Oliver Stone's Putin Interviews

[Siegfried von Walheim]

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. 

[twinklingwinter]

A link to the interview would be nice

[Siegfried von Walheim]

6 minutes ago, twinklingwinter said:

A link to the interview would be nice

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

[twinklingwinter]

8 minutes ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

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

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.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

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.

[errorspending]

Nice I was just about to start a thread about this because I'm halfway through episode 3 and finding it fascinating.  

Quite amazing that someone on the left has done this and hopefully it will lead to more people questioning the never ending narrative of Russia as the great enemy of the West.  I wonder if Stef has watched it yet.

To answer your question, from my limited knowledge it sure seems that things have gotten massively better since the collapse of the Sov Union.  It seems Putin may be their Trump.  He certainly comes off as more intelligent than your average politician too...

[Wuzzums]

 

[Siegfried von Walheim]

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).

 

[ofd]

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.

[M.2]

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.

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.

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.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

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. 

[Siegfried von Walheim]

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".

[Wuzzums]

6 hours ago, Siegfried von Walheim 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).

 

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

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

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.

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.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

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.

 

[SnapSlav]

On 6/15/2017 at 1:08 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

[Wuzzums]

6 hours ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

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

Did you use Ben Shapiro metrics?

[ofd]

 

Quote

 

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".

 

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.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

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.

 

 

 

 

 

[Wuzzums]

On 6/17/2017 at 10:24 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

 

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. 

 

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

[Siegfried von Walheim]

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. 

 

 

 

[SnapSlav]

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

On 6/17/2017 at 0:24 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

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).

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.

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.

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.

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...

 

On 6/17/2017 at 0:24 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

If you either have On Demand, or go onto Showtime's website you can watch the episodes freely, and now they're all aired.

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

 

On 6/17/2017 at 0:24 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

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 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.

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.

 

On 6/17/2017 at 0:24 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

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 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.

 

On 6/17/2017 at 0:24 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

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. 

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

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...

[Siegfried von Walheim]

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. 

 

 

 

 

[Wuzzums]

On 6/19/2017 at 0:00 AM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

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. 

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.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

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. 

[SnapSlav]

4 hours ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

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.

The knowledge that it's not something you can fix but that you have to look forward to generations in the future is the hardest part to accept. I already have a hard enough time distancing myself from "trying" to argue with people who couldn't tell you the difference between a strawman and an ad hominem- except than one's Latin and the other goes in a corn field -that pulling myself away from what I refer to by shorthand as "lost causes" is hard enough already. My time is increasingly precious, so I can't just waste it spending a few hours "arguing" with someone only to realize they don't even know HOW to argue, that they're just a trained puppet more than anything else. Yet I have to be able to wait not just one conversation, but GENERATIONS? Ugh, it's a brutal revelation.

Heaven forbid you should EVER tell people around you (again, liberal-central around me) that you've got to look forward towards generations of grooming good people, cause then they'll whip out the old "eugenics" accusations... There's no winning, except not to play. And I wanna play. T_T

 

4 hours ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

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.

Well I grew up around the increasingly-agnostic modern West, yet with an immigrant parental background, so I got to see both worlds collide at the same time. I saw the "fair-weather Christians" as you put it, experience them, witness their legacy get passed along to all my education and neighborhood friends and permeate the world around me, and then be taken to a church far away because it was one of the very few of its kind in the States anywhere near my family, and they were different worlds to live in side by side. I didn't understand the gap in cultures or traditions or values as a child, but I started to realize how differently these two worlds saw the same things by the time I was first going to college. But by the time I was an adult with some world knowledge, I had taken experiences from both of these worlds and made them into a joke: "In the West, common etiquette dictates that it's improper to discuss sex, religion, or politics at the dinner table; but to Serbs, no dinner is complete without bringing up religion and politics!"

Church growing up has been where the best philosophical and political discussions were always found. Even just attending one Easter celebration this year, I got to chat with total strangers about topics I'd been exposed to through FDR, and they were receptive and inquisitive, even if they disagreed about a few things here and there. It was lively discussion, and I cherished it. I only wish I could take it home with me, and have that same openness to debate wherever I go...

 

4 hours ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

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.

That's a square I've been struggling to circle. I had the same difficulty during the election (again, I'm surrounded by liberals, so the world around me is always bleak, hopeless, and full of morons) where I'd watch a presentation by Stefan or Cernovich or Bill Mitchell about the numbers, and their presentations would tell me that the numbers are good for reasonable people, but I'd go home to the same insanity, and I just couldn't imagine that it was real. I know people are moving away from the legacy media, and yet I still feel that sentiment, "If they're not advertising this, then people will not see it." It comes back to a clash I refer to as "knowing, but not understanding." I KNOW the Streisand Effect is resulting in people going out of their way to see The Red Pill in Australia because of how hard their news tried to discredit it. But I don't fundamentally understand "in my bones" that just because Last Week Tonight with John Oliver isn't telling people to see these interviews, that doesn't mean people aren't going out of their way to see it.

I generally have a policy of "do not hope; hope is doubt", but I do hope that it gets around.

 

4 hours ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

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).

Reading quickly is a skill I find that you develop like any muscle you strengthen. It takes time, but it builds reliably, as long as you keep at it. You just get better and better at reading subtitles that you're not distracted while you're playing. Of course, it also really depends how the work is being subtitled. If they split up larger sentences isn't several groups of 2-lines of text, or if they shrink the text so they can fit entire paragraphs onto the screen at once, some are harder to read while you're distracted than others.

For me though, it's not really a matter of "quality". Everyone says that Cowboy Bebop is better in English, but most are just saying that because that's what they heard first, it's what they're comfortable with, and their Spike Spiegel sounds like Steven Blum, so anything else just "feels wrong" to their brain. But by contrast, many were introduced to DragonBall Z through the Ocean dubs, and those were GOOD dubs in terms of quality... but they actively edited and omitted and altered so much material, that it serves my point about listening to the originals. It's not always a matter of quality. At least the Bebop dubs tried to remain authentic. But still, nothing's more authentic than the original. Some jokes/references are lost on those who don't appreciate language barriers, but no amount of dubbing can fix that. If someone's never heard of the phrase "When in Rome, do as the Romans" then a short explanation won't fix their obliviousness. Likewise with all sorts of phrases a Russian might utter that an American has never, ever heard.

