Russia! Russia!! Russia!!!

[Smitty-48]

The Soviets did not actually practice equality of outcome, remember, Communism was aspirational, that's the future utopia that you will reach someday, everybody will be equal by then, the new men/women supermen/superwomen of the futuristic post scarcity spacefaring utopia, Star Trek basically, the Communist future was the Gene Roddenberry future.

But in the meantime, Socialism is the transitional stage, but even within the context of Socialism, the Soviets were elitists, there were those who best represented the ideal, astronauts, athletes, scientists, what have you, the showcase stars of the Potemkin Village, and then there was everybody else, everybody else was entitled to basic necessity, but the hand picked elite were entitled to more, and the Soviets made no bones about it.

The Soviet philosophy, was that you put all your efforts into the strong, and took resources away from the weak to give to the strong, that's how they fought wars, that's how they ran the society, whichever front is doing well, that's the front that gets the resources, the fronts which were not doing well, those you just write off, so that eventually, only the strong survive and the weak are just bred out of existence by Darwinian forces, the New Man Superman takes to a utopia amongst the stars, the old man weakman ceases to exist.

Communism is not in the now, it's in the future, and in the future, everybody is equal, because they're all superhumans, hand picked, but not everybody is going to get there, because in the now, the superhumans will weed out the weak, and in fact liquidate them, so that only the stong remain.

So the women in Soviet society who considered equal to the men, were only the hand picked superwomen who were equal to the hand picked supermen, but the regular women, they were inferior to the regular men, because the regular folk just hadn't been weeded out yet, and so the old weaknesses and disparity still remained, the Soviets were into blaming the weak for being weak, and rewarding the strong for being strong, make no mistake.

If you were a rigorously selected female operative for KGB Directorate S? Nobody messed with you, you could make them disappear and they well knew it, you were the hand picked elite, operating with impunity above the law, but if you were just some peasant women out on the collective farm: "make me a sammich, bitch."

Poeple in Soviet society strived to be in the elite, because that's where all the gravy was, the gravy was simply doled out by hand picked central planning rather than market forces. Worst of both worlds, no equality of outcome, and no equality of opportunity neither.

[ssu]

PUTIN BOTS UNITE

GET FUCKED FINNLANDERS

For the Texan bot:

[ssu]

The notion that Russia created all the social unrest, BLM/SJW'ers, alt-righters, etc. is nonsense if anyone suggests as much. They simply take advantage of social strife and unrest already in existence, and fan the flames of it as much as possible.

How Russia changes sides shows that they do this. Anyway, they've long time since let go of the idea that Trump could do them anything positive ...except just to get the White House to be dysfunctional.

You did the same thing to do them on several occasions back when it was the US that had the world's most succesful propaganda outlet(s). The 1956 Hungarian Uprising wasn't begun by Radio Free Europe, for example. But it escalated when RFE broadcasters started telling them that the US would "soon" send troops to held the rebels.

Actually, the US didn't. It didn't go for the jugular and start any propaganda campaigns inside Russia. It simply couldn't, even if it wanted to. The CIA couldn't at all help the insurgencies inside the Soviet Union in the post-WW2 era.

For the US best "propaganda" was something like the Marshall Plan and the Berlin Airlift.

One thing people perhaps don't understand that for Russia there isn't a clear separation between war and peace, friend of foe. Aggressive, rather hostile actions can be taken even when Russia is at peace with other countries. The US behaves only in a similar way when a country is a part of the "axis-of-evil", but then the US clearly shows it's negative feelings openly. For Russia actions that other countries would see as openly hostile are just part of their deterrence.

As they cannot match the US in firepower or economic muscle, hence they have to be shrewd and challenge the US asymmetrically. And hence large intelligence operations in the US. Quite good results likely for little money.

[BjornP]

You did the same thing to do them on several occasions back when it was the US that had the world's most succesful propaganda outlet(s). The 1956 Hungarian Uprising wasn't begun by Radio Free Europe, for example. But it escalated when RFE broadcasters started telling them that the US would "soon" send troops to held the rebels.

