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.
You would be providing a needed and valuable public service. Politics gets a bad name and yet it originally had a good meaning.The ancient Greeks understood the concept very well, it was simply the citizen carrying out his duty to his "polis".
"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." ...except everyone has to pretend that they think that social justice is important. Not a moment's peace!
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.
You would be providing a needed and valuable public service. Politics gets a bad name and yet it originally had a good meaning.The ancient Greeks understood the concept very well, it was simply the citizen carrying out his duty to his "polis".
Rolo Slavskiy ... or Alexey Arestovich? There seems to be a lot of overlapping between you two in the 'esteem for the masses' department:
https://southfront.org/zelenskys-adviser-there-are-no-normal-people-in-ukraine-they-are-stupid-brainless-manipulated/
"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." ...except everyone has to pretend that they think that social justice is important. Not a moment's peace!