 

4 hours ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

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.

Funny story about that... There's a bit of contention between the various "slavs" regarding who is and who isn't slavic. Some would contend that Romanians are not slavs, and others would insist they are. Others will tell you that Russians aren't slavs, and so on and so on. As for Serbs, there is that bit of history (better part of a millennium, really) where they were dominated by the various changing faces of more or less the same people. Whether it was the Turks or the Persians or the Ottomans or the Austro-Hungarians, basically a continuing lineage of control, just different lines in the sand and changing names. Either way, Serbs were enslaved for that entire period, and one of the (enforced) "traditions" was that when a Serb man married, the ruling Persian nobles had "first pick" of his new wife. So many "Serbs" were conceived over the generations that were "not true slavs", but rather bastards of their rulers. But how could you even tell the difference? Persians are a very white-looking ethnic group, and there was no paternity testing until very recently. So because many Serbs have Iranian or even Turkish decent, there are other "slavs" who would insist that Serbs are not true slavs. Well... our ancestors descended from those same Romanian mountains as the rest of the slavic people, and no matter how many of us have "mixed blood", we all carry that same lineage.

But on top of that, what amuses me the most is the inter-slavic insults we have for each other. I can't speak to what the Czechs may say about the Slovenians or the Polish may say about the Russians, but Serbs have a couple insults for "Bosna" (not a race, but it's become an identity since the Balkan civil war) and for Montenegrin people. There's a hilarious joke about a Bosnian who goes into an interview, and his German would-be boss is concerned about him that he will not fit their company because he hears that Bosnians are lazy, to which the man laughs and tells him with confidence, "No, you misunderstood, that's Montenegrins; we're stupid!" But, as the punchline suggests, the stereotype for Montenegrin people is that they are lazy (and Bosnians are morons). "Why does a Montenegrin have a chair next to his bed? So he can sit down when he wakes up." Etc etc... Well, whether he's a bushy tabby or he's actually a Siberian breed, I lovingly call my cat "my little Montenegrin", because he's just so damn lazy, like the stereotype. He gets up, just so he can find a new spot to lay down, just like the joke. He's even too lazy to bother with killing things cats normally hunt. He'd much rather sleep than do ANYTHING else. He always finds a way to make me laugh. That adorable, slothful ball of fur. XD

 

4 hours ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

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.

The hard part is IDENTIFYING those smart people, however... As this last election's proven, people are much more keen to keep their ideas to themselves when they know there's a far greater likelihood of negative social consequences (if not violent ones) than that of having a friendly discussion with like-minded individuals. So how do you suss out like-minded people when they're actively keeping their heads down? Now that I've got my feet wet in business, I've got to isolate my own views from my public face, for fear of similar consequences. Even after joining NA Mensa (and having a blast attending several gatherings), it's slim pickings, because they just don't have as many gatherings as they used to...

Any tips you use to sift through the weeds, or have you just kept a close, watchful eye on your social circles to make sure your garden was tended, as it were?

 

4 hours ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Hey man, I love that game... 

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.

Ah, gaming talk with people who enjoy a great work that I do as well. Also mild waxing of theoretical social structure for stable futures, to boot! Good times...

I also prefer the House endings over the rest, but on some levels I feel that the game suffers from a few writing faux pas here and there. There's just not enough fleshing out the "real" face of the Legion, and to top if off the game was heavily rushed, so many of their greater ideas were forcibly scrapped, or at best, converted into DLCs which didn't quite fit the greater whole. I would have LOVED it had the "real ending" been the clash between Courier Six and Ulysses, which would have illustrated much more profoundly the consequences of your actions as a player and as a citizen of New Vegas and the greater wasteland, with the climatic Second Battle for Hoover Dam serving as little more than an impressive primer for the true coup de grace. But alas, the horrors of the Big Empty and the ghost stories of the Sierra Madre and the truth behind the rumors of the Burned Man and the final confrontation at the end of the Lonesome Road all had to be shoehorned into DLCs, segregated from the greater story as a whole, and forced to feel disjointed from the greater work. If only Obsidian could've been permitted to make the game they wanted, and not forced to generate a cash cow on an unforgiving schedule...

But I digress. For all his flaws, I adore Mr. House. The game tries really hard to make you feel bad about something, regardless of which choice you make, but in the end I believe in House's vision. Philosophically I might be more aligned with Yes Man's Independent route, but pragmatically I just don't see it panning out like a unified Mojave under a dictatorial benefactor with an uncompromising will, a shrewd pragmatist's personal "moral" code, and unmatched brilliance. No matter my doubt, House always said the right thing to wash away my worries. I agree that Caesar's vision is far more realistic, and with the intervention of the Courier, the flaws in the Legion's structure could be corrected to set it on a better, longevital course. But the fundamental flaw that the system relies heavily on that powerful leader remains. The Independent route suffers from having no visionary to guide the wastes, the NCR route suffers from the burden of the bloating republic stagnating on its own overly-ambitious and unruly size and lack of consistent direction, and yet ideologically I'd favor them over the other options, if it were a real choice I was forced to make.

Anyway, back to the original topic...

 

4 hours ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

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.

I see too many trends to feel free of worry, however. It's not even a matter of having faith in intelligent populations leading themselves out of bad decisions, as clearly the highly intelligent Koreans still followed the bloody path to socialism. It really seems like that powerful leader is key to everything. Whether the powerful leader is Pinochet or Kim Jong, that seems to make the most difference. Were it not for Prince Alexander's foolhardy and misplaced sense of kinship with his "fellow" slavs, the Balkans could have had a completely different future, spared from the corruption of socialism, infighting, and eventual conquest by violent Muslim migrants. Had it not been for the ambitious Lenin, the world as we know it would have been completely different.

