Russia

[phuckphace]

gonna start this out by stating for the record that I don't have anything against Russian people personally. in fact I've had nothing but good experiences talking with e-Russians on the Internet.

but here's what I don't get: Russophilia. it's become a serious problem on the far-right, like half of these people probably have a poster of shirtless muscle-Putin tacked on the wall. to me, if you're going to go all gung-ho over a country because it's supposedly an example of ~the right way to do things~, it would probably help to pick one that's a little less...post-apocalyptic. and Russia today is, as best I can tell, probably among the most post-apocalyptic places in the West.

for starters, the Russian government pretty much defines the word "corruption." we Americans like to bitch about all the dumb shit our own gov't likes to pull, but I can say with certainty that no American has ever needed to "know a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy" in order to renew their license plate without having to wait 3 years.

Putin himself is a douche. sorry to anyone who likes him, but that's what he is. for a guy who enjoys a very strong "macho" image, he appears hilariously incapable of handling any criticism. hell, when I become dictator someday I fully expect journalists to whine about me all day, and me I'd rather keep them alive for the entertainment value. Putler, on the other hand, gets triggered so hard he calls in a hitman every time.

the population of Russia is about ~80% urbanized. I've noted before that excessive urbanization is a really good way to end up with a squalid rat-pen, and Russia fits this to a T. absolutely insane levels of drug addiction and alcoholism, rampant HIV due to same, and basically everybody's poor and miserable as fuck. the "homophobia" that makes Russia so endearing to the American far-right is mostly meaningless in real life - it's not like Russia's child porn industry is HUGE or anything.

I just can't wrap my head around the far-right logic of "The West sucks therefore Putin doesn't". the enemy of your enemy isn't your friend.

[Vlerchan]

Possibilities.

It represents the independent state in opposition to the liberal-postnationalist consensus that most Far-right activists strive for. It's great-power rhetoric is enamouring.
It represents the independent state in opposition to the atlanticist order that most Far-right activists oppose. It's anti-establishment geo-strategic approach also resonates with the anti-establishment approach Far-right activists take.
It's Orthodox-inspired culture seems to be romanticised as all organic and sacralised.
Russia grants Far-Right groups important organisational and media assistance. I would imagine that the hierarchy and deferential nature of authoritarian organisation means that the good will of the top-brass trickles down.
That's just from the top of my head.

[Miserabilia]

There's something about Russia that depresses me in every way.
Wether it's drug addiction corrupt government I don't know... The general vibe I get is a place where you need to take care of yourself, pretty much take justice into your own hands.
Maybe that's why the far rights like it so much; in russia you can definetely not expect to get helped by the state.

[StoppingTom]

Most Russophiles I've come across are edgy teen kids whose knowledge of Russia extend to "vodka and FPSRussia".

[sqishy]

I don't disagree with most of this.
I like the idea of not having another cold war, though it seems like one is currently happening.

[Arkansasguy]

gonna start this out by stating for the record that I don't have anything against Russian people personally. in fact I've had nothing but good experiences talking with e-Russians on the Internet.

but here's what I don't get: Russophilia. it's become a serious problem on the far-right, like half of these people probably have a poster of shirtless muscle-Putin tacked on the wall. to me, if you're going to go all gung-ho over a country because it's supposedly an example of ~the right way to do things~, it would probably help to pick one that's a little less...post-apocalyptic. and Russia today is, as best I can tell, probably among the most post-apocalyptic places in the West.

for starters, the Russian government pretty much defines the word "corruption." we Americans like to bitch about all the dumb shit our own gov't likes to pull, but I can say with certainty that no American has ever needed to "know a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy" in order to renew their license plate without having to wait 3 years.

Putin himself is a douche. sorry to anyone who likes him, but that's what he is. for a guy who enjoys a very strong "macho" image, he appears hilariously incapable of handling any criticism. hell, when I become dictator someday I fully expect journalists to whine about me all day, and me I'd rather keep them alive for the entertainment value. Putler, on the other hand, gets triggered so hard he calls in a hitman every time.

the population of Russia is about ~80% urbanized. I've noted before that excessive urbanization is a really good way to end up with a squalid rat-pen, and Russia fits this to a T. absolutely insane levels of drug addiction and alcoholism, rampant HIV due to same, and basically everybody's poor and miserable as fuck. the "homophobia" that makes Russia so endearing to the American far-right is mostly meaningless in real life - it's not like Russia's child porn industry is HUGE or anything.

