its inception and the peasants continued to be oppressed. The only way to change Russia was to collapse the system. In other words, Revolution was both necessary and inevitable.
Furthermore, the rise of Nazism can be directly attributed to the Treaty of Versailles and WW2 would likely have occurred anyway because even before the Third Reich made any moves against Russia, they were already struggling with France over the Rhine (read how cleverly Hitler conquered the Rhine). Every action of the Nazi leadership was geared to an eventual great European War. It would have occurred had there been a USSR or not.
What you have written above is a sum of politically correct clichés that are far removed from reality.
It would be too long and too difficult to re-educate you about all of this.
And it's not my role anyway.
All I can say is that I was thinking more or less the way you do some 15 years ago.
I was also interested in Eurasianism, I thought Aleksander Dugin had interesting and profound ideas, I read about the roots of National Bolshevism in the Weimar Germany and White Russian Emigration, I tried to find some good in the Stalinist industrialization.
I also read Evola and tried to find something good in the spiritual aspects of his doctrines.
But something was missing, something felt phony.
And then little by little, one book after another, the whole picture became clearer.
And it is not a pretty picture.
It's a long process and a painful one.
If you are really interested in Russian history you might one day go through such a process.
But if you just look for pseudometaphysical explanations and socioeconomic shortcuts, you will never get there.
Just a glimpse, all very official and nothing complicated (if you understand Russian):
https://www.kommersant.ru/amp/3833967
If you read it carefully you will start to see some important details.
If you find them interesting, I suggest you read Anthony C. Sutton's remarkable trilogy and only afterwards read Galkovsky's Infinite Deadlock.
Good luck and Godspeed.Replies: @Ano4, @AP
Furthermore, the rise of Nazism can be directly attributed to the Treaty of Versailles and WW2 would likely have occurred anyway because even before the Third Reich made any moves against Russia, they were already struggling with France over the Rhine (read how cleverly Hitler conquered the Rhine). Every action of the Nazi leadership was geared to an eventual great European War. It would have occurred had there been a USSR or not.Replies: @Ano4
You really have a lot of things to discover about what was really happening in the Russian Empire at the end of XIX / beginning of XXth centuries.
What you have written above is a sum of politically correct clichés that are far removed from reality.
It would be too long and too difficult to re-educate you about all of this.
And it’s not my role anyway.
All I can say is that I was thinking more or less the way you do some 15 years ago.
I was also interested in Eurasianism, I thought Aleksander Dugin had interesting and profound ideas, I read about the roots of National Bolshevism in the Weimar Germany and White Russian Emigration, I tried to find some good in the Stalinist industrialization.
I also read Evola and tried to find something good in the spiritual aspects of his doctrines.
But something was missing, something felt phony.
And then little by little, one book after another, the whole picture became clearer.
And it is not a pretty picture.
It’s a long process and a painful one.
If you are really interested in Russian history you might one day go through such a process.
But if you just look for pseudometaphysical explanations and socioeconomic shortcuts, you will never get there.
Just a glimpse, all very official and nothing complicated (if you understand Russian):
https://www.kommersant.ru/amp/3833967
If you read it carefully you will start to see some important details.
If you find them interesting, I suggest you read Anthony C. Sutton’s remarkable trilogy and only afterwards read Galkovsky’s Infinite Deadlock.
Good luck and Godspeed.
https://www.livelib.ru/book/1000555933-frejlina-ee-velichestva-dnevnik-i-vospominaniya-anny-vyrubovoj-anna-vyrubova
This blogger has also interesting publications on the topic:
https://a-kaminsky.livejournal.com/60932.htmlReplies: @NazBolFren
What you have written above is a sum of politically correct clichés that are far removed from reality.
It would be too long and too difficult to re-educate you about all of this.
And it's not my role anyway.
All I can say is that I was thinking more or less the way you do some 15 years ago.
I was also interested in Eurasianism, I thought Aleksander Dugin had interesting and profound ideas, I read about the roots of National Bolshevism in the Weimar Germany and White Russian Emigration, I tried to find some good in the Stalinist industrialization.
I also read Evola and tried to find something good in the spiritual aspects of his doctrines.
But something was missing, something felt phony.
And then little by little, one book after another, the whole picture became clearer.
And it is not a pretty picture.
It's a long process and a painful one.
If you are really interested in Russian history you might one day go through such a process.
But if you just look for pseudometaphysical explanations and socioeconomic shortcuts, you will never get there.
Just a glimpse, all very official and nothing complicated (if you understand Russian):
https://www.kommersant.ru/amp/3833967
If you read it carefully you will start to see some important details.
If you find them interesting, I suggest you read Anthony C. Sutton's remarkable trilogy and only afterwards read Galkovsky's Infinite Deadlock.