But the latter example does pose a question regarding perpetuity of nations, vis-a-vis to your examples. Lenin clearly didn't groom Stalin to be his successor, yet Stalin took over all the same. Stalin never groomed his own successor, instead withdrawing into his own paranoid seclusion in his later years (not unlike Al Capone... sans syphilitic insanity). Yet the Soviet Union continued on its same course, in spite of the lack of unifying vision from a great leader passing on to a groomed successor. Does it not then follow that these societies continue on their course, when the foundation has been laid before them, to continue living underneath that structure... up until the eventual collapse, because they don't know how to build their own structure, and no one taught them how to? In that sense, Putin coming along was much more a fluke than anything else, much like Trump (except Trump has quite an intact bureaucratic machine to contend with, whereas Putin had a much more malleable canvas). I suppose I just want to look forward to a better world without banking on "good luck" like another Putin or Trump. I guess it's just harder for me to visualize that world, because it's something that may bear fruit generations after I plant the seeds.

I don't want to be a cynic, I just see more cause to fret than to celebrate.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

On 6/20/2017 at 1:09 AM, SnapSlav said:

The knowledge that it's not something you can fix but that you have to look forward to generations in the future is the hardest part to accept. I already have a hard enough time distancing myself from "trying" to argue with people who couldn't tell you the difference between a strawman and an ad hominem- except than one's Latin and the other goes in a corn field -that pulling myself away from what I refer to by shorthand as "lost causes" is hard enough already. My time is increasingly precious, so I can't just waste it spending a few hours "arguing" with someone only to realize they don't even know HOW to argue, that they're just a trained puppet more than anything else. Yet I have to be able to wait not just one conversation, but GENERATIONS? Ugh, it's a brutal revelation.

Heaven forbid you should EVER tell people around you (again, liberal-central around me) that you've got to look forward towards generations of grooming good people, cause then they'll whip out the old "eugenics" accusations... There's no winning, except not to play. And I wanna play. T_T

Quite simply, you have to disregard the low IQ and suicidal around you as "already dead" or worse (enemies) and focus solely on your own progeny, ensure they are in the best possible place to (at the very least) survive, if not (at best) dominate. As a young man who just turned 19, it is my lifelong goal to make good money as an author, marry a fine woman, and make fine babies and raise them into being far superior than their predecessors. It is impossible to know everything that is current at ones; "life" comes at us fast, surprises aplenty. Perhaps I am not joking when I often say "my son will be the first Kaiser of the Holy American Empire". Perhaps he'll be the NatCap ruler who'll eventually shrink the State into nothingness, leaving an AnCap foundation. 

I have never tolerated the stupid or the dogmatic; I've only ever made friends with those whom I could argue and sharpen myself with. I don't have many friends (somewhat naturally, as I'm a bit of a workaholic who mainly socializes in forums like this) as a result, but that doesn't bother me because I know once I've made myself into a good man I'll be like a beacon for other good men. Nicholas Fuentes, the 18 year old head  and founder of Right Side Radio and recent guest on the Stefpai Network, is a great example of the kind of guy I aim to befriend both personally and professionally. 

Quote

Well I grew up around the increasingly-agnostic modern West, yet with an immigrant parental background, so I got to see both worlds collide at the same time. I saw the "fair-weather Christians" as you put it, experience them, witness their legacy get passed along to all my education and neighborhood friends and permeate the world around me, and then be taken to a church far away because it was one of the very few of its kind in the States anywhere near my family, and they were different worlds to live in side by side. I didn't understand the gap in cultures or traditions or values as a child, but I started to realize how differently these two worlds saw the same things by the time I was first going to college. But by the time I was an adult with some world knowledge, I had taken experiences from both of these worlds and made them into a joke: "In the West, common etiquette dictates that it's improper to discuss sex, religion, or politics at the dinner table; but to Serbs, no dinner is complete without bringing up religion and politics!"

Lol, even though I grew up in what you describe as the typical Western style, I'm much closer to what you describe the Serbians as for I frequently discuss politics and religion, even with my mother. 

Quote

Church growing up has been where the best philosophical and political discussions were always found. Even just attending one Easter celebration this year, I got to chat with total strangers about topics I'd been exposed to through FDR, and they were receptive and inquisitive, even if they disagreed about a few things here and there. It was lively discussion, and I cherished it. I only wish I could take it home with me, and have that same openness to debate wherever I go...

Very interesting. Perhaps I should consider congregating with the Eastern Catholics and Eastern Europeans once I have the time, since in my experience the Slavs are far more...grounded, then my fellow Germans and Anglo-Irish in the American East Coast.

Quote

That's a square I've been struggling to circle. I had the same difficulty during the election (again, I'm surrounded by liberals, so the world around me is always bleak, hopeless, and full of morons) where I'd watch a presentation by Stefan or Cernovich or Bill Mitchell about the numbers, and their presentations would tell me that the numbers are good for reasonable people, but I'd go home to the same insanity, and I just couldn't imagine that it was real. I know people are moving away from the legacy media, and yet I still feel that sentiment, "If they're not advertising this, then people will not see it." It comes back to a clash I refer to as "knowing, but not understanding." I KNOW the Streisand Effect is resulting in people going out of their way to see The Red Pill in Australia because of how hard their news tried to discredit it. But I don't fundamentally understand "in my bones" that just because Last Week Tonight with John Oliver isn't telling people to see these interviews, that doesn't mean people aren't going out of their way to see it.

I generally have a policy of "do not hope; hope is doubt", but I do hope that it gets around.

I live in the same bubble, compounded with the very real threat of foreign invaders and native savages combining to create the typical Multikult mess. Incidentally growing up in this environment is what made me turned off to it, a contrast I find interesting compared to how the Leftists claim that we "wayciss Far Rightists" are ignorant and secluded from "diversity". Growing up in the swamp has made me very acute to the problems presented by the swamp; what I find hard to believe internally is the existence of White Sub-urbia and the legendary white-picket-fence and unlocked doors community. It is my main goal at the moment to save the money I'm making writing for the explicit purpose of getting out of this potential war zone in favor of the White communities said to have low crime and high cohesion. 

