[Without the Treaty of Westphalia would Islam have conquered Europe?]

1 hour ago, luxfelix said:

Slightly off-topic:

I wonder if history is repeating itself, both in the way that Turkey once again threatens Europe and in the historical alliance between France and the Ottomans (and a would-be alliance between Elizabeth I and Morocco?).

I think a better analogy for the Sun King would be Chancellor Merkel, and the Holy Roman Empire (and friends) would today be Russia, Poland, and Hungary. Greece is interesting because if they go full-fash they might be the cork that blocks out one avenue of attack, however the Greeks will most likely be thrown under the buss in this scenario.

[Without the Treaty of Westphalia would Islam have conquered Europe?]

1 hour ago, Donnadogsoth said:

Excellent, just what I was looking for.

Thank you, Siegfried.

You're welcome. 

[Without the Treaty of Westphalia would Islam have conquered Europe?]

2 hours ago, Donnadogsoth said:

The Thirty Years War (1618-48) was a nasty and weakening affair for Europe.  It couldn't  have helped Europe in its ongoing contest with the Ottoman Empire.  Thirty-five years after the signing of the Treaty of Westphalia based on the principle of "advantage of the other" which allowed that beleaguered Europe to rebuild and replenish itself, the Ottoman Empire besieged Vienna.  They were repulsed by the Christian defenders, but I ask, would that repulsion have occurred had the peace of Westphalia not been secured?  If Europe had remained convulsed with war for many more years, never having a chance to rally itself to the degree of unity needed to fight off the Turks, would it have fallen?  Did the Treaty of Westphalia save Christendom?

A very great topic I haven't tackled in a long while, or at least the era. 

Quite simply, this is akin to asking "If the Western Powers hadn't formed NATO after WWII, would the Soviet Union have been able to curb-stomp the fragmented Western Europeans into oblivion?" since the Thirty Years War was arguably the WWII in terms of human destruction and fear of the era, but perhaps greater since it lasted thirty years with massive reversals and dramatic turnarounds being the norm, especially between the Holy Roman Empire and the Scandinavians. 

I think the answer is...a bit nuanced. I'm sure if the Austrian-led Empire hadn't regained the faith of its vassals, and a "break" from the terrible war, but rather kept the hostilities going between North and South, and East and West, then the Ottomans probably would have conquered the Christians in Eastern and Central Europe. The most decisive factor in the Empire's victory against the Sultanate was the rescue of the Capital by the Poles, who were basically the badass over-powered controller-breaking cheat-code-enablers of the time. Their power, faith, and intelligence saved Vienna and sent back the Muslims who'd have otherwise plundered the Capital and used it as a platform to seize and threaten the rest of Europe. 

Not to mention the ethnic-French Prince Eugene of Savoy was definitely a decisively positive factor in leading the Empire to victory as Generalissimo. If the French had still been hostile to the Germans (well they were actually, in fact I think they were at war with the Germans at this time so never mind)...well, I know getting the North Germans secure and the Eastern Europeans (a.k.a. the badass Europeans that save the day when the rest need it apparently) was foundational to the Holy League's victory against the invaders. 

It can be said if the Empire stood alone and fragmented, without its Christian allies and with continued death, it would have failed to save Europe. 

[Song of Generation Z]

I chanced upon this song, and realized how with just a few changes in names and words--switch out the Polish names with the names of infamous modern politicians and American/European cities--this song basically fits the mentality of many of my young generation, growing up cynically in this world of where a preacher says one thing while preparing to shiv you in the ribs. 

I was curious as to what people think, both of this song and the rebellious nature of it. It's supposed to be a Polish anti-Communist song, but really with a few modifications to the lyrics it'd just as easily be the song of the modern White boy. 

"Czerwona Holota: Polish Anti-Communist Song"

[Why do people accept violence because ''if they kill us, we win'']

9 hours ago, Magnetic Synthesizer said:

 

Posted on #ancap_discussion of r/ancap linked discord

 

 

 

My thoughts? I think most young "principled" people, at least ones who think like this, have a suicide/martyr fantasy that arises from childhood neglect and a desire for both attention and recognition. I have no evidence to substantiate this claim, therefore take it with a big bag of salt, but it seems logical to assume the type of people who'd want to become martyrs for "muh principles" would either be people who want positive attention...badly; or happen to have grown up in some extremely principled environment (like Islam, as an example of a "principle" that'd encourage suicide to strengthen itself) wherein the parents took their actions and the possibility of their own blood for their cause very seriously.

That's where I assume this whole "if I die for muh Muhthaland, maybe I'll die a hero..." mentality comes from, although I could also say it comes from Stockholm syndrome (an abusive government beating its subjects into subservience) or a more fundamental desire to be a hero (perhaps a boy for example growing up with a single mom hearing the typical "shadow penis that goes crazy" garbage excuse story).

As for whether it's better to die with "muh principles" or send the enemy to their graves...well, I'm old school to the Biblical degree here; if the enemy marches in the streets napalming cops, we ought to march in the streets beating them back with batons and shafts. We should meet force with greater force until the enemy is utterly destroyed; if they refuse to debate us and fight us legally, then they're inviting us to rob them of all their civil liberties and impose the most primal of moral laws; the laws of the jungle. 

However I ought to mention: the idea of meeting force with greater force is not a moral principle; it is a practical response to a situation in which morality has been stripped, i.e., a situation in which principles and ideals alone are no longer valid. 

Naturally if at all possible I'd rather we end such a scenario peacefully, with a diplomatic talk, however history tends to favor heavily the side with greater force and numbers in ending these terrible conflicts.

[Oliver Stone's Putin Interviews]

2 hours ago, Wuzzums said:

Ever since I was a kid Putin was my favorite world leader until Trump came along. I may not like Russia but I do like him though for different reasons than yours. The guy is basically mini Lex Luthor with a sense of humor. As someone who lives outside of Russia, how could you possibly not like him?

I was wondering about Oliver Stone's last question about Putin stepping down as head of state. I don't think that will ever, ever happen. Russia had a glorious past which was destroyed by communism. From a major world power (even culturally) it became the bud of jokes. Putin gave back Russia its dignity. In what other country do the people wear the face of their political leader on their shirts as if he's some rockstar? What other political candidate could possibly compete with that? Not to mention that I cannot think of a single instance in all his years as ruler where he fucked up or did something embarrassing.

The american left hails Obama as some stable, well balanced leader and accuse Putin of being a dictator. All this while Putin's approval ratings were twice as big, literally twice as big as Obama's.

Another thing. I have noticed that for 2 years or so Putin's pretending he doesn't speak English. He speaks english. I remember this meeting he had with Obama in the Kremlin and Putin didn't bother hiring a translator for Obama. Putin said he would act as translator. Obama went into a minute long speech about platitudes and whatnot and Putin just translated it as (paraphrasing): "President Obama just said a bunch of nonsense trying to convince me of this or that."

Or the epic dog prank he played on Merkel. Good times.

Or him breaking a world record because he was too bored to listen to Japan's president.

Come to think of it he did it again during the last interview. When he brings Oliver Stone a cup of coffee and flat out tells him he didn't add any sugar in it, knowing fully well how Stone takes his coffee. His torture methods during the KGB era must've been pretty unconventional.

Lol some amusing stuff, although I'm sure he didn't meant to scare Merkel with the dog thing (frankly her fear of dogs is the only thing I can relate with to her), nor spook Stone with the coffee. I just think that was an amusing way of saying "hey buddy you're not the boss here" since the opening shot was itself a blooper story about filming a potential commercial shot. 

Lol to the pen thing and the Obama thing. Never knew.

I know he's really popular, and while he may be the only one in current times with that level of popularity, there have been rulers that popular in previous history, although whether it's all love or a mix of fear (speaking of historically popular rulers) is hard to fully gauge. 

Heck, I wish he was my ruler and that he'd declare himself Tsar Vladimir, Supreme Autocrat of All Russia etc. etc. Unfortunately he has no sons and his grandsons are distant given his business. 

