People love winners, no matter how brutal they were and much blood they spilled. This is especially true in places untouched by Western liberalism like Russia. Stalin was a genocidal mass murderer who was remarkable in one respect - unlike Hitler, he totally got away with it. And I'm not even talking what he did in wartime either. Stalin had an army of agents, stool pigeons and useful idiots in the American academia, media and government, who were ready to protect him and cover up his crimes. No matter how many millions he slaughtered. Throughout the 1933-1939 period, every littlest thing Hitler did, from book burnings to banning jazz music in Germany, attracted howls of anger and moral outrage from the American press and senior government officials, ranging from Dorothy Thompson, WJ Cash all the way to Franklin Roosevelt himself. But, when during the same time Stalin starved 10 million people to death in Ukraine and ethnically cleansed entire nations throughout the USSR? From these very same aforementioned lovers of democracy, there was only deliberate emphatic silence. THAT's how good Josef Stalin was when it came to protecting his image abroad, unlike Hitler. By the way, all the ethnic conflicts that plague the post-Soviet republics today (i.e civil war in Ukraine, wars in Caucasus) can be directly traced back to Stalin's populations dispersal campaigns from 1930's and '40s. When Kristalnacht and Nuremberg Laws happened, people all over the world were calling for war against Germany. But when Stalin launched the Great Terror, again, the West's response was "We do not know, and we do NOT want to know." Even after both Hitler and Stalin invaded Poland, UK and France declared war only on the former. While Stalin's 1939 invasion of Poland and the Baltic nations was portrayed by Western "intellectuals" and politicians as him protecting the people of those nations. Adolf Hitler could only wish he was able to pull off something like that. Hitler's autobiography was called "My Struggle." If Stalin had written an autobiography, it would have been titled "Wars and Genocides: and how I got away with it all"
People love winners, no matter how brutal they were and much blood they spilled. This is especially true in places untouched by Western liberalism like Russia. Stalin was a genocidal mass murderer who was remarkable in one respect - unlike Hitler, he totally got away with it. And I'm not even talking what he did in wartime either. Stalin had an army of agents, stool pigeons and useful idiots in the American academia, media and government, who were ready to protect him and cover up his crimes. No matter how many millions he slaughtered. Throughout the 1933-1939 period, every littlest thing Hitler did, from book burnings to banning jazz music in Germany, attracted howls of anger and moral outrage from the American press and senior government officials, ranging from Dorothy Thompson, WJ Cash all the way to Franklin Roosevelt himself. But, when during the same time Stalin starved 10 million people to death in Ukraine and ethnically cleansed entire nations throughout the USSR? From these very same aforementioned lovers of democracy, there was only deliberate emphatic silence. THAT's how good Josef Stalin was when it came to protecting his image abroad, unlike Hitler. By the way, all the ethnic conflicts that plague the post-Soviet republics today (i.e civil war in Ukraine, wars in Caucasus) can be directly traced back to Stalin's populations dispersal campaigns from 1930's and '40s. When Kristalnacht and Nuremberg Laws happened, people all over the world were calling for war against Germany. But when Stalin launched the Great Terror, again, the West's response was "We do not know, and we do NOT want to know." Even after both Hitler and Stalin invaded Poland, UK and France declared war only on the former. While Stalin's 1939 invasion of Poland and the Baltic nations was portrayed by Western "intellectuals" and politicians as him protecting the people of those nations. Adolf Hitler could only wish he was able to pull off something like that. Hitler's autobiography was called "My Struggle." If Stalin had written an autobiography, it would have been titled "Wars and Genocides: and how I got away with it all"
Rings a few bells. It all makes sense, though. Going out of your way for a girl indicates that you're of low value and therefore need to go the extra mile. Being a bastard indicates you're all that and she's lucky to get what little time and attention she does. Being a bastard doesn't go easily with family formation and the advancement of civilization, however.
I think a lot of people in Soviet Russia thought they were making the world a better place. I'm reading a very interesting book at the moment called Black Mass which basically argues that totalitarian regimes happen when people think they can change human society and by extension human nature in a way that's just not realistic.
When that inevitably fails, the people who lead the revolution have so much invested that they generally try to double down on their efforts to change things, rooting out people they see as enemies of their project using increasing force to do so. You can see this in Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany and the French Revolution. In my opinion, Stalin was a sociopath exploiting the situation but a lot of people around him, especially Lenin, really were true believers.
The interesting thought to come out of that is that the Stalinist purges could pretty much be the end result of any utopian belief system. You can see this on a limited scale today with the PC left but I actually think that you'd see the same thing if you tried enforcing some of the political theories from the manosphere about a perfect society.