Quote

 

Reading quickly is a skill I find that you develop like any muscle you strengthen. It takes time, but it builds reliably, as long as you keep at it. You just get better and better at reading subtitles that you're not distracted while you're playing. Of course, it also really depends how the work is being subtitled. If they split up larger sentences isn't several groups of 2-lines of text, or if they shrink the text so they can fit entire paragraphs onto the screen at once, some are harder to read while you're distracted than others.

Oh I'm very used to reading quickly; it's just when the game is more action-oriented it's hard to "appreciate" or "feel" the sporadic text, unless it's something like Dynasty or Samurai Warriors which I am very easily able to enjoy the Japanese of. 

Quote

For me though, it's not really a matter of "quality". Everyone says that Cowboy Bebop is better in English, but most are just saying that because that's what they heard first, it's what they're comfortable with, and their Spike Spiegel sounds like Steven Blum, so anything else just "feels wrong" to their brain. But by contrast, many were introduced to DragonBall Z through the Ocean dubs, and those were GOOD dubs in terms of quality... but they actively edited and omitted and altered so much material, that it serves my point about listening to the originals. It's not always a matter of quality. At least the Bebop dubs tried to remain authentic. But still, nothing's more authentic than the original. Some jokes/references are lost on those who don't appreciate language barriers, but no amount of dubbing can fix that. If someone's never heard of the phrase "When in Rome, do as the Romans" then a short explanation won't fix their obliviousness. Likewise with all sorts of phrases a Russian might utter that an American has never, ever heard.

I found the original Japanese Dragon Ball the best, although I was initially exposed to the dubbing (which is charming on occasion, though it pales compared to the raw Japanese-ness of the original). Kaichou-War Maid-sama is an anime I very much enjoyed not too long ago in Japanese with English subtitles; I found it to be surprisingly deep as well as comedic. 

Quote

Funny story about that... There's a bit of contention between the various "slavs" regarding who is and who isn't slavic. Some would contend that Romanians are not slavs, and others would insist they are. Others will tell you that Russians aren't slavs, and so on and so on. As for Serbs, there is that bit of history (better part of a millennium, really) where they were dominated by the various changing faces of more or less the same people. Whether it was the Turks or the Persians or the Ottomans or the Austro-Hungarians, basically a continuing lineage of control, just different lines in the sand and changing names. Either way, Serbs were enslaved for that entire period, and one of the (enforced) "traditions" was that when a Serb man married, the ruling Persian nobles had "first pick" of his new wife. So many "Serbs" were conceived over the generations that were "not true slavs", but rather bastards of their rulers. But how could you even tell the difference? Persians are a very white-looking ethnic group, and there was no paternity testing until very recently. So because many Serbs have Iranian or even Turkish decent, there are other "slavs" who would insist that Serbs are not true slavs. Well... our ancestors descended from those same Romanian mountains as the rest of the slavic people, and no matter how many of us have "mixed blood", we all carry that same lineage.

Interesting. I'm not a Slav, therefore it really isn't my business, but if I were a Slav, I'd argue Russia is the "center" like Austria was the center of the Germans. I understand it's far more disparate a race given how some Russians have Mongolian and Turkish blood in them, but the percentage is minuscule and dwindling, not to mention it is the biggest and strongest of the Slavic nations, however I'd argue more for a Pan-Slavic union over one ethnicity totally dominating the other Slavic ethnic groups; it's much easier for fraternity to be a thing when Ivan in Moscow leaves Sergei in Warsaw and Anton in Budapest alone. 

I am knowledgeable about the tragic and heroic history of the Slavs, who were both enslaved and broke the enslavement of the Turks and (interestingly) Mongolians. It seems like a pattern for the hardened Slavs to be the ones to save the Europeans from their own in-fighting. 

Quote

But on top of that, what amuses me the most is the inter-slavic insults we have for each other. I can't speak to what the Czechs may say about the Slovenians or the Polish may say about the Russians, but Serbs have a couple insults for "Bosna" (not a race, but it's become an identity since the Balkan civil war) and for Montenegrin people. There's a hilarious joke about a Bosnian who goes into an interview, and his German would-be boss is concerned about him that he will not fit their company because he hears that Bosnians are lazy, to which the man laughs and tells him with confidence, "No, you misunderstood, that's Montenegrins; we're stupid!" But, as the punchline suggests, the stereotype for Montenegrin people is that they are lazy (and Bosnians are morons). "Why does a Montenegrin have a chair next to his bed? So he can sit down when he wakes up." Etc etc... Well, whether he's a bushy tabby or he's actually a Siberian breed, I lovingly call my cat "my little Montenegrin", because he's just so damn lazy, like the stereotype. He gets up, just so he can find a new spot to lay down, just like the joke. He's even too lazy to bother with killing things cats normally hunt. He'd much rather sleep than do ANYTHING else. He always finds a way to make me laugh. That adorable, slothful ball of fur. XD

Lol, all that's cute and funny. Too bad my race is too P.C. and cucked to have friendly (or not friendly) jives at its own ethnic sub-sets, as I find when groups pick on each other regularly and comfortably they tend to get along better than if they were imposed from on high to shake hands or else. 

Quote

The hard part is IDENTIFYING those smart people, however... As this last election's proven, people are much more keen to keep their ideas to themselves when they know there's a far greater likelihood of negative social consequences (if not violent ones) than that of having a friendly discussion with like-minded individuals. So how do you suss out like-minded people when they're actively keeping their heads down? Now that I've got my feet wet in business, I've got to isolate my own views from my public face, for fear of similar consequences. Even after joining NA Mensa (and having a blast attending several gatherings), it's slim pickings, because they just don't have as many gatherings as they used to...

Any tips you use to sift through the weeds, or have you just kept a close, watchful eye on your social circles to make sure your garden was tended, as it were?

Simple: look at people's reactions when they hear politics. The white guy looking distressed at the possibility of war with Syria or Trump failing to build the Wall, etc. etc. is subtly signalling he's a red pilled guy. Meanwhile the guy who looks carefree is probably a sheeple and the guy who's downright mad and says anti-White stuff, well he's obviously a Leftist.