[Ready for our "Easy Rider"]

1 hour ago, DaVinci said:

I personally wouldn't consider Stefan to be an exception, though I'll admit that is just my view of it. I think Jordan Peterson is way more of an exception to the right being creative than Stef. After having watched so many of Stef's videos JBP by contrast is way more charming. Granted that's my personal view of it, but I think the growth of JBP's channel is a testament to the attractiveness of his personality. I bet he's going to catch up with Stef quick in terms of subscribers. 

I think I saw an interview of him and Jordan Peterson once, I don't remember much but I remember liking it. I'll have to give him some of my time before I can fairly judge him, but on Stefpai, I know it's all mostly subjective, but I'd have to say he's very effective considering how obscure AnCap is to the general populace and how much more strides he's making in so short a time relative to AnCap's pioneers and other Libertarian circles. 

[The Modern Antagonist]

8 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

1. By "conservative", of course I mean "traditional", not necessarily american or british conservatiove. In other words, socially conservative. You may not be old enough, but there used to movies and shows up until about 2005, in which there were heroes and villains of the traditional sort. Shawshank Redemption, officially the best movie ever, and if we bring in kids shows, then Transformers, Voltron, even the earlier Power Rangers... 

I did watch Shawshank Redemption, though I wouldn't say there are any "antagonists" unless you count the corrupt prison warden who was both an ally (insofar he helped out the protagonist i exchange for "bookkeeping") and an enemy (because he planned on keeping the protagonist his eternal laundering slave--or something like that, I can't remember too well). 

Socially conservative, as in K-selected right? Again I can't say I know of many modern film works that portray K-selected badguys. Perhaps you can give some examples, otherwise this whole idea that the modern bad guy is a conservative is totally baseless. It may be true, but without evidence it's just a claim.

 

8 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

2. Sadly, I have stopped watching anime since Yu-Gi-Oh for the very reason I that I based my thread on, so I am poorly equiped to discuss anime.
What I have discovered though, is that Japanese, Korean and Russian works still more or less go by the traditional hero and traditional villain. However, they have been going decadent for a while too.

Like I said, not all anime is for kids. However I can't talk about Korean or Russian film as I don't know much about them, save of course for the sex filled movies that exist in the restricted Korean and Japanese film that I come across the occasional late night.

8 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

3. I deliberately did not reference any western examples, because it would have seemed like I was guided by confirmation bias. I just wanted to see if this theory holds up in the minds of others as well.
One worthy example I should give is when I saw a footage of a BLM "protest", where some pretentious woman literally started quoting the Hunger Games. And it is also common knowledge that Harry Potter is a leftie favourite.

Given we live in Western Civilization (well you're a bit different but I assume here is where you're talking about), Western film is what matters most in talking about the "modern antagonist". Few people watch film from all over the world regularly and there is no internationally common zeitgeist for movies; tastes and depth differ by region. Though I ought to comment: you didn't mention any examples. 

I don't understand the point of mentioning a terrorist citing the Hunger Games, or Harry Potter. The first's antagonist was basically Stalin, though he had children in the books they weren't ever portrayed and nothing personal to him is mentioned, and Harry Potter's antagonist is/was an angsty teenager from a screwed up  background that somehow becomes an evil monster Nazi thing. 

I like Harry Potter as a book series and somewhat as a show series (even though Rowling is stark raving mad), but its antagonists weren't very interesting beyond as fear factor. Frankly the mystery of not knowing who Voldemort is was much more interesting than discovering he's basically Satan or something and then somehow Nazis got involved. Mind you I vaguely remember the ending or middle parts of the books/movies, so take all my criticism of the antagonist with a bag of salt.  

 

8 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

4. Yes, eastern villains still tend to be someone we cannot stand with, since they are truly evil and unappealing.

Which is why they're good, because they're so evil and repulsive. 

8 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

5. As for western villains, yes, that is exactly the problem. They actually attract more fans than the heroes do. Best case is probably Star Wars, in which everyone wants to be on the side of Darth Vader, and not the cliché-men. If you actually think about it, they are so terrible at selling us how evil the empire is, that their own rebel merchandise hardly sell off of shelves in comparison to empire merchandise.

The "evil empire" is just a side show for the badass "Dark Daddy" and the psycho here is the neutral mask of the watcher putting himself into the wonky world of Star Wars. I can't say I like it, and while I used to somewhat like it as it broke my Sci-Fi virginity, it pales in comparison to the epic Legend of the Galactic Heroes, which is a grand case study for Autocracy versus Republicanism with lots of moral and human weight behind it. If you can find it, I strongly recommend a binge of it. 

8 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

6. We can actually witness the metamorphosis of the conservative villain through the James Bond series, in which the villain gets progressively more attractive, organised, refined, interesting, with stark contrast to the hero, who has been becoming a borderline rapist sociopathic murderer throughout the franchise.

I haven't seen much Bond in a while, but I wouldn't call him a rapist (even borderline) since the slut he bangs always enjoys and accepts it. Sociopath and all that is plenty deserved, since he's pretty much a boring stereotype of the emotionless ageless badass at this point with no redeeming characteristics besides a leitmotif and cinematic gadgetry. 

All in all I have to wonder where this claim comes from; I don't know of any main bad guys in Western film or TV with conservative values. I specify Western because we're talking about Modern Western Antagonists. 

However I emphasize the greatness of Far Eastern (specifically Japanese) film in having depth and creativity and a sense of culture that is sorely lacking in Western film. 

 

 

 

 

[Ready for our "Easy Rider"]

Just now, DaVinci said:

To be fair, ideas are easy to come up with. Executing on ideas is what is hard, and the better you want your thing to turn out the more work you have to put in.

True; most idea die with their idealists because they often go undone and un-acted upon. That's why I put in the work every day to ensure I can publish what I'm making, and affect the culture accordingly. The tricky part isn't necessarily doing it, but rather making sure I put myself in the situation to do it. 

Just now, DaVinci said:

I think any right leaning film in the realm of something like Easy Rider would be incredibly difficult to pull off. That's in part because people on the right aren't very creative. Not that they aren't creative at all. Just that they aren't anywhere near as creative as people on the left typically are. That's why the "message" of a right leaning film would probably come across to audiences as pretentious, proselytizing, and just plain old boring. It's a failing of the right in general. They know how to speak truthfully, but not in a way that has style, which is appealing and draws people in. 

The biggest exceptions being Ayn Rand and Stefan, however the fact there are so few in recent history gives credence to your claim. I could argue it's not the weight of many actors of culture that revolutionizes culture, but rather the weight of the few that make the difference. Shakespeare is one guy and yet his works remain with us to this day, and who can say how much of modern English and culture was affected by that one man?

That's why I consider it something of an honor to be both able to affect culture and a Rightist, for I can do far more than most in our camp for this part of our struggle. I encourage all who are skilled at what they do to practice what they do for not only our cause, but for the sake of themselves and their children. Fundamentally our's is a cause for the children. Our children.  

[Oliver Stone's Putin Interviews]

On 6/18/2017 at 5:26 PM, SnapSlav said:

(Still learning this site's formatting, this probably won't look quite how I want it to.)

Well for me, these were people that did not have the "muh Russia" narrative as an argument, because this was pre-election days, when that story didn't even exist. Maybe they've changed and now they've added that to their repertoire, but that only means they've gotten worse. The point is, all they ever had was insults, not arguments. Bring up the name "Putin" and the argument ends a few words later, and those few words are always some kind of dismissal of Putin as something he's not... like a Communist, or a baby-killer, or whatever they'd absorbed from The Daily Show like everyone else. What's worse, is these were the GOOD people. They were the BEST of what's to be found here in Southern California.

Ah, so that's where you live. 