Good luck and Godspeed.Replies: @Ano4, @AP
And one last thing: just for the sake of understanding how profound is modern deception about these events of a century ago read the Diaries of Anna Vyrubova.
https://www.livelib.ru/book/1000555933-frejlina-ee-velichestva-dnevnik-i-vospominaniya-anny-vyrubovoj-anna-vyrubova
This blogger has also interesting publications on the topic:
https://a-kaminsky.livejournal.com/60932.html
What you have written above is a sum of politically correct clichés that are far removed from reality.
It would be too long and too difficult to re-educate you about all of this.
And it's not my role anyway.
All I can say is that I was thinking more or less the way you do some 15 years ago.
I was also interested in Eurasianism, I thought Aleksander Dugin had interesting and profound ideas, I read about the roots of National Bolshevism in the Weimar Germany and White Russian Emigration, I tried to find some good in the Stalinist industrialization.
I also read Evola and tried to find something good in the spiritual aspects of his doctrines.
But something was missing, something felt phony.
And then little by little, one book after another, the whole picture became clearer.
And it is not a pretty picture.
It's a long process and a painful one.
If you are really interested in Russian history you might one day go through such a process.
But if you just look for pseudometaphysical explanations and socioeconomic shortcuts, you will never get there.
Just a glimpse, all very official and nothing complicated (if you understand Russian):
https://www.kommersant.ru/amp/3833967
If you read it carefully you will start to see some important details.
If you find them interesting, I suggest you read Anthony C. Sutton's remarkable trilogy and only afterwards read Galkovsky's Infinite Deadlock.
Good luck and Godspeed.Replies: @Ano4, @AP
So you concur with my observation that the guy is (hopefully for him) just a bright over-read teenager who will hopefully grow up?
Anyway I have the impression that he is sincere in his convictions.
And if he sincerely seeks for understanding, he will probably find it.
At least some understanding.
But this of course applies to all of us.
This might indeed be the case.
Anyway I have the impression that he is sincere in his convictions.
And if he sincerely seeks for understanding, he will probably find it.
At least some understanding.
But this of course applies to all of us.
Of course, it is sad that people are dying, but Krylov's political activity is a phenomenon that is not worth mourning.Replies: @Epigon, @Anatoly Karlin, @Dmitry
As I tried to address in my obituary, these were troll posts to provoke and trigger – much like his “religion.”
(He was not, of course, a genuine Zoroastrian).
Such is the logical endpoint of svidomism, you can jump now if you still want to.RIP weirdo Krylov.Replies: @AP, @Philip Owen, @Dmitry
Donetsk was in the top 3 (sometimes substituting places with Dnepropetrovsk and Kharkov) most developed cities in Ukraine, after Kiev – before 2014.
Again, poast bookshelf…because you haven’t demonstrated a profound understanding of anything which makes me suspect you are not educated in this topics and your ‘he’s a teenager’ argument is merely a projection of the Self over something you don’t understand, that manifests in Envy.
https://www.livelib.ru/book/1000555933-frejlina-ee-velichestva-dnevnik-i-vospominaniya-anny-vyrubovoj-anna-vyrubova
This blogger has also interesting publications on the topic:
https://a-kaminsky.livejournal.com/60932.htmlReplies: @NazBolFren
Of course I have heard your arguments before and I will read the links (it is always good to gather more information). However, if you are trying to redpill me on Tsarist Russia, perhaps we should also get redpilled on Soviet Russia too – because many people here seem to follow a normie, american view on the topic. I have written above on why we should reject Americanism in all its forms, from language to narrative control – especially if we are Russian patriots.
Of course, it is sad that people are dying, but Krylov's political activity is a phenomenon that is not worth mourning.Replies: @Epigon, @Anatoly Karlin, @Dmitry
This is a bit of a redundant insult, considering his profession – to be an narcissistic freak is expected feature of 99,9% of political activists and publicists in the internet and media space, in all countries, regardless of political views. Such “activity” is a social parasitism, that usually tries to attract attention to self from provocative statements (relating to the most generic and boring topic, but which require everyone’s notice: politics), in absence of hard work or talent to attain attention from the real achievements. On the internet, they are like a more pathetic version of those attractive women who post selfies in instagram to gain followers, except the latter have at least a genetic superiority to base their narcissism on.
However, from reading his livejournal a few minutes – Krylov was independent, cynical, witty, somewhat entertaining blogger, and not completely crazy in his views. He tried to read Aristotle books and posted YouTube videos of Toscanini recordings – he does not seem such a bad fellow.
