Big story here, people! In Mother Russia, right-wingers cancel you! If you don’t like it, go build your own Russia! Meet Ilya Bortnyuk: I’ll give you three chances to guess his ethnicity. … .. . Yep, he’s a Skeksis. Photos from his social media So, Ilya came up with the brilliant idea to stage a protest concert in support of Ukraine this year … in Russia … and with a full roster of anti-Russian pop stars. A bold move and one that he could have probably gotten away with in 2019, no doubt. But the times, oh, they are a-changing! Russian civil society mobilized to get his concert (Стереолето, Summer Stereo) canceled and succeeded in pressuring the government to come down on Ilya and the artists
I find your cultural documentation as interesting as your trenchant prose critiques (and a lot easier to digest). The music and art links you provide are well chosen and helpful to understanding the bigger picture because we get so little exposure to actual Slavland shenanigans.
Excellent article. I never engage in debates with opponents unless I'm on a panel and I'm paid an honorarium. What for? You won't change their views and they won't change mine. What's the point even if you "win" the debate. What does it buy you? Nothing but an ego boost. I don't need it. You're spot on, you debate with like minded people that share your culture, values and world outlook to make your society a better place. Not with those that wish to tear it down wreck and replace it with some type of utopian nonsense, at your and your loved ones expenses. Minorities and assorted misanthropic types love to gaggle about "free speech" to gain sounding boards for their agendas. But once they get power, they no longer need it and stomp it out. This is something the so called conservative right never understood. To them "freedom" = making money unfettered and they'll self righteously say they won't stoop to the left's levels of attack (just so long as I can keep making $$$) dooming them to ultimate defeat. When someone clams in your face (NYC slang for spitting) you don't say, "oh it must be raining", when you are punched, you punch back twice and hard. You don't debate, you terminate your attacker. I don't debate attackers of my culture, heritage and society I defeat them. You mentioned porn and it's place in the "free speech" debate. I'll take a moment to address this as I think it's generally speaking way overblown. Most people make the erroneous conflating that all porn is the same. It isn't. There's a big difference between child porn and adult porn. Taking a child a teen, or pre teen (yes you read it correctly) and forcing them to perform sex acts on camera, as opposed to consenting adults that are "financially compensated" to do the same are not equal in any way. When I hear about kids being abused it breaks my heart. Adults nah not really it's a choice. If you're an adult and are paid it's a business transaction. As far as viewing porn, well cutting to the chase what is it? It's a fantasy enhancer a person has a fantasy and they get off on it. Instead of staring at the ceiling or the bathroom wall or closing their eyes, they watch porn and it is more life like. Simply stated it makes masturbating fantasies more "real" so to speak. In this context it's only downsides are first, to public morals (whatever that is and depends upon, as you say what morality "brand" has "captured" you), and second if a person spends an inordinate amount of time watching porn instead of seeking genuine relationships. You can watch a chef on the food channel cook your favorite steak, or you can eat the steak in real time. I'd prefer real time. Is this a free speech issue? For me no not really, so long as it's not in your face and kept private, it's an adults business. An opposing argument would be it corrupts. Children yes kids should not view porn, as it can give them a distorted view of sexuality and interpersonal interaction. But adults that are already sexually educated and experienced it won't do them any harm one way or the other. It's a "red herring" the left has used quite well to help expand their agendas. After all who doesn't like sex? Easy theme/meme to use for advancing many faceted agendas. It's ironic though in the 1960's and 70's the cultural Marxist left was all about "sexual liberation" and demanded XXX films in theaters under the guise of "free expression and speech". Now fast forward to today and they call porn "objectivising women". Another barb hurled at men. In particular white men, as they seem to have no problem with gay porn, trans porn, or mixed race porn in particular white women with non-white men. Truth is everybody when first meeting someone sees them "objectively" in that you don't know them. All you have done is seen them. You look them over, they appeal to you on whatever levels or not. Now when you get to formally meet that person as in "hello I'm...and you are?" Then you can chat and get a feel and to know the person better. Is this really about free speech? No the entire meme is just a hidden (or not so hidden) way to push an agenda that can give you an edge in your drive to dismantle and replace the majority culture with your own agenda. Therefore the entire issue is a non-issue. Freedom , liberty, free speech, equality are too often used to allow nefarious ideologies and fringe neurotic malcontents access to a platform to not construct but destruct and tear down a society. Do minorities have rights? Yes they do however so do majorities. And majorities have zero obligation to bend over backwards to accommodate shrill cultural Marxist utopianism. They do have the obligation to maintain the cultural values, and legacy left to them by there forefathers and preserve their civilization for their own future generations. Don't debate agitate, stand strong and give your opponents the 86 gate.
Shutting down subversives is a good first step, but in isolation it risks generating an underground with the cachet of cultural resistance. It's a purely reactive/defensive strategy. A parallel, active strategy of cultivating a nationalistic/romantic creative class is critical to long-term success.
On the one hand, globohomo has made this very easy to do - they've abandoned sex appeal and their content is garbage. On the other, boomers have no idea what they're doing.