I think the best way to find like minded individuals is to consider what people like us would be doing; namely we'd be frequenting forums like FDR and focusing both on our careers and building a good future for our children. Reaching out here is a good idea, and in personal affairs, you'll most likely bump into quality folk so long as you are living a quality and productive life. Avoid bars, nightclubs, and other dens of degeneracy for the best results. 

I can't describe how in detail to know if a guy is "in" or "out", as I find that to be largely subliminal and frankly a skill we either have or we don't. I never had a hard time identifying like-minded individuals and avoiding the dangerous; my senses would tell me without words. If you think you can trust your heart and your senses, do so. They are naturally attuned to seek the familiar and like-minded, just make sure you're a good guy first so that you don't attract the wrong company.

Quote

Ah, gaming talk with people who enjoy a great work that I do as well. Also mild waxing of theoretical social structure for stable futures, to boot! Good times...

I also prefer the House endings over the rest, but on some levels I feel that the game suffers from a few writing faux pas here and there. There's just not enough fleshing out the "real" face of the Legion, and to top if off the game was heavily rushed, so many of their greater ideas were forcibly scrapped, or at best, converted into DLCs which didn't quite fit the greater whole. I would have LOVED it had the "real ending" been the clash between Courier Six and Ulysses, which would have illustrated much more profoundly the consequences of your actions as a player and as a citizen of New Vegas and the greater wasteland, with the climatic Second Battle for Hoover Dam serving as little more than an impressive primer for the true coup de grace. But alas, the horrors of the Big Empty and the ghost stories of the Sierra Madre and the truth behind the rumors of the Burned Man and the final confrontation at the end of the Lonesome Road all had to be shoehorned into DLCs, segregated from the greater story as a whole, and forced to feel disjointed from the greater work. If only Obsidian could've been permitted to make the game they wanted, and not forced to generate a cash cow on an unforgiving schedule...

As a consumer who bought the Game of the Year Edition, I'd argue it is a good as it could ever have been. Now mind you I'd have liked it if we could see more and bigger families, as well as in depth meta-historical libraries and meet close friends and family of the major leaders, but who can say for certain that'd make a better game world. 

I enjoyed most of the DLCs, though I'd say I prefer them as DLCs than main stuff since (Lonesome Road in particular) they're harder to role-play (or more precisely, mentally imagine to fill the voids, i.e. emergent story telling) and give the player a more defined role whereas the main game was as sandbox-y as can be expected for a semi-modern open world game. 

I'd argue the "holes" here and there make for an ironic boon because we can imagine what the answers are and make up stories to explain XY or Z, and that I think makes for effective marketing and popularizing since if, for example, the maker was a Leftist we'd find his rational as to why things are the way they are flawed if not downright wrong, and vice versa.

That and I enjoy not having everything answered since it gives me creative freedom.

Quote

But I digress. For all his flaws, I adore Mr. House. The game tries really hard to make you feel bad about something, regardless of which choice you make, but in the end I believe in House's vision. Philosophically I might be more aligned with Yes Man's Independent route, but pragmatically I just don't see it panning out like a unified Mojave under a dictatorial benefactor with an uncompromising will, a shrewd pragmatist's personal "moral" code, and unmatched brilliance. No matter my doubt, House always said the right thing to wash away my worries. I agree that Caesar's vision is far more realistic, and with the intervention of the Courier, the flaws in the Legion's structure could be corrected to set it on a better, longevital course. But the fundamental flaw that the system relies heavily on that powerful leader remains. The Independent route suffers from having no visionary to guide the wastes, the NCR route suffers from the burden of the bloating republic stagnating on its own overly-ambitious and unruly size and lack of consistent direction, and yet ideologically I'd favor them over the other options, if it were a real choice I was forced to make.

I'd say I felt the gravitas of the game as well. When I first played, I fell for both Mr. House and Caesar. I knew I'd replay the game later to do the other, but it being my first play through I couldn't just flip a coin and stick with. Eventually I decided to join the Legion (this was long before I found FDR and became an AnCap/NatCap by the way, I think I was still a Communist or perhaps growing out of that and becoming a blank-slate Nationalist) and was very happy to keep the Caesar alive and make myself his heir. I considered the NCR doomed to collapse under its own weight, both as a Republic and as a people, whereas the Legion (or really Neo Roma)  had something going for it that I knew could become a new nation-state. 

However from a more recent perspective, I realize they're all attractive in their own way, but I'd argue the Independent route is the most player-creative-friendly since I can easily imagine setting up my own nation based in New Vegas and being the NatCap King of Nevada, as well as being the ruler-less state-less vacuum for AnCap to move in. 

Quote

Anyway, back to the original topic...

 

I see too many trends to feel free of worry, however. It's not even a matter of having faith in intelligent populations leading themselves out of bad decisions, as clearly the highly intelligent Koreans still followed the bloody path to socialism. It really seems like that powerful leader is key to everything. Whether the powerful leader is Pinochet or Kim Jong, that seems to make the most difference. Were it not for Prince Alexander's foolhardy and misplaced sense of kinship with his "fellow" slavs, the Balkans could have had a completely different future, spared from the corruption of socialism, infighting, and eventual conquest by violent Muslim migrants. Had it not been for the ambitious Lenin, the world as we know it would have been completely different.

But the latter example does pose a question regarding perpetuity of nations, vis-a-vis to your examples. Lenin clearly didn't groom Stalin to be his successor, yet Stalin took over all the same. Stalin never groomed his own successor, instead withdrawing into his own paranoid seclusion in his later years (not unlike Al Capone... sans syphilitic insanity). Yet the Soviet Union continued on its same course, in spite of the lack of unifying vision from a great leader passing on to a groomed successor. Does it not then follow that these societies continue on their course, when the foundation has been laid before them, to continue living underneath that structure... up until the eventual collapse, because they don't know how to build their own structure, and no one taught them how to? In that sense, Putin coming along was much more a fluke than anything else, much like Trump (except Trump has quite an intact bureaucratic machine to contend with, whereas Putin had a much more malleable canvas). I suppose I just want to look forward to a better world without banking on "good luck" like another Putin or Trump. I guess it's just harder for me to visualize that world, because it's something that may bear fruit generations after I plant the seeds.

