You talk to the people in the Slavlands and come away from the interaction thinking that these people really do live in a parallel universe. An informational vacuum would be a more accurate description though, I suppose. Most people my age in the big cities talk about moving to the West, but you can still see their eyebrows shoot up in surprise and fright when you drop even the most basic information about the West on them.
Here are some talking points that they have never been exposed to:
America is rapidly becoming majority non-White
White people - yes, that means you too, you’re White - are openly scorned and discriminated against in the West
People get arrested for protesting trannies groping children
You actually have to pay your taxes in the West. And yes, you will go to jail if you don’t. Fine, if you think I’m lying, go ahead and play games with the IRS.
You can’t bribe your way out of parking tickets. What do you mean “you can’t know if you don’t try?”
Denim jackets are not considered cool in the West
Western Liberals will consider you a Russian first and a Liberal second
People are fat and by fat I mean whoo boy are they FAT FAT FAT!
Fentanyl is cheap but it comes at a cost if you know what I mean … who am I kidding, you’re going to get hooked on fentanyl first chance you get aren’t you? lol. Kids these days, whattaya gonna do?
Can’t afford housing, rent’s too damn high
If you don’t make enough money to send your kids to private school, they’ll turn into wiggers
One in ten young’uns are Instagram vloggers, I don’t think you’re going to stand out enough to make a career out of it
With most people, these are the topics that I usually bring up when they give me that dull peasant stare and mumble out, “why you no go being West, you here no West why?” But, occasionally, a peasant fancies himself a smart’un and starts talking on a slightly higher level about politics.
“Did you know that our politicians are corrupt here?” they say, with a knowing smile on their faces. They’ve done a good job making it as far as they have, I suppose. But I’d argue that corruption isn’t really a relevant term or metric of anything thats going on seeing as what most people consider to be corruption is really part and parcel of the political process in any oligarchic system.
The above statement^, taken on its own, is beyond the understanding of even people who fancy themselves to be politically sophisticated. In other words, no one understands what corruption is, why it comes about and what to do about it. The tragedy of our time is that far more people than ever before are politicized, but fewer than ever before understand what politics is and how it actually works. That means, as far as I’m concerned, that the time has well and truly come to start talking about politics in a systematic way. We have to lay down a few basic ideas and define a few simple terms. By doing so, we will lay down a new political grammar - a useful heuristic for understanding perennial political processes that the layman can wrap his head around and use to inform his view of the world when working with limited or conflicting information.
Let’s start simple: what we consider to be visible politicking is just narcissistic ESFPs auditioning to represent the interests of business cartels with money and various scheming ethno-mafias. Businesses pay money to people in government to get a) contracts b) out of trouble c) put pressure on the competition or d) they’re being shaken down by the secret police.
When you build a society on the rule of money and money alone, people with money use their money to affect everything. Even the word “corruption” makes no sense in the context of this system because it implies a deviation from what ought to be the norm. As I keep trying to explain, oligarchical systems are built on the principle of corruption i.e., that those with money get to dictate policy. This is the goal that the various revolutionaries fought for, whether they know it or not. A different system, one based on titles and rank given for service to the state in one form or another used to be the norm. But this system was “corrupted” in the actual correct sense of the word when money started becoming the key to advancement in what was ostensibly an honor-based system. Nowadays, there is no point in talking about corruption as a process when we have already arrived at Corrupted - the society of the future, a state in which corruption is the norm and any attempt to actually address the cause of the corruption - the rule of money - is condemned … oftentimes by the very people who style themselves as anti-corruption activists.
No matter how many times a party or political candidate promises to do away with corruption, the problem never seems to go away. Ukraine is a great example that other Slavs could avail themselves of, if they actually cared about addressing the problem that is. The superficial character of the looting has changed depending on the results of the various maidans and elections, true. For example, the Party of the Regions people preferred stealing together with the American Republicans while the post-Maidan politicians preferred to work with the Bidens and Pelosis. One oligarch lost out and another cannibalized his holdings. Assets were swapped. Ministers rotated out of the government as one herd of chinovniks pushed out the previous gang and took their place at the same trough.
The best thing that we can say about this bardak is that it’s very democratic, at least.
Now, the truth of the matter, as proven numerous times in history, is that only a strongman can put an end to corruption. He achieves this feat not by installing cameras at voting stations or by inviting international NGOs to set up shop in his country, building the much-vaunted democratic institutions generously funded by Western intelligence agencies, for some reason. No, the autarch does away with corruption by destroying the power of the oligarchs - by stripping them of their assets or making a system in which their assets cannot be used to lobby for political power. The latter is what Putin has largely done - he made a deal with the oligarchs and told them to stay out of Kremlin-level politics, or else. To cement this, he leaned on the power of the various security agencies (bad) instead of appealing to the support of private capital (good).
