Mao still had agency. Communism was a business franchise in a sense, but not exactly because using McDonalds as an example, the franchise can in no way alter the franchise processes or menu, nor can it stop paying a percentage to the company who sold the franchise (MCD).
Communist China did not pay money to the USSR in order to exist, right? Did they take money from China's leader in perpetuity for having given China communism and a right to exist?
If the answer is they did not, then I think that gave Mao full agency, and the atrocities are fully on him not the USSR.
Even though the USSR did influence China, Mao still acted on his own agency.
If you disagree, then consider the following:
Putin has the same opinion I do that WW2 was in fact largely because of the Treaty of Versailes punishing Germany financially for WW1, so badly that Germans starved and felt intense shame, having to even eat their pets in certain cases.
Putin brought up the Treaty of Versailles at a recent conference that was shown on Vesti. That collective German post-WW1 rage, being blamed for things they didn't feel responsible for and financially handicapped, was embodied in their totalitarian leadership during WW2 as well as who they blamed for their problems, when in reality it was rediculous to blame one race when many people supported the Treaty of Versailles-- but it didn't matter because the hate was already there.
The Western perspective assumes people are just at the mercy of their leaders instead of leaders being reflections of their people in many cases. However, in both the USSR and German examples, the fault is complicated-- and it's best to empathize (be able to understand motivations beyond a simple label of "sociopath" or "hate") even with what you personally know is evil-- or what the whole group know is evil-- as it takes it out of the realm of emotion and into the realm of logic which is more powerful. Had that Treaty happened in this era, people would have been able to see it wasn't race that was their problem but something more dynamic, and possibly it could have stopped a war, a war that Germany started by expanding territory that they had no right to possess-- territory that was never theirs.
However, would you say the Treaty of Versailes was responsible for the war, or did the Nazi's have agency in choosing to behave as they did? I would argue a bad result was inevitable, as evil (mistreatment) is often cyclical and tends to amplify, and the Nazi's were responsible too.
However in our culture we don't want to believe that evil is often a shared stain and forget the factors that created that evil. Cultural trauma is a real thing and it's not talked about it.
Regarding Putin, people sometimes have to do evil things for the state, does that make them evil? Sometimes, of course. But not always. If anything, being in the KGB was the safest and most influential place to be in the USSR to be against evil, particularly near the end. Remember, a nuclear war was averted by a USSR submarine commander, inside the system, who was given an order to strike and didn't do it.
In our culture which was heavily influenced by Star Wars ideology since the 1970s, the answer is being part of an oppressive aparatus always makes them evil. It's just not true, otherwise by extension we are evil for typing on smart phones made by what is in essence slave/indentured servitude Chinese labor. Would it been more ethical, jedi-like, for the KGB to have resigned and had their families starve or worse? Please don't laugh at any of this-- a book could be written on the damage the Star Wars movie had on the psyche of the West as it inadvertantly indoctrinated many in the 1970's to misunderstand the nuanced concept of master-slave morality, deny the totality of nature, repress emotions (anger etc) and assume any nuance on this topic is the result of manipulation, autism (Star Wars...) or a slippery slope to evil. There are many videos made by Star Wars fans who talk about Jedi and Sith ideology and it becomes very obvious how much this philosophical divide has impacted Western culture, as a resolution to the story was not really explored until recently with the past few films. I know people are laughing saying, "This nerd!" but they shouldn't be calling me a nerd or laughing, because not only are many of my predictions and unconventional analysis accurate, but all tribes-- and the U.S. is a tribe-- have a story teller which sets the philosophical and moral framework of a culture; America's storyteller is Hollywood, and movies have more influence than people realize, particularly in regards to the Western impression made towards the Russian Federation and former Soviet bloc countries, leading to preconceived notions and paranoia that lead to reactionary measures by those countries. In other words, paranoia often induces more problems as good faith is lost and the other parties realize that.
What I am really asking here is for people to be able to think from other perspectives. For example, Obama droned weddings in the middle east allegedly which many people would think is devilish behavior. Is it any worse than what Putin has done to ensure the stability of the Russian Federation-- as they see it--including just moving on from the USSR era, as this was the most pragmatic route, rather than trying to decipher what exactly went on and who was responsible for what?
To me what Obama did overseas was not any worse-- although I don't know the secrets of either country. I just know that our population is often trying to fit square pegs into circle holes with nature in the background being a constant because we have elevated idealism to a religion, and, I think much of it stems from post-modernism and Hollywood (inadvertantly).