 

On 6/18/2017 at 5:26 PM, SnapSlav said:

I can remember that one argument in particular, they kept moving their goal post whenever I'd disprove something negative they had to say about Trump. He didn't build his business empire, he inherited it all from Daddy Trump. So I explain how his inheritence was split between him and his siblings, and even then it was a tiny fraction of his net worth, decades after he's already built his business empire. Well he's never succeeded at anything, really, all he has to his name are failures. I bring up the wild number of his business holdings compared to the tiny fraction of bankruptcies he's used. Well he's a bafoon anyway. So what difference does it make whether you like his personality or not, that's not a qualifier for the position. Well he has no one in the international sphere who support him. What are you talking about, Putin praises him! THE COMMUNIST? He starts laughing, then says he's gotta go, we can't keep talking. I mean, I guess that's a good thing, cause were it not for the Putin button, that "conversation" might've just kept going in circles of them saying something false, then just saying something else false when corrected, rather than admit that maybe- just maybe -they're wrong.

Well, most people are sheep made to be led, not to be debated or argued with. Now in the future we can encourage critical thinking and make it so more people can argue rationally, but even then I'm sure most people wouldn't be really arguing, but rather stating and parroting whatever dogma they fixed themselves onto. It'll be a multi-generational process to fix that in people and make people into what is needed for society to really blast off into the stars.

 

On 6/18/2017 at 5:26 PM, SnapSlav said:

If I go to church (where the best political discussions are to be found... no joke), you might find some people who don't love Putin, but I haven't heard anyone make baseless assertions like what I'm used to from everywhere else.

Can't say I'm surprised. I may not be practicing Roman Catholic (i.e. I don't think much of whether God's real, but rather care more for the historical principles and arguments and their effects) but I have found myself enjoying the religious (even the stupid religious, the kind that were just raised to be so rather than made themselves so) far more than the valueless and the baseless. Christianity is, as the last Pope said, the religion of reason and evidence. Real Christians are far more likely to argue factually and with reason than fair-weather Christians or atheists.

On 6/18/2017 at 5:26 PM, SnapSlav said:

I'm just so tired of hearing the empty accusations of "Russian interference" with the greatest of convictions, without ANY substance or backing, that seeing these interviews was a breath of fresh air. Naturally that means they'll never be publicized...

Don't worry, I'm sure millions will see it over time. Ads are flying on YouTube now, and I'm sure both Righties and Lefties, as well as the fence-sitters, will eat it up. It may not make a lot of converts and spark a lot of important questions, but for those it does it may be just enough to push society in the right direction. The power of one man impacted by something like this cannot be underestimated, for history is more often than not the work of the few rather than the many.

 

On 6/18/2017 at 5:26 PM, SnapSlav said:

Hmm, I guess I was under the impression that it'd function much like HBO's service HBO Go, in that I'd need to have Showtime and then sign up to their online site and then this and then that, and it's stuff like this being SO much less convenient than simply firing up the ol' tubes and looking up what I want to see that's led me to stop watching TV as a whole (with few exceptions). But I'll give that a looking into for sure! =D

Enjoy 

 

On 6/18/2017 at 5:26 PM, SnapSlav said:

I can remember first getting into anime, and I was of course introduced to the various shows by their English dubs. Back then if you wanted to watch something when it wasn't airing, your only option was VHS, and that meant whatever version was on the tape was what you watched, no configuring or changing language or subtitle settings, so it took me a while of hearing "dubbing's bad, originals are better" but once I saw a couple clips on the internet in Japanese, I HAD to get the subtitled versions on VHS. Then once DVDs came into style, I was already acclimated to watching in the original audio and reading subtitles. Fast forward a couple years later when I could half-speak Japanese, and I made a habit of translating my own viewing, correcting the translators for what I felt was a sloppy job. All these years later, I just find subtitling something in a foreign language to be the better representation, whether for accuracy's sake like with these interviews, or for art's sake like replacing the immortal Keith David's amazing voice with something... eminently inferior. Either way, it's gotta be subtitles. The original is the original, it's how it was meant to be experienced, and when it come's to accuracy, you can't beat original interpretation.

Mostly agreed. I find anime dubbing nowadays to be of much higher quality than back when I was a toddler (note: I am 19, so I'm comparing modern-ish anime to the late 90's and early 2000's).  Some of the anime, like Inuyasha, I grew up with dubs and therefore am emotionally invested enough in the dubs to like it more even though it is of less quality than the original. However with most new anime I watch, I usually watch it in Japanese with subtitles unless the English was done really well, in which case...well, I find dubbing to be more decisively favorable in video games where reading while playing may not be ideal, such as Final Fantasy XV (which I've played/am playing with subs not dubs, contrary to my case, but I can't change now that I'm used to the Japanese voices).

 

On 6/18/2017 at 5:26 PM, SnapSlav said:

What little Russian I could understand (because Serbian and Russian share some words, but it's like translating Portuguese using Spanish as your base... it's workable, but it's not an accurate translation by any means) left me the impression that the audible translator in the background and the (mostly) matching subtitles were accurate.

Ah, so you're a Serb? I wasn't too sure if Serbs considered themselves Slavs, but I guess if you do than most do. 

 

On 6/18/2017 at 5:26 PM, SnapSlav said:

I WISH such topics were the norm of your average news hour, and thus the average thought passing through your average American mind when the subject of Russia or Putin comes up. It would make for a much more stimulating conversation. I think there's an abundance of minutia to get lost in when debating the ethics of siding with this country or that country against this threat or that threat, without having to resort to the bullshit narratives like "Russian intervention in our election". Debating whether or not Iran should be allowed to pursue nuclear technology so they can create nuclear reactors to power their industry and move their society into the future is all by itself a massive debate to be had, cause there's the question of that technology falling into the wrong hands, whether their intentions are even to use it like they promise or if they'd really rather make good on their threats to Israel than anything else, etc etc etc, and that's just ONE debate on ONE topic. But asking your average individual to not go with the flow and not resort to the personal attacks and instead hold fast to the ideals of integrity as they hash out differences in healthy debate is a heavy labor of questionable value. You might just had better luck demolishing a brick wall with your fists.

Well, arguing is meant for smart people who lead the dumb people. I focus on people who are smart in my life, and welcome smart and conscientious people into my life, as they are far more likely to make a positive impact on the world than the sheeple who eat grass, make babies, then go to sleep.

 

On 6/18/2017 at 5:26 PM, SnapSlav said:

I find that to be a bit of a double-edged sword, however. To fall back on a gaming anecdote, Fallout: New Vegas... 

Hey man, I love that game... 

On 6/18/2017 at 5:26 PM, SnapSlav said:

 

....is a remarkable work of art, which I was reminded of regarding the idea of a reliable strongman such as Putin. In FONV, you're faced with choosing sides in a coming war, and none of your 4 options seems like the best choice, but most people would see the faction of Caesar's Legion as the obvious "these are bad guys, so no thank you" bad ending choice. Except... when you meet Caesar, he's an AMAZING orator, you feel the pressure of his presence but at the same time honored to be speaking to him, and for a while, you forget all the evil you've seen committed in his name. You begin to think "You know, I think the Legion might just be the right choice!" It took another wise character (who's lived through many wars and seen it all) to crack the spell when he explained to me that, while Caesar has his line of succession all selected already, everybody's just following Caesar's orders, not Caesar's vision itself, and once he dies, his vision dies with him. Sure enough, one of the many endings for the game sees a split in the Legion after Caesar's death, and it breaks apart into disputing groups vying for power; it never continues the grander legacy that Caesar himself intended.

Very true, although as a personal anecdote, I joined Caesar and made myself his designated heir, thereby securing the future with a hereditary monarchy rather than a shaky dictatorship. A big of a tangent: I'd argue dictatorships/countries being led by the vision of the few can be sustained if the leaders impart unto their children and heirs their vision, and I'd argue it'd last for a few centuries (not forever since States can never last for too long) with a new early Roman Empire golden age. 