2. The more rural, pro-Ukrainian parts of Donbas are under Ukrainian control, while the more pro-Russian parts have left.Replies: @Belarusian Dude
Even rurally the people in “””liberated””” Eastern Ukraine vote for Rashka shills
Its a persistent fantasy of many UA shills that literally anybody in the East of Ukraine has any reason to want to be a part of that state, this fantasy ranging from merely misinforming some readers to outright being a cancer of the mind.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5b/%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8_%D0%9F%D0%A3_2019_%D0%9B%D1%96%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8_%D0%9E%D0%91%D0%9B_%D0%86_%D0%86%D0%86_%D0%86%D0%86%D0%86_%D0%86_%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80.png/800px-%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8_%D0%9F%D0%A3_2019_%D0%9B%D1%96%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8_%D0%9E%D0%91%D0%9B_%D0%86_%D0%86%D0%86_%D0%86%D0%86%D0%86_%D0%86_%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80.pngReplies: @Belarusian Dude
Imo, a major fault of American conservatives is their reluctance to see themselves as part of a group rather than as atomized individuals. Conservatives at large in the civilizational struggle are a macrocosm of such. Each tribe thinks it is an atom independent of other nations.Replies: @Belarusian Dude
I am not sure I follow your logic. Are you saying that Germany wouldn’t have attacked USSR (or Russia), if it was democracy, because democracy would have made them too strong for Germany to handle?
Or are you saying that the Germans wouldn’t have attacked a democratic Russia out of respect for their democracy, even though Nazi Germany wasn’t one and there was no camaraderie between fellow democracies of which Margaret Thatcher so highly spoke (No 2 democracies have ever gone to war with each other – yeah right).
If it is any of those 2 assumptions – they are both wrong. Hitler would have attacked Russia, even if Russia had won a Nobel prize for democracy.
A lot of people forget that it was the "Judeo-Bolshevism" that Hitler declared being its main enemy.
It has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with democracy.Replies: @Cyrano
What you call "sophists" are people who actually attack Russia as a nation while pretending to attack the USSR as a political regime. This is why they indiscriminately and ridiculously picture anything related to the USSR as negative.
Their "sophism" is not accidental but deliberate, and only expresses the prejudiced ideology of Cold War 2.0.Replies: @Korenchkin
This is an outright lie and it points out the problem with folks like you and the guy you were replying to
The entire point of this blog for decades now has been to defend Russia against prejudice, misinformation and hostile ideologies
Trying to claim otherwise is a downright denial of reality, but hey that is nothing new for Communists
NazBolFren attacks the Russian religion, their Centuries old systems of Government, he spits on the memory of the millions who died in World War 1, the Russian Civil war and in the repressive Communist dictatorship (even by official Cheka, NKVD and KGB numbers the number of dead is in the millions)
Obsessing over 70 years of Russian history while denying the successes of the previous 800 and the 30 that came after is not “true Russophilia” nor is it a fight against prejudice
It wasn’t even the position that a lot of the Communists themselves held, Stalin praised the Russian Tsars for building such a vast Empire, for without so much land and high human capital it could not be a world power and it could not be used as an instrument to spread Socialism across the planet
There is no point in having discussions if your only answer is to call us rude names and then make outlandish claims which do not stand up to scrutiny (or as you call it “sophistry”)
- As for claims about "millions killed", it might possibly be a difficult task to find the room for them in the census data. In 1926 census, in the USSR, there were 147 million people. In 1959 census - 209 million people. So the same population, has increased by 62 million under Stalin. (USSR in the Great Patriotic War loses around 26,6 million). So minus the war deaths, it could have been 88,6 million increase during Stalin's years of power.Replies: @AP
Or are you saying that the Germans wouldn’t have attacked a democratic Russia out of respect for their democracy, even though Nazi Germany wasn’t one and there was no camaraderie between fellow democracies of which Margaret Thatcher so highly spoke (No 2 democracies have ever gone to war with each other – yeah right).
If it is any of those 2 assumptions – they are both wrong. Hitler would have attacked Russia, even if Russia had won a Nobel prize for democracy.Replies: @Ano4
If there wasn’t a Russian revolution there would probably never had been a Nazi Germany.
A lot of people forget that it was the “Judeo-Bolshevism” that Hitler declared being its main enemy.
It has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with democracy.
A lot of people forget that it was the "Judeo-Bolshevism" that Hitler declared being its main enemy.
It has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with democracy.Replies: @Cyrano
So you are saying that Russian internal politics provoked Germany to become Nazi? Well, I guess in those days you had to look for motivation wherever you could find it.
You know how you call someone who suicidaly hates commies? Commiekaze – not as successful as the Japanese Kamikaze, but with the same end result.
That’s what the Nazis were – Commie-kazes, coming suicide in USSR against the commies. If they had any sense of humor they could have been called Commic-kazes, but since they can’t tell a joke to save their lives – they had to go down in a very somber way.
Human race would have been better without these two evils of communism and nazism.
But Communism was not a natural development of the Russian internal politics it was brought from abroad and nurtured carefully by anti-Russian elements in Western Europe and America.
