@CoQ_10@sickburnbro Uh-huh, there’s nothing new under the sun. I wonder, though, what communists could he study, working all his life in Africa and England. I mean, what he (and his followers) imply, is that there was /an intention to humiliate/, that the propaganda was purposefully done this way. While in fact, after the boost given in the Civil war of 1918–1922, its power quickly dwindled down. In the presence of the “iron curtain” the officials got relaxed and cared about the propaganda only in terms of “portrait of Lenin is present, a quote from Stalin added, censorship is enforced” – the completing of requirements, which allowed their bosses, officials of a higher rank, to report “All is OK!” further up. In the Soviet Union propaganda was called ‘kondovaya’ – “thick”, “clumsy” (originally a term for construction timber) for a reason. The ingenuousness of communist propaganda was reflected also in the “Honecker’s letter”. In this address to Germans the author (which may or may not be the actual Honecker), reprimanded the former DDR citizens for being overly confident. They thought of themselves too high, “seeing through” the communist propaganda (which wasn’t hard), and thought that they know all about the West – while the West wasn’t telling all the truth then, as it doesn’t say it now. It’s in the line of the general “hope you’re happy with your Turks” message. On the West, however, there was always a demand in works that would portray Soviet system as the ultimate inhuman personality-suppressing evil. And that’s I’m not touching Dalrymple’s “Early Life” yet. 165068902065.png
@sickburnbro It was an entertaining read, added to my collection. Also it made me chuckle at the britbong, who thinks, that the Soviet ideologists could name a situation “we’re too lazy to allow anything happening” a method and to give it a name after some art schizos from Europe and USA. This assumption implies that - the KGB (SVR or whatever) officers cared about foreign(!) modern(!!) art - and that they understood(!) it - and that they weren’t arrogant self-absorbed officers of an Empire like their counterparts across the Atlantic - actually, the britbong doesn’t exactly refer to the state agency officers, he just says “the Soviets”. This implies, that all people in the SU would know about hyperrealism and could easily associate some artsy stuff from abroad (iron curtain, you bastard, where did you run off to?) with their surroundings.
Also the “britbong” seems to be unaware, that the Soviets – who sure did find the state of things, that they were living in, surreal – had their own idea about weird inconsistencies, and that in the common folk those idea were reflected in the Strugatsky books (one film too), Vysotsky songs, in the passionate love for “Alice in the Wonderland” and its homages, stories known yet from the time of the Russian Empire etc. So if “hyperrealism” would knock on the door, he would find a loud party going on.
On the other hand, the “britbong” expects *his reader* to know about hyperrealism, and indeed, for people in Europe (that wasn’t communist) and in America that word rings a bell. The propaganda always works on something *that you already know*, and this gives out who it s aimed at.
I came and can sleep well now. Good night. expl.png
@p@11112011@FreedoingVlad@Grandtheftautism@Senator_Armstrong@animeirl@dicey@icedquinn Writing the previous post has been exhaustive, and I’m getting out of time with the stuff I planned to finish over the weekend (including useless shitposting). I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the subject, which is related to my interests, moreover, I found a couple more interesting sources, while looking for evidences, but that was really exhaustive, and I find it a waste of time when a single post takes an entire day. The post above should provide a good enough insight. It was composed be as in-depth as possible to deal with misunderstanding, and if it does not for some reason, there’s not much else, that I can do. Thinking one last time, I thought of the possible questions, that might follow, and found that the picture attached below should be a fitting reply.
P.S. If FSE would run its own cryptocurrency and would have own exchange, I may reconsider. Longposts would charge dearly, heh. c.jpg
Trade is not everything. It’s just one motive. Others may range from “why ally with someone I can subdue” to “my court astronomer said that the next week is favourable for attacking fortresses”. Charles V listened to vassals (the Livonian Order), who were on the ground doing business. He also had the Pope to listen to, and Popes have been declaring eastern Christianity a heresy since the crusaders “accidentally” ravaged Constantinople in 1204. So, if you’re a proper Catholic king, it’s one thing when your merchants trade with whoever (even heretics), and this is profitable for you. But if you, as a king, make an official union with them, it’s a completely different thing. Charles V believed more to the people from his circles. Letters, which reflect his sympathy towards Russia, are of dubious origin, as far as I remember. So, I believe, he might consider a military union useful – and potentially he could expand that with other kinds of support, but the closest circle (plus Pope) meant more to him.
> That is three empires behaving differently in one example.
Truth, it’s a different situation and different countries. If the question about similarity (why different countries at different times should think alike) is still bothering you, there’s saying “circumstances shape the man”, – or so sounds the materialist postulate. Meaning that what you do depends on what you perceive from your surroundings and determine from previous experience. As long as the circumstances remain similar, they produce similarly thinking people. Whether the elite “goes with the flow” or “thinks out of frame” depends on the will and the entertainment which one finds while being in power. But what a particular person decides, rests on typical human laziness, willing to take risks and inextinguishable desire to bring changes forth. That one was born to be an elite doesn’t yet grant these qualities. So, thinking out of frame is to be expected seldom.