I don't want to be a cynic, I just see more cause to fret than to celebrate.

History is only somewhat predictable; we can never know if the man in the red cape will be the next Augustus or the next Stalin. However we can do what we can to ensure we survive and thrive under either conditions, and if absolutely cannot survive under certain conditions, we can fight in every way available to us in an effort to avert it. I'm neither optimistic nor pessimistic, I'd say I'm generally cautious and treat current events like an on-going movie series, at least until I can have a more direct impact on it like Stef or Cernovich. 

I'd argue the reason why the Soviet Union collapsed was more the system than a lack of vision, for it was created to be obedient to a supreme ruler who failed to have a child to succeed him, not even counting the economic and social failures of the Union as a whole. It could have lasted far longer if Tsar Joseph I had actually established a long-lasting dynasty than a mere playground for his own inequities. 

History likes to toss in men of great ability and integrity like dice; some places get luckier than others, and when they get lucky, then sometimes get really lucky. I'd argue the reason why the Holy Roman Empire lasted a thousand years was because of repetitive luck in their favor as well as the self-preservationist Habsburg Dynasty rather than a supremely successful system, as the system itself was very fragmented and weak, but the Habsburg Kaisers wielded the awesome might of Austria as well as had the help of their branch families, making the Empire far stronger than it would have been without the well-connected and well-united clan. 

America and Europe, I believe, will survive one way or another. it'll get rough and bloody, I'm sure, but the aftermath will be our races' survival and the downfall of our invaders and looters. As they say, hard times create hard men, and hardened men create soft times...we just have to make the men of the soft times wiser than they would otherwise be by both promulgating Peaceful Parenting and plating ourselves into positions of power in the new ethnostates bound to arise from the ashes. 

This all being said, there are many possible roads that can lead to this outcome; perhaps America will be like the Ukraine and have its opposition party seize control of the government, instigating a civil war that devolves into ethnic cleansing and ideological warfare. Perhaps the end of all that carnage is a self-sustainable system that we can live in; or one we can only live in if we're its equivalent to aristocrats. 

I suggest thinking like the Jews historically have; close, but distant. We Whites are in many ways the new Jews insofar as we're constantly being scapegoated and threatened with (if not actively persecuted with) ethnic cleanses and legal oppression, etc. We have to be flexible and not too emotionally attached to our nations, which on their current course seem poised to put us in concentration camps. We must instead keep our noses sensitive and by ready to flee if necessary, and if we can, stand our ground and assist the factions of the future most favorable to our longevity. 

Perhaps I am over-thinking it and being too fearful, however I'd rather be wrong and foolish than right and enslaved. The Jews are a very inspiring testament to ethnic and cultural survival, and taking a few pages from their handbook is in the best interest of not just Whites in general but the smart and AnCap Whites in particular. 

Edited June 21, 2017 by Siegfried von Walheim

[SnapSlav]

I'll touch on the rest later, but for now I just wanted to address this:

18 hours ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

I suggest thinking like the Jews historically have; close, but distant. We Whites are in many ways the new Jews insofar as we're constantly being scapegoated and threatened with (if not actively persecuted with) ethnic cleanses and legal oppression, etc. We have to be flexible and not too emotionally attached to our nations, which on their current course seem poised to put us in concentration camps. We must instead keep our noses sensitive and by ready to flee if necessary, and if we can, stand our ground and assist the factions of the future most favorable to our longevity. 

Perhaps I am over-thinking it and being too fearful, however I'd rather be wrong and foolish than right and enslaved. The Jews are a very inspiring testament to ethnic and cultural survival, and taking a few pages from their handbook is in the best interest of not just Whites in general but the smart and AnCap Whites in particular. 

The white race as a whole really reminds me of the Serbs' attitudes for much of the 20th Century towards the other slavs. It was the Serbs who wanted to unify all the slavs. It was the Serbs who saw the Russians and the Croats and every other slav as their "brothers". It was the Serbs who saw the nationalistic spark of revolution and frowned, trying to encourage "brotherhood". The Slovenes may have triggered the civil war, but it was the Serbs' suicidal inability to recognize that NO ONE ELSE shared their sentiment of "slavic kinship" that led to the conflict being a conflict, rather than a peaceful secession. The Serbs weren't at fault, they were just critically naive. Likewise, all this "let's stop being racist" bullshit and "diversity is our strength" being peddled and happily swallowed by the whites is just going to lead to a conflict that they will never see coming, because they'll have their blinders on. Why else are they surprised when someone attacks them, and they don't understand why when they were trying to "be more loving" towards their enemies? They don't even understand that these people are their enemies. They're naively thinking we're all a beautiful, multi-culti brotherhood, and nobody actually hates us without cause. It's a delusional mindset, and it's the one thing I truly regret about my lineage. I even still have it, to this day. I met a Russian and I immediately felt like we had a bond... well they didn't. Old habits die hard, it seems. ~_~

[Siegfried von Walheim]

4 hours ago, SnapSlav said:

I'll touch on the rest later, but for now I just wanted to address this:

I eagerly await it, given how much we've spoken.

4 hours ago, SnapSlav said:

The white race as a whole really reminds me of the Serbs' attitudes for much of the 20th Century towards the other slavs. It was the Serbs who wanted to unify all the slavs. It was the Serbs who saw the Russians and the Croats and every other slav as their "brothers". It was the Serbs who saw the nationalistic spark of revolution and frowned, trying to encourage "brotherhood". The Slovenes may have triggered the civil war, but it was the Serbs' suicidal inability to recognize that NO ONE ELSE shared their sentiment of "slavic kinship" that led to the conflict being a conflict, rather than a peaceful secession. The Serbs weren't at fault, they were just critically naive. Likewise, all this "let's stop being racist" bullshit and "diversity is our strength" being peddled and happily swallowed by the whites is just going to lead to a conflict that they will never see coming, because they'll have their blinders on. Why else are they surprised when someone attacks them, and they don't understand why when they were trying to "be more loving" towards their enemies? They don't even understand that these people are their enemies. They're naively thinking we're all a beautiful, multi-culti brotherhood, and nobody actually hates us without cause. It's a delusional mindset, and it's the one thing I truly regret about my lineage. I even still have it, to this day.