It took nearly two generations to subvert, weaken and destroy Tsardom from within.
It was a long and well planned process.Replies: @Cyrano, @Iris, @AP
I know a lot about Soviet Russia.
And I am fully aware of the great achievements of the Russian people under the Soviet regime.
But I do believe that these achievements would have been reached even easier without the bloodshed and destruction caused by the revolution, civil war, terror, purges and WWII.
Russian people and other ethnic groups of the Russian Empire, Jews, Poles and Finns included, would have been better of without the immense suffering brought upon them by the onset of the revolution and the ensuing decades of unrest, aggression and war.
They would have flourished and multiplied more in Russian Empire and would have done so peacefully.
Revolution brought hatred, suffering, destruction and dislocation.
It is indeed a catastrophic event, caused by the scheming and manipulative actions of enemies of the Russian Empire.
And it is a meager consolation that these enemies themselves ended up engulfed into the flames that they have fanned for nearly half a century before it erupted into the revolutionary chaos.
I have nothing good to say about Nazis, just like I have nothing positive to write about Communists.
Human race would have been better without these two evils of communism and nazism.
But Communism was not a natural development of the Russian internal politics it was brought from abroad and nurtured carefully by anti-Russian elements in Western Europe and America.
It took nearly two generations to subvert, weaken and destroy Tsardom from within.
It was a long and well planned process.
Equating Nazism with Communism? You have a long way to go before you flush out of your system the decades long propaganda.
The only reason why you were never told the truth about communism – is because your masters were fairly certain that you couldn’t possibly figure it out on your own. They were right.Replies: @Ano4
As a matter of fact, the most obsequious of all the US Empire's poodles would never have dared equating nazism and communism over the 7 past decades, not even at the height of the Cold War.
For over 70 years, Anglo-Zionist imperialists were happy to stand hand-in-hand with Soviet/Russian leaders every May 8th of every year, and celebrate their collaboration and WW2 common victory.
Then, all of a sudden and out of the blue, the Western Sleeping Beauty woke up from her geopolitical coma and discovered that she had been deceived by her communist partner for 7 decades. By no coincidence, this epiphany happened just at the time Russia affirmed herself in Syria's strategic battlefield, and teamed up with China to deliver a spectacular global standpoint and prevent UN resolutions from shattering Syria into Libya's bloody fate.
What is on display in this thread is the new Israelo-American ideology driving a second Cold War against Russia, while pretending to only criticize her communist past. We are not fooled.Replies: @Ano4
You are wrong. While the pro-Russian candidate did win first place in the first round in liberated Eastern Ukraine, he did so with less than 50% support. He got 37% in Donetsk oblast and 44% in Luhansk. The rest of the voters there chose from the array of pro-Kiev candidates.
Human race would have been better without these two evils of communism and nazism.
But Communism was not a natural development of the Russian internal politics it was brought from abroad and nurtured carefully by anti-Russian elements in Western Europe and America.
It took nearly two generations to subvert, weaken and destroy Tsardom from within.
It was a long and well planned process.Replies: @Cyrano, @Iris, @AP
Is it OK if I call you Nadia Comaneci? Because you perform mental gymnastics worthy only of a top gymnast.
Equating Nazism with Communism? You have a long way to go before you flush out of your system the decades long propaganda.
The only reason why you were never told the truth about communism – is because your masters were fairly certain that you couldn’t possibly figure it out on your own. They were right.
Using ad hominem clichés, thinking that you cornered your opponent just by imagining something about him.
What a silly thing...
You know nothing about me boy.
I could explain to you how I came to hold the opinions that I outlined above, but you are a waste of my time.
I quit.
Be well.Replies: @Cyrano
NazBol, you know too fucking little.
I’m reinstating the need to read these:
https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1992/eirv19n01-19920103/eirv19n01-19920103.pdf
http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=68D46952563F85497DECCDE0CC70B0D7
http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=7976EB4C8A58D52ADA4ABD1E18059400
As well as these now:
https://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/v14n1p-4_Weber.html
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2019/03/02/lying-about-judeo-bolshevism/
https://archive.org/details/RussiaAndTheJewsBarnesReview/mode/2up
https://rense.com//general95/truthaboutimpruss.html
For the last one, the sources come from a book called “The Russian Revolution” by Richard Pipes.
You’re spilling over and over things that every baby know is wrong.
Equating Nazism with Communism? You have a long way to go before you flush out of your system the decades long propaganda.
The only reason why you were never told the truth about communism – is because your masters were fairly certain that you couldn’t possibly figure it out on your own. They were right.Replies: @Ano4
Well, if you tried to demonstrate your intellectual superiority by insulting me then you have clearly failed.
Using ad hominem clichés, thinking that you cornered your opponent just by imagining something about him.
What a silly thing…
You know nothing about me boy.