However I do agree that for the most part, societies doing well in the moment are often driven by the greatness of the few or the one and therefore cannot last for much longer than the founding fathers. However if the leaders were good parents, then their kids could take over and that would greatly extend the lifespan of the visionary. In the game's world, I'd argue Mr. House is the best because as a rather autocratic Objectivist visionary (I know that's somewhat contradictory, but I'd argue it's feasible since to be a "good" Objectivist dictator the ruler must be laissez faire and not interventionist, i.e. set up the foundation and keep the borders safe then let the ant farm thrive on its own) he combines a grand vision with immortality. It will never die so long as Mr. House remains, for he can forever be the "God" of the new and better world. I'd say I enjoy his ideal the best for this reason, although I think Caesar's is the most realistic to happen and potentially the most salvageable since a good ruler who is a good father can make all the positive difference. 

 

 

On 6/18/2017 at 5:26 PM, SnapSlav said:

Unlike the fictional Caesar's Legion, modern-day Russia isn't committing extremes of evil like going around enslaving their neighbors and absorbing them into their growing mass. But the greater view of their leader is just as bleak, like the aforementioned allegations of killing reporters. Regardless of how much or how little blood may or may not be on Putin's hands, Russia is being held together by Putin's commanding leadership. But that strength and vision comes at a terrible cost of vanishing once he's gone. Who will take up the reigns to pick up after he either finally retires or sheds his Earthly coil? Grooming a successor hasn't gone so well in the past. I worry that Russia will fall on very hard times when Putin's gone. With any luck, that will not be the case, but...

True, as Putin was a poor father and I don't know if he's got a good successor groomed (and I wouldn't leave it to the sheeple to elect a new ruler; that rarely ever works, and when it does, it never lasts).  He may since Yeltsin groomed Putin and that worked out very well. I'd argue if Putin is as good a judge of character as the old dictator, then he can find a good young man to take his place as well. However I don't know  if that'll actually happen, however history is favorable to those who can impart their legacy successfully upon a trustworthy successor. Think the Martel Family of the ancient French Kingdoms (a.k.a. "Francia" or "Frankreich"), the Caesar Clan of the Late Republic/Early Empire periods, and the Marshal Sima Yi of ancient China, to his ruler the posthumously declared Emperor Cao Cao. 

Also remember; man lives not for his government, but in spite of his government. America's golden age took place largely in the North and in spite of the Government that wished to pursue the suicidal slavery agenda which destroyed the Southern economy and the Whites that lived down there. The Roman golden age had some pretty batty Caesars in charge, however they were a benign cancer since they didn't affect much the well-meaning and insightful citizen. Then of course there is the golden age of the British Empire having incompetent Kings and petty Parliamentarians, as well as the rebellious Dutch golden age with very vocal political parties and internal disunity. In spite of the struggles on high, the producers of society enjoyed a good living and the parasites were gnawing each other to death. 

Russia has a bright future; for Putin has secured it, like Pinochet Chile. Chile may be Socializing, but by the time their policies destroy Chile they'd have had a good 100 years and in that time wise and fruitful Chileans can still change it or at least delay it to prolong the good times. 

That all said, it is up to us to ensure society is as good as we can make it for our progeny, and ignore if not banish those that would harm them. 

 

 

 

 

[Ready for our "Easy Rider"]

1 hour ago, RamynKing said:

Thanks for the robust reply! Lot's to digest.

Lol I have been called verbose before... 

Quote

Where can I read some of your writing? (I hope it's not that one fiction novel that an FDR person put out some months back that I haven't gotten around to yet!)

My writing? Let's just say I know a guy, and he's really into my ideas, and when that guy publishes the novel he's been spending five years on since middle school, I'll be the first to share it on FDR to both generate feedback and funds for this good friend of mine. 

 

Quote

I'm impressed you find it so easy to come up with these ideas. I'm familiar with the things you mentioned, but when I run them through my mind for entertainment purposes, I run into my walls. I worry about it coming off as square, or pretentious, or boring, or even just way too open to leftists namecalling. I can see the reviews: "RamynKing's new christian climate-denier film is sure to delight Alt-Right White Supremacists, but for actual humans, stay far, far away from this steaming pile of trash."

Quite simply, you have to change your mindset. I used to be a radical Leftist back when I was first exposed to it in early high school (note: I am 19, so I was 14-15 when I was a Leftist) and therefore know what kinds of "the means are always justified by the ends" kinds of guys they really are, and know what kind of childhoods they've had and what their real motivations for being virtue-signalling Redshirts are. 

Like I said I've been writing for a long time, pretty much ever since I got bored in middle school 'cause I'd always finish my assignments quickly then retreat to the caverns of my imagination until the bell rang. I don't know how or why I'm good at coming up with ideas for film and literature, I just am, and I'm heavily inspired by a lot of things ranging from the Stefpai to my old dogmas to Objectivism, to my own personal fantasies as a troubled kid. 

I've always been an outcast (at least until I started self-knowledge and all that) and am therefore immune to peer ostracism or non-productive criticism, unless it comes from someone I highly respect and consider an authority it some way.  If I were to hypothetically write something with deep Rightist themes, I'd start off humble but once I became famous for it I'd follow the new path of self-publishing and self-promoting. Traditional publishing is a good way to get famous; modern self-publishing is a good way to both make good money and make a positive impact on the world. 

 

Quote

Of course, that's kind of what makes it edgy. If you can make a story that just makes so many people explode in puritanical rage, then you've got potential on your hands.

We'll see if my friend does or not, we're both eagerly doing our utmost to ensure it's well-written and has what I intend to be the point at the forefront rather than something unintended. 

Quote

Also, if easy rider somewhat capitalized on a timely motorcycle trend, which is not hedonistic in itself, what current trend could a conserva-cool story utilize? I'm imagining someone in an air-conditioned mini-SUV sitting in traffic listening to jordan peterson on youtube and my cool-o-meter is plummeting.

Conserva-cool for my generation is men marching in the streets chanting "Die Islam; Viva Europa". We're highly cynical of the elders that screwed us over and am hungry for violent change to both secure for ourselves a future and spite the parasites. However we're not all in agreement about what to do after that; we stand the risk of repeating the mistakes of the past and becoming the new Fascists or Communists (what's the difference, really).  That's why my friend want's to make sure people have Stefanist principles in mind before they start going crazy and doing radical things that may or may not affect change for the better. We're hot and angry, but we're not wise nor tempered. 

 

Quote

You may have a point about your K-selected nature. I know a large part of me was wrestling with somewhat R-selected upbringings for a long time. I was a hedonist and a nihilist and had to overcome all of that.

To some degree I sympathize; I was always K-selected but I had Leftist ideals, I was odd amongst the Leftists I knew because of this. Eventually when I stopped holding my ears and wishing for a Papa Stalin to save the day, I grew up and became a blank-slate Nationalist, then NatCap, then AnCap. I still have growing to do, but I think I've made the most radical changes in my personal view of the world and political beliefs I am ever going to have already. 

Quote

 

Maybe this hurdle about what is cool is another step on that journey. Or maybe sometimes you just have to put something out there and say: NO, this is what's cool now!

That, to some degree, is the attitude. But attitude must be met with meat. Why is a philosopher putting his hand in front of the mob cool? Because it shows his bravery and integrity; Joan of Arc is famous and beloved because she martyred herself for France, her courage and love of the French people and the Catholic Church being her (at least from what I know) guiding principles. 

Likewise peaceful parenting and the deep connections between good parents and children, as well as good spouses with each other, are very "cool" when explored in depth for how great they can be. Imagine if you were a child of a single mom without a good personal role model; wouldn't you love  to see what it'd be like for a man with integrity and foresight to be your guiding father, and a woman with empathy and wisdom to be your guiding mother? Imagine if you were a young adult, around my age, in this environment where it seems like all girls are trash and all guys are idiots; wouldn't you love to see an alternative where the wise and K-selected do what they do best? Wouldn't you be warned, if you were not so wise, if you saw what happens from the spectator's seat what the r-selected do and what kind of families they produce? And at the end of it all, the good K-selected reign supreme for their unity, values, and foresight? These ideas, and the hunger for these ideas, as well as creation into reality of these ideas, are very powerful and I am certain that, like Paul Joseph Watson said, Conservatism is the the new punk. Rightism and K-selection is the new ideal to counter the disgusting hypocrisy of the r-selected mob-ruled State.