5 comments:
People love winners, no matter how brutal they were and much blood they spilled. This is especially true in places untouched by Western liberalism like Russia. Stalin was a genocidal mass murderer who was remarkable in one respect - unlike Hitler, he totally got away with it. And I'm not even talking what he did in wartime either. Stalin had an army of agents, stool pigeons and useful idiots in the American academia, media and government, who were ready to protect him and cover up his crimes. No matter how many millions he slaughtered. Throughout the 1933-1939 period, every littlest thing Hitler did, from book burnings to banning jazz music in Germany, attracted howls of anger and moral outrage from the American press and senior government officials, ranging from Dorothy Thompson, WJ Cash all the way to Franklin Roosevelt himself. But, when during the same time Stalin starved 10 million people to death in Ukraine and ethnically cleansed entire nations throughout the USSR? From these very same aforementioned lovers of democracy, there was only deliberate emphatic silence. THAT's how good Josef Stalin was when it came to protecting his image abroad, unlike Hitler. By the way, all the ethnic conflicts that plague the post-Soviet republics today (i.e civil war in Ukraine, wars in Caucasus) can be directly traced back to Stalin's populations dispersal campaigns from 1930's and '40s. When Kristalnacht and Nuremberg Laws happened, people all over the world were calling for war against Germany. But when Stalin launched the Great Terror, again, the West's response was "We do not know, and we do NOT want to know." Even after both Hitler and Stalin invaded Poland, UK and France declared war only on the former. While Stalin's 1939 invasion of Poland and the Baltic nations was portrayed by Western "intellectuals" and politicians as him protecting the people of those nations. Adolf Hitler could only wish he was able to pull off something like that. Hitler's autobiography was called "My Struggle." If Stalin had written an autobiography, it would have been titled "Wars and Genocides: and how I got away with it all"
People love winners, no matter how brutal they were and much blood they spilled. This is especially true in places untouched by Western liberalism like Russia. Stalin was a genocidal mass murderer who was remarkable in one respect - unlike Hitler, he totally got away with it. And I'm not even talking what he did in wartime either. Stalin had an army of agents, stool pigeons and useful idiots in the American academia, media and government, who were ready to protect him and cover up his crimes. No matter how many millions he slaughtered. Throughout the 1933-1939 period, every littlest thing Hitler did, from book burnings to banning jazz music in Germany, attracted howls of anger and moral outrage from the American press and senior government officials, ranging from Dorothy Thompson, WJ Cash all the way to Franklin Roosevelt himself. But, when during the same time Stalin starved 10 million people to death in Ukraine and ethnically cleansed entire nations throughout the USSR? From these very same aforementioned lovers of democracy, there was only deliberate emphatic silence. THAT's how good Josef Stalin was when it came to protecting his image abroad, unlike Hitler. By the way, all the ethnic conflicts that plague the post-Soviet republics today (i.e civil war in Ukraine, wars in Caucasus) can be directly traced back to Stalin's populations dispersal campaigns from 1930's and '40s. When Kristalnacht and Nuremberg Laws happened, people all over the world were calling for war against Germany. But when Stalin launched the Great Terror, again, the West's response was "We do not know, and we do NOT want to know." Even after both Hitler and Stalin invaded Poland, UK and France declared war only on the former. While Stalin's 1939 invasion of Poland and the Baltic nations was portrayed by Western "intellectuals" and politicians as him protecting the people of those nations. Adolf Hitler could only wish he was able to pull off something like that. Hitler's autobiography was called "My Struggle." If Stalin had written an autobiography, it would have been titled "Wars and Genocides: and how I got away with it all"
Read up on the Milgram experiments on authority. It's kind of terrifying how common it is for people to just go along with what ever they're told.
Rings a few bells.
It all makes sense, though. Going out of your way for a girl indicates that you're of low value and therefore need to go the extra mile. Being a bastard indicates you're all that and she's lucky to get what little time and attention she does. Being a bastard doesn't go easily with family formation and the advancement of civilization, however.
I think a lot of people in Soviet Russia thought they were making the world a better place. I'm reading a very interesting book at the moment called Black Mass which basically argues that totalitarian regimes happen when people think they can change human society and by extension human nature in a way that's just not realistic.
When that inevitably fails, the people who lead the revolution have so much invested that they generally try to double down on their efforts to change things, rooting out people they see as enemies of their project using increasing force to do so. You can see this in Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany and the French Revolution. In my opinion, Stalin was a sociopath exploiting the situation but a lot of people around him, especially Lenin, really were true believers.
The interesting thought to come out of that is that the Stalinist purges could pretty much be the end result of any utopian belief system. You can see this on a limited scale today with the PC left but I actually think that you'd see the same thing if you tried enforcing some of the political theories from the manosphere about a perfect society.
Post a Comment