The Kremlin is burning?

[Stefan Kotsch]

2 hours ago, Roman Alymov said:

public demand to do something about this disgusting practices

In the mid-1980s, when the Iron Curtain still divided Europe and the world, television practiced a policy of détente. In a joint broadcast by US and Soviet broadcasters, citizens from the warring blocs talk to each other. The program is called 'Telebrücke - Women speak to women'. It's about everyday things.

An American woman wants to know whether Soviet advertising is 'all about sex'. A quarter of a century and the Soviet Union have passed since the broadcast. Every Russian still knows the answer of Ludmila Nikolayevna Ivanova, employee of the Moscow Hotel 'Leningrad' and head of the 'Committee of Soviet Women'.

She says: 'We don't have sex in the Soviet Union.'

https://www.spiegel.de/geschichte/sexuelle-revolution-in-russland-a-951368.html

____

The phrase “There is no sex in the USSR” is often used in Russia to refer to the prudery and antisexuality of Soviet culture, as well as the taboo nature of publicly mentioning topics related to sex

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/В_СССР_секса_нет

[Yama]

2 hours ago, Roman Alymov said:

Kirkorov in his stage dress, and on "naked party" mentione above,  with Anastasia Ivleeva

Kirkorov publicly supported Russian annexation of Crimea, as a result he's now sanctioned by Ukraine, and also blacklisted from his pet event ESC.

"According to operational information, propaganda of the ideology of the LGBT movement banned in the territory of the Russian Federation was carried out in the club"

This would be hilarious if it wasn't so chilling - who cares what happens between consenting adults on a private club? It's just regime trying to find out convenient 'enemies' for public to blame misfortunes upon. Ethnic minorities next? Oh, that has been going on for some time already...

[urbanoid]

30 minutes ago, Roman Alymov said:

  Actually the man in complicated relations with Sobchak was not Putin but Yeltsin. Sobchak was extremely popular as he, long-time univercity professor, was not only good speaker (Yeltsin was not) but also very intelligent and able to combine liberalism with modest "strong Russia" view (Yeltsin was not strong in combining anything). There was no sence for Putin to assacinate Sobchak - as it was not only extremely dangerous if discovered (Putin was very weak politically back then) but Sobchak's death was for him the loss of potentially valuable ally in that period when he was in danger of being removed from power by oligarchs.  So if Soibchak was in fact killed - it may be attempt to weaken Putin or "send him a message".

     Anyway not only Sobchak's daughter became "Russian Paris Hilton" abusing her alleged special relations with President - but also Sobchak's wife Ludmila Narusova is still Russian Senator, despite of her ambivalenmt position about current political line (and despite of public hate of her following her long-time "Let them eat cake" approach to Russian grass roots).

If you mean media persons who are always in support of Gov actions, cover up of mistakes/crimes and who attack anybody who dare to talk about problems, then it is "охранители".

 Old text about that Кто такие "охранители" и почему их становиться больше с каждым днем? | Пикабу

"Who are the "guardians" and why are there more of them every day?⁠⁠
  
Currently, the movement of "guardians" is gaining momentum in Russia. The guards are those people whose actions are aimed at maintaining the current government through propaganda. You can characterize their idea in one phrase: "Who if not Putin?!". Among its modern representatives, such personalities can be distinguished as: E.A. Fedorov, A.A. Prokhanov, N.V. Starikov, S.E. Kurginyan, A.G. Dugin, D.K. Kiselyov, etc. Among the media projects, for example, PolitRussia, Provocateur and others. At first glance, it may seem that these are ordinary patriots of their country, but no, this is not the case.

To understand this, I suggest you familiarize yourself with the definition of "patriot".

A patriot is a patriotic person, someone who loves his fatherland, is devoted to his people, is ready to make sacrifices and feats in the name of the interests of his homeland.

As you can see, in this definition there is such a thing as "devotion to one's people." The guards are not devoted to their people, they are devoted only to a small part of it, namely, the authorities. We don't live under communism or even socialism, we live under capitalism. In capitalist countries, the state protects, for the most part, the interests of capital, not the people. No matter how the government behaves, no matter what laws it introduces, the Okhrana will always protect this power. The guards don't care about the people.

This could be clearly seen when pension reform was widely discussed. All the guards whose opinion I looked at were the same. It was as follows: "Well, Putin said that this should be done, otherwise there is no way. We take Putin's word for it. He said that he might not have made such a decision on his board, but after he left it would be bad. That's how good he is." .