 

 

EDIT: Heck, study Hitler for how to make counterculture cool. Hans Westmar deified Horst Wessel and made the guy dying for the cause of Nationalism against Communism cool; his speeches often spoke for public charities and the building of strong families; and his goons were made of guys fed up with Socialism and the fragmented family. While they certainly failed royally in solving these problems (I don't need to explain how they failed; persecuting Jews and WWII being the big easy pointers with their slightly altered Communism being the more subtle one) they succeeded in rallying people against the problems and doing something about them. Their films, though old, were pretty good. I watched Hans Westmar back when I used to think this was a good idea, and enjoyed it very much for the human drama of the guy who was raised well and risks himself for his people. While the true story isn't so noble, the principles were there and I enjoyed it.

The bad guys know how to make their ideas popular; I'm not suggesting nor doing anything new in saying how to make Rightism and K-selection popular, I just happen to know how the bad guys and old good guys did it. 

 

 

[Ready for our "Easy Rider"]

2 hours ago, RamynKing said:

Bill Whittle had mentioned that Easy Rider was the big turning point that signaled the shift from the Right to the Left culturally. 

Now that "conservatism is the new counterculture," I'm wondering what the Rightist Easy Rider would look like. (Easy Righter?) (Uber Driver?) (Anarchy Self-Driving Car?)

Easy Rider sold a certain set of values in a cool package. Could the same be done in the other direction? One wouldn't have recreational drug use, free love, cross-country advenure, or wild fashion to offer up as fun incentives.

Maybe it's because I'm K-selected, but I don't find them to be at all fun incentives, and I've grown up in a very Leftist berg. Perhaps Easy Rider mainly only appealed to the r-selected of the times?

 

2 hours ago, RamynKing said:

The right also doesn't have stereotypical boogie men like rednecks in pickup trucks and cops to get fictionally oppressed by in a movie.

We have Antifa, the Red Guard, the SJW, the Divorce Corps, etc. It's not hard to invent fictional villains based on real ones. According to Wikipedia the move ends with rednecks killing the heroes; an easy parallel would be Antifa stormtroopers singing the Internationale while napalming the protagonists. I doubt any viewers will be sympathetic of the Leftists when their terrorist wings are publicized on cinema and are used as the cause for the hero's downfall.

Heck if I were a film writer I'd make a character duo like Stef and Mike the main characters, using the framework of Easy Rider made Rightist. Basically the Philosopher Kings would be a pair of activists seeking to be both the figurative and literal man shouting in front of and against the mob, seeking to prevent an otherwise imminent danger.

 

2 hours ago, RamynKing said:

Maybe I have a lack of vision! Maybe my idea of fun and cool is still tied to the hedonism of the left because I grew up buying into it.

I'd love to hear ideas on themes that an aspiring writer might chew on in creating a new landmark cultural film that somehow coolifies the right.

Easy: the plague of Statism; degeneracy; Lefitst violence; political violence in general; the "Hard men create soft times; soft times create soft men; soft men create hard times; hard times create hard men" cycle; peaceful parenting; individualism (i.e. praising the merits of the great individuals who do XY or Z to save the A from the threat of B, by creating or doing C.); Nationalism as opposed to Globalism; Racial realism as opposed to racial "blindness"; Antifa compared to the Sons of Odin (or some other modern Right Wing protection group); etc. 

There is a bounty of wealth for ideas to be found on the Right that is far more intellectually and humanly stimulating than the hedonism and cynicism of the Left. I don't mean to put down, perhaps the ideas come easy to me because it's what I am currently doing as a novelist, but I'm frankly surprised so few people of my generation (late 90's early 2000's born) and earlier have been able to come up with interesting and enjoyable bits of culture with these themes. 

 

2 hours ago, RamynKing said:

Side note:
I've never seen Easy Rider! I'm 35 and I love film, but I just haven't gotten around to some of those classics. Clockwork orange is another one that nags me.

But from the plot summary, it says the main characters are coming off of a lucrative coke sale! My question is, for all the persecution these guys seemingly suffer, is it lost on the audience that they could indeed be heartless thugs participating in a blood-soaked black market for the sole purpose of making an easy dollar?

 

 

I dunno because the Wikipedia doesn't mention any violence being used to transport the drugs. The heroes may be degenerate but they aren't "evil". 

If I wanted to portray Leftist evils I'd focus on their hypocrisy, "political flexibility", and their love of violence and their dark childhoods. I'd totally make a portrait of evil out of them using the very real facts we know about them in contrast to the generally good-natured and far-sighted Rightists, Libertarians, and Conservatives, with the Stefpai and Mike being my templates for the "ideal Right Wing Hero".

[Oliver Stone's Putin Interviews]

4 minutes ago, Wuzzums said:

I'll bite. What do you find so magnetizing about Putin?

I assume you mean visually and as a character, not his actual actions?

Deeds aside, he is handsome and resembles a James Bond actor, he speaks eloquently and with a certain imperial dignity. In spite of his mediocre frame he presents himself well as a ruler of men and a son of the Russian Motherland. His eyes are clear and sympathetic in their gaze, though their actual signals are hidden, similar to Trump's although age may be what hides the eyes rather than tact. His stride is like that of a Field Marshal and his personality is both fatherly and brotherly, his humor is also effective in balancing his serious gaze. Although he comes off to me as a bit of a playboy, he also shows signs of professionalism in his role as a ruler, giving me the mixed impression of someone degenerate in private but admirable in public life, especially where it counts as a ruler. 

Overall I'd say he stands head and shoulders (figuratively) above the other rulers of our times, for in spite of his personal history he has proven himself an able ruler in the past 17 years. 

All this was my visceral impression of him in the interviews as well as more sparingly in speeches, plus a bit in knowing his history.

My actual objective perception of him is somewhat more moderate than that as he has done very well as a ruler, evidenced most easily by the contrast of the 90's with the late 2000's, but he isn't the "ideal ruler" by my subjective standards. However if I were to assign him a letter grade, I'd give him an A because he is far better than pretty much every ruler around (at least that I know of) and compared to Trump in particular. However Trump's term is still young and many things are possible, perhaps he'll fulfill his promises and renew the citizenry's faith in republicanism and statism, or he'll be mediocre and leave us with a bad taste. 

 

 

 

[The Modern Antagonist]

9 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

According to this very smart person, the modern portrayal of the fictional antagonist in movies and books is actually the ideal man by conservative values. The modern antagonist has a clear and well-defined set of values, an objective to which he strives with all his will, and he also happens to be very eloquent in his speech and sophisticated in his behaviour, mysterious, and very charismatic. Their most notable trait to me is that they believe they are serving a cause more noble and worthy than themselves.
All the "flaws" of the modern antagonist seem to be things that don't really seem like flaws to me to be honest. Such may be that he is pragmatic, rude, cold and crude, merciless, impatient, mean, sometimes too ugly, or other times too handsome, too forceful, judgmental, Lately, for some weird reason, they like portraying him as a family man.

An interesting theory, let's iron it out.

First off, in what modern movies were the main villains "conservative"? It could be argued Gru in Despicable Me is a cuckservative because he adopts children, then gets married without any implication of having his own children, but that's a stretch. I haven't watched many modern movies, especially modern movies for children, even back when I was a child since they mostly sucked compared to their Japanese rivals; anime.

Using three popular anime as a case study; Inuyasha; Fullmetal Alchemist (First Series); and Naruto (First Series--not going to count Shippuden since I haven't finished that super long thing and probably won't find the time for it until I have a miraculously long vacation to enjoy it when I'm, say, 80), we will attempt to "figure out" what modern Japanese culture sees to the good guy versus the bad guy in fiction meant for teenagers. 

