How can I shake your hand in the distant year 2000?
You have many answers to that all over the forum.-
Grover Furr: Stalin was demonized
- Thread starter Possibility of Being
- Start date
You have many answers to that all over the forum.-
f1esk
Jedi Council Member
Could you give at least a few of this set?
Hello Revolucionar, just wanted to point out that one definition of being disgusted is:
to offend the good taste, moral sense, etc., of; cause extreme dislike or revulsion.
I cant speak for f1esk about his comment on Stalin and pedophila but my take from f1eskpost was that he's of the belief that just like everything in life things are not so black and white. I mean in the article that Approaching Infinity linked its very clear that things were very complex.
Also I have to say the young Stalin was a good looking dude! I never knew.
IMO you are both letting your emotional horses take over a bit.
Perhaps its time to take a day or two and digest some of the conversation and thoughts discussed so far?
FWIW
Hello f1esk. I think the more accurate saying is: history doesn't repeat itself but it rhymes.
In a sense experience is partly about knowing your personal history. I think you can extend that to the world at large. The more knowledge you have including history, theoretically you can learn the painful lessons of the past and avoid or minimize similar lessons in the present or future.
I mean look at the epic battle between Russia and NATO in Europe.
Just replace the word NATO with ATLANTIS and Russians with Athenians and what do we have?
From the ancient Greece reloaded website:
I don't know, the story of Atlantis is starting to sound very familiar.
Like I said history doesn't repeat itself but it certainly seems to rhyme.
I can accept that I may be in the wrong, but I just can't bring myself to view this particular quote from f1esk in any way other than pedophilic apologia.Hello Revolucionar, just wanted to point out that one definition of being disgusted is:
to offend the good taste, moral sense, etc., of; cause extreme dislike or revulsion.
I cant speak for f1esk about his comment on Stalin and pedophila but my take from f1eskpost was that he's of the belief that just like everything in life things are not so black and white. I mean in the article that Approaching Infinity linked its very clear that things were very complex.
Also I have to say the young Stalin was a good looking dude! I never knew.
View attachment 64767
IMO you are both letting your emotional horses take over a bit.
Perhaps its time to take a day or two and digest some of the conversation and thoughts discussed so far?
FWIW
Regardless of Stalin or any of this, how a normal thinking person can say something like this with a straight face is simply beyond me. I would not associate with anyone holding such views or with anyone knowingly associating with people holding such views.
Only way this works is arranged marriages between teenagers in agrarian or nomadic societies. Any other circumstance is simply unacceptable to me.
I'm open to being shown the error in my thinking, as always.
Antony
Jedi Council Member
The man who changed history. Stalin in the past and the future. Andrey Fursov
On March 5, 1953, Joseph Stalin died - the head of a huge superpower equipped with a nuclear shield that protects our country to this day. Nowadays, a lot of works have appeared in which an objective assessment of the Stalin era is given, objective information is given about who Stalin was. Secondly, Stalin's figure is evaluated in comparison with what has happened and is happening in Russia over the past 30 years. The Stalin era seems to be much more advantageous compared to post-Soviet Russia. Because the Soviet Union was a superpower, no one could wipe their feet on the country.
And besides, the Soviet Union was a society of declared socio-economic equality. And these two points - socio-economic and foreign policy, geopolitical - favorably distinguish the Stalinist Soviet Union from the post-Soviet Russian Federation. But there is another point. People understand perfectly well that we still live on the Stalinist foundation. Nuclear weapons, which were created in the second half of the 1940s, in the early 1950s, are the foundation laid by Stalin and Beria. And the worse international relations get, the more people realize that we are not treated the same as the Serbs and Libyans, just because we have this heritage.
The fact that Stalin interfered with the top is obvious. The fact that an acute conflict has been brewing at the top since the late 1940s is also obvious. This conflict manifested itself and was quite obvious during the 19th Congress of the CPSU (b), at which the CPSU (b) turned into the CPSU. The abbreviation "b" - that is, "Bolsheviks" - was dropped. And it is enough to look at Stalin's behavior at this congress to understand that he was dissatisfied. And it is no coincidence that immediately after the congress at the plenum, he expanded the composition of the Presidium of the Central Committee of the CPSU and expanded the list of candidates for members of the presidium. That is, he certainly interfered with the top. And how exactly it happened – whether this death was violent, poisoned him or simply did not provide assistance, or poisoned and did not provide assistance - this is a very difficult question. But I have no doubt that Stalin was helped to die.
A part of the party apparatus was interested in this, and here its interests coincided with the interests of our geopolitical opponents. It is no coincidence that since the late 1940s, the Anglo-American special services have created a joint special group called How To Make Stalin's Passing - that is, "How to make Stalin leave."
History has a subjunctive mood. Bad historians say that there is no such thing. The story always has several options for development. And to say that history has no subjunctive mood means to completely deny the multivariance of history and reduce it to such rigid determinism and exclude the problem of human will, the subject, and finally, chance. Marx said that without accidents, history would have a mystical look, therefore, talking about the fact that history does not have a subjunctive mood is an attempt to give history a mystical look. The story always has several options. Stalin would certainly have solved the problem with a successor. Secondly, he, at least, squeezed out of the presidium what was called the "politburo" before and then under Brezhnev. A number of people.
The fact was that Stalin was already waging an unequal struggle. The nomenclature during the Great Patriotic War, while it was spared from purges, was formed, in fact, as a quasi-class. In addition, party structures have sprouted into economic ones. It is no coincidence that in 1946 a resolution was adopted on the inadmissibility of the party structure assuming economic functions. Stalin was fighting not just with his inner circle, not with any specific people, he was fighting with an entire stratum that was gradually being reborn. And in this regard, it must be said that Stalin's fears and Trotsky's fears -two enemies - turned out to be true.