I could explain to you how I came to hold the opinions that I outlined above, but you are a waste of my time.
I quit.
Be well.
You know which litmus test all Slavs have to pass in order to win favors with the Americans and to prove that they are “pro-western” and “pro-democracy” and the rest of that BS? They all have to prove that they hate Russia. And they are all very eager to oblige, competing who is going to be the biggest Russia hater, and thus worthy of being accepted by the west.
I don’t care for those lowlifes who play that game. But for a Russian to seriously put an effort in order to make himself more appealing to the west – that just too much. You don’t deserve to be a Russian.
Human race would have been better without these two evils of communism and nazism.
But Communism was not a natural development of the Russian internal politics it was brought from abroad and nurtured carefully by anti-Russian elements in Western Europe and America.
It took nearly two generations to subvert, weaken and destroy Tsardom from within.
It was a long and well planned process.Replies: @Cyrano, @Iris, @AP
Poppycock.
As a matter of fact, the most obsequious of all the US Empire’s poodles would never have dared equating nazism and communism over the 7 past decades, not even at the height of the Cold War.
For over 70 years, Anglo-Zionist imperialists were happy to stand hand-in-hand with Soviet/Russian leaders every May 8th of every year, and celebrate their collaboration and WW2 common victory.
Then, all of a sudden and out of the blue, the Western Sleeping Beauty woke up from her geopolitical coma and discovered that she had been deceived by her communist partner for 7 decades. By no coincidence, this epiphany happened just at the time Russia affirmed herself in Syria’s strategic battlefield, and teamed up with China to deliver a spectacular global standpoint and prevent UN resolutions from shattering Syria into Libya’s bloody fate.
What is on display in this thread is the new Israelo-American ideology driving a second Cold War against Russia, while pretending to only criticize her communist past. We are not fooled.
Everything depends on the referential that one uses to analyze.
In the referential I have come to develop, it is not left vs right, but up versus down.
Up and down from the civilization point of view, from the cultural point of view.
The highest point of cultural evolution of the Western world was la Belle Époque just prior to WWI.
Oswald Spengler was right.
For Russian Empire it was the Silver Age (Серебряный Век) just before the revolution.
After that it started degrading.
Constructivism and all the later forms of Russian Cosmism not withstanding.
In this referential Nazism and Communism are quite similar despite their ideological differences.
Both were cultural simulacra and moral sinks.
They killed tens of millions of people and ravaged hundreds of millions of souls.
Congratulations, you are a living meme.Replies: @Philip Owen
Outsiders often have a better perspective. The Serb peasantry struggled with the decision to tax school books or vodka.
As a matter of fact, the most obsequious of all the US Empire's poodles would never have dared equating nazism and communism over the 7 past decades, not even at the height of the Cold War.
For over 70 years, Anglo-Zionist imperialists were happy to stand hand-in-hand with Soviet/Russian leaders every May 8th of every year, and celebrate their collaboration and WW2 common victory.
Then, all of a sudden and out of the blue, the Western Sleeping Beauty woke up from her geopolitical coma and discovered that she had been deceived by her communist partner for 7 decades. By no coincidence, this epiphany happened just at the time Russia affirmed herself in Syria's strategic battlefield, and teamed up with China to deliver a spectacular global standpoint and prevent UN resolutions from shattering Syria into Libya's bloody fate.
What is on display in this thread is the new Israelo-American ideology driving a second Cold War against Russia, while pretending to only criticize her communist past. We are not fooled.Replies: @Ano4
You are probably too attached to the current day and age.
Everything depends on the referential that one uses to analyze.
In the referential I have come to develop, it is not left vs right, but up versus down.
Up and down from the civilization point of view, from the cultural point of view.
The highest point of cultural evolution of the Western world was la Belle Époque just prior to WWI.
Oswald Spengler was right.
For Russian Empire it was the Silver Age (Серебряный Век) just before the revolution.
After that it started degrading.
Constructivism and all the later forms of Russian Cosmism not withstanding.
In this referential Nazism and Communism are quite similar despite their ideological differences.
Both were cultural simulacra and moral sinks.
They killed tens of millions of people and ravaged hundreds of millions of souls.
The entire point of this blog for decades now has been to defend Russia against prejudice, misinformation and hostile ideologies
Trying to claim otherwise is a downright denial of reality, but hey that is nothing new for Communists
NazBolFren attacks the Russian religion, their Centuries old systems of Government, he spits on the memory of the millions who died in World War 1, the Russian Civil war and in the repressive Communist dictatorship (even by official Cheka, NKVD and KGB numbers the number of dead is in the millions)
Obsessing over 70 years of Russian history while denying the successes of the previous 800 and the 30 that came after is not "true Russophilia" nor is it a fight against prejudice
It wasn't even the position that a lot of the Communists themselves held, Stalin praised the Russian Tsars for building such a vast Empire, for without so much land and high human capital it could not be a world power and it could not be used as an instrument to spread Socialism across the planet
There is no point in having discussions if your only answer is to call us rude names and then make outlandish claims which do not stand up to scrutiny (or as you call it "sophistry")Replies: @Dmitry
This can be a fabrication, if you have mean to imply that millions (plural) are killed intentionally, by the “communist dictatorship” – and the latter phrase might be appropriate if you are a speech writer for Ronald Reagan.