I'd appreciate it if you or someone else could find modern American counterparts since the only modern American fiction have I have real knowledge of would The Regular Show, Steven Universe, and lastly (but certainly not least) Avatar: The Last Airbender.

Since this paragraph I'm quoting is about villains, I'll start with the villains of the these series.

Inuyasha's: Naraku: A highly cynical and manipulative spider (literally and figuratively) who used to live as a human bandit before being suffering burns that paralyzed him, and lusting after the woman that tended to him. After selling his soul to the thousands of demons wanting in on his evil heart, he pretty much became a directionless sociopath and schizophrenic without any idea why he wants the ultimate power of the "Shikon Jewel", but he has no qualms in killing and abusing others to get the shards needed for it. He's ruthless, cruel, power-hungry, and easily one of the most evil characters conceived of with a background of being a deadbeat ne'er-do-well to boot. It isn't until the final moments anything remotely humane in him comes alive, and it is in realizing why he was seeking ultimate power in the first place. Sadly it didn't go full Stefbot and talk about what must have been a horrible childhood in Feudal Japan's endless wars.

Fullmetal Alchemist: Pride/Der Fuhrer: I could argue someone else is the main antagonist, but she doesn't make herself visible until a while later, and I'd say this anime's equivalent to Hitler (with a Stalin-like mustache and grin) is the most visible face of antagonism. King Bradley (regnal number unmentioned) is a descendant of what seems to be a royal family that has been around since...forever. His Prussian-style military dictatorship has been waging war with nearby nations for seemingly trivial reasons and misunderstandings (a war with the in-show equivalent with Muslims because they got pissed when his secretary and mistress accidentally shot and killed a child) yet the body count is always counted in the millions, with new weapons of mass destruction being deployed and tested each time. He's basically George Bush II to some degree, as he has no spoken ideology and his true intentions are highly obscure until the end where it turns out he's using the lives of those his military kills to create the "Philosopher Stone" for his "mother", Dante, who lives eternally by parasitically living off the lives of others and demands an increasing number of souls in order to live her life of decadence, embodying the Seven Deadly Sins her Humonculi personify. The Fuhrer is the Humunculous "Pride", he sees himself as humanity's "guardian angel" with his "mother" seeing herself as the "shephered of the flock". 

God complexes aplenty between the somewhat oedipal relationship between Dante and her Seven humonculi (can't spell this word for the life of me), and given they represent collectively absolute evil they really give a good idea for the teens watching just how evil evil can be.

Naruto: Orochimaru; Like Dante he's a parasite feeding off the lives of others' as well, but in a different sense. Initially he's portrayed in a way somewhat similar to a stereotypical nazi scientist insofar as he experiments with human test subjects to perfect his experimental jutsu (ninja magic) while trying to attain eternal life. He evolves more as being someone with a chip on his shoulder against the Leaf Village (his hometown and where the main characters are all from, basically a ninja-camp-turned-city) for it's Hokage (Fire Shadow, think "King") banishing him as a youth when he attempted to learn and read about the "forbidden jutsu". He is later shown manipulating young people and orphans (he's an old man in "present time") by tempting them with things like revenge and power, or even bare necessities of life and guardianship, into doing his bidding. He's very much the manipulative sociopath that is a common trope in Japanese villains, which goes to show in my opinion the moral strength of the Japanese in having as a regular villain for children to see; a sociopathic manipulator and sophist.

 

All three of these villains are commonly known among anime watches, especially in Japan as it was watched by many kids. Of course I as an American watched anime like these growing up and they have shaped my perception of what's good and evil. I'll get to the protagonists in the next paragraph, but compared to what I see (in passing) from Western villains, Japanese villains are far more definitively evil and worthy of being demonized as something to hate and avoid, partly because "lesser versions" of them are rather common in dysfunctional families and communities. I mean, pretty much every single mom is Dante and bad politician is Orochimaru and Naraku. 

 

 

9 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

On the other side, the protagonist seems to have evolved into something pretty... undesirable. He (more often than earlier a she) is usually a person who has undefined ideals, very vague goals, a rebellious attitude, an incomplete character, influencable and weak will, emotional instability, terrible friends, zero charisma, average looks, uncontrollable sex-drive, submissive personality, but god almighty... extraordinary talents. Although the protagonist also thinks he is serving a great cause, he is always quite sure that he will have a part in it, and that the cause can be achieved pretty quickly, simply, and that happyend is in his favour anyway.

Ironically the protagonists of most made-for-teens anime has either a moderate sex drive or none at all.

Naruto: Naruto Uzumaki: He's a blond haired orphan with a chip on his shoulder, and epitomizes in every way the Japanese ideal of the underdog overcoming seemingly insurmountable odds with tenacity and smarts. He grew up poor and shunned for the fear of his fellow citizens of him, partly because he has the "Nine-Tailed-Fox demon" (think atom bomb) sealed inside him. However rather than becoming a sociopathic rebel (like his early enemy Gaara) or a cynical revenge-driven angsty boy (like his friend Sasuke), he's an upbeat and determined young ninja seeking to both bring peace and fix whatever problem he's tasked with (he's basically Jesus at times) and become the Fifth Hokage (again, think "King") through his merits and determination. He regularly fights tough adversaries but refuses to back down or remained defeated. When he realizes he's too weak to overcome an opponent, he trains like an animal to become strong enough to overcome him. When his brute strength isn't enough, he uses his battle smarts to solve the problem. When his enemy is a wavering boy, unsure of himself, he appeals to the enemy's humanity and attempts to (and often succeeds in) changing them and making them life-long comrades. Overall this kid is a human dynamo worthy of respect and a great role model for children wanting to improve themselves, although his tendency to reach out is balanced by the times it fails because (like in real life) some people are beyond saving. 

Inuyasha: Inuyasha: He's a rough and rude half-demon who had a similar childhood to Naruto but for different reasons (Papa is the Demon General and Mama is a human princess, you can imagine how that would alienate him from both humans and demons alike). He swore revenge against Naraku after being tricked by him into stealing the formerly-completed Shikon Jewel from the Priestess Kikyo (who was both Inuyasha's love interest and human-Naraku's lust interest and nurse in his final days as a mortal), who herself was tricked into sealing him into a tree for fifty years when Naraku masked himself as Inuyasha and attacked her, and Inuyasha by masking himself as Kikyo and attacking him. He starts off power-hungry and cynical, but becomes increasingly humane and benevolent as a "big brother" type of guy, partly thanks to Kagome (a human girl from the future--i.e., present) "taming" him (both literally and figuratively) and giving him a reason to trust people again. Inuyasha's a bit more complicated than Naruto as he starts off fairly evil, but he evolves into a far greater man who saves humans from demons and endeavors to solve the heart-wrenching machinations of Naraku's curses on his various victims.

Fullmetal Alchemist: Edward Elrich; Ed is a German-inspired kid with a Napoleon complex who starts off fairly immature, but is driven by the goal of giving his little brother his limbs back, which is a problem that resulted in him and his little brother Alphonse attempting to revive their mother with Alchemy, which backfired hugely in taking half of Ed's limbs and all of Al's body, the little brother being spared death only by being sealed into a suit of armor. Ed is a hot-tempered youth, but he has very strong moral convictions and is a genius at what he does (fighting, science, and alchemy) and struggles to find the philosopher stone in an effort to save his brother. Along the way he helps people and fights corrupt officials and warmongers alike, eventually serving (unknowingly) the biggest one of all; Fuhrer-King Bradley. Eventually he leaves the State Military after becoming disillusioned with the war with Ishbal (think the Bush invasion of Iraq in terms of human destruction and genetic poisoning) and eventually assists his mentor the Colonel and later General Mustang in his revolution to overthrow the dictatorship and meanwhile put an end to the hidden enemy behind the scenes. 