I don't blame Putin for covering for the USSR because what was the alternative for them? Dissolution? Having a state with that much power fall into the wrong hands? Not having their interests be placed first? Did you know that in Russia to be hired for a job as a foreigner usually the employer has to make sure there isn't a Russian that can do that job first? Imagine that policy in America... "racism", "xenophobia", "sexist".
What's really going on is a philosophical conflict between Catholicism and Orthodox, Post-modernists and pragmatists, moralists and liberals (I think of Putin as liberal-leaning in the traditional sense... because he is). However since the spectrum is so complex it is difficult for our conventional thinkers to realize what's going on.
This is a philosophical disagreement more than anything else between East and West. People who like Nietzsche will most likely empathize with the Russia Federation. People who think Stoicism (Aureilius, Seneca) are toxicly masculine bigots will hate the Russian Federation. Catholics will typically be suspicious of Russia or show how they're immoral or duplicitous. And while things are changing as globalism is winding down in favor of Trump's national "America First" philosophy, the fact remains that to understand eachother requires discussion. Not war.
Another idea to explore is if Putin and his country are they way they are because they are preventing communist forces from retaking the country. I think it's why-- and if so, it's pragmatic. I guess when they were starving their idealism was lunch one day.
Great response. Your paradigm is an important one and to make my argument adequately would really be deserving of a book, so I apologize in advance-- but with that said:
"In fact, the 100million Mao killed are a direct result of the USSR helping install him."
But who had agency there? In my opinion Mao did. Communism was a franchise in a sense yes, but I would disagree that it's actually a franchise because in business, using McDonalds as an example, the franchise can in no way alter the franchise processes or menu, nor can it stop paying a percentage (royalties?) to the company who sells the franchise (McDonalds). Communist China did not pay money to the USSR, right? As in a fiefship (is that even a word)? Was the"feudal lord" the USSR and did they yake money from China's leader in perpetuity for having given China communism and a right to exist, right?
If the answer is they did not, then I think that gave Mao full agency, and the atrocities are fully on him not the USSR.
Even though the USSR did influence China, Mao acted on his own agency.
If you disagree, then consider the following:
Putin has the same opinion I do that WW2 was in fact largely because of the Treaty of Versailes punishing Germany financially for WW1, so badly that Germans starved and felt intense shame, having to even eat their pets in certain cases. He said that on at some conference that was shown on Vesti recently. That collective German WW1 rage, being blamed for things they didn't feel responsible for, was embodied in their totalitarian leadership during WW2. The Western perspective assumes people are just at the mercy of their leaders instead of leaders being reflections of their people in many cases. However, in both the USSR and German examples, the fault is complicated-- and it's best to empathize (be able to understand motivations beyond a simple label of "sociopath") even with what you personally think is evil, as it takes it out of the realm of emotion and into the realm of logic which is more powerful.
Regarding Putin, people sometimes have to do evil things for the state, does that make them evil? Sometimes, of course. But not always. If anything, being in the KGB was the safest and most influential place to be in the USSR to be against evil, particularly near the end. Remember, a nuclear war was averted by a USSR submarine commander, inside the system, who was given an order to strike and didn't do it.
In our culture which was heavily influenced by star wars ideology since the 1970s, the answer is being part of an oppressive aparatus always makes them evil. It's just not true, otherwise by extension we are evil for typing on smart phones made by what is in essence slave/indentured servitude Chinese labor. Please don't laugh at any of this-- a book could be written on the damage the Star Wars movie had on the psyche of the West as it inadvertantly indoctrinated many in the 1970's to misunderstand master-slave morality, deny the totality of nature, repress emotions and assume any nuance on this topic is the result of manipulation, autism or a slippery slope to evil. There is a long video on this made by a nerd titled "The Philosophy of Kreia: A Critical Examination of Star Wars" which is brilliant. If the first 20 minutes of that video is surprising in any way, then Star Wars has influenced your paradigm negatively due to a lack of what I think is congruency-- sorry. I know people are laughing their ass off saying, "This nerd!" but they shouldn't be calling me a nerd or laughing, because not only are my predictions and unconventional analysis very accurate, but all tribes-- and the U.S. is a tribe-- have a story teller which sets the philosophical and moral framework of a culture; America's storyteller is Hollywood, and movies have more influence than people realize, particularly in regards to the Western impression made of the Russian Federation and former Soviet bloc countries, leading to preconceived notions and paranoia that lead to reactionary measures by those countries. In other words, paranoia often induces more problems as good faith is lost and the other parties realize that.
What I am really asking here is for people to be able to think from other perspectives. For example, Obama droned weddings which many people would think is devilish behavior. Is it any worse than what Putin has done to ensure the stability of the Russian Federation, including just moving on from the USSR era, as this was the most pragmatic route?