(Khrushchev memorandum) Between 1921-1954 – 642,980 people executed in the Soviet Union.
(Pospelov Commission) Between 1921-1954 – 688,503 killed in the Soviet Union.
(Shvernik commission) – 748,146 killed during the period 1935-1953, of which 681,692 – in 1937-38.
In 1988, KGB document submitted to Gorbachev – “786,098 people killed between 1930-55.”
–
A significant proportion of those executed in this time, were ordinary criminals – so the number executed for political reasons is lower than figures cited above. An additional proportion have died indirectly, while in labour camps. (Here can be included both innocent people unfairly persecuted, and also ordinary criminals).
–
As for claims about “millions killed”, it might possibly be a difficult task to find the room for them in the census data. In 1926 census, in the USSR, there were 147 million people. In 1959 census – 209 million people. So the same population, has increased by 62 million under Stalin. (USSR in the Great Patriotic War loses around 26,6 million). So minus the war deaths, it could have been 88,6 million increase during Stalin’s years of power.
They also, of course, do not include the millions who were starved to death in artificial famines.By 1959 USSR had added the Baltic Republics and a lot of territory to Ukraine and Belarus. Plus, of course, a high (but decreasing) fertility rate.
Using your logic:
USSR population 1937 = 162.5 million
USSR population 1946 = 170.5 million
Population increased between 1937 and 1946. There was no World War II. It was a hoax, as proven by population increase during those alleged war years.Replies: @Dmitry
These ideas, when expressed in North American politics, have been a total failure. I see little reason why they would succeed anywhere, especially considering the power of the state to persecute them along with the hounds of civil society.
The woman on the left was sent packing, its time to do the same to the man on the right.
- As for claims about "millions killed", it might possibly be a difficult task to find the room for them in the census data. In 1926 census, in the USSR, there were 147 million people. In 1959 census - 209 million people. So the same population, has increased by 62 million under Stalin. (USSR in the Great Patriotic War loses around 26,6 million). So minus the war deaths, it could have been 88,6 million increase during Stalin's years of power.Replies: @AP
Such numbers refer to the official documented executions and do not include large numbers of street killings such as all of the Whites hung from lampposts after Crimea was taken, or kulaks dragged from their homes, who ended up in mass graves in the countryside.
They also, of course, do not include the millions who were starved to death in artificial famines.
By 1959 USSR had added the Baltic Republics and a lot of territory to Ukraine and Belarus. Plus, of course, a high (but decreasing) fertility rate.
Using your logic:
USSR population 1937 = 162.5 million
USSR population 1946 = 170.5 million
Population increased between 1937 and 1946. There was no World War II. It was a hoax, as proven by population increase during those alleged war years.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DfGQhNkUYAI3Na7.jpg
The woman on the left was sent packing, its time to do the same to the man on the right.Replies: @AP
No one in Russia takes the man on the right seriously. He is a clown.
We're still paying for it, and more than any other event it could damn the government's chances of re-election.Replies: @Ano4
Human race would have been better without these two evils of communism and nazism.
But Communism was not a natural development of the Russian internal politics it was brought from abroad and nurtured carefully by anti-Russian elements in Western Europe and America.
It took nearly two generations to subvert, weaken and destroy Tsardom from within.
It was a long and well planned process.Replies: @Cyrano, @Iris, @AP
The modern idolatries of communism and nationalism (of which Nazism is the most malevolent form, though it is somewhat of a mutation) did so much to destroy the Western peoples.
You remind me so much of the Northern Ireland Troubles. Two rival groups of cultural conservatives bloodying each other while the rest of the world goes Poz around them.
Imo, a major fault of American conservatives is their reluctance to see themselves as part of a group rather than as atomized individuals. Conservatives at large in the civilizational struggle are a macrocosm of such. Each tribe thinks it is an atom independent of other nations.
Enough Americans took his apprentice seriously enough that they rioted in a medium-sized university town in the state of Virginia.
We’re still paying for it, and more than any other event it could damn the government’s chances of re-election.
Dugin's influence on the Alt right, although minor, did not bring American people any good.
Same about his influence on the National Bolsheviks and Eurasianists in early 2000s Russia: it did nothing positive for Russian people.
Couldn’t have said it better.