Funny enough, most people believe that Putin should have gone all the way and nationalized their assets. These same people don’t seem to understand that doing this would make Putin a “despot” and that he’d then be accused of doing his job too well.
Me, I consider myself a true anti-corruption activist. Let’s go all the way, I say, and do away with corruption entirely. The only problem to consider is that once corruption is done away with, there will be no need for politics - no need to tolerate the constant jockeying for power of the various oligarchic clans because they, the source of corruption, will have been wiped out. The average person, having no need for political parties to defend their ill-gotten gains, will no longer be roped into supporting party politics. And, with no more party politics, there will be no one to fund the various oligarchic media projects which work to agitate and politicize the masses. Corporate journalists will find themselves out of work, forced to sell their bodies on the streets, as opposed to selling their souls in the office as they’re used to doing.
Being anti-corruption is also a dog-whistle if you really think about it. It means that you’re anti-oligarchy, which is itself a common manifestation of virulent antisemitism on the part of the goyish masses. And, finally, unbeknownst to yourself, being anti-corruption really just mean that you’re arguing for a transition to Authoritarian rule.
Ah, “but what about elections”, you say.
Well, populist right-wingers always seem to capture huge majorities in mass elections - especially in the Slavlands, don’t you agree? So, arguing for free and fair elections means supporting the rule of people like Lukashenko and Putin in a more roundabout way, really. Furthermore, the peasantry aren’t really as wedded to the concept of term limits and rotation of people in power as the small faction of ideological Republicans would like them to be. Hence the need for democratic institutions because left to their own devices, the people would let nature take its course and democracy would well and truly die in the darkness before the blinding light of a new authoritarian political era dawned.
Put simply: the peasants are fine with electing one guy one time and letting him stay in office indefinitely so that they can continue going about their lives freed from the burden of having to pretend to care about politics.
What I have outlined above is the concept behind a new series I’m working on with the working title: Remedial Politics. I hope to go into more detail on all of the topics that I brought up here - explaining things really work and what terms really mean.
By the end of the series, I hope to have set up a rudimentary new populist political grammar where terms like Authoritarianism, Oligarchy, Corruption, Elections, Ideology and so on actually have proper meanings attached to them and meaningful discussion is made possible instead of what we have now - uniformed peasants shouting meaningless slogans and buzzwords at one another.
I see you've had extensive experience with The Public.An awful thing to behold,like Cthulu or Boomers.
Speaking personally one of the most difficult things in having a discussion with somebody who is more or less a normie is that I didn't arrive at my world view yesterday,or last week or last year.World view formulation is an ongoing process of which I have been conscious and actively participating in for around 15 years.So when somebody asks ''what's your source for that'' I can recommend 150-200 core books and couple of thousand articles just to condense it,but I know for a fact they won't read them and if I keep talking they'll just ask for sources again.Not to mention that most often people don't argue the point that you're making but the point they think you're making or a point that they want you to make because it's easier for them to argue that instead of what you actually said.The Public in other words.John Carter did an excellent article on the problem of ''sauce now'' but it's a problem that can't be solved.The Public has been taught to react like a well trained dog to certain ideas and words and as you mentioned lives in an info vacuum.This is not exclusive to our slavic brethren as the situation is the same in the west with political and social discourse having all the grace and insight of a drunk donkey trying to eat a fig from a tree.Moreover simply introducing a large amount of information isn't going to change HOW they think about things so the result will just be more infighting and retardation,that is if they don't ignore it outright.
My world view (much lie yours I imagine) is the result of my heritage,outlook,experience and observation as well as all the material I've read.There's no way to convey that to someone in a quick argument.Especially if you're talking to someone that has mainstream opinions and is clearly lacking any historical context or knowledge.The Public is to be engaged at your own risk.
None of that is to discourage you from what you're doing BTW,just airing out frustration.
The other possibility, as you've pointed out elsewhere, is to democratize corruption and so ensure universal access to it. If the rich can buy their way out of legal and regulatory problems, we might as well have the same opportunity.
What we have now in the post-West is worst of all worlds. It's like the Pareto Catastrophe of corruption curves: maximal corruption at the top, but no corruption at the bottom. The poors have to live under the ugg boot of the managerial gynarchy, while the rich are freed from all constraints of law, morality, and custom.