I just can't wrap my head around the far-right logic of "The West sucks therefore Putin doesn't". the enemy of your enemy isn't your friend.

Putin is a leader. That's why many far-rightists like him. He's not an Obama or a Merkel.

And you're saying you'd tolerate journalist dissidents as dictator is why, if you ever became dictator, you'd lose your head. The reign of opinion is just as much a regime as that of any autocrat, and if necessary it can stir up an army of the masses to take down any political functionaries who become overly bothersome to it.

And that's all the "leaders" in the west are, functionaries taking orders from newsmen. And that's all they can be as long as the media is allowed to control public opinion.

[Hyper]

Here's my possibilities:

Former CCCP country kids that are either grade A ''non comformist'' morons or brainwashed by their parents into thinking the CCCP was some great great thing - that obviously transfer onto Russia.

He appeals to right wingish peoples, kind of like you, that think that a decent dictator is better than an incompetent, corrupt elected government filled with bureocracy. Because well that's what he is - just like most bullshit as well there's a certain grain of truth to it - Putin broke up a lot of the oligarchy power and that made him very popular with a lot of Russian people, also helped the people somewhat. The fact that he replaced the same criminal oligarchy with his own and friends is simply overshadowed.

The above coupled with Pyccku propaganda as well - it's out there in droves, probably makes all this happen.

But mostly morons. Just like the Hitler, Reich, Germany w/e loving morons.

[Arkansasguy]

Here's my possibilities:

Former CCCP country kids that are either grade A ''non comformist'' morons or brainwashed by their parents into thinking the CCCP was some great great thing - that obviously transfer onto Russia.

He appeals to right wingish peoples, kind of like you, that think that a decent dictator is better than an incompetent, corrupt elected government filled with bureocracy. Because well that's what he is - just like most bullshit as well there's a certain grain of truth to it - Putin broke up a lot of the oligarchy power and that made him very popular with a lot of Russian people, also helped the people somewhat. The fact that he replaced the same criminal oligarchy with his own and friends is simply overshadowed.

The above coupled with Pyccku propaganda as well - it's out there in droves, probably makes all this happen.

But mostly morons. Just like the Hitler, Reich, Germany w/e loving morons.

I find Putin's supporters (the non-Russian ones anyway) tend to be the sort of people who hate the Soviet Union.

His main opposition inside Russia is the Communist Party.

[Hyper]

I find Putin's supporters (the non-Russian ones anyway) tend to be the sort of people who hate the Soviet Union.

His main opposition inside Russia is the Communist Party.

Well that makes them even bigger morons then. Based on my own experience the Russian supporters tend to love the CCCP or the ''memory'' of it.

Of course the communists are his opposition. They are old fossils that lost their grand power with the collapse of the CCCP while Putin was just an FSB (KGB) officer that gained everything they lost.

[Arkansasguy]

Well that makes them even bigger morons then. Based on my own experience the Russian supporters tend to love the CCCP or the ''memory'' of it.

Of course the communists are his opposition. They are old fossils that lost their grand power with the collapse of the CCCP while Putin was just an FSB (KGB) officer that gained everything they lost.

I think you need to distinguish between an ideological agreement with the USSR and a respect for the nations past. United Russia is anti-communist ideologically. Though Russians haven't been inculcated with the same readiness to hate their nations' past that Americans and Western Europeans have.

[Hyper]

I think you need to distinguish between an ideological agreement with the USSR and a respect for the nations past. United Russia is anti-communist ideologically. Though Russians haven't been inculcated with the same readiness to hate their nations' past that Americans and Western Europeans have.

I think you need to watch Russian media or actually go there (I've done both seeing as I live next to Russia and speak Russian a little bit).

The prevaling ideology, at least the one being pushed on in the media, is not of ''respecting the past'' it's idolising it.

EDIT: Living next to Russia I find that a bit troubling, this also makes me feel a bit less than empathetic or respectful of these kids (many on this forum) defending Stalin or saying how the big bad West is demonising dear Russia all the time, who is btw just trying to defend it's people! And so on and on...