I believe that those who financed the raise of these two destructive ideologies (Communism and Nazism) were fully aware of the negative end results they will bear on the populations of European ancestry.
They actually probably proceeded with a willful “mutagenesis” (to borrow your expression) on the European philosophical thought to produce these monstrosities.
Just like a bioengineered virus, but for the minds of multitudes.
We're still paying for it, and more than any other event it could damn the government's chances of re-election.Replies: @Ano4
Yes.
Dugin’s influence on the Alt right, although minor, did not bring American people any good.
Same about his influence on the National Bolsheviks and Eurasianists in early 2000s Russia: it did nothing positive for Russian people.
Using ad hominem clichés, thinking that you cornered your opponent just by imagining something about him.
What a silly thing...
You know nothing about me boy.
I could explain to you how I came to hold the opinions that I outlined above, but you are a waste of my time.
I quit.
Be well.Replies: @Cyrano
If I am a boy, you are an embryo, you f**ken retard. The worst part is, it looks like you are Russian. Oh, well, I never thought that all Russians are smart – that would be impossible. You are a proof of that.
You know which litmus test all Slavs have to pass in order to win favors with the Americans and to prove that they are “pro-western” and “pro-democracy” and the rest of that BS? They all have to prove that they hate Russia. And they are all very eager to oblige, competing who is going to be the biggest Russia hater, and thus worthy of being accepted by the west.
I don’t care for those lowlifes who play that game. But for a Russian to seriously put an effort in order to make himself more appealing to the west – that just too much. You don’t deserve to be a Russian.
Although Nazism is much worse than the nationalism from which it sprung, nationalism was the poison that led Europe to self-destruction during World War I just as it was at its peak in terms of culture and power. I can’t imagine the conservative monarchies of central and Eastern Europe going to ruinous mass war against each other while choosing as allies a place like Socialist-led Republican France, if not for nationalism.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5b/%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8_%D0%9F%D0%A3_2019_%D0%9B%D1%96%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8_%D0%9E%D0%91%D0%9B_%D0%86_%D0%86%D0%86_%D0%86%D0%86%D0%86_%D0%86_%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80.png/800px-%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8_%D0%9F%D0%A3_2019_%D0%9B%D1%96%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8_%D0%9E%D0%91%D0%9B_%D0%86_%D0%86%D0%86_%D0%86%D0%86%D0%86_%D0%86_%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80.pngReplies: @Belarusian Dude
It’s a really fat stretch to call the Vilkuls anything but pro Russian (who might I add have a decent foothold closer to the center of Ukraine) and we both know what Zelensky was played up as, particularly for the people in the East. He was trumped up as a crypto-Russophile or the closest thing people could get to one that was also capable of winning; the best of the worst choices for a pro-Russian voter.
Imo, a major fault of American conservatives is their reluctance to see themselves as part of a group rather than as atomized individuals. Conservatives at large in the civilizational struggle are a macrocosm of such. Each tribe thinks it is an atom independent of other nations.Replies: @Belarusian Dude
I’m not a cultural conservative because that’s fucking faggotry I’m a reactionary I want to go back to the days my ancestors cucked hohol, proto-polack, sprat, and moskal scum alike
P.S. don’t associate me with anything on the cursed anglo isles or I’ll break your arms
Vilkul had little support with about 4% of the vote (he wasn’t even listed on those maps) and his vote wasn’t enough to get the pro-Russian vote over 50% in the East.
Not in the first round, where the pro-Russians had their own candidates. Poroshenko was playing him as a crypto-pro-Russian. Zelensky himself praised supporters of Bandera. He was clearly a lesser evil for pro-Russians, who therefore voted for him in second round, but thinking of him as a pro-Russian and therefore that his voters were all pro-Russians is just Ukrainian wishful thinking.
Vilkul Jr. was listed on more than one region on the map you posted. I agree that actually taking Zelensky as a pro Russian is nonsense, but people in rural regions are exactly the ones subscribing to the wishful thinking you mentioned.
They also, of course, do not include the millions who were starved to death in artificial famines.By 1959 USSR had added the Baltic Republics and a lot of territory to Ukraine and Belarus. Plus, of course, a high (but decreasing) fertility rate.
Using your logic:
USSR population 1937 = 162.5 million
USSR population 1946 = 170.5 million
Population increased between 1937 and 1946. There was no World War II. It was a hoax, as proven by population increase during those alleged war years.Replies: @Dmitry
Well this is what we are talking about – those who are killed officially, as I was responding to a claim about KGB documents.
According to Zemskov: Between 1918-1992 – around 3854000 “political criminals”, 828 thousand are killed, 2438000 are rehabilitated – over 63 percent.
Those killed “in addition to documented deaths”, will be another proportion – and estimates vary where it is larger or smaller.