I don't know much about how and what exactly happened in the fall of the South Slavic Nation (how's that for a translation of Yugoslavia?), but I know it was bloody and essentially a matter of most of everyone wanting to be independent with a few people wanting dominance, followed by repetitive desires for revenge. This desire, I think, carries on to this day and is especially dangerous. Just consider how the Turkish population is 80 million strong, when the divided Balkans (curious: are the Greeks considered Slavs at all?) has a combined population of roughly 50 million. Unless our Slavic cousins are worth at ten Turks each, or are led by great and able men, or have a great and able man in reserve, the Turks are likely to overpower the Balkans and truly revive the Ottoman Empire should war engulf Europe between the ethnicites and cultures.

It frustrates me that the Slavs cannot see each other as brothers of the same blood like my German ancestors could after the Prussians beat the crap out of the Austrians. When we Germans united, we became the strongest power in Europe save in oceanic power, which the English retained, and were able to equal the combined might of the Anglo-French and the Russians, not to mention ably curb stomp our neighbors and annex the lesser nations between us. Although the causes for both World Wars were terrible, and my cousins in Germany would have lost even if they won, it was still a testament to the almighty power of the united German race. If the Slavs, who outnumber us by double and are made of similar quality stuff that we are, were to unite, they could become the masters of Eurasia and be the great superpower to equal the former greatness of the united Anglosphere.  Neither Arabs nor Africans could even hope to match your might, and the Chinese would be our only true rivals. The world would be divided in three, effectively. 

And if the Slavs had the sentiment common to Western Whites of being same enough to be one big family, then most of the White races would then also unite, and become something truly special. I do not consider our ability to call other ethnities friends a weakness, but rather something to be mishandled. After all our able to be fraternal with other White races meant that America could become a truly great country in the late 19th century, in spite of the White-Black divide. If we had gone the more Libertarian path than the Communist path, we could have become something so great no one alive today would be able to even remotely comprehend it. 

I, myself, am a bit of an except to the Western rule of being able to call other people "brother" without being genetically close. I grew up in a Multikult and therefore recognized from an early age the sharp differences between the races and ethnic groups. I generally respected and admired the East Asians, feared and kept myself on guard against the Blacks and Arabs, whilst having disdain for native Whites and a sense of fellowship with foreign Whites (who I got along with. Most of my acquaintances spoke either a Slavic accent or an Asian one). I had problems I hadn't worked out, so sadly I wasn't able to make anything long-lasting (I had a self-destructive tendency to destroy friendships that lasted longer than certain point). 

4 hours ago, SnapSlav said:

I met a Russian and I immediately felt like we had a bond... well they didn't. Old habits die hard, it seems. ~_~

You say "they". Was she female? 

Given my first crushes were both Ukrainians, I can't say I don't relate...

...Although my shyness saved me, since they were both crazy. 

 

 

[SnapSlav]

[Monumental formatting mistake, and couldn't figure out how to fix it in the edit. Had to re-post to make the fixes. PLEASE DELETE THIS!]

[SnapSlav]

I must apologize for the long (loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong) delay. The truth is that I've been very busy with work, but that still doesn't excuse the fact that I've kept you hanging all this time.

Furthermore, I'm STILL quite busy with work, so I can't really devote myself to the same lengthy diatribes I would adore to write, so I have to be pretty brief right now. But I'll try to touch on all the important stuff, even if it means lumping different comments together because "they're referring to the same thing, I think" and responding to them in one short go.

 

On 6/21/2017 at 10:05 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

You say "they". Was she female? 

Given my first crushes were both Ukrainians, I can't say I don't relate...

...Although my shyness saved me, since they were both crazy.

Yes, the person was female, but it wasn't "that" type of relationship. She was an elderly mother of someone I'd been conversing with, and when I heard her speak I noticed her (familiar) accent, so I asked about it, and when I felt that brief "kinship" of being fellow slavs- and she didn't -I remembered how we damned Serbs see brotherhood in our fellow slavs where they themselves see none... or even worse, grudges. (Just look at what happened to LONG time friends Vlade Devac and Drazen Petrovic, or the documentary "Once Brothers" that covers their falling out, all because of a flag.)
On that note...

 

On 6/21/2017 at 10:05 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

It frustrates me that the Slavs cannot see each other as brothers of the same blood like my German ancestors could after the Prussians beat the crap out of the Austrians. When we Germans united, we became the strongest power in Europe save in oceanic power, which the English retained [...]

And if the Slavs had the sentiment common to Western Whites of being same enough to be one big family, then most of the White races would then also unite, and become something truly special. [...]

It's a lovely idea that we could see our bonds and unite over them rather than fixate on the divisions and remain divided. But I just don't see it happening. Too much pride and too much resentment. Even I, after all my eagerness to see fellowship in other slavs, have been jilted enough times that I've grown more cynical towards the prospects of any form of unity. There's just too much bad blood and grudges. It's not going to happen. =/

 

On 6/21/2017 at 10:05 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

I don't know much about how and what exactly happened in the fall of the South Slavic Nation (how's that for a translation of Yugoslavia?)

You're pretty close as far as the name goes. I always learned it as "Land of the Southern Slavs", but the difference is basically just syntax. They're otherwise identical, so you're fairly spot on!

As for the war itself... I was a child growing up in the states when it happened, so I never got to experience it firsthand. I just learned about it from my mother. My most poignant memory about it was asking my mother when we'd get to go visit family in Yugoslavia again (having already been there before the war when I was 5) and seeing a sadness overcome her face when she told me, "We can't, it's too dangerous there right now." Of course she tried to explain why and that there was a war going on, but I couldn't understand what that meant. I was 6, for crying out loud. I hadn't fully understood what death was, yet, so like hell I was going to grasp the significance of hundreds of thousands of people killing each other in a civil war that basically amounted to land-grabs.