Great article about free speech - I've shared it. I just want to point out what appear to be two typos in one of your paragraphs:
"In that sense, our situation now is not all that different from any other period in world history, only the scope of the forbidden has expanded to encompass all aspects of life from child-rearing, diet, the language and of course, the big questions surrounding politics and economics."
"In the end, debate was simply an alternative means of resolving disputes. Both sides knew that they could always just fight each other to death, and giving god or the gods the last word, with sword in hand, decide whose opinion was correct that way. "
I think it was Spinoza (another Skeksis; new word for me!) who said, in a free counntry, a man can think as he pleases and speak as he thinks. Whatever the details, free speech has a deeper function than simply confict-avoidance: it allows free thought to enter the public domain.
Here's where I draw closer to your own militaristic tendencies: the best that can be hoped for between peoples, even in a society, is tolerance. Working with the premise that everyone likes each other is chidish, so we have to be able to accept the idea that I may not like my neighbor, and that we might have, and express, hateful opinions about each other. I think that might be necessary for an honest politic, but it sure would take a heck of a lot more critical thinking ability than most people have.
But I don't think that dancing around and expecting everyone to align themselves with some idyllic emotional image is a good way to come to political decisions, and cancellation of that sort of thing may be an appropriate reaction. OTOH, maybe you should have a back-and-forth about WTF Russia is doing in Ukraine, especiaally making sure to include tales of the Wicked Witch of the West bringing poison cookies to Maidan in 2013-14. THAT was an example of an attempted cancellation of Russian peoples. Instead, elections after a 6 month cooling off period might have led to some sort of modus vivendi, even between peoples who might have been po's at each other, had The West not intruded.
Well women should not be barred from debating children's playgrounds.
More seriously, discussions should happen between persons with knowledge with the matter at hand and the audience ought to have some interest or stake in the outcome. It is pointless to hold intellectual or legal debates on Twitter, only to attract mobs and invite censorship. Facebook has faced pressure for a decade to open up the private groups for outside scrutiny by "researchers": studying the propagation of fake news has been the stated goal. Thus far they have resisted.
The real difficulty in organising a forum for public discussion is obtaining genuine contributions, not virtue signalling. This requires honesty and trust. Restricting the participation to the tribe is neither necessary nor sufficient. Members of the tribe might be corrupted. Outsiders might bring useful expertise. The focus should be on promoting truth and reciprocation. The globalists have it right : they drown the whole society in lies and promote conformity.
Rolo. Avoid using "frankly" or "to be frank". Not a good look. Implies you are often shading truth. On the positive side I'm finally learning what is going on in Russia/Ukraine. Thanks.
" But the insanity of the free speech absolutists knows no bounds." English grammar isn't one of my best suits that I'm gonna be pulling out of the back of me old musty closet any time soon, but to me it seems it should read "anti-free speech" ?
I’m all in favor of inducing fear in people who will never stop trying to destroy us. Feels good.
Dang, I didn't know you were writing a book. Can't wait to check it out
I find your cultural documentation as interesting as your trenchant prose critiques (and a lot easier to digest). The music and art links you provide are well chosen and helpful to understanding the bigger picture because we get so little exposure to actual Slavland shenanigans.
Excellent article. I never engage in debates with opponents unless I'm on a panel and I'm paid an honorarium. What for? You won't change their views and they won't change mine. What's the point even if you "win" the debate. What does it buy you? Nothing but an ego boost. I don't need it. You're spot on, you debate with like minded people that share your culture, values and world outlook to make your society a better place. Not with those that wish to tear it down wreck and replace it with some type of utopian nonsense, at your and your loved ones expenses. Minorities and assorted misanthropic types love to gaggle about "free speech" to gain sounding boards for their agendas. But once they get power, they no longer need it and stomp it out. This is something the so called conservative right never understood. To them "freedom" = making money unfettered and they'll self righteously say they won't stoop to the left's levels of attack (just so long as I can keep making $$$) dooming them to ultimate defeat. When someone clams in your face (NYC slang for spitting) you don't say, "oh it must be raining", when you are punched, you punch back twice and hard. You don't debate, you terminate your attacker. I don't debate attackers of my culture, heritage and society I defeat them. You mentioned porn and it's place in the "free speech" debate. I'll take a moment to address this as I think it's generally speaking way overblown. Most people make the erroneous conflating that all porn is the same. It isn't. There's a big difference between child porn and adult porn. Taking a child a teen, or pre teen (yes you read it correctly) and forcing them to perform sex acts on camera, as opposed to consenting adults that are "financially compensated" to do the same are not equal in any way. When I hear about kids being abused it breaks my heart. Adults nah not really it's a choice. If you're an adult and are paid it's a business transaction. As far as viewing porn, well cutting to the chase what is it? It's a fantasy enhancer a person has a fantasy and they get off on it. Instead of staring at the ceiling or the bathroom wall or closing their eyes, they watch porn and it is more life like. Simply stated it makes masturbating fantasies more "real" so to speak. In this context it's only downsides are first, to public morals (whatever that is and depends upon, as you say what morality "brand" has "captured" you), and second if a person spends an inordinate amount of time watching porn instead of seeking