For example, Zemskov believes all total politically caused killed between 1918-1992 are 2,5 million (officially and unofficially). (Some dispute this as too large;some as too small).
Claiming incompetent mismanagement of famines, would add that the UK government has killed tens of millions of Indians, and even a million Irish people.
With the famines, there’s also no reason not to add mismanagement of other disasters like pandemics – i.e. that Austria-Hungary can be responsible for the 250000 killed in Spanish flu, or the US government for almost 90000 deaths from coronavirus etc. There’s also people who think Yeltsin killed millions of people, because of the alcoholism crisis in Russia in the 1990s. Then there can be added that Italy killed 2000 people at the Vajont Dam disaster, etc.
So like Zemskov, we do not include deaths from famines in the same way as political deaths, even if government incompetence has contributed to the former.
Because we know about World War II from thousands of different sources. Whereas the claims of millions excess of killings by the USSR in addition to those officially known – have to be reconstructed from limited evidence (sometimes more like Chinese whispers from political dissidents), of which the census is one of the ones in which we might have difficulty finding “room” for the excess millions of victims. It should be easy to compute if you added the information we know about fertility rates, infant mortality and life expectancy.
Another way is to eliminate the most wild claims, is to look at how many people today have ancestors who were repressed, as children of politically persecuted have survived. For example, there are annual protests by descendants of those who were repressed, and whose ancestors were killed. On the other hand, the numbers are quite small, or seem to be within our expectations that match the documented numbers. Having ancestors who were repressed, is not especially “mainstream” – whereas if so many millions are repressed as some anti-Soviet propaganda has claimed, it would be such large part of the population’s family history today, and a significant proportion of people we know today would have that family story.
Soviet famines were a Russian genocide, and caused much more long term harm then the famines did to the Irish or Indians/Bengalis
When did such events happen? I don’t know too much Eastern European history but I always through that, before being granted the title of a republic in the USSR, Belarus never raised from being a part of the entities formed by the last three groups in your list.
Long ago the Drevljani/Woodsmen and other proto-Belarusian tribes were the Gigachads of the Slavic world until Kievan tyranny cucked us
Pretty hard-core reactionarism.
Oh, I see, 6th to 10th century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drevlians
Pretty hard-core reactionarism.
Yes? And the Indians and Irish do not pretend it was not a genocide, nor do they pretend it was incompetence
Soviet famines were a Russian genocide, and caused much more long term harm then the famines did to the Irish or Indians/Bengalis
The Drevlian capital Iskorosten was in Zhytomir oblast, modern Ukraine. Some of their territory extended into modern Belarus but even Russian wiki says they were mostly in modern Zhytomir and western Kiev oblasts.
With dominant clans being the same Rus from Novgorod to Uzhgorod.
For their Germanic neighbors to the West and their Scandinavian neighbors to the North they were all Wends.
Nation building started much later and is in fact a relatively recent phenomenon.
.
Borders are fluid over time, more importantly they were key in forming the Polesian Slavs who came to be the most important of factor of the “True” Belarusians, Polišuks of my home Homel and nearby regions.
That said this is mostly LARP or at the very least somewhat tongue in cheek. However in the absence of this national basis I have to either endorse zmahar faggotry or cuck to Rashka’s nationalists so I stick with it.
Even though Belarusians probably have a strong Baltic admixture, Russians have an Ugric and Turk admixture and Ukrainians have a Turk, Circassian and Vlakh admixture, there is still a strong genetic common component among Eastern Slavs.
In fact, it includes the Poles.
National identifications shift and change, but genetics stay.
Interestingly enough, a large part of imported goods in an XIth century Old Prussian necropolis was of Ruthenian origin:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://briai.ku.lt/downloads/AB/18/18_224-255_Shiroukhov.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwi76amp4LjpAhXmY98KHak7DCQQFjAKegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw0UcZ_OseMB6hVc3U8CWVs-
What about a common Rusin / Ruthenian basis for modern day Belarusian, Russian and Ukrainian populations?
Even though Belarusians probably have a strong Baltic admixture, Russians have an Ugric and Turk admixture and Ukrainians have a Turk, Circassian and Vlakh admixture, there is still a strong genetic common component among Eastern Slavs.
In fact, it includes the Poles.
National identifications shift and change, but genetics stay.
Interestingly enough, a large part of imported goods in an XIth century Old Prussian necropolis was of Ruthenian origin:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://briai.ku.lt/downloads/AB/18/18_224-255_Shiroukhov.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwi76amp4LjpAhXmY98KHak7DCQQFjAKegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw0UcZ_OseMB6hVc3U8CWVs-
They were all Slovene at the time.
With dominant clans being the same Rus from Novgorod to Uzhgorod.
For their Germanic neighbors to the West and their Scandinavian neighbors to the North they were all Wends.
Nation building started much later and is in fact a relatively recent phenomenon.
.