Trotsky, in the late 1930s, had already openly written about the rebirth of the Soviet bureaucracy into a quasi-class and spoke about the danger of its rebirth into the bourgeoisie. Stalin called this group a "cursed caste," but he believed that by purging and pulling up the working class, this problem would be solved. But he was well aware of the danger that as socialism approached, the class struggle would intensify. Some of us interpret this as a struggle against the "kulaks" - nothing like that, he meant the danger of the bureaucracy degenerating into the bourgeoisie. Both Gorbachev and Yeltsin showed that he feared correctly, this is the aggravation of the class struggle in the course of building socialism.
We need a Stalin institute that would study Stalin's legacy. Both theoretical and practical. The Stalin Institute should study several things, it should study the Stalin era, secondly, the Stalinist legacy from the point of view of its place in Marxist thought, Russian thought. On the basis of this center, it would be possible to hold conferences dedicated not only to Stalin, but also to the Stalin era. In addition, this center could act as a fighter against the denigration of the Soviet period of our history. Stalin, of course, was not an angel, but he was not a demon either. We need the merciless truth about ourselves, about Stalin and the Stalin era.
I think that if Russia is destined to survive and go through the bottleneck of the crisis of the next decade, then monuments to Stalin will stand not only in Moscow. They will stand in many cities – the initiative will come not only from above, but also from below. Well, the monument to Stalin is not just a pedestal for the winner of the Second World War, the Great Patriotic War is more important for us, it will be a monument to the greatest figure of Russian history.
The world has entered a very, very acute crisis, this is the crisis of the end of the capitalist era. Unfortunately, the worst case scenario often wins in history. It is always necessary to prepare for the worst, as Stalin prepared in 1931 - for 1941. He then said that if we do not run in 10 years the way that Western countries have run in 100 – we will be crushed. After 10 years, the Great Patriotic War really began, and we really ran our way very quickly during the 1930s. In 1937, the Soviet Union achieved military-industrial autarky from the capitalist world. Now the situation is similar, only it is perhaps more acute, because today's Russia is weaker than the Soviet Union of the 1930s. Moreover, it is weaker not only in material and technical terms, but also in ideology-political, ideological.
dzen.ru
On March 5, 1953, Joseph Stalin died - the head of a huge superpower equipped with a nuclear shield that protects our country to this day. Nowadays, a lot of works have appeared in which an objective assessment of the Stalin era is given, objective information is given about who Stalin was. Secondly, Stalin's figure is evaluated in comparison with what has happened and is happening in Russia over the past 30 years. The Stalin era seems to be much more advantageous compared to post-Soviet Russia. Because the Soviet Union was a superpower, no one could wipe their feet on the country.
And besides, the Soviet Union was a society of declared socio-economic equality. And these two points - socio-economic and foreign policy, geopolitical - favorably distinguish the Stalinist Soviet Union from the post-Soviet Russian Federation. But there is another point. People understand perfectly well that we still live on the Stalinist foundation. Nuclear weapons, which were created in the second half of the 1940s, in the early 1950s, are the foundation laid by Stalin and Beria. And the worse international relations get, the more people realize that we are not treated the same as the Serbs and Libyans, just because we have this heritage.
The fact that Stalin interfered with the top is obvious. The fact that an acute conflict has been brewing at the top since the late 1940s is also obvious. This conflict manifested itself and was quite obvious during the 19th Congress of the CPSU (b), at which the CPSU (b) turned into the CPSU. The abbreviation "b" - that is, "Bolsheviks" - was dropped. And it is enough to look at Stalin's behavior at this congress to understand that he was dissatisfied. And it is no coincidence that immediately after the congress at the plenum, he expanded the composition of the Presidium of the Central Committee of the CPSU and expanded the list of candidates for members of the presidium. That is, he certainly interfered with the top. And how exactly it happened – whether this death was violent, poisoned him or simply did not provide assistance, or poisoned and did not provide assistance - this is a very difficult question. But I have no doubt that Stalin was helped to die.
A part of the party apparatus was interested in this, and here its interests coincided with the interests of our geopolitical opponents. It is no coincidence that since the late 1940s, the Anglo-American special services have created a joint special group called How To Make Stalin's Passing - that is, "How to make Stalin leave."
History has a subjunctive mood. Bad historians say that there is no such thing. The story always has several options for development. And to say that history has no subjunctive mood means to completely deny the multivariance of history and reduce it to such rigid determinism and exclude the problem of human will, the subject, and finally, chance. Marx said that without accidents, history would have a mystical look, therefore, talking about the fact that history does not have a subjunctive mood is an attempt to give history a mystical look. The story always has several options. Stalin would certainly have solved the problem with a successor. Secondly, he, at least, squeezed out of the presidium what was called the "politburo" before and then under Brezhnev. A number of people.
The fact was that Stalin was already waging an unequal struggle. The nomenclature during the Great Patriotic War, while it was spared from purges, was formed, in fact, as a quasi-class. In addition, party structures have sprouted into economic ones. It is no coincidence that in 1946 a resolution was adopted on the inadmissibility of the party structure assuming economic functions. Stalin was fighting not just with his inner circle, not with any specific people, he was fighting with an entire stratum that was gradually being reborn. And in this regard, it must be said that Stalin's fears and Trotsky's fears -two enemies - turned out to be true.
Trotsky, in the late 1930s, had already openly written about the rebirth of the Soviet bureaucracy into a quasi-class and spoke about the danger of its rebirth into the bourgeoisie. Stalin called this group a "cursed caste," but he believed that by purging and pulling up the working class, this problem would be solved. But he was well aware of the danger that as socialism approached, the class struggle would intensify. Some of us interpret this as a struggle against the "kulaks" - nothing like that, he meant the danger of the bureaucracy degenerating into the bourgeoisie. Both Gorbachev and Yeltsin showed that he feared correctly, this is the aggravation of the class struggle in the course of building socialism.