How do these people manage to recruit supporters into their ranks? Why do people listen to them and take their side? Now I will try to sort it out point by point. I must say right away, there are different guards and they work for different audiences. Now we will not consider the monarchist guards (those who openly pray for Nicholas II, well, you understand), we will analyze the most numerous, namely the guards who miss the USSR.

Point one. Praise the Soviet past.

The guards are proud of the victory in the Great Patriotic War, they praise the achievements of the Soviet Union, they very negatively assess the collapse of the USSR. BUT none of them, in the context of mentioning the USSR, will ever be praised by the ideology of the Soviet Union. They will never come out in support of the ideas of Marx, Lenin, Stalin. Stalin did well for them, in the sense that he won the war, but his works and ideas are strictly forbidden. Guards can often be seen with St. George's ribbons (it is with St. George's ribbons, if you tell them that this is a guards ribbon, they will not believe you and will try to bite you). This can be seen in the example of the Nodes. They can also use the red banner and other symbols, such as Kurginyan, but at the same time completely reject class theory and Marxism in general.

And all this is done in order to attract people. People see old symbols, hear how these guards praise the USSR, how they are dissatisfied with the demolition of monuments to the Soviet soldier and believe them. A simple person, seeing all this, thinks: "Well, if they support it all, then they want it all back, just like me." But no, the guards take this mass of people and direct the flow to support Putin and the current government. The very government that is decommunizing our country. 

Point two. Marginalizing everyone who is against the guardians.

I'll explain how it works using two examples. Let's take a conditional person who, for example, does not support Navalny and does not support Putin at the same time. It's election time and the guards announce: If Navalny called not to go to the polls, then all those who will not go to the polls are for Navalny. Our conditional person is at a loss, he does not want to increase turnout in the elections, but also does not want to be among Navalny's supporters. What should he do? We will have to go to the polls in order to at least not consider ourselves a "navalny." Not a bad manipulation, isn't it? On the face of attributing a person to a mass of people whom he does not support.

Let's take another example. We take a person who sympathizes with Marxist ideas. The guards immediately ask such people the question: "Have you decided to arrange a revolution? So that everything would be like in Ukraine???There is no need to strike, there is no need to go to rallies." Of course, after watching all the horrors that are happening in Ukraine, a person does not want such a scenario. I have to endure my sad situation in silence. You can also declare everyone who is going to rally as agents of the "state Department". But I have already written about NODE and Fedorov, we will not devote much time to him.

Point three. To set a sacred goal.

Many, but not all, guards set themselves some kind of unattainable goal that everyone needs to go to together. But this goal is not achievable.

For example: The NOD aims to give Putin unrealistic powers that will give him, as a super-being, the opportunity to break the shackles of colonized Russia. But they are essentially doing nothing to achieve this goal. The node has been in existence since 2012, and we are almost in 2019 and still a colony. The reason for everything is the agents of Hosdep, who are interfering with Fedorov and the Nodovites.

Kurginyan is generally a metaphysical entity from the 4th floor, which is not so easy to catch and clearly hear what she wants. But one of his goals is the universal access of all Russians to the "4th floor". Read more about it here:

Point four. Assign an external enemy.

Everything is simple here. The main message of all the guardians is that the root of evil has settled far to the west. Everyone who is on strike is protesting either stupid or paid. The main goal is to defeat the external enemy. They reject the idea that the enemy is in the state itself.

What to do and how to deal with it? I think that the reader, being a sane person, has already understood a simple truth: It does not matter what slogans and symbols the movement is covered with, it is important where this movement leads and what it offers. Therefore, I ask you to carefully understand the problem, do not trust everything that the talking heads carry. Thank you to everyone who finished reading the article. Share your opinion in the comments. And it doesn't matter if you support the author of this article or not, every opinion is important. The author is open to constructive criticism."

Very interesting about Sobchak, thanks.

Yes, I meant those 'guardians',I just wondered what is the commonly used Russian word for them.

I don't know the other ones mentioned, but how is Dugin 'a guardian'? And what category, as surely it's neither the 'monarchist' nor 'miss the USSR' type.

[Yama]

5 minutes ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

She says: 'We don't have sex in the Soviet Union.'

https://www.spiegel.de/geschichte/sexuelle-revolution-in-russland-a-951368.html

____

The phrase “There is no sex in the USSR” is often used in Russia to refer to the prudery and antisexuality of Soviet culture, as well as the taboo nature of publicly mentioning topics related to sex

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/В_СССР_секса_нет

What I have heard (Roman undoubtedly can educate me if I'm wrong), sex education was pretty much nil in Soviet schools.