To me it's not any worse-- although I don't know the secrets of either country.
I just know that our population is often trying to fit square pegs into circle holes with nature in the background being a constant because we have elevated idealism to a religion.
I don't blame Putin for covering for the USSR because what is the alternative for them? Dissolution? Not having their interests be placed first? Did you know that in Russia to be hired for a job as a foreigner usually the employer has to make sure there isn't a Russian that can do that job first? Imagine that policy in America... "racism", "xenophobia", "sexist".
What's really going on is Catholicism and Orthodox, moralists and liberals (I classify Putin as liberal) is juxtaposed.
This is a philosophical disagreement more than anything else. People who like Nietzsche will most likely empathize with the Russia Federation. People who think stoicism (Aureilius, Seneca) are toxicly masculine will hate the Russian Federation. Catholics will typically be suspicious of Russia, although that is changing as globalism is winding down in favor of Trump's national "America First" philosophy.
Another idea to explore is if Putin and his country are they way they are because they are preventing communist forces from retaking the country.
I see the logic in your argument but 8% of Americans think chocolate milk comes from brown cows and 48% do not know how it's made. They don't know that cocoa is added to milk. 14% is insignificant. It's not even a quarter of their population, and with Putin in power they will not go back to communisn ever-- if 80% love him that means a majority are nationalistic and love their country now that it has survived the USSR, and believe it can develop as a Federation. Pay attention to the subtitles here, they have national pride and also don't reject their history either:
Meanwhile most Americans would point at these supercars and say, "Mafia!" as if people can't make money in Russia with clickfunnels, ad agencies and 1,000 other legal business. Just like anywhere in the world, entrepreneurship/sales is always open. Would bet 60% are regular business people, 30% are spoiled by their parents and 10% are criminal. Yet in America, we assume 100% of those guys are mafia.
Stalin killed 40 million, right? And Mao killed 100 million? If true, then using oppression ("resources diverted" starvation, prison, capital punishment) as a metric implies that Mao was more than twice as bad as Stalin.
My point about subversion is post-modernism is a tool to induce disorder that makes it easier to get totalitarians in power; since Russia is a Federation, it seems it is closer to a Republic on the spectrum than it is to a North Korea or USSR style government, do you agree with that and if not please explain why not because I don't see it.
If America didn't have a welfare state it also would have a lot of people complaining about the good old days... Russia is run like a company, I don't understand why our intellectual elite can't see the obvious-- maybe it's because they aren't business people I don't know. I just know I don't want to get nuked over some Fionna Hill in charge misunderstanding what the goal posts of countries are.
WW2 is the result of the injustice of the allies committed to the german people. That made the germans very angry, so they planned an other war to rectify this iniquity. It failed. So, we're in serious trouble now.
Putin is so pro kike, he is just making Russia breath a little before drowning it. Russians can't make business, kike loans are 25%, can't buy homes, loans for people are 11%. WTF? All business is in the hands of his corrupt jew buddies
More evil than Mao? Putin doesn't allow post-modernism and George Soros subversion in his country. That checks the box that they won't allow implosionary forces to usher in pure democracy to vote for socialism and totalitarian rule. He also runs the country like a well-oiled (or well gassed... natgas) machine, proving they are not ball-bustingly manic as Stalin who sacrificed the entire food budget of towns and cities to amass tanks despite people starving to death.
In no way are the still communist ideologically. The schism is that a lot of older people would feel their lives were for nothing, and despite communism's evil many shared a love for what they thought was collective humanism, so to remove Lenin from display and knock down Soviet architecture robs their cultural progression in a big way, takes away from their minimalism, and is not pragmatic. From everything I have studied, pragmatism seems to be the #1 virtue of the Russian Federation.
Russia is not "good" it is not bad either-- it is Russia. It is a competitor to the United States. It is not an enemy of the United States. The world now is much more complicated than it was in WW1 and WW2 because ideology typically guides how we think of good and bad, and forget to put ourselves in other people's shoes often because we don't know how and even don't know that we don't know.
If you think the Russian Federation is in any way as evil as the USSR and are not educated in how they are post-communist and capitalist, then George Soros and his Open Society Foundation has successfully brainwashed not only you, but possibly a majority of America's and Europe's intellectuals. China is almost always thought of as better than Russia by people who think like you, and that is as asinine as it is scary.
The World Jewish Congress praised Vladimir Putin for "combating AntiSemitism," and making Russia "a country where Jews are welcome." IsraelNationalNews.com.