We need a Stalin institute that would study Stalin's legacy. Both theoretical and practical. The Stalin Institute should study several things, it should study the Stalin era, secondly, the Stalinist legacy from the point of view of its place in Marxist thought, Russian thought. On the basis of this center, it would be possible to hold conferences dedicated not only to Stalin, but also to the Stalin era. In addition, this center could act as a fighter against the denigration of the Soviet period of our history. Stalin, of course, was not an angel, but he was not a demon either. We need the merciless truth about ourselves, about Stalin and the Stalin era.
I think that if Russia is destined to survive and go through the bottleneck of the crisis of the next decade, then monuments to Stalin will stand not only in Moscow. They will stand in many cities – the initiative will come not only from above, but also from below. Well, the monument to Stalin is not just a pedestal for the winner of the Second World War, the Great Patriotic War is more important for us, it will be a monument to the greatest figure of Russian history.
The world has entered a very, very acute crisis, this is the crisis of the end of the capitalist era. Unfortunately, the worst case scenario often wins in history. It is always necessary to prepare for the worst, as Stalin prepared in 1931 - for 1941. He then said that if we do not run in 10 years the way that Western countries have run in 100 – we will be crushed. After 10 years, the Great Patriotic War really began, and we really ran our way very quickly during the 1930s. In 1937, the Soviet Union achieved military-industrial autarky from the capitalist world. Now the situation is similar, only it is perhaps more acute, because today's Russia is weaker than the Soviet Union of the 1930s. Moreover, it is weaker not only in material and technical terms, but also in ideology-political, ideological.
Человек, который изменил историю. Сталин в прошлом и будущем. Андрей Фурсов
5 марта 1953 года умер Иосиф Сталин - глава огромной сверхдержавы, оснащенной ядерным щитом, который защищает нашу страну до сих пор. В наши дни появилось очень много работ, в которых дана объективная оценка сталинской эпохе, дана объективная информация, кем был Сталин. Во-вторых, фигуру Сталина...
dzen.ru
Antony
Jedi Council Member
Andrey Fursov, is a good historian. His deep analysis (including old families, masonry/Illuminati) is always full of detail of how deep state through history organized, tried to control countries/ our lifes...
Would also like to post his a year old article:
An alternative project. Stalin showed Russia and the world a way out of the impasse
Disputes about Stalin do not abate. Moreover, despite 30 years of anti-Soviet propaganda and anti-Stalinist propaganda, respect and interest in Stalin is growing. And those young people who have grown up in recent years, these people 20-30 years old, people who grew up after the Soviet Union - they are increasingly turning to the figure of Stalin, and they are turning with a plus sign. And of course, the alternative is the de–Stalinization campaigns, which are counterproductive, which contribute significantly more to the popularization of Stalin than anything else. Therefore, it makes sense to reflect on, roughly speaking, who are Stalin's friends and who are his enemies. Why do they hate Stalin in the West and in our country, and what do those people who give Stalin a plus rating want? After all, when a few years ago there was such a show program "The Name of Russia", Stalin was in the lead for a long time. Ultimately, he ended up in third place. I absolutely do not believe it, Alexander Nevsky turned out to be the leader there, a figure absolutely incomparable with Stalin. Because the tasks that Stalin had to solve are incomparable with the tasks that Alexander Nevsky solved, and according to the results, too.
What is a request for Stalin today? First of all, this is a request for social justice, for the thief to be in prison. In addition to social justice, this is a request for sovereign greatness, so that no one tells us what kind of juvenile justice we should have, how we should raise children, and Western society, which is flooded with the pus of vice, does not teach us how to behave. This is the second thing besides social justice.
And finally, for many people, this is such a revenge in general terms, a revenge for 30 years of our losses in the international arena, a revenge in the sense of a socio-psychological feeling. People remember the Stalin era and with all its costs. And what era has no costs when they say that, for example, at what cost the Soviet Union was built. And at what cost was the United States built? And at what cost was the British Empire built? By the way, when Churchill asked Stalin the question "what was the hardest thing for you in the history of the Soviet Union?", he said "The hardest years were the years of collectivization, because a lot of problems had to be solved in a short time." What is collectivization? This is a decoupling. If you look at how this issue was solved in England of the XVI century, there it was much more difficult. In percentage terms, there was such a mowed-down percentage that we simply did not dream of. In other words, a request for Stalin is a request for a decent and just life.
It is interesting to see who are the de-Stalinizers, who hated and hates Stalin in Soviet society? During Stalin's lifetime, he had opponents from two sides. The first are those people who believed that Stalin betrayed the cause of the world revolution. They were supporters of the Trotskyist project "world revolution". In their opinion, Stalin betrayed this project. In some ways, they were right, because Stalin really eliminated the project of the "world revolution", instead they began to build "socialism in one single country". I.e., this is the continuity along the line of tsarist Russia – Soviet Russia. And this turning point occurred in the 27-29's, and already in the 36th year there were the first results. Let me remind you that in the 36th year the terms "Soviet patriotism" and "Soviet Motherland" appeared, in the 36th year the celebration of the New Year with a Christmas tree was restored, only it was no longer a Christmas tree, but a New Year's tree.