It's why I think it is so hilarious how 'Marxists' are blamed on sexual minority rights movements. Real world Communists and especially Soviet Union were aghast of those movements and thought they were dangerous.

Same goes for environmental movements btw, another myth which has somehow entrenched itself within 'conservative' circles.

[Stefan Kotsch]

They are all westernized 'Liberota' (liberals). That's why Roman despises her so much.

[urbanoid]

2 minutes ago, Yama said:

What I have heard (Roman undoubtedly can educate me if I'm wrong), sex education was pretty much nil in Soviet schools.

It's why I think it is so hilarious how 'Marxists' are blamed on sexual minority rights movements. Real world Communists and especially Soviet Union were aghast of those movements and thought they were dangerous.

Same goes for environmental movements btw, another myth which has somehow entrenched itself within 'conservative' circles.

Non sequitur.

You can absolutely ban certain things in your own country while encouraging/supporting it abroad, among the enemies. Especially if your belief is that such movements are subversive and weaken the country - you don't want your own country weakened, but you absolutely want your enemies to be.

[urbanoid]

Btw. the 'Almost Naked party' has quite a wikipedia entry:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_Naked_party

[Yama]

6 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

Non sequitur.

You can absolutely ban certain things in your own country while encouraging/supporting it abroad, among the enemies. Especially if your belief is that such movements are subversive and weaken the country - you don't want your own country weakened, but you absolutely want your enemies to be.

True, but it was not the case here. Communism was a strong political force in Western Europe, and most communist parties did not want anything to do with LGBT people before general liberalization of media and society in 1980s. Nor it was in Soviet interests to encourage them to - ideological ties are a two-way street. An openly gay foreign Communist visiting Moscow and giving their own people strange ideas would have been among the very last things leaders of USSR wanted.

Working class was quite conservative - many may have been cynical about the Church and maybe not believed in God, but only openly gay people they would have known would have been some rich or influental individuals who were openly 'degenerate' because they could afford to. What proper Communist would have wanted to associate themselves with such obvious living signs of bourgeois decadence?

Of course that did not prevent KGB famously using gays in various blackmail or honey trap scenes, but that's a different beat.

"The Left" only began to pander LGBT movement when leadership of the parties passed from old Union grognards to educated university people. Also it was a necessity after fall of Communism made proletariat disillusioned about prospects of communism, and much of their voter base evaporated.

[urbanoid]

23 minutes ago, Yama said:

True, but it was not the case here. Communism was a strong political force in Western Europe, and most communist parties did not want anything to do with LGBT people before general liberalization of media and society in 1980s. Nor it was in Soviet interests to encourage them to - ideological ties are a two-way street. An openly gay foreign Communist visiting Moscow and giving their own people strange ideas would have been among the very last things leaders of USSR wanted.

Working class was quite conservative - many may have been cynical about the Church and maybe not believed in God, but only openly gay people they would have known would have been some rich or influental individuals who were openly 'degenerate' because they could afford to. What proper Communist would have wanted to associate themselves with such obvious living signs of bourgeois decadence?

Of course that did not prevent KGB famously using gays in various blackmail or honey trap scenes, but that's a different beat.

"The Left" only began to pander LGBT movement when leadership of the parties passed from old Union grognards to educated university people. Also it was a necessity after fall of Communism made proletariat disillusioned about prospects of communism, and much of their voter base evaporated.

Supporting/encouraging something doesn't imply that local communists had to be involved. In many cases it would have been actually counter-productive to involve them, as the critics of a 'movement'* (whether it's 'sexual revolution', LGBT acceptance, pacifism, anti-war demonstrations, anti-nuclear campaigning or whatever else) could scream: 'look, it's the communist plot to weaken us!' No, it's better if the 'concerned normals' do it.

*in case of communist conquest/takeover all those people would face the wall or end up in labor camps, but as long as that didn't happen they were considered useful

[JWB]

The Atlas oil depot in the Rostov region of Russia has been on fire for two days now.

https://x.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1862818728162779224

[Yama]

1 hour ago, urbanoid said:

Supporting/encouraging something doesn't imply that local communists had to be involved. In many cases it would have been actually counter-productive to involve them, as the critics of a 'movement'* (whether it's 'sexual revolution', LGBT acceptance, pacifism, anti-war demonstrations, anti-nuclear campaigning or whatever else) could scream: 'look, it's the communist plot to weaken us!' No, it's better if the 'concerned normals' do it.