Jews infiltrated German politics then perped the Holocaust in the name of the German ppl, like they infiltrated US politics perped 911 then established the bogus War on Terror, like they infiltrated Turkish politics then perpetrated the 1915 Armenian Genocide.
Hitler arbitrarily Declared War on the United States Dec. 11, 1941, following President Roosevelt's Declaration of War on Japan three days earlier in response to the False Flag Pearl Harbor attacks.
After having declared war on France and England June 10, 1940 Benito Mussolini Declared War on America on behalf of Italy on the same day as Hitler, thus between the two of them they deliberately caused Germany and Italy to be on the losing sides in WW2.
Vladimir Putin was a KGB Officer who was from 1991 Chief of Staff for alcoholic ex Mayor of Moscow Russian President Boris Yeltsin, who became PM in 1999 after Yeltsin dismissed Prime Minister Yevgeny Maksimovich Primakov who was going to impeach him anyway, who Yeltsin said was responsible for the Zionist sponsored debacle in Chechnya.
Where after Putin deposed Yeltsin to claim the top job the same year, both are deemed complicit in the slaughter of around 160 members of the Russian Parliament Oct. 4, 1993, following the passage of a motion to impeach Yeltsin, all part of a Zionist sponsored campaign of suppression that eventually took thousands of lives.
With the treaty, Germany was forced to accept all sole-responsibility for the war (despite Austro-Hungary and Italy also participating on the 'losing' side), cede territory belonging to Germany (to France/Poland/Russia) and all of its overseas colonies. The Germans were no longer allowed to have an army of more than 200,000 men and they were forbidden from having aircraft and were allotted 6 battleships (and no more-- for comparison, Britain's Royal Navy had 29 at the start of the war-- and had no restrictions after the war on the number they could build, since they 'won'.). All of the Entente (Allied) powers billed Germany for all of their losses (more like ten times the amount of their losses... each.), which completely destroyed the German economy-- basically ensuring that it would never be rebuilt and Germany would never be a great power again-- it was also intended to break the German spirit by humiliating the entire populace.
The treaty is what energized ordinary Germans to rebuild anyway, under Hitler's rule. But the treaty itself wasn't actually what created the Weimar Republic. The Weimar itself was created when the Jews (Bolshevik/socialist revolutionaries officially) overthrew the German government (consitutional monarchy at the time) in the middle of the war.
Here is the (((official))) story:
Germany over-extended itself fighting the war.
Terrible domestic policies were implemented that created a revolutionary atmosphere.
Jews were over-represented in the German army at the time and were more patriotic than real Germans, so there's no way they could have participated in the overthrow of the government. Anything that says otherwise is Anti-semitism.
Here's what actually happened:
Jews infiltrated (via money of course) the constitutional monarchy and deliberately mismanaged the country to benefit themselves (as always). Wilhelm II was a notoriously weak and easily manipulated leader--- and sacked Bismarck (The guy who built the German Empire) because Bismarck did not want to start more wars. Here's an insight into how delusional/terrible Wilhelm II actually was--- after being deposed and put into exile (thanks to the Jews who overthrew him), he wrote a letter to Hitler thanking him for taking Germany back for the monarchy and expected to be made the German Emperor again.... after Wilhelm lost the country in the first place. Hitler threw Wilhelm's letter in the trash. (Wilhem despised Hitler for ignoring him/not making Wilhelm Emperor again)
Due to the 'new' terrible conditions Jews staged a socialist revolution to overthrow the government (gee, how did the Jews have the numbers to do this if they were supposedly (((over-represented))) in the German army at the time...because everyone knows that Jews have a reputation for being soldiers right?....)
Here's why it's obvious that the (((official))) story is bullshit:
The Allied Powers (in WW2-- mind you), were very concerned that Jews (as international financiers this time) were going to be blamed again for Germany losing another major war by the average German (Thus inspiring Germany to build a 4th Reich). That's kind of a weird thing to be concerned about right? Like the reputation of a small percentage of the populace being so important--- above so many other things in the middle of the war. So they pushed for the 'unconditional surrender policy', so that Jews could not be blamed directly by the average German for Germany's loss a second time.
Turns out, if you allow the Jews to gain a foothold, they'll stab you in the back. If you don't allow the Jews to gain a foothold, they'll collude to destroy you until they can gain a foothold and keep their game of international musical chairs parasites going.
Who do you think pulled the political strings in Russia? Mossad. Same as NK and Iran - and elsewhere. Jewish power in Russia was once absolute, even if invisible to outsiders. Including the Russian mob. Soros and Rothschild's reach was once without limit.