In other words, Stalin united pre-revolutionary autocratic Russia and post-revolutionary Russia, he implemented this bond. And those who spoke from the position of the world revolution considered him a traitor and an enemy, i.e. the left-wing globalists. And in this regard, they completely coincided with the West, for which the world revolution was needed for only one purpose - the abolition of nation-states and the creation of Europe and the World "Venice the size of Europe and the world." By the way, it is very interesting, in 1930, Hjalmar Schacht, arguing why financiers should support Hitler's rise to power, said that he would break the nation-states in Europe, and we would get "Venice the size of Europe." The plan began to be implemented when, in the 29th year, Stalin expelled Trotsky from the USSR, i.e. put the final cross on the world revolution project.
Since the end of the XIX century, the confrontation of the principles — globalist and imperial - has begun in world politics and the world economy. The United Kingdom stood behind the globalist principle, and eventually the United States of America joined it. It was about creating a global market where no one interferes with the movement of goods and profits. Large empires stood in the way of creating and implementing this globalist project. First of all, these are the German and Russian Empires, as well as the Austro-Hungarian and, to a lesser extent, the Ottoman. They controlled their political and economic space, and this, of course, hindered those who wanted a global market, who wanted, like European financiers, a "Europe without Borders", that is, Venice the size of Europe.
Actually, one of the main tasks of the First World War was to create small nation-states in place of large empires, which would be very easy to manage. And so it turned out. I must say that the globalist elite did not hide these plans — at the end of the XIX century, a pamphlet entitled "Kaiser's Dream" appeared in the English newspaper "Truth" ("Pravda"). The Kaiser has lost, is on the train to England, where he will live in a workhouse. And he looks at the map, where instead of Germany there are small national states, in place of Austria—Hungary there are small national states, and in place of Russia there is a desert.
In other words, what happened after the First World War was partly the victory of this globalist plan, but, as it turned out, not in everything, because the big system called "Russia" at that time was too tough for the big system called "capitalist world". The interests of this great system — Russia — were expressed by Stalin and the forces that supported him. Stalin thwarted the plans of the globalists at that time, and not only the globalists of the right — the financial tycoons of the modern world, but also the globalists of the left — the Cominternists. It is significant that already in the mid-1920s, Zinoviev, the "third Grishka" of Russian history, argued for the need to remove Stalin from the post of general secretary by saying that he was "not liked in the Comintern," and one of the main critics of Stalin in the 1930s was a high-ranking Comintern functionary O. Pyatnitsky.
So, this is one line of rejection of Stalin in our country. The second line is the exact opposite – these are the people who were focused on overconsumption. Overconsumption is not in general, but in excess of the norm that they were supposed to. We know perfectly well that the nomenclature is a dominant group without property, and different layers of the nomenclature differed from each other in the volume of consumption, i.e. it was ranked hierarchical consumption. Well, naturally, each group wanted to consume more than they should by status – this is the first. And secondly, such a group sought to curl up and become closed. Stalin opposed this all his life. He became enraged when he learned in 41 that those officials who had left for Kuibyshev had decided to arrange a special school for their children so that, God forbid, they would not get confused together in the same school with the children of workers. Stalin went berserk, said "damn caste." And, in fact, he fought against this damned caste, not allowing it to turn into a class. And when Stalin said his famous phrase "as socialism is being built and the class struggle will escalate" - he did not mean the Kulaks, not the classes that have left, he meant the danger of becoming a class of nomenclature. And, as we can see from perestroika, he was looking into the water. We got the layer that turned into a class of owners, exchanging power for property.
In other words, Stalin was hated by two groups that opposed each other. Relatively speaking, Trotskyists and Bukharinites. And that's why one of the processes of 37 seems strange at first glance. Trotsky is left, Bukharin is right, what's the point here? But this is dialectic, and Stalin, answering this question, very clearly recorded. Dialectics – if you go to the right, you will come to the left, if you go to the left, you will come to the right. Both of them did not accept Stalinism, but for different reasons. For some, for Bukharinites, it was a course for consumption, for the transformation of the nomenclature into a class, for others it was a world revolution. What happened to us after the 56th year? In '56, the children of both were the most important denunciators of Stalin, and this line on consumption triumphed in '61, and it dealt an even more terrible blow to socialism than Khrushchev's report on the cult of personality. In the new program of the CPSU in 1961, it was recorded that the main task of the CPSU is to help meet the growing material needs of Soviet citizens. Socialism began to be measured in categories drawn from a completely different society, from the capitalist one. Anti-capitalism has thus capitulated. And, besides, there was such a trap here – since we now measure everything in material needs, the bulk of people look at the nomenclature, how they live, so the "bastard" decided his material needs, but mine did not. I.e. it was such a double trap.
Yes, Stalin was hated and is hated by the nomenclature thieves. After all, those people who are now stealing on a particularly large scale, they understand that if elementary discipline is imposed, it means that at best they will be suspended, at worst they will be put in prison. Therefore, our officials are thievish, as soon as the minimal restoration of order begins, they shout "the 37th year, we will not allow you to return to the 37th year." A good saying is "the cat knows whose meat she ate."
As perestroika demonstrated, the leader turned out to be absolutely right: already in the 1960s, a quasi-class shadow USSR-2 was formed, which, in alliance with the West, abolished the USSR-1 with all its achievements. At the same time, the real dissatisfaction with the population was caused precisely by the USSR-2, i.e. deviation from the model, but the interested layers pulled off a clever propaganda trick: they exposed the USSR-2 population with its flaws, growing inequality, artificially created deficit, etc. as the initial project model of the USSR-1, which urgently needs to be "reformed".