Yes, I thought about that too. Perhaps Friedman meant how Britain dealt with immediate competitors for naval dominance.
> The Holy Roman Empire, for example, was fairly close to Russia compared to England, and both sides of that deal had a vested interest in keeping England from interfering with their trade,
…That’s not how empires think. One part of feeling like you rule an empire is indulgence in the thought that your country is self-sufficient (even if it’s not possible in reality). And if you would lack something you would look into the memo: 1) get angry; 2) expand. Charles V was an European. He’s grown up in the centre of Europe. Which means, in the clay pot with snakes. And that probably was what made him think of Ivan IV as no less dangerous ruler than himself or his immediate neighbours. And this was the mistake, because the mindset of Russian tzars was different. They were not surrounded with “quite similar and evil neighbours”, they were mentally on the stage when civilisation is fighting off outlanders. Mongols, Swedes, Livonians were all aliens. And “the like” were the principalities of feudal Rus, which eventually ended up with two contestants: Novgorod and Moscow, and Moscow thus absorbed everything that was “alike” to the Russian world. There was retained some similarity to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, but since 1200s the difference have got stronger, and after they sided with other western powers against Russia, there was less and less similarity with each century. Ivan IV seemed to be sincerely respecting Charles V and sought an alliance, because (among other reasons) “enemy of my enemy is my friend”, and the Ottomans posed a serious danger to both. But alas. Perhaps, Charles V followed Gracian’s advice and thought that one should better have people dependent on you rather than liking you.
> I think there's a lot of uncertainty in the continuity also: it seems like a stretch to draw a connection between England hundreds of years back and people setting foreign policy in the US nowadays, Clinton and Nuland.
What Friedman said, what he was pointing to, is that “the best way to defeat an enemy fleet is to not let it be built”. This sounds pretty much like common sense. Like “divide et impera” or the Gracian’s expression mentioned just above. If one western empire gets atop several others, or remains alone, would it seem improbable to inherit common ideas? If you were a large country and you had an entire fleet of warships able to control the oceans, what would you do with it? Certainly not selling it to India for scrap metal.
> I can see trying to contain Russian expansion (as trade with Europe is a bigger deal to the US than trade with Russia), but there's a lot of weird provocation that doesn't make a lot of sense.
Hm? Like what, for example?
> China's a bigger threat than Russia at present: Russia doesn't like the water, but China's started building aircraft carriers. A long way from Kissinger's strategy, these people right now seem more interested in antagonizing Russia
Ah, that’s what seems strange? Hmm, I have some ideas, pick any or all: - Russia is a pie (a large amount of resources), which, if divided and absorbed, may become the trump card in the forthcoming confrontation with China. 140 million people with nukes and city-sized arms factories. Also 1/6 of land with gas, oil, vast areas with common and rare minerals. - the West is sick of making business with Russia, because since the fall of Russian empire, the western investors got pwned twice: during the time when Soviets nationalised the factories and later when Putin got rid of Western owners, and presented free money-producing factories to his oligarchs. - centuries-old anti-propaganda that was portraying Russia as bad, wrong, savage, inferior, incapable, demonic and barely human – sans the short times when they were allied with Russia. Even if people understand, that what’s said about someone whom they did never see, it leaves an imprint in their attitude – in the absence of things that serve as a counterweight. - they’re just tired of playing pretend since the Cold war long ended, and somehow, Russia is still not subdued and raped by Procter & Gamble capital. - they actually think that Russia is easy to break (and then be theirs) that it’s almost defeated, and all they need to do is but make the last few pushes a little stronger. Press the attack.
@Grandtheftautism@p@11112011@FreedoingVlad@Senator_Armstrong@animeirl@dicey@icedquinn From my school days I remember only the “framework”, and later I would find a lot of disconnected joints within it. Not long ago reading on HRE on my own (before those posts indeed) I was quite surprised that at one point in time, most of continental Europe was divided between Spanish Habsburgs and Austrian Habsburgs. And the lands of the Spanish spanned to Netherlands. (Which is very close to England, and this explains why the British felt very uneasy – the closest shores, read supplies, might’ve been occupied by an enemy empire).
Cramming into my head ever changing names and borders was stupid until I realised, that I remember stuff better, when there’s something, a subject, an idea, often – a question like “where did it start from?” “what was so important there?”, which makes you read and find a lot, connect the dots, and then, nicely tangled, it falls into memory naturally. Because brain works on connections between figures, intentions, places, etc.
I think what Burns meant is just “incapability” of the RuAF, its lacking in comparison to USAF. The book is filled to the brim with snark. I wouldn’t say that military higher ups would oppose Putin’s decision on the basis of patriotic feelings – they are same wannabe capitalists, if the U.S. wants to pay, then it’s good for them.
> US didn't accept that as a payment and rejected the desired (by Russia) cooperation nevertheless.