So Putin or by proxy of Putin? Important distinction. As always, you refuse to acknowledge any complexities and subtleties of reality and politics. Of course complex thought and honesty is not anything we expect from you. You've never once shown any ability to comprehend anything other than as a simpleton - or shill.
You and most will miss Putin's point-- if it weren't for the collective shame and outrage of the Treaty of Versailes, Hitler would have never been able to capture the spirit of Germany-- they were fucking pissed after seeing their money worth less than the printer it was printed on, having to eat the family pets, etc.
I have written about this here, in that leaders are reflections of their people-- the West generally believes that dictators are the ones to focus on not realizing that dictators wouldn't exist without cultural trauma in advanced countries. This is so foundational to understanding political science I am really surprised people don't talk about this more-- perhaps it is too truthful for our culture to integrate at this time.
Sheeitpost ago
Mao still had agency. Communism was a business franchise in a sense, but not exactly because using McDonalds as an example, the franchise can in no way alter the franchise processes or menu, nor can it stop paying a percentage to the company who sold the franchise (MCD).
Communist China did not pay money to the USSR in order to exist, right? Did they take money from China's leader in perpetuity for having given China communism and a right to exist?
If the answer is they did not, then I think that gave Mao full agency, and the atrocities are fully on him not the USSR.
Even though the USSR did influence China, Mao still acted on his own agency.
If you disagree, then consider the following:
Putin has the same opinion I do that WW2 was in fact largely because of the Treaty of Versailes punishing Germany financially for WW1, so badly that Germans starved and felt intense shame, having to even eat their pets in certain cases.
Putin brought up the Treaty of Versailles at a recent conference that was shown on Vesti. That collective German post-WW1 rage, being blamed for things they didn't feel responsible for and financially handicapped, was embodied in their totalitarian leadership during WW2 as well as who they blamed for their problems, when in reality it was rediculous to blame one race when many people supported the Treaty of Versailles-- but it didn't matter because the hate was already there.
The Western perspective assumes people are just at the mercy of their leaders instead of leaders being reflections of their people in many cases. However, in both the USSR and German examples, the fault is complicated-- and it's best to empathize (be able to understand motivations beyond a simple label of "sociopath" or "hate") even with what you personally know is evil-- or what the whole group know is evil-- as it takes it out of the realm of emotion and into the realm of logic which is more powerful. Had that Treaty happened in this era, people would have been able to see it wasn't race that was their problem but something more dynamic, and possibly it could have stopped a war, a war that Germany started by expanding territory that they had no right to possess-- territory that was never theirs.
However, would you say the Treaty of Versailes was responsible for the war, or did the Nazi's have agency in choosing to behave as they did? I would argue a bad result was inevitable, as evil (mistreatment) is often cyclical and tends to amplify, and the Nazi's were responsible too.
However in our culture we don't want to believe that evil is often a shared stain and forget the factors that created that evil. Cultural trauma is a real thing and it's not talked about it.
Regarding Putin, people sometimes have to do evil things for the state, does that make them evil? Sometimes, of course. But not always. If anything, being in the KGB was the safest and most influential place to be in the USSR to be against evil, particularly near the end. Remember, a nuclear war was averted by a USSR submarine commander, inside the system, who was given an order to strike and didn't do it.
In our culture which was heavily influenced by Star Wars ideology since the 1970s, the answer is being part of an oppressive aparatus always makes them evil. It's just not true, otherwise by extension we are evil for typing on smart phones made by what is in essence slave/indentured servitude Chinese labor. Would it been more ethical, jedi-like, for the KGB to have resigned and had their families starve or worse? Please don't laugh at any of this-- a book could be written on the damage the Star Wars movie had on the psyche of the West as it inadvertantly indoctrinated many in the 1970's to misunderstand the nuanced concept of master-slave morality, deny the totality of nature, repress emotions (anger etc) and assume any nuance on this topic is the result of manipulation, autism (Star Wars...) or a slippery slope to evil. There are many videos made by Star Wars fans who talk about Jedi and Sith ideology and it becomes very obvious how much this philosophical divide has impacted Western culture, as a resolution to the story was not really explored until recently with the past few films. I know people are laughing saying, "This nerd!" but they shouldn't be calling me a nerd or laughing, because not only are many of my predictions and unconventional analysis accurate, but all tribes-- and the U.S. is a tribe-- have a story teller which sets the philosophical and moral framework of a culture; America's storyteller is Hollywood, and movies have more influence than people realize, particularly in regards to the Western impression made towards the Russian Federation and former Soviet bloc countries, leading to preconceived notions and paranoia that lead to reactionary measures by those countries. In other words, paranoia often induces more problems as good faith is lost and the other parties realize that.