The Soviet nomenclature liberal is an official who sought to consume more than he should according to the strict rules of the Soviet nomenclature ranked-hierarchical system of consumption, and therefore ready to change power for material goods, seeking to travel to the West more often and looking through his fingers at the shadow economy, with which he increasingly merges in social ecstasy. Nowadays it is called corruption, but this term is hardly applicable to the state system: corruption is the use of the public sphere for private purposes and interests. That's the point, however, that in modernity there was no legally fixed distinction between these spheres, since there was no private sphere - "everything around is collective farm, everything around is mine." Instead of corruption, it should be about undermining the system, which for the time being (until the mid—1970s, when unaccounted oil dollars poured into the country) was quantitative. Thus, it is more correct to talk about the deformation of the system. It was these deformers who hated Stalin most of all, because they understood that with his or similar orders, retribution could not be avoided; that's why they were so afraid of the neo—Stalinist A. Shelepin coming to power, they bet on L. Brezhnev - and did not lose.
It was under the "hero of the Small Earth" that the shadow USSR-2 increased (not the shadow economy, but the shadow USSR, connected both with its shadow economy and with the Western special services). But the shadow under Brezhnev knew its place, waiting for the time being, and since the mid-1970s preparing to jump, but under Gorbachev it took the place of the owner, destroying the facade of the USSR-1. The real USSR in the early 1980s resembled the galactic empire from Asimov's "Academy" ("Foundation") - a prosperous facade with pitted insides. Only the USSR, unlike the Empire, did not have a mathematician Selden with his plan — we had a "mathematician"-gesheftmatik B. Berezovsky, and that says it all.
But back to Stalinophobia. It correlates quite clearly with consumption attitudes, with attitudes to consumption as the meaning of life. It is symbolic that one of the "faithful anti-Stalinists" said on television: you can keep the national idea for yourself, but give me the opportunity to consume. Can such a type not hate Stalin and Stalinism? Can not. Stalinism is historical creativity, an attitude towards creativity as the goal and meaning of life. The USSR was a creative, highly spiritual project, which is recognized even by those who clearly do not sympathize with the Soviet Union. Indicative in this regard is the phrase said by the former Minister of Education A. Fursenko that vice (sic!) the Soviet school consisted in the fact that it sought to educate a human creator, whereas the task of the school of the Russian Federation is to educate a qualified consumer. This, it turns out, is a national, or rather, a group idea, since the consumer has no nationality, the main thing is the trough, and who will provide it, his own or others', is the tenth thing.
The following is also symbolic. The very character who demanded a "holiday of consumption" for himself also spoke out in the sense that if the world government can master the lands east of the Urals, then let it take them. So the consumerist attitude of anti—Stalinism coincides with the globalist one - these are two sides of the same coin. This is how the line is drawn from anti-Stalinism to Smerdyakovism. The social world of anti—Stalinists is a global "animal farm", the main purpose of which is to ensure consumption under the guidance and supervision of the world government. Stalin has thwarted the construction of such a world on Russian soil three times, and it is for this that anti-Stalinists hate him. Everything is prosaic, but talking about freedom, democracy, "Soviet totalitarianism" of former Soviet careerists cannot deceive anyone.
The current attempts to identify Stalinism with Hitlerism are also very interesting. The fact is that the goal–setting of certain circles of the Western elite today - it is very close to the goal-setting of the Third Reich - is a class of the chosen, the chosen billion, it is anti-Christianity, environmentalism, Satanism instead. This is a two-circuit control system, i.e. a certain order and some parties, this is the situation of the Third Reich – the party, behind it is the black Order of the SS. In this respect, the Third Reich was no alternative to the Western project – it was in a brutal handicap an experiment in establishing a new world order. Hitler spoke about the new world order. In the 40th year, a four-volume book by H.G. Wells, "The Man from Behind the Scenes", was published, which was called "The New World Order" only in a soft form. Technocrats, intellectuals and financiers were supposed to come to power there. Here everything was much tougher, clearer, more brutal.
And it is very interesting, where did those people – psychiatrists, physicists, engineers – who worked for Hitler go? They ended up all in the United States of America, working for a Western project. And many of them, for example, Gehlen, one of the largest intelligence officers of the Third Reich, were taken to the United States in violation of the laws of the United States. In other words, already at the end of the war there was a bond between the Hitlerists and the Anglo-Saxon establishment. Why is it necessary to bring Hitlerism and Stalinism together now? Stalinism, the Stalinist project, the Soviet Union, systemic anti-capitalism was a real alternative to capitalism and globalism. We need to erase the memory of this alternative. There should be no alternatives to globalism, so we will now bring Stalinism under Hitlerism, which was not an alternative, and we will eliminate it all. At the same time, there is a soft, hidden rehabilitation of the Third Reich and Hitlerism in the West. It is already being said that the Third Reich was a milder form of totalitarianism than the USSR. Demonization of a real alternative to the new world order – and this alternative is connected with Stalin, he is, indeed, a real key figure.
In the phenomenon, not in the personality, in the phenomenon of Stalin, the Russian pre-revolutionary history and the Soviet history are connected, and, on the other hand, the world line, the line of the world revolutionary movement, because the Bolsheviks were part of the world revolutionary movement and the Soviet system. I.e., this is a key figure who is at the crossroads of all the lines of the history of the twentieth century. It is absolutely clear that those who wanted to erase the Soviet Union had to start with Stalin. But today we need to remember that the blows to Stalin are no longer blows to the Soviet Union, they are blows to Russia, to our history. Stalin is a key figure in Russian history.
dzen.ru
Would also like to post his a year old article:
An alternative project. Stalin showed Russia and the world a way out of the impasse
Disputes about Stalin do not abate. Moreover, despite 30 years of anti-Soviet propaganda and anti-Stalinist propaganda, respect and interest in Stalin is growing. And those young people who have grown up in recent years, these people 20-30 years old, people who grew up after the Soviet Union - they are increasingly turning to the figure of Stalin, and they are turning with a plus sign. And of course, the alternative is the de–Stalinization campaigns, which are counterproductive, which contribute significantly more to the popularization of Stalin than anything else. Therefore, it makes sense to reflect on, roughly speaking, who are Stalin's friends and who are his enemies. Why do they hate Stalin in the West and in our country, and what do those people who give Stalin a plus rating want? After all, when a few years ago there was such a show program "The Name of Russia", Stalin was in the lead for a long time. Ultimately, he ended up in third place. I absolutely do not believe it, Alexander Nevsky turned out to be the leader there, a figure absolutely incomparable with Stalin. Because the tasks that Stalin had to solve are incomparable with the tasks that Alexander Nevsky solved, and according to the results, too.