[Arkansasguy]

I think you need to watch Russian media or actually go there (I've done both seeing as I live next to Russia and speak Russian a little bit).

The prevaling ideology, at least the one being pushed on in the media, is not of ''respecting the past'' it's idolising it.

EDIT: Living next to Russia I find that a bit troubling, this also makes me feel a bit less than empathetic or respectful of these kids (many on this forum) defending Stalin or saying how the big bad West is demonising dear Russia all the time, who is btw just trying to defend it's people! And so on and on...

While I respect that you know more than I do, I'm 99% certain you're exaggerating, and they don't actually practice ancestor worship.

I've never heard a Putin supporter defend Stalin's actions, speak positively of him yes, but not defend.

[Hyper]

While I respect that you know more than I do, I'm 99% certain you're exaggerating, and they don't actually practice ancestor worship.

I've never heard a Putin supporter defend Stalin's actions, speak positively of him yes, but not defend.

I see an almost non existant thin line between speak positively of and defend. I've seen the defending, though I know these people are a vast minority even among very patriotic Russians.

There's also a lot of very anti Putin and CCCP Russians... But yeah kind of gone off topic here.

To reiterate I think it's mostly morons with poor grasp on history, Soviet fanboys, and kids who are going through the whole non-comformists I am now a anarchist/communist/super authoritarian/fascist/whatever phase.

[phuckphace]

I view Putin's own Russian supporters a little differently than I do those outside Russia.

Russians like him because, relatively speaking, he's the least shittiest leader they've had in a very long while, in the sense that he's kept most of Russia's money for himself rather than letting int'l bankers have it.

Russophiles like him for the same reason some people like Hitler.

@Arkansasguy (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/member.php?u=112972) - there's a rather large difference between typing words on the Internet and picking up a gun and trying to assassinate me. the two don't always go hand-in-hand: see the US government's reputation on the Internet, and then note that it's not going anywhere (it will collapse someday but not via American Revolution 2.0.)

the commoners "don't care what games the high lords play" as long as the food stays on store shelves and open jobs on the tackboard.

[Arkansasguy]

I view Putin's own Russian supporters a little differently than I do those outside Russia.

Russians like him because, relatively speaking, he's the least shittiest leader they've had in a very long while, in the sense that he's kept most of Russia's money for himself rather than letting int'l bankers have it.

Russophiles like him for the same reason some people like Hitler.

@Arkansasguy (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/member.php?u=112972) - there's a rather large difference between typing words on the Internet and picking up a gun and trying to assassinate me. the two don't always go hand-in-hand: see the US government's reputation on the Internet, and then note that it's not going anywhere (it will collapse someday but not via American Revolution 2.0.)

the commoners "don't care what games the high lords play" as long as the food stays on store shelves and open jobs on the tackboard.

The American Revolution was stirred up in large part by media being able to publish whatever they wanted. Or look at Russia, the tsar started granting freedom of the press to appease the radicals, and were they appeased?

People on the internet notwithstanding, our media is almost entirely in support of the ideological status quo (change between the two parties is a feature of our system). So using America to show that media can't ignite revolution is not a valid comparison.

[Porpoise101]

Russia to me seems pretty dreary and the political scene is more corrupt and more malicious than Indian politics (but not Pakistan). I've never been there but those are my impressions. I'd still go there because the culture is fairly rich and it's history is a lot like American history in some ways. I don't like the authoritarianism but I understand the centralisation is the government.

[Sir Suomi]

At this point I'm honestly just waiting until I end up getting deployed to Western Europe to fight off the Russians because both sides have incompetent leaders.

[Stronk Serb]

Russia to me seems pretty dreary and the political scene is more corrupt and more malicious than Indian politics (but not Pakistan). I've never been there but those are my impressions. I'd still go there because the culture is fairly rich and it's history is a lot like American history in some ways. I don't like the authoritarianism but I understand the centralisation is the government.


Russia has a lot richer history than America. I mean, they were affected by Christianization, wars with Catholics, conquest by the Mongols, liberation, the unification into the tsardom, periods of tsars, industrialization, WWI, the revolutions, Stalin, WWII, the Cold War and the breakdown of the USSR. I would also like to visit. Probably will take a ride from Moscow to Vladivostok along the Trans Siberian rail line. Also I won't be stopping in Omsk to get wasted on krokodil.