What I am really asking here is for people to be able to think from other perspectives. For example, Obama droned weddings in the middle east allegedly which many people would think is devilish behavior. Is it any worse than what Putin has done to ensure the stability of the Russian Federation-- as they see it--including just moving on from the USSR era, as this was the most pragmatic route, rather than trying to decipher what exactly went on and who was responsible for what?
To me what Obama did overseas was not any worse-- although I don't know the secrets of either country. I just know that our population is often trying to fit square pegs into circle holes with nature in the background being a constant because we have elevated idealism to a religion, and, I think much of it stems from post-modernism and Hollywood (inadvertantly).
I don't blame Putin for covering for the USSR because what was the alternative for them? Dissolution? Having a state with that much power fall into the wrong hands? Not having their interests be placed first? Did you know that in Russia to be hired for a job as a foreigner usually the employer has to make sure there isn't a Russian that can do that job first? Imagine that policy in America... "racism", "xenophobia", "sexist".
What's really going on is a philosophical conflict between Catholicism and Orthodox, Post-modernists and pragmatists, moralists and liberals (I think of Putin as liberal-leaning in the traditional sense... because he is). However since the spectrum is so complex it is difficult for our conventional thinkers to realize what's going on.
This is a philosophical disagreement more than anything else between East and West. People who like Nietzsche will most likely empathize with the Russia Federation. People who think Stoicism (Aureilius, Seneca) are toxicly masculine bigots will hate the Russian Federation. Catholics will typically be suspicious of Russia or show how they're immoral or duplicitous. And while things are changing as globalism is winding down in favor of Trump's national "America First" philosophy, the fact remains that to understand eachother requires discussion. Not war.
Another idea to explore is if Putin and his country are they way they are because they are preventing communist forces from retaking the country. I think it's why-- and if so, it's pragmatic. I guess when they were starving their idealism was lunch one day.
Sheeitpost ago
Great response. Your paradigm is an important one and to make my argument adequately would really be deserving of a book, so I apologize in advance-- but with that said:
"In fact, the 100million Mao killed are a direct result of the USSR helping install him."
But who had agency there? In my opinion Mao did. Communism was a franchise in a sense yes, but I would disagree that it's actually a franchise because in business, using McDonalds as an example, the franchise can in no way alter the franchise processes or menu, nor can it stop paying a percentage (royalties?) to the company who sells the franchise (McDonalds). Communist China did not pay money to the USSR, right? As in a fiefship (is that even a word)? Was the"feudal lord" the USSR and did they yake money from China's leader in perpetuity for having given China communism and a right to exist, right?
If the answer is they did not, then I think that gave Mao full agency, and the atrocities are fully on him not the USSR.
Even though the USSR did influence China, Mao acted on his own agency.
If you disagree, then consider the following:
Putin has the same opinion I do that WW2 was in fact largely because of the Treaty of Versailes punishing Germany financially for WW1, so badly that Germans starved and felt intense shame, having to even eat their pets in certain cases. He said that on at some conference that was shown on Vesti recently. That collective German WW1 rage, being blamed for things they didn't feel responsible for, was embodied in their totalitarian leadership during WW2. The Western perspective assumes people are just at the mercy of their leaders instead of leaders being reflections of their people in many cases. However, in both the USSR and German examples, the fault is complicated-- and it's best to empathize (be able to understand motivations beyond a simple label of "sociopath") even with what you personally think is evil, as it takes it out of the realm of emotion and into the realm of logic which is more powerful.
Regarding Putin, people sometimes have to do evil things for the state, does that make them evil? Sometimes, of course. But not always. If anything, being in the KGB was the safest and most influential place to be in the USSR to be against evil, particularly near the end. Remember, a nuclear war was averted by a USSR submarine commander, inside the system, who was given an order to strike and didn't do it.