 

All these protagonists are either kids or approximately kids (Inuyasha is technically hundreds of years old, but fifty of those years were in slumber and demons age far more slowly than mortals. He's basically 20) with a strong sense of right and wrong, as well as determination enough to meet their goals. Overall I'd say they're fairly good and relatable role models for kids as there are no Mary Sues (like crazy Rei from the latest Star Wars) and the characters generally grow fundamentally over time.

 

9 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

If the modern protagonist was the ideal that formed the millenial generation, then it is no wonder some of them turned out such insufferable rebellious whiners, all of whom believe that everything is about them, and that they are special, and that they are always only targeted by expendable stormtroopers that cannot aim.
If their picture of the bad guy was drawn by such ideas, then it is no wonder that they consider the most competent people on the planet to be evil. Such being Trump, Putin, Duterte, and Farage.

 

This theory put a lot of things in place for me, as more often than not, I usually find myself rooting for the supposed bad guys. 

The bad guys in Western films tend to be more interesting, sadly, which is a way of showing how poorly written the good guys are (to some degree). I'd appreciate some examples to use as a case study. I provided three Japanese examples, I think three American/European examples are in order here as I haven't much knowledge about modern Western fiction (especially for kids) beyond a handful of shows, with Avatar: The Last Airbender being the only really good one that comes to mind (that I am also familiar with).

 

My whole point being basically how our culture is partly poisoned by the cinema kids are exposed to, and that the Japanese have far greater role models for kids than we do (it seems).

I don't know of any "conservative antagonists" in Western film, let alone modern Western film, so I'd appreciate some examples as case studies. In general I'd argue anime is better for children as anime (in the appropriate age range of course. Not all of it is meant for kids or adults) tends to be better written and have more depth and humanity to it, and is in general more inspiring and make better role models as a whole.

 

P.S. I think I may have gargled a bit in typing here and there, feel free to ask questions if I typed something awkwardly. I was somewhat in a rush... I apologize in advance. 

 

 

 

[Oliver Stone's Putin Interviews]

16 hours ago, SnapSlav said:

Well I can't say that I offer a perspective from NON-fans of Putin, as I too thoroughly enjoy the man. That being said, I have spoken to people who DIDN'T like him, and none of them were terribly rational about it. When I brought up the name with someone who considered himself a "rational Democrat", he shot back with "What, the COMMUNIST? Bah!" and as far as he was concerned the conversation was over. So yeah, everybody I've spoken to who wasn't a fan of the man could only consider him from the angle that an ad hominem was immediately to follow, and then the subject was to be dropped on command.

Unfortunately that's the case with me as well. No one I am acquainted with who doesn't like the God Tsar has any rational arguments against him, except accusations that he killed journalists (which I haven't found any proof for) or that he's meddling with American affairs, also something without proof (though honestly it wouldn't surprise me if he makes nudges here and there given our government does that all the time, I don't think it's "even" unless everyone is nudging everyone else but I have no proof to back up this claim, so take it as a theory).

 

16 hours ago, SnapSlav said:

I haven't been able to watch it all, as I prefer to get a good night's sleep, and it's been airing rather late, so I was kinda surprised that I could catch the majority of a single episode.

If you either have On Demand, or go onto Showtime's website you can watch the episodes freely, and now they're all aired. They're all equally exciting though I'd say the first and last were my favorites (although the funniest moment was probably when Putin said "I wouldn't provoke him" when asked that hilarious submarine gay shower question).

16 hours ago, SnapSlav said:

 

It was VERY well done. Putin is translated for the viewer with subtitles and no dubbing so they can hear his words for themselves so any accusations of "that's not what he actually said" can be handled on the spot, and I've only spotted what looked to be a single instance of a cut that may have edited out dead air (as people are want to pause and collect their thoughts while speaking when you ask them many, many questions). So the presentation has been very good, by my standards. Stone asks a couple "tough" questions (from an American perspective) that he knows many Americans would be hard on Putin for (regarding homosexuality, for instance), and Putin's responses have always been quite well thought out and I haven't found a single thing (that was aired) objectionable. So clearly Stone doesn't adore the man, but neither is he smothering him, yet he's being perfectly respectful and keeping any manipulation to a minimum. That's what I like about Stone, as a director; even if some of his philosophies border on the absurd, his approach is very honest. It's all straight shots from him, no curve balls.

I hate dubbing. Subtitles all the way, it's just much easier to take someone seriously when Ivan isn't dubbing every foreigner's voice in such a way that it's absurd. 

I liked Oliver Stone's professional handling of the interviews, it reminded me of the way Stef handles them. The  "tough" questions were a bit of a joke as far as I was concerned, as I don't think any sensible American should care about secondary issues such as homosexuality and "muh Russain hacking", with the really interesting questions being the ones about Putin's perspective of his own tenure as President and Prime Minister, from the War with Chechnya to the Ukrainian Civil War, handling of the Crimea, and all the while trying to negotiate with Obomber.

I really liked how professional Putin was the entire time, his jokes and jives were enjoyable as well, but I also liked how he kept referring to the European and American nations as "partners" and stressed the need to continue the discussion, very much reminding of the Stefpai. 

And of course, kudos again to Stone's professional handling and honesty about his own biases (he's a hippie Socialist but at least he isn't a real commissar Socialist) and ability to make the interview with President Putin feel like an action/history drama as well as an "insider scoop".

 

16 hours ago, SnapSlav said:

Haven't found time to watch the other episodes, but having seen most of the 2nd episode, I liked what I saw. I saw a relatable leader (excluding his SUPERHUMAN tendencies for regularly engaging in MANY demanding activities... just because... which is kinda hard to relate to, but still admirable) and an interviewer asking varying degrees of tough-and-soft, but fair questions. I would recommend it if anyone (or someone they know) has Showtime.

Heck Putin's manliness and self-discipline make him very admirable, I love how he molds himself into the strongman needed for his nation, he is highly inspirational as someone whose job is largely a matter of self-discipline over passively taking orders. 

 

 

10 hours ago, Wuzzums said:

Did you use Ben Shapiro metrics?

 

Lol who cares anyway? The God-Tsar doesn't look small or feel small, he's like a towering god among men in spite of himself. His personality and magnetism is incredible. 

 

10 hours ago, ofd said:

 

Among others, he was responsible for the sell out of the Russian economy in the nineties. Dark times for Russia. The reason globalists hate Putin is that he stopped that and reversed some of the most egregious examples.

I'm somewhat familiar with the terrible era of the 90's, with rampant organized crime and political looters as well as economic opportunists. Luckily the God-Tsar came along and saved Russia, making it the closest thing to an AnCap paradise we're likely to ever live to see.

 

 

 

 

 

[Oliver Stone's Putin Interviews]

2 minutes ago, Wuzzums said:

Napoleon wasn't short, he was 5'7" or 5'8" which at the time was above average.

Technically yes, however he's still short compared to the average 6 foot nobleman and his tall bodyguards. He was however very charismatic, and was said to be eye-to-eye level with most people he spoke to.

 

2 minutes ago, Wuzzums said:

Putin is 5'5" or 5'6".

Last time I checked it said 5'7, which is slightly shorter than the 5'9 average of America and Russia. 

2 minutes ago, Wuzzums said:

Nevertheless I think this whole "beware short guys" thing comes from the fact that height and leadership go hand in hand. Biological instinct, the bigger guy is probably stronger than you therefore you should show him respect. Most if not all managers and CEO's are tall. It's just a mindset issue, when you have to look up at someone it's pretty difficult to tell yourself you've got authority over him.

Very true, and very visible in modern politics. Most of Trump's political opponents in the election were over six feet, for example.  Of course there is also other leadership traits like an attractive face and stern, eloquent voice, etc. Hitler wasn't tall but stood out because he sounded like a general. Sun King Louis was a short man at 5'4, compared to the nobles especially, but was said to be both graceful and eloquent, making him "respectable" aesthetically at least.

And etc. etc. 