[phuckphace]

The American Revolution was stirred up in large part by media being able to publish whatever they wanted. Or look at Russia, the tsar started granting freedom of the press to appease the radicals, and were they appeased?

People on the internet notwithstanding, our media is almost entirely in support of the ideological status quo (change between the two parties is a feature of our system). So using America to show that media can't ignite revolution is not a valid comparison.

a couple of printing presses in a 1700s WASP society vs. a few hundred thousand Twitter users who can barely lift a McDonald's bag, much less a pitchfork, and have only ever seen violence in video games and movies. I repeat: there's not going to be a second American revolution and it's sure as hell not going to be Twitter users or even journalists :lol3:

the idea is to create a society where nobody is thinking of deposing you because things are going more or less smoothly on the common man's end. to this end, a populist socioeconomic plan goes a long way.

[Arkansasguy]

the idea is to create a society where nobody is thinking of deposing you because things are going more or less smoothly on the common man's end. to this end, a populist socioeconomic plan goes a long way.

I'd largely agree with this. But if you don't want anyone to think of deposing you, you probably shouldn't allow journalists to stir up such desires.

[phuckphace]

right, but people with full stomachs and good jobs tend not to entertain such desires and if they do, it amounts to bitching on the internet about things they hate but can't change (kind of like me!)

also, I just found out that Russia is swarming with...you guessed it...immigrants. they're "needed" because native Russian women tend to visit the abortion clinic as often as Murricans go to McDonalds. so much for Putin as the "savior of the white race!" :lol3:

[Arkansasguy]

right, but people with full stomachs and good jobs tend not to entertain such desires and if they do, it amounts to bitching on the internet about things they hate but can't change (kind of like me!)

Let's take the American Revolution as an example. The people weren't starving, and the taxes were light compared to other parts of the British Empire. But the media is capable of making people think things are worse than they seem. And that is exactly how Britain lost control of the thirteen colonies. If the media ever seriously turned on our government (they don't need to, they can get anything they want done through elections), they could do the same thing if allowed to.

[Judean Zealot]

Let's take the American Revolution as an example. The people weren't starving, and the taxes were light compared to other parts of the British Empire. But the media is capable of making people think things are worse than they seem. And that is exactly how Britain lost control of the thirteen colonies. If the media ever seriously turned on our government (they don't need to, they can get anything they want done through elections), they could do the same thing if allowed to.

There still remains a difference between actual incitement to subversion and yellow journalism. The one is perilous and the other natural.

[phuckphace]

There still remains a difference between actual incitement to subversion and yellow journalism. The one is perilous and the other natural.

this is the point I was trying to make but you said it better.

insurrection is possible, just not by an army of scarf-wearing yellow journalists astride their penny-farthings

[Arkansasguy]

There still remains a difference between actual incitement to subversion and yellow journalism. The one is perilous and the other natural.

Perhaps, but it can be a blurry line. For example, is "Fuck the police" subversive?

[Judean Zealot]

Perhaps, but it can be a blurry line. For example, is "Fuck the police" subversive?

Nah. The mob will always be the mob.

[Arkansasguy]

Nah. The mob will always be the mob.

But should the mob be allowed to control public opinion?

[Judean Zealot]

But should the mob be allowed to control public opinion?

The mob is the public opinion. Should the general public opinion be allowed to control affairs of state? No. That doesn't equal not allowing the masses to express their collective nonsense.

[Arkansasguy]

The mob is the public opinion. Should the general public opinion be allowed to control affairs of state? No. That doesn't equal not allowing the masses to express their collective nonsense.

But the problem is that when you allow them to express their nonsense, it leads one way or another to their nonsense being effected. Is there any society that allowed generalized freedom of speech and didn't go crazy?