What is a request for Stalin today? First of all, this is a request for social justice, for the thief to be in prison. In addition to social justice, this is a request for sovereign greatness, so that no one tells us what kind of juvenile justice we should have, how we should raise children, and Western society, which is flooded with the pus of vice, does not teach us how to behave. This is the second thing besides social justice.
And finally, for many people, this is such a revenge in general terms, a revenge for 30 years of our losses in the international arena, a revenge in the sense of a socio-psychological feeling. People remember the Stalin era and with all its costs. And what era has no costs when they say that, for example, at what cost the Soviet Union was built. And at what cost was the United States built? And at what cost was the British Empire built? By the way, when Churchill asked Stalin the question "what was the hardest thing for you in the history of the Soviet Union?", he said "The hardest years were the years of collectivization, because a lot of problems had to be solved in a short time." What is collectivization? This is a decoupling. If you look at how this issue was solved in England of the XVI century, there it was much more difficult. In percentage terms, there was such a mowed-down percentage that we simply did not dream of. In other words, a request for Stalin is a request for a decent and just life.
It is interesting to see who are the de-Stalinizers, who hated and hates Stalin in Soviet society? During Stalin's lifetime, he had opponents from two sides. The first are those people who believed that Stalin betrayed the cause of the world revolution. They were supporters of the Trotskyist project "world revolution". In their opinion, Stalin betrayed this project. In some ways, they were right, because Stalin really eliminated the project of the "world revolution", instead they began to build "socialism in one single country". I.e., this is the continuity along the line of tsarist Russia – Soviet Russia. And this turning point occurred in the 27-29's, and already in the 36th year there were the first results. Let me remind you that in the 36th year the terms "Soviet patriotism" and "Soviet Motherland" appeared, in the 36th year the celebration of the New Year with a Christmas tree was restored, only it was no longer a Christmas tree, but a New Year's tree.
In other words, Stalin united pre-revolutionary autocratic Russia and post-revolutionary Russia, he implemented this bond. And those who spoke from the position of the world revolution considered him a traitor and an enemy, i.e. the left-wing globalists. And in this regard, they completely coincided with the West, for which the world revolution was needed for only one purpose - the abolition of nation-states and the creation of Europe and the World "Venice the size of Europe and the world." By the way, it is very interesting, in 1930, Hjalmar Schacht, arguing why financiers should support Hitler's rise to power, said that he would break the nation-states in Europe, and we would get "Venice the size of Europe." The plan began to be implemented when, in the 29th year, Stalin expelled Trotsky from the USSR, i.e. put the final cross on the world revolution project.
Since the end of the XIX century, the confrontation of the principles — globalist and imperial - has begun in world politics and the world economy. The United Kingdom stood behind the globalist principle, and eventually the United States of America joined it. It was about creating a global market where no one interferes with the movement of goods and profits. Large empires stood in the way of creating and implementing this globalist project. First of all, these are the German and Russian Empires, as well as the Austro-Hungarian and, to a lesser extent, the Ottoman. They controlled their political and economic space, and this, of course, hindered those who wanted a global market, who wanted, like European financiers, a "Europe without Borders", that is, Venice the size of Europe.
Actually, one of the main tasks of the First World War was to create small nation-states in place of large empires, which would be very easy to manage. And so it turned out. I must say that the globalist elite did not hide these plans — at the end of the XIX century, a pamphlet entitled "Kaiser's Dream" appeared in the English newspaper "Truth" ("Pravda"). The Kaiser has lost, is on the train to England, where he will live in a workhouse. And he looks at the map, where instead of Germany there are small national states, in place of Austria—Hungary there are small national states, and in place of Russia there is a desert.
In other words, what happened after the First World War was partly the victory of this globalist plan, but, as it turned out, not in everything, because the big system called "Russia" at that time was too tough for the big system called "capitalist world". The interests of this great system — Russia — were expressed by Stalin and the forces that supported him. Stalin thwarted the plans of the globalists at that time, and not only the globalists of the right — the financial tycoons of the modern world, but also the globalists of the left — the Cominternists. It is significant that already in the mid-1920s, Zinoviev, the "third Grishka" of Russian history, argued for the need to remove Stalin from the post of general secretary by saying that he was "not liked in the Comintern," and one of the main critics of Stalin in the 1930s was a high-ranking Comintern functionary O. Pyatnitsky.
So, this is one line of rejection of Stalin in our country. The second line is the exact opposite – these are the people who were focused on overconsumption. Overconsumption is not in general, but in excess of the norm that they were supposed to. We know perfectly well that the nomenclature is a dominant group without property, and different layers of the nomenclature differed from each other in the volume of consumption, i.e. it was ranked hierarchical consumption. Well, naturally, each group wanted to consume more than they should by status – this is the first. And secondly, such a group sought to curl up and become closed. Stalin opposed this all his life. He became enraged when he learned in 41 that those officials who had left for Kuibyshev had decided to arrange a special school for their children so that, God forbid, they would not get confused together in the same school with the children of workers. Stalin went berserk, said "damn caste." And, in fact, he fought against this damned caste, not allowing it to turn into a class. And when Stalin said his famous phrase "as socialism is being built and the class struggle will escalate" - he did not mean the Kulaks, not the classes that have left, he meant the danger of becoming a class of nomenclature. And, as we can see from perestroika, he was looking into the water. We got the layer that turned into a class of owners, exchanging power for property.