2 minutes ago, Wuzzums said:

Short people who are in charge are probably vicious/conniving not because they're short per se but because they have to overcompensate for the lack of unearned authority that comes with tallness. Also you're at a strategic advantage when you're short and nobody considers you a threat. People always call foul on the blow they don't see coming.

I pretty much gave examples to just how shorties can compensate, although then again they tend to stand out for their compensation trait. I knew a short guy who spoke as well as Stef. Sadly he's taking blunts in college now, he could have been someone.

 

[Oliver Stone's Putin Interviews]

2 hours ago, ofd said:

Ah Nemtsov, hero of the West and traitor to his people. Next to Jelzin he was responsible for the massive economic crisis that Russia. The plundering that happened during that time are not forgotten, nor will they be forgiven by the Russians. Nemtsov's opinion about Putin is as valuable as Hillary's about Trump.

Is he? Can't say I know about him although I was amused by his commentary, I didn't take it seriously because as Stefpai frequently says, it was "Not An Argument".

[Oliver Stone's Putin Interviews]

24 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

Vladimir Putin is one of the most brilliant leaders of our era. In some ways, for me at least, he is more likeable that Donald Trump. He has a lot of discipline, he speaks extraordinarily well, and he loves the Orthodox church very much.

More or less why I love him. Of course I'm reserved because although I read his wikipedia article at a few different points, we all know wikipedia isn't the most reliable of information sources. Not to mention there are many unknowns, and probably will remain unknown until he has retired from politics, or even decades after.

In general I wish he was America's President since he embodies everything I'd want in a national ruler; he is a patriot; he is a Free Market guy; he is a family man (in spite of his personal life); and he is a proud Russian and promotes the prosperity of ethnic Russians, something unthinkable in the West-West. 

24 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

I jsut wanted to add one thing to the discussion here. According to the Prophesies of Fatima, Russia was going to be the greatest defender of christianity by the end of the millenium. This was uttered back in the 1920s in rural Portugal. It seemed completely unbelievable at the time, since that was the height of the red terror. Now this prophesy has manifested itself through the person of Vladimir Putin and the russian people.

Now that is interesting. Of course the millennium has passed but Putin did manifest publicly in '99, and has been instrumental in the vilification of Russia and Russia's entering into a golden age for arguably the first time in centuries.

 

24 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

As for Anacap, I in many ways you may find that Russia is a lot freer, and more committed to the free market that most of the West. 
Adding to that, Putin has never given an order that would violate the NAP as of yet.

An an AnCap, Christian, and White Nationalist, Putin is undoubtedly the most pro-White of the White rulers and has brought about the freest and most sustainable society, proven especially by its ability to thrive in spite of sanctions and international ostracism by the Western West. 

Hopefully Russia remains a beacon for all other nations to follow, for it could be argued should the West fail to resuscitate itself that Russia would be the last great stronghold of historical Western civilization. 

[Oliver Stone's Putin Interviews]

9 hours ago, Wuzzums said:

 

Lol somewhat true but the obvious exceptions to "all tyrants were short" would be George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, and Sigismund the Strong.

And easy examples of good short people would (maybe be) Putin, Napoleon, and James Madison.

Of course most of the people above have bad/good traits to counter what I categorized them, it does seem like the guys of average height (for their time and place at least) seem to be the best; like Augustus Caesar, Karl the Great (Charlemagne), and Ivan the Great (grandfather of Ivan the Terrible).

 

[Oliver Stone's Putin Interviews]

58 minutes ago, twinklingwinter said:

No, I mean adding a link to the interview on your post would be nice, since you're the one who started the thread and wanted to start a discussion about it.

From what I can tell it can only be watched by those with Showtime or willing to "sample" it.

[Oliver Stone's Putin Interviews]

6 minutes ago, twinklingwinter said:

A link to the interview would be nice

If you have Showtime you should be able to watch it. 

[Oliver Stone's Putin Interviews]

Recently a series made by the film director Oliver Stone has taken the Left by storm as he made a very fair and comprehensive interview with the God-Tsar Vladimir Putin. I've been watching it thus far and have had a very enjoyable experience relating to Putin's views on various subjects as well as getting to know the man better personally.

While I know he's a train wreck as far as family life goes it is still very interesting to learn about the man behind the scenes with his daughters and grandchildren, as well as the busy work life he has as the ruler of one of the biggest multi-ethnic nations in the world.

I figured I'd make this a topic to both debate what he's said, share with the forums that this is a thing, and in general stir the pot of discussion and see where it goes.

I guess the most basic question is; "Is Vladimir Putin a good leader of Russia?" and  the series tackles the very important question of "Who is the True Enemy".

As AnCaps we both know it's  the government, and I'm impressed that's where the interview is going as quite a few of the war crimes and tragedies of the 21st century are being talked about. 

However I'd like some outside opinions as everyone I'm personally close to is a bit of a Putin fan and therefore not the best critics of the big little guy. 

[Trump Is The Worst Nazzy Evar]

Lol this a very good and clear visual disproof of all the wild conspiracy theories surrounding the President.

[What is Fascism?]

On 4/22/2017 at 6:38 PM, AntiCodon said:

Hey guys,
 

I've had numerous debates with various individuals I know who has recently taken up the far left ideology. One of the interesting aspects of their ideology I have noticed is the broadness of the spectrum with which they define fascists. 

I try not to argue definitions with far left people as the discussion always seems to break down into them informing of your apparent misconception of what communism is, or some weird idiosyncratic form of collectivism that attempts to patch up the obvious issues with anarcho-communism and communism in general. That being said, with so much talk of fascists I have been wondering exactly what is a fascist.

I'm not terribly well versed in political ideologies as its more a hobby than anything, but it doesn't seem to me that fascism is as well defined as say libertarianism or communism.

What is the far left meaning when they say "fascism". Also, is anyone familiar with their arguments for why Trump is a fascist?

Fascism is basically a light Communism without the desire for internationalism. Or, in other words "National Socialism," "Socialism in One Country".

The main characteristics of "true" fascism are; 1: an authoritarian state with strict regulations of the economy such as price controls. 2; A government which invests in some businesses in order to produce a certain good for use by the State, like say guns and ammo or uniforms and food. 3:A desire for ethnic unity in a given geographic area. If it is only the first two things, then you have a standard "mixed market". The first thing alone would be part of "standard socialism" minus the centralization of all production in the hands of government. The last thing is a trait of any ideology wishing to unite a disparate race, like the Second German Empire united the North and South Germans who've historically warred against each other, although the Empire could be compared to fascism since it did heavily regulate the flow of goods and people as well as patron "private" entities to provide special goods.

It could be argued that pretty much the majority of despotic states in history were fascistic simply based on the premise they generally held a strong arm over their economy and used tax monies to invest in private industry for specialty goods and often tried by force to unite their respective ethnicities. 

Modern day fascists have somewhat different definitions from each other, however the uniting principle is either the union or safeguarding of their own ethnicity. However this is part of Nationalism (which can be simply defined as either wanting what's best for one's ethnic group, or group of ethnic groups in close proximity) and therefore easily interchangeable. You don't have a "real fascist" unless he wants a military industrial complex and semi-socialist economy, making them not far off from actual Communists.

As a result I always say Fascism is about as Far Left as Communism because of how similar they are in practice.

 

 

 

[Help! I Hate People!]

11 minutes ago, S1988 said:

There are plenty of them? Really? In my experience, a lot of jobs require one to a people person. I assume it's easier if you live in a big city, which is where I don't live. Sorry for going a bit on a tangent, but as someone who likes being alone a lot, this statement intrigues me. 

Off the top of my head; authoring and freelance writing are both jobs that require little human interaction except for when looking for a publisher to sell to.

My job as a novelist is one largely spent in isolation. Unlike most jobs I have to regulate my own hours otherwise I won't have any product to sell or that product will take far longer than in should to sell. I'd argue at least 30 hours a week should be spent in front of the computer in such a job.