In our culture which was heavily influenced by star wars ideology since the 1970s, the answer is being part of an oppressive aparatus always makes them evil. It's just not true, otherwise by extension we are evil for typing on smart phones made by what is in essence slave/indentured servitude Chinese labor. Please don't laugh at any of this-- a book could be written on the damage the Star Wars movie had on the psyche of the West as it inadvertantly indoctrinated many in the 1970's to misunderstand master-slave morality, deny the totality of nature, repress emotions and assume any nuance on this topic is the result of manipulation, autism or a slippery slope to evil. There is a long video on this made by a nerd titled "The Philosophy of Kreia: A Critical Examination of Star Wars" which is brilliant. If the first 20 minutes of that video is surprising in any way, then Star Wars has influenced your paradigm negatively due to a lack of what I think is congruency-- sorry. I know people are laughing their ass off saying, "This nerd!" but they shouldn't be calling me a nerd or laughing, because not only are my predictions and unconventional analysis very accurate, but all tribes-- and the U.S. is a tribe-- have a story teller which sets the philosophical and moral framework of a culture; America's storyteller is Hollywood, and movies have more influence than people realize, particularly in regards to the Western impression made of the Russian Federation and former Soviet bloc countries, leading to preconceived notions and paranoia that lead to reactionary measures by those countries. In other words, paranoia often induces more problems as good faith is lost and the other parties realize that.
What I am really asking here is for people to be able to think from other perspectives. For example, Obama droned weddings which many people would think is devilish behavior. Is it any worse than what Putin has done to ensure the stability of the Russian Federation, including just moving on from the USSR era, as this was the most pragmatic route?
To me it's not any worse-- although I don't know the secrets of either country.
I just know that our population is often trying to fit square pegs into circle holes with nature in the background being a constant because we have elevated idealism to a religion.
I don't blame Putin for covering for the USSR because what is the alternative for them? Dissolution? Not having their interests be placed first? Did you know that in Russia to be hired for a job as a foreigner usually the employer has to make sure there isn't a Russian that can do that job first? Imagine that policy in America... "racism", "xenophobia", "sexist".
What's really going on is Catholicism and Orthodox, moralists and liberals (I classify Putin as liberal) is juxtaposed.
This is a philosophical disagreement more than anything else. People who like Nietzsche will most likely empathize with the Russia Federation. People who think stoicism (Aureilius, Seneca) are toxicly masculine will hate the Russian Federation. Catholics will typically be suspicious of Russia, although that is changing as globalism is winding down in favor of Trump's national "America First" philosophy.
Another idea to explore is if Putin and his country are they way they are because they are preventing communist forces from retaking the country.
Sheeitpost ago
I see the logic in your argument but 8% of Americans think chocolate milk comes from brown cows and 48% do not know how it's made. They don't know that cocoa is added to milk. 14% is insignificant. It's not even a quarter of their population, and with Putin in power they will not go back to communisn ever-- if 80% love him that means a majority are nationalistic and love their country now that it has survived the USSR, and believe it can develop as a Federation. Pay attention to the subtitles here, they have national pride and also don't reject their history either:
https://youtu.be/Rg5Lsj4fNfY
Meanwhile most Americans would point at these supercars and say, "Mafia!" as if people can't make money in Russia with clickfunnels, ad agencies and 1,000 other legal business. Just like anywhere in the world, entrepreneurship/sales is always open. Would bet 60% are regular business people, 30% are spoiled by their parents and 10% are criminal. Yet in America, we assume 100% of those guys are mafia.
Stalin killed 40 million, right? And Mao killed 100 million? If true, then using oppression ("resources diverted" starvation, prison, capital punishment) as a metric implies that Mao was more than twice as bad as Stalin.
My point about subversion is post-modernism is a tool to induce disorder that makes it easier to get totalitarians in power; since Russia is a Federation, it seems it is closer to a Republic on the spectrum than it is to a North Korea or USSR style government, do you agree with that and if not please explain why not because I don't see it.
If America didn't have a welfare state it also would have a lot of people complaining about the good old days... Russia is run like a company, I don't understand why our intellectual elite can't see the obvious-- maybe it's because they aren't business people I don't know. I just know I don't want to get nuked over some Fionna Hill in charge misunderstanding what the goal posts of countries are.
Newmemba ago
Why can't we have leadership of that caliber?
newoldwave ago
That harsh treaty and world wide depression created the atmosphere for Hitler's rise. So says most historians.
boekanier ago
WW2 is the result of the injustice of the allies committed to the german people. That made the germans very angry, so they planned an other war to rectify this iniquity. It failed. So, we're in serious trouble now.
generate ago
Putin is so pro kike, he is just making Russia breath a little before drowning it. Russians can't make business, kike loans are 25%, can't buy homes, loans for people are 11%. WTF? All business is in the hands of his corrupt jew buddies
Sheeitpost ago
More evil than Mao? Putin doesn't allow post-modernism and George Soros subversion in his country. That checks the box that they won't allow implosionary forces to usher in pure democracy to vote for socialism and totalitarian rule. He also runs the country like a well-oiled (or well gassed... natgas) machine, proving they are not ball-bustingly manic as Stalin who sacrificed the entire food budget of towns and cities to amass tanks despite people starving to death.