In other words, Stalin was hated by two groups that opposed each other. Relatively speaking, Trotskyists and Bukharinites. And that's why one of the processes of 37 seems strange at first glance. Trotsky is left, Bukharin is right, what's the point here? But this is dialectic, and Stalin, answering this question, very clearly recorded. Dialectics – if you go to the right, you will come to the left, if you go to the left, you will come to the right. Both of them did not accept Stalinism, but for different reasons. For some, for Bukharinites, it was a course for consumption, for the transformation of the nomenclature into a class, for others it was a world revolution. What happened to us after the 56th year? In '56, the children of both were the most important denunciators of Stalin, and this line on consumption triumphed in '61, and it dealt an even more terrible blow to socialism than Khrushchev's report on the cult of personality. In the new program of the CPSU in 1961, it was recorded that the main task of the CPSU is to help meet the growing material needs of Soviet citizens. Socialism began to be measured in categories drawn from a completely different society, from the capitalist one. Anti-capitalism has thus capitulated. And, besides, there was such a trap here – since we now measure everything in material needs, the bulk of people look at the nomenclature, how they live, so the "bastard" decided his material needs, but mine did not. I.e. it was such a double trap.
Yes, Stalin was hated and is hated by the nomenclature thieves. After all, those people who are now stealing on a particularly large scale, they understand that if elementary discipline is imposed, it means that at best they will be suspended, at worst they will be put in prison. Therefore, our officials are thievish, as soon as the minimal restoration of order begins, they shout "the 37th year, we will not allow you to return to the 37th year." A good saying is "the cat knows whose meat she ate."
As perestroika demonstrated, the leader turned out to be absolutely right: already in the 1960s, a quasi-class shadow USSR-2 was formed, which, in alliance with the West, abolished the USSR-1 with all its achievements. At the same time, the real dissatisfaction with the population was caused precisely by the USSR-2, i.e. deviation from the model, but the interested layers pulled off a clever propaganda trick: they exposed the USSR-2 population with its flaws, growing inequality, artificially created deficit, etc. as the initial project model of the USSR-1, which urgently needs to be "reformed".
The Soviet nomenclature liberal is an official who sought to consume more than he should according to the strict rules of the Soviet nomenclature ranked-hierarchical system of consumption, and therefore ready to change power for material goods, seeking to travel to the West more often and looking through his fingers at the shadow economy, with which he increasingly merges in social ecstasy. Nowadays it is called corruption, but this term is hardly applicable to the state system: corruption is the use of the public sphere for private purposes and interests. That's the point, however, that in modernity there was no legally fixed distinction between these spheres, since there was no private sphere - "everything around is collective farm, everything around is mine." Instead of corruption, it should be about undermining the system, which for the time being (until the mid—1970s, when unaccounted oil dollars poured into the country) was quantitative. Thus, it is more correct to talk about the deformation of the system. It was these deformers who hated Stalin most of all, because they understood that with his or similar orders, retribution could not be avoided; that's why they were so afraid of the neo—Stalinist A. Shelepin coming to power, they bet on L. Brezhnev - and did not lose.
It was under the "hero of the Small Earth" that the shadow USSR-2 increased (not the shadow economy, but the shadow USSR, connected both with its shadow economy and with the Western special services). But the shadow under Brezhnev knew its place, waiting for the time being, and since the mid-1970s preparing to jump, but under Gorbachev it took the place of the owner, destroying the facade of the USSR-1. The real USSR in the early 1980s resembled the galactic empire from Asimov's "Academy" ("Foundation") - a prosperous facade with pitted insides. Only the USSR, unlike the Empire, did not have a mathematician Selden with his plan — we had a "mathematician"-gesheftmatik B. Berezovsky, and that says it all.
But back to Stalinophobia. It correlates quite clearly with consumption attitudes, with attitudes to consumption as the meaning of life. It is symbolic that one of the "faithful anti-Stalinists" said on television: you can keep the national idea for yourself, but give me the opportunity to consume. Can such a type not hate Stalin and Stalinism? Can not. Stalinism is historical creativity, an attitude towards creativity as the goal and meaning of life. The USSR was a creative, highly spiritual project, which is recognized even by those who clearly do not sympathize with the Soviet Union. Indicative in this regard is the phrase said by the former Minister of Education A. Fursenko that vice (sic!) the Soviet school consisted in the fact that it sought to educate a human creator, whereas the task of the school of the Russian Federation is to educate a qualified consumer. This, it turns out, is a national, or rather, a group idea, since the consumer has no nationality, the main thing is the trough, and who will provide it, his own or others', is the tenth thing.
The following is also symbolic. The very character who demanded a "holiday of consumption" for himself also spoke out in the sense that if the world government can master the lands east of the Urals, then let it take them. So the consumerist attitude of anti—Stalinism coincides with the globalist one - these are two sides of the same coin. This is how the line is drawn from anti-Stalinism to Smerdyakovism. The social world of anti—Stalinists is a global "animal farm", the main purpose of which is to ensure consumption under the guidance and supervision of the world government. Stalin has thwarted the construction of such a world on Russian soil three times, and it is for this that anti-Stalinists hate him. Everything is prosaic, but talking about freedom, democracy, "Soviet totalitarianism" of former Soviet careerists cannot deceive anyone.