*in case of communist conquest/takeover all those people would face the wall or end up in labor camps, but as long as that didn't happen they were considered useful

Of course you can make theoretical constructs like that, but in practise, most what the USSR leadership did about the LGBT movement in the West was look at it, then look at each other and nod "Yep, this decadence is surely a mark of imminent collapse of the capitalist world". What they could have done anyway? The movement was led by educated, well-off people. What they needed and used was media space and attention, and USSR was not able to give them that.

As for putting them in camps, Soviet Union didn't even manage to put its own green movement in the camps, which in part ended up eroding Communist grip of the politics. I'm pretty sure they saw the movement as a capitalist funded plot 

 

[Roman Alymov]

2 hours ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

In the mid-1980s, when the Iron Curtain still divided Europe and the world, television practiced a policy of détente. In a joint broadcast by US and Soviet broadcasters, citizens from the warring blocs talk to each other. The program is called 'Telebrücke - Women speak to women'. It's about everyday things.

An American woman wants to know whether Soviet advertising is 'all about sex'. A quarter of a century and the Soviet Union have passed since the broadcast. Every Russian still knows the answer of Ludmila Nikolayevna Ivanova, employee of the Moscow Hotel 'Leningrad' and head of the 'Committee of Soviet Women'.

She says: 'We don't have sex in the Soviet Union.'

https://www.spiegel.de/geschichte/sexuelle-revolution-in-russland-a-951368.html

____

The phrase “There is no sex in the USSR” is often used in Russia to refer to the prudery and antisexuality of Soviet culture, as well as the taboo nature of publicly mentioning topics related to sex

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/В_СССР_секса_нет

I'm affraid i am going to ruin another myth now.....

 

In 1986, TV presenters Vladimir Pozner and Phil Donahue organized one of the first Soviet-American teleconfere
nces of the Glasnost era, directed by Vladimir Mukusev. During the conversation, the American participant of the teleconference asked a question[2]:

...In our TV commercials, everything revolves around sex. Do you have such TV ads?

Soviet participant Lyudmila Nikolaevna Ivanova (at that time, the administrator of the Leningrad Hotel and a representative of the public organization Committee of Soviet Women) replied:

Well, we have sex... (chuckle) we don't have sex, and we are categorically against it! We have love.

The end of the sentence was drowned out by laughter and applause. After the audience had finished laughing, one of the Soviet participants clarified:

We have sex, we don't have ads!

A distorted and out-of-context part of the phrase came into use: "There is no sex in the USSR."

В СССР секса нет — Википедия

[sunday]

6 hours ago, urbanoid said:

Ok, so nothing to do with mobilizing anyone, most likely at least.

Pity, there could have been a huge saving in uniform clothing, as some were using to wear one sock only...

[Stefan Kotsch]

4 hours ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

The phrase “There is no sex in the USSR” is often used in Russia to refer to the prudery and antisexuality of Soviet culture, as well as the taboo nature of publicly mentioning topics related to sex

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/В_СССР_секса_нет

Versus

1 hour ago, Roman Alymov said:

A distorted and out-of-context part of the phrase came into use: "There is no sex in the USSR."

В СССР секса нет — Википедия

It is already ingrained in the memory of Russians. You can't change it.

And that was the trigger: Your assessment of the disgusting practices.

You have brought the cliché to life.

The phrase “There is no sex in the USSR” is often used in Russia to refer to the prudery and antisexuality of Soviet culture, as well as the taboo nature of publicly mentioning topics related to sex

Edited November 30, 2024 by Stefan Kotsch

[Yama]

43 minutes ago, sunday said:

Pity, there could have been a huge saving in uniform clothing, as some were using to wear one sock only...

Bah, Red Hot Chili Peppers played concerts in that uniform...

[Roman Alymov]

13 minutes ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

Versus

It is already ingrained in the memory of Russians. You can't change it.

And that was the trigger: Your assessment of the disgusting practices.

You have brought the cliché to life.