In no way are the still communist ideologically. The schism is that a lot of older people would feel their lives were for nothing, and despite communism's evil many shared a love for what they thought was collective humanism, so to remove Lenin from display and knock down Soviet architecture robs their cultural progression in a big way, takes away from their minimalism, and is not pragmatic. From everything I have studied, pragmatism seems to be the #1 virtue of the Russian Federation.
Sheeitpost ago
Russia is not "good" it is not bad either-- it is Russia. It is a competitor to the United States. It is not an enemy of the United States. The world now is much more complicated than it was in WW1 and WW2 because ideology typically guides how we think of good and bad, and forget to put ourselves in other people's shoes often because we don't know how and even don't know that we don't know.
Sheeitpost ago
If you think the Russian Federation is in any way as evil as the USSR and are not educated in how they are post-communist and capitalist, then George Soros and his Open Society Foundation has successfully brainwashed not only you, but possibly a majority of America's and Europe's intellectuals. China is almost always thought of as better than Russia by people who think like you, and that is as asinine as it is scary.
gosso920 ago
"Water is wet," he added.
HighSckoolDropout ago
The World Jewish Congress praised Vladimir Putin for "combating AntiSemitism," and making Russia "a country where Jews are welcome." IsraelNationalNews.com.
Hitler and Putin were and are Jew tools ..
HoKogan ago
Which lead to the Weimar Republic, I assume?
Xantha ago
With the treaty, Germany was forced to accept all sole-responsibility for the war (despite Austro-Hungary and Italy also participating on the 'losing' side), cede territory belonging to Germany (to France/Poland/Russia) and all of its overseas colonies. The Germans were no longer allowed to have an army of more than 200,000 men and they were forbidden from having aircraft and were allotted 6 battleships (and no more-- for comparison, Britain's Royal Navy had 29 at the start of the war-- and had no restrictions after the war on the number they could build, since they 'won'.). All of the Entente (Allied) powers billed Germany for all of their losses (more like ten times the amount of their losses... each.), which completely destroyed the German economy-- basically ensuring that it would never be rebuilt and Germany would never be a great power again-- it was also intended to break the German spirit by humiliating the entire populace.
The treaty is what energized ordinary Germans to rebuild anyway, under Hitler's rule. But the treaty itself wasn't actually what created the Weimar Republic. The Weimar itself was created when the Jews (Bolshevik/socialist revolutionaries officially) overthrew the German government (consitutional monarchy at the time) in the middle of the war.
Here is the (((official))) story:
Here's what actually happened:
Here's why it's obvious that the (((official))) story is bullshit:
Turns out, if you allow the Jews to gain a foothold, they'll stab you in the back. If you don't allow the Jews to gain a foothold, they'll collude to destroy you until they can gain a foothold and keep their game of international
musical chairsparasites going.Tallest_Skil ago
Reminder that it was Putin’s Russia that finally made it illegal to question the holocaust.
RoundWheel ago
Who do you think pulled the political strings in Russia? Mossad. Same as NK and Iran - and elsewhere. Jewish power in Russia was once absolute, even if invisible to outsiders. Including the Russian mob. Soros and Rothschild's reach was once without limit.
So Putin or by proxy of Putin? Important distinction. As always, you refuse to acknowledge any complexities and subtleties of reality and politics. Of course complex thought and honesty is not anything we expect from you. You've never once shown any ability to comprehend anything other than as a simpleton - or shill.
Tallest_Skil ago
Uh, yes. That’s exactly what happened.
Sheeitpost ago
You and most will miss Putin's point-- if it weren't for the collective shame and outrage of the Treaty of Versailes, Hitler would have never been able to capture the spirit of Germany-- they were fucking pissed after seeing their money worth less than the printer it was printed on, having to eat the family pets, etc.
I have written about this here, in that leaders are reflections of their people-- the West generally believes that dictators are the ones to focus on not realizing that dictators wouldn't exist without cultural trauma in advanced countries. This is so foundational to understanding political science I am really surprised people don't talk about this more-- perhaps it is too truthful for our culture to integrate at this time.
Tallest_Skil ago
So how’d I miss the point?
Sheeitpost ago
You were being sarcastic right? If not... my bad :)
derram ago
https://invidio.us/watch?v=fjfc6dipAKU :
This has been an automated message.
BitChuteArchive ago
https://www.bitchute.com/video/CynQJDtIiZ2j
Sheeitpost ago
He's so practical and well-read no wonder post-modernists and progressive liberals hate Putin.