[phuckphace]

But the problem is that when you allow them to express their nonsense, it leads one way or another to their nonsense being effected. Is there any society that allowed generalized freedom of speech and didn't go crazy?

if you're talking about subversive ideologies like Marxism taking root in America, it wasn't free speech at fault but rather immigration. anti-immigration people in the 19th century had some pretty choice things to say about the new arrivals - most notably that they tended to bring their class grievances and poverty with them from the old world, and were thus drawn to Marxism and anarchism like flies to a dumpster. sounds pretty familiar, doesn't it?

instead of nixing free speech I figure we just stamp out the troublesome elements themselves (provided their sedition is serious and actually capable of doing damage to the Ordnung). had Emma Goldman's boat been turned away at Ellis Island, methinks our clownworld today wouldn't be quite as clowny.

[Judean Zealot]

But the problem is that when you allow them to express their nonsense, it leads one way or another to their nonsense being effected. Is there any society that allowed generalized freedom of speech and didn't go crazy?

Renaissance Venice.

[Arkansasguy]

if you're talking about subversive ideologies like Marxism taking root in America, it wasn't free speech at fault but rather immigration. anti-immigration people in the 19th century had some pretty choice things to say about the new arrivals - most notably that they tended to bring their class grievances and poverty with them from the old world, and were thus drawn to Marxism and anarchism like flies to a dumpster. sounds pretty familiar, doesn't it?

instead of nixing free speech I figure we just stamp out the troublesome elements themselves (provided their sedition is serious and actually capable of doing damage to the Ordnung). had Emma Goldman's boat been turned away at Ellis Island, methinks our clownworld today wouldn't be quite as clowny.

It's true that many of them brought their Marxism over from Europe. How do you imagine they got it there? And if the Europeans had disallowed its propagation, might not we all have been better off for it?

Renaissance Venice.

Did not have free speech. They were under the Index of Prohibited Books for one thing.

[Judean Zealot]

It's true that many of them brought their Marxism over from Europe. How do you imagine they got it there? And if the Europeans had disallowed its propagation, might not we all have been better off for it?

Originally the Tsar did prohibit it's propagation, and look how far it got him.

Did not have free speech. They were under the Index of Prohibited Books for one thing.

Not in Venice they weren't. The Doge and the Pope were hardly best of friends. I mentioned Venice specifically for a reason.

Ironically, they had the freest speech and yet were the most stable city in all of Italy.

[Arkansasguy]

Originally the Tsar did prohibit it's propagation, and look how far it got him.

It got him a lot further than when he allowed its propagation.

Not in Venice they weren't. The Doge and the Pope were hardly best of friends. I mentioned Venice specifically for a reason.

Ironically, they had the freest speech and yet were the most stable city in all of Italy.

I'm going to need this claim sourced.

[Judean Zealot]

I'm going to need this claim sourced.

Okay. The high renaissance saw the Papal States embroiled in the War of the Cambraian League (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_League_of_Cambrai) against Venice, which was accompanied by a general interdiction, affair (http://www.visit-venice-italy.com/religion/paolo-pietro-sarpi-conflict-pope-paul-V-venice.htm) with Paul V, and a general excommunication and interdiction (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venetian_Interdict) of the entire city. In middle of all these events, the Venetian Republic withdrew (https://books.google.co.il/books?id=WNj6LnVbjSIC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=venice+index+of+prohibited+books&source=bl&ots=WNcnqYuMWl&sig=tJPBd-M4GJYDzgAXH2EoUZpP-hU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CA4Q6AEwAjgKahUKEwiKjoKxjInJAhVK7nIKHcdQAJY#v=onepage&q=venice%20index%20of%20prohibited%20books&f=false) their index of prohibited books.

[Arkansasguy]

In middle of all these events, the Venetian Republic withdrew (https://books.google.co.il/books?id=WNj6LnVbjSIC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=venice+index+of+prohibited+books&source=bl&ots=WNcnqYuMWl&sig=tJPBd-M4GJYDzgAXH2EoUZpP-hU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CA4Q6AEwAjgKahUKEwiKjoKxjInJAhVK7nIKHcdQAJY#v=onepage&q=venice%20index%20of%20prohibited%20books&f=false) their index of prohibited books.

That page is not viewable. Do you have a freely viewable source?

[Judean Zealot]

That page is not viewable. Do you have a freely viewable source?

I'm sorry. Here (http://press.princeton.edu/titles/1075.html) is the book I am getting my history from, and here (http://utpjournalsreview.com/index.php/CJOH/article/view/7443/6347) is a review (PDF) of the book.