The phrase “There is no sex in the USSR” is often used in Russia to refer to the prudery and antisexuality of Soviet culture, as well as the taboo nature of publicly mentioning topics related to sex

  Let me remind you i have spent the best two+ decades of my career doing media research in advertising, and one of the first thing i have learned in this profession was "avoid generalizations". There are no "Russians" in general, the same way as there are no "Americans" or "Germans". So when somebody is writing ".... in the memory of Russians" without pointing out what demographic/social group he or she mean, you could immediately tell it is something wrong here.

     No doubt there is ultraliberal pro-Western elite in Russia who do have “There is no sex in the USSR”  ingrained in the memory (despite, as we now know, this words are not only fake, but not matching the fact of USSR having higher birth rate then modern Russia). But wast majority of Russians have another set of things ingrained in their memory, so now Westerners like you complain about popularity of Stalin in Russia, and increasing dislike of West.

[Stefan Kotsch]

15 minutes ago, Roman Alymov said:

But wast majority of Russians have another set of things ingrained in their memory

Yes, that's right. We can see that from their trail of blood in Ukraine.

[Yama]

4 hours ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

You have brought the cliché to life.

The phrase “There is no sex in the USSR” is often used in Russia to refer to the prudery and antisexuality of Soviet culture, as well as the taboo nature of publicly mentioning topics related to sex

Sounds equivalent to "No sex please, we're British".

[Roman Alymov]

19 hours ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

We can see that from their trail of blood in Ukraine.

You can see it in the same sources that tell you about "There is no sex in the USSR”  "ingrained in the memory of Russians"?

[Stefan Kotsch]

2 hours ago, Roman Alymov said:

You can see it in the same sources that tell you about "There is no sex in the USSR”  "ingrained in the memory of Russians"?

If you ask like that. Yes, somehow they are all connected. The extreme intolerance towards every citizen who is simply different, who thinks differently than the government. And the will to punish everyone who is different. And even with violence.

And the intolerance towards neighboring countries that have to submit to the Kremlin's will. Otherwise, the Russian army will bring death and ruin to its neighbors.

Hell, go back home and enjoy your patriotic KGB dictatorship exclusively within your own Russian borders. In this case that's your own business.

Edited December 1, 2024 by Stefan Kotsch

[Roman Alymov]

11 hours ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

If you ask like that. Yes, somehow they are all connected. 

Thank you, that is enough.

[Roman Alymov]

Alternative view on Russian economy situation

 

[Roman Alymov]

On 11/30/2024 at 7:18 PM, Yama said:

What I have heard (Roman undoubtedly can educate me if I'm wrong), sex education was pretty much nil in Soviet schools.

Not sure what is nill here, but i think we could safely compare it to one of Victorian-era British schools one. Soveit Union, after brief period of social experiments in 1920th, was very conservative, almost puritan society.

On 11/30/2024 at 7:18 PM, Yama said:

It's why I think it is so hilarious how 'Marxists' are blamed on sexual minority rights movements. Real world Communists and especially Soviet Union were aghast of those movements and thought they were dangerous.

Same goes for environmental movements btw, another myth which has somehow entrenched itself within 'conservative' circles.

Note "Marxists" you have in West by Soviet standards would be called "Trotskists" or "leftists". The branch that lost internal struggle inside USSR (de-facto continuation of Civil War) because they were too inpractical to really run the state with all complexity of it, but won in Western univercities where no need for practical result, only firy speeches required.

On 11/30/2024 at 9:36 PM, Yama said:

Of course you can make theoretical constructs like that, but in practise, most what the USSR leadership did about the LGBT movement in the West was look at it, then look at each other and nod "Yep, this decadence is surely a mark of imminent collapse of the capitalist world".

  

 

[JWB]

Muscovy continues its crackdowns on young Russians eligible for conscription. For instance, officials tried to break into the apartment of a 22-year-old student, cutting off the electricity entirely. When he came out, they forcibly took him to a medical examination. 

https://x.com/wartranslated/status/1863934344068538619

[Roman Alymov]

26 minutes ago, JWB said:

Muscovy continues its crackdowns on young Russians eligible for conscription. For instance, officials tried to break into the apartment of a 22-year-old student, cutting off the electricity entirely. When he came out, they forcibly took him to a medical examination. 

https://x.com/wartranslated/status/1863934344068538619

Who are "officials" - police? They do not care about draft and "medical examination". Recruitment officials? It is usually all-female office stuff headed by retired officer, and they do not have any legal ways to force somebody out of flat. May be the guy was drunk/under drugs and "they forcibly took him to a medical examination" to verify the fact (for example, after drunk driving of bothering neghbors by loud music/disbevavior)?