The current attempts to identify Stalinism with Hitlerism are also very interesting. The fact is that the goal–setting of certain circles of the Western elite today - it is very close to the goal-setting of the Third Reich - is a class of the chosen, the chosen billion, it is anti-Christianity, environmentalism, Satanism instead. This is a two-circuit control system, i.e. a certain order and some parties, this is the situation of the Third Reich – the party, behind it is the black Order of the SS. In this respect, the Third Reich was no alternative to the Western project – it was in a brutal handicap an experiment in establishing a new world order. Hitler spoke about the new world order. In the 40th year, a four-volume book by H.G. Wells, "The Man from Behind the Scenes", was published, which was called "The New World Order" only in a soft form. Technocrats, intellectuals and financiers were supposed to come to power there. Here everything was much tougher, clearer, more brutal.
And it is very interesting, where did those people – psychiatrists, physicists, engineers – who worked for Hitler go? They ended up all in the United States of America, working for a Western project. And many of them, for example, Gehlen, one of the largest intelligence officers of the Third Reich, were taken to the United States in violation of the laws of the United States. In other words, already at the end of the war there was a bond between the Hitlerists and the Anglo-Saxon establishment. Why is it necessary to bring Hitlerism and Stalinism together now? Stalinism, the Stalinist project, the Soviet Union, systemic anti-capitalism was a real alternative to capitalism and globalism. We need to erase the memory of this alternative. There should be no alternatives to globalism, so we will now bring Stalinism under Hitlerism, which was not an alternative, and we will eliminate it all. At the same time, there is a soft, hidden rehabilitation of the Third Reich and Hitlerism in the West. It is already being said that the Third Reich was a milder form of totalitarianism than the USSR. Demonization of a real alternative to the new world order – and this alternative is connected with Stalin, he is, indeed, a real key figure.
In the phenomenon, not in the personality, in the phenomenon of Stalin, the Russian pre-revolutionary history and the Soviet history are connected, and, on the other hand, the world line, the line of the world revolutionary movement, because the Bolsheviks were part of the world revolutionary movement and the Soviet system. I.e., this is a key figure who is at the crossroads of all the lines of the history of the twentieth century. It is absolutely clear that those who wanted to erase the Soviet Union had to start with Stalin. But today we need to remember that the blows to Stalin are no longer blows to the Soviet Union, they are blows to Russia, to our history. Stalin is a key figure in Russian history.
Альтернативный проект. Сталин показал России и миру выход из тупика
Споры о Сталине не утихают. Более того, не смотря на 30 лет антисоветской пропаганды и антисталинской пропаганды, уважение и интерес к Сталину растет. И та молодежь, которая выросла за последние годы, эти люди 20-30-ти лет, люди, которые выросли уже после Советского Союза – они все чаще...
dzen.ru
It doesn’t look like anyone is wiping their feet on present-day Russia, to me.
This guy’s writings are pathological. It’s not enough that Russia should act in favour of its own destiny, that would not bring any bloodthirsty satisfaction. No, Russia should act against the west, and take revenge for the humiliation it suffered at the hands of the capitalists who it blames for crippling it. What Russia needs is a dictator so that we can have power over everyone, both foreign, and Russian, and rule the world. Just don’t look at how objectively well Russia is doing at the moment.
It’s completely unsurprising that this man worships Stalin.
I agree with T.C. the writing was a bit hard to follow and I read it carefully and noticed that it's written in that pathological style similar to what those Ukrainian historical revisionists currently write.
There is this peculiar apologist attitude and a kind of adoration towards Stalin going around in social media nowadays particularly from some Russians. It seems that some Russians who are seeing the current plethora of Western lies are jumping to conclusions in the sense that possibly all of what is written about Stalin is a lie, either propagated by the West or elements of the fifth column in Russia. The fact is he was a pathological character, who did some positive things for Russia during his time in power, however this does not negate his truly tyrannical and disturbed nature, nor redeem him from his terrible actions and decisions.
Antony
Jedi Council Member
Dear T.C. And Jefferson,
Couple of points. How come more 80+ percent of Russian people adore Stalin...why is that? Terror and bloodthirstiness? Facts? From where it comes? Propaganda? Considering worldwide lies.
Where did you take all of the facts? Please study the facts without prejudice and beliefs
I think it's for a similar reason that many Chinese still idolize Mao, Mongolians Genghis Khan, Brits Winston Churchill, and Americans any number of presidents. It's conversive thinking, which expresses itself as confirmation bias and a certain type of "critical correcting".Dear T.C. And Jefferson,
Couple of points. How come more 80+ percent of Russian people adore Stalin...why is that? Terror and bloodthirstiness? Facts? From where it comes? Propaganda? Considering worldwide lies.
Where did you take all of the facts? Please study the facts without prejudice and beliefs
Antony
Jedi Council Member
Hi Approaching Infinity,
Many points to compromise. Chengiz Han, according to anthropologists, turned out to be light brown and blond (no chinks), Mao was people friendly and anticapitalist etc., most of native americans - were destroyed (atlantean karma)...
What i am trying to say, is not it prejudice, wishful thinking about russian history? Acknowledging that all capitalist propaganda wants us to think that way.... ?
In some cases, sure. But to dismiss any criticism because it is "just prejudice" is just as sloppy.
Again, in some cases I'm sure this is the case - and it applies equally to Russians when thinking about their own history, as it does to people of all nations.
"Capitalist" propaganda isn't always wrong, just as "communist" propaganda wasn't always wrong. Do you also think all the negative things the "capitalists" have said about Hitler for the past couple generations are wrong? Is the fact that Nazis have been the epitome of evil in Western pop culture just because that is what the propagandists want us to think?Acknowledging that all capitalist propaganda wants us to think that way.... ?
Personally, I think there is something to what you are saying, and I would apply just that logic even to Nazi Germany. Things were more complex than a simple battle of good versus evil. But that doesn't mean I'm going to jump on the Hitler revisionist bandwagon. The dude was pathological and Nazi Germany was a pathocracy - like the USSR.