genuine relationships. You can watch a chef on the food channel cook your favorite steak, or you can eat the steak in real time. I'd prefer real time. Is this a free speech issue? For me no not really, so long as it's not in your face and kept private, it's an adults business. An opposing argument would be it corrupts. Children yes kids should not view porn, as it can give them a distorted view of sexuality and interpersonal interaction. But adults that are already sexually educated and experienced it won't do them any harm one way or the other. It's a "red herring" the left has used quite well to help expand their agendas. After all who doesn't like sex? Easy theme/meme to use for advancing many faceted agendas. It's ironic though in the 1960's and 70's the cultural Marxist left was all about "sexual liberation" and demanded XXX films in theaters under the guise of "free expression and speech". Now fast forward to today and they call porn "objectivising women". Another barb hurled at men. In particular white men, as they seem to have no problem with gay porn, trans porn, or mixed race porn in particular white women with non-white men. Truth is everybody when first meeting someone sees them "objectively" in that you don't know them. All you have done is seen them. You look them over, they appeal to you on whatever levels or not. Now when you get to formally meet that person as in "hello I'm...and you are?" Then you can chat and get a feel and to know the person better. Is this really about free speech? No the entire meme is just a hidden (or not so hidden) way to push an agenda that can give you an edge in your drive to dismantle and replace the majority culture with your own agenda. Therefore the entire issue is a non-issue. Freedom , liberty, free speech, equality are too often used to allow nefarious ideologies and fringe neurotic malcontents access to a platform to not construct but destruct and tear down a society. Do minorities have rights? Yes they do however so do majorities. And majorities have zero obligation to bend over backwards to accommodate shrill cultural Marxist utopianism. They do have the obligation to maintain the cultural values, and legacy left to them by there forefathers and preserve their civilization for their own future generations. Don't debate agitate, stand strong and give your opponents the 86 gate.
Shutting down subversives is a good first step, but in isolation it risks generating an underground with the cachet of cultural resistance. It's a purely reactive/defensive strategy. A parallel, active strategy of cultivating a nationalistic/romantic creative class is critical to long-term success.
On the one hand, globohomo has made this very easy to do - they've abandoned sex appeal and their content is garbage. On the other, boomers have no idea what they're doing.
Great article about free speech - I've shared it. I just want to point out what appear to be two typos in one of your paragraphs:
"In that sense, our situation now is not all that different from any other period in world history, only the scope of the forbidden has expanded to encompass all aspects of life from child-rearing, diet, the language and of course, the big questions surrounding politics and economics."
"In the end, debate was simply an alternative means of resolving disputes. Both sides knew that they could always just fight each other to death, and giving god or the gods the last word, with sword in hand, decide whose opinion was correct that way. "
I think it was Spinoza (another Skeksis; new word for me!) who said, in a free counntry, a man can think as he pleases and speak as he thinks. Whatever the details, free speech has a deeper function than simply confict-avoidance: it allows free thought to enter the public domain.
Here's where I draw closer to your own militaristic tendencies: the best that can be hoped for between peoples, even in a society, is tolerance. Working with the premise that everyone likes each other is chidish, so we have to be able to accept the idea that I may not like my neighbor, and that we might have, and express, hateful opinions about each other. I think that might be necessary for an honest politic, but it sure would take a heck of a lot more critical thinking ability than most people have.
But I don't think that dancing around and expecting everyone to align themselves with some idyllic emotional image is a good way to come to political decisions, and cancellation of that sort of thing may be an appropriate reaction. OTOH, maybe you should have a back-and-forth about WTF Russia is doing in Ukraine, especiaally making sure to include tales of the Wicked Witch of the West bringing poison cookies to Maidan in 2013-14. THAT was an example of an attempted cancellation of Russian peoples. Instead, elections after a 6 month cooling off period might have led to some sort of modus vivendi, even between peoples who might have been po's at each other, had The West not intruded.
From a Globohomo colony that is Romania, a right-winger salutes you! I wish you best of luck at preserving the Russian gene pool! o7
Well women should not be barred from debating children's playgrounds.
More seriously, discussions should happen between persons with knowledge with the matter at hand and the audience ought to have some interest or stake in the outcome. It is pointless to hold intellectual or legal debates on Twitter, only to attract mobs and invite censorship. Facebook has faced pressure for a decade to open up the private groups for outside scrutiny by "researchers": studying the propagation of fake news has been the stated goal. Thus far they have resisted.
The real difficulty in organising a forum for public discussion is obtaining genuine contributions, not virtue signalling. This requires honesty and trust. Restricting the participation to the tribe is neither necessary nor sufficient. Members of the tribe might be corrupted. Outsiders might bring useful expertise. The focus should be on promoting truth and reciprocation. The globalists have it right : they drown the whole society in lies and promote conformity.
Rolo. Avoid using "frankly" or "to be frank". Not a good look. Implies you are often shading truth. On the positive side I'm finally learning what is going on in Russia/Ukraine. Thanks.
" But the insanity of the free speech absolutists knows no bounds." English grammar isn't one of my best suits that I'm gonna be pulling out of the back of me old musty closet any time soon, but to me it seems it should read "anti-free speech" ?