Actually, the US didn't. It didn't go for the jugular and start any propaganda campaigns inside Russia. It simply couldn't, even if it wanted to. The CIA couldn't at all help the insurgencies inside the Soviet Union in the post-WW2 era.

For the US best "propaganda" was something like the Marshall Plan and the Berlin Airlift.

One thing people perhaps don't understand that for Russia there isn't a clear separation between war and peace, friend of foe. Aggressive, rather hostile actions can be taken even when Russia is at peace with other countries. The US behaves only in a similar way when a country is a part of the "axis-of-evil", but then the US clearly shows it's negative feelings openly. For Russia actions that other countries would see as openly hostile are just part of their deterrence.

As they cannot match the US in firepower or economic muscle, hence they have to be shrewd and challenge the US asymmetrically. And hence large intelligence operations in the US. Quite good results likely for little money.

Actually, it's no secret that they did.

https://2001-2009.state.gov/documents/o ... /97929.pdf

Search for "Russia". They didn't to my knowledge have radio programs inciting revolts within Russia, sure, but their programming was obviously anti-Communist and aimed at underming the Russian people's trust in their government.

And you're right, they couldn't help inter-Soviet insurgencies. And to be fair, there's no evidence of a direct order by the CIA of the hosts being ordered to say that American help would be coming. Yet, a failed insurgency would also have been a propaganda victory. While it did take European Communists some time, after various hard crackdowns on anti-Soviet uprisings, Communists were slowly abandoning their automatic allegience to the Soviet Union. They instead embraced the idea of that the right Communist state had yet to arise, or looked to other countries (for some China, for others, even Israel - in its leftist kibbutz period).

[ssu]

Radio free Europe in Russian, yes.

Is that a true propaganda campaign? meh. Of course the old radio has one thing far better than today: it's not so easy to control and supervise as the internet. Americans actually noticed this only know when actually they stopped a lot of "Radio Free Something" type broadcasting.

Of course an open society looks to be more vulnerable to a smart propaganda campaign, but then on the other hand, people aren't so dumb in a country where you don't have free speach and a justice state.

What is telling is that when the Soviet Union did collapse, then Russians were genuinely feeling very positive about the US and quite open to America. That was the time when Dzerzhinsky's statue was toppled, not only the Lenin's. Yet American politicians lacked vision that it was the time to get the new Russia into the West, and that the opening would be very quickly be closing. After the NATO war in Kosovo the possibility of totally new good relations with the US were totally gone.

[kybkh]

QRD:

>Dems are wholly dependent on black voter turnout.
>Dems encourage black voter turnout through "community organizers" who take to the street to gin up anti-white sentiment starting in 2014 using Obama phones as a way to target specific markets.
>Dems get black folk so mad at whitey when they see HRC all they see is another whitey and start shooting cops.



"I mean you can only look at so many videos of cops shooting unarmed black people" (How do people see this videos? On the internet you say? How do blacks who live in poverty have regular access to the internet? Through Obama phones you say??)



>Blacks don't turnout because HRC is a whitey.
>Trump wins and now the Dem party is divided between "kill whitey's" and "hey, I got black friends".
>Dems must distance themselves from full on fomentation of race war leading up to 2016 because whytes see whats happening and decide its not cool.
>Dems blame Russians.

[TheReal_ND]

Would you fuck off with you crackpot Obama phone shit already? Nobody cares.

[kybkh]

Would you fuck off with you crackpot Obama phone shit already? Nobody cares.

Are you a Russian agent?

I've been thinking about the Cumming of Nukedog to the old DCF and how you changed the whole temperament of the board with your 4-Chan memes and racially divisive rhetoric and the way I see it, you fit the picture perfect definition of a KGB agent. Is your real name Igor?

[TheReal_ND]

There's a thread about nike sneakers you haven't posted about obama phones in

[kybkh]

There's a thread about nike sneakers you haven't posted about obama phones in

I'm working on it now you Slavic fuck.


(Front Row: ND 3rd from left)