Sadly, that's all it really was. Just people claiming territory. First the Slovenians saying "We're independent now, this is ours, it's not yours anymore", and then decades of disputes over which mountain range belonged to whom followed. Like Milo says time and time again, the American experiment really is unique, because it wasn't formed on the basis of who came from which stretch of what land; it was ideological-based. Well it WAS a matter of who came from which stretch of what land in Europe, and you'll hear complaining about it ALL the time from all the ethnic groups who insist that they're separate from the rest of their countrymen. No I'm not Italian, I'm Sicilian. No I'm not Spanish, I'm Catalan. No I'm not English, I'm Scottish, for God's sake! And so on it goes... Just imagine trying to tell these people, who staked their claims on ancestral homeland and lineage, that their claim wasn't as important as this utopian dream. As Stef pointed out in a fairly recent video, every time multi-ethnic nation states have been attempted, they always devolved into the same squabbling and fragmentation. The term "Balkanization" specifically refers to this phenomenon of a nation splintering because of what happened to Yugoslavia, and what happened to Yugoslavia is just so typical of these types of attempts at forcing people to band together who wouldn't come to that decision on their own. Yeah, the CIA was involved, and yeah, trying to take over land because you wanted valuable resource deposits was involved, but ultimately these efforts to sow dissent would never have taken root if the soil of fragmentation weren't so fertile.

 

On 6/21/2017 at 10:05 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

(curious: are the Greeks considered Slavs at all?

No, the Greeks are not considered Slavic. Though we do share a kinship with each other, strangely enough. Go figure, a Czech feeling less camaraderie towards a Serb than a Greek does to the same...

 

On 6/20/2017 at 11:06 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Quite simply, you have to disregard the low IQ and suicidal around you as "already dead" or worse (enemies) and focus solely on your own progeny, ensure they are in the best possible place to (at the very least) survive, if not (at best) dominate. As a young man who just turned 19, it is my lifelong goal to make good money as an author, marry a fine woman, and make fine babies and raise them into being far superior than their predecessors. It is impossible to know everything that is current at ones; "life" comes at us fast, surprises aplenty. Perhaps I am not joking when I often say "my son will be the first Kaiser of the Holy American Empire". Perhaps he'll be the NatCap ruler who'll eventually shrink the State into nothingness, leaving an AnCap foundation. 

I have never tolerated the stupid or the dogmatic; I've only ever made friends with those whom I could argue and sharpen myself with. I don't have many friends (somewhat naturally, as I'm a bit of a workaholic who mainly socializes in forums like this) as a result, but that doesn't bother me because I know once I've made myself into a good man I'll be like a beacon for other good men. Nicholas Fuentes, the 18 year old head  and founder of Right Side Radio and recent guest on the Stefpai Network, is a great example of the kind of guy I aim to befriend both personally and professionally.

Being able to look at people and assessing them as "worth saving" or "dead weight" is a goal I often aim for. However cold and dismissive it may appear, I'm always trying to identify "threats" or "lost causes", and I'm very detached and pragmatic when it comes to the matter of severing ties. Not even blood relation gets in the way of determining whether you're worth keeping in my company or better off persona non grata. The problem is that I still hold that delusion of fellowship, at times, when I should instead be identifying "threats" or "lost causes". It's a bad habit I've been trying to rid myself. I realize how monstrous it appears to some people, but that's just the way it is. I don't hold any "monstrous" intentions. Hell, no matter how much I wish to disregard someone, I still don't wish them ill. I don't spite them when they're sick, I don't mock them, I just desire to stay away from them, and them me. I probably could do MORE to isolate myself from certain people.

I suppose it doesn't help that "being social" and "NOT burning bridges at all costs" is integral to my line of work... Oh the irony. I'd be so much better suited to callously assessing people as "already dead" or not by my nature, which is inherently detached and pragmatic. Yet I go out of my way to fight that nature, because work. Still, the nature is there, so maybe should I ever get successful enough that I become "so fuck-you rich", I'll find it quite EASY to fall back on very cold analytical assessments of people's worth. XD

 

On 6/20/2017 at 11:06 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Lol, even though I grew up in what you describe as the typical Western style, I'm much closer to what you describe the Serbians as for I frequently discuss politics and religion, even with my mother.

Never change! =D

 

On 6/21/2017 at 10:05 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

I, myself, am a bit of an [exception] to the Western rule of being able to call other people "brother" without being genetically close. I grew up in a Multikult and therefore recognized from an early age the sharp differences between the races and ethnic groups. I generally respected and admired the East Asians, feared and kept myself on guard against the Blacks and Arabs, whilst having disdain for native Whites and a sense of fellowship with foreign Whites (who I got along with. Most of my acquaintances spoke either a Slavic accent or an Asian one). I had problems I hadn't worked out, so sadly I wasn't able to make anything long-lasting (I had a self-destructive tendency to destroy friendships that lasted longer than certain point). 

I know I had a "different" upbringing than most around me. One half of the family was assimilated American "mutt", and the other was culturally-intact immigrant. So I grew up hearing stories of the American dream and swallowing the creeping-Socialism blue pill in schools, as well as stories of what it was like "in Europe". Many of the things I'd hear regarded demographic strife of the day; the Muslims this, the English that, etc. So that rubbed off on me in unintended ways, but even then I was so obsessively-specific that when I reported to my parents that "some Mexican kids" were bullying me, I was just being accurate. I didn't think they were ganging up on me because of our racial differences, I'm pretty sure it was because they were a group of 4-5, and I was a loner. I just recognized the differences in people, and never shied away from pointing them out. Still, my parents felt like they had to sit me down and tell me not to be racist. So I saw the fear of "don't be racist" at a VERY young age, and grew inoculated against it early on. In time, when the problem of political correctness grew rampant, I'd already learned why it was bullshit well before the brainwashing was too far gone. The same could not be said of... well, never mind.

 

On 6/20/2017 at 11:06 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Lol, all that's cute and funny. Too bad my race is too P.C. and cucked to have friendly (or not friendly) jives at its own ethnic sub-sets, as I find when groups pick on each other regularly and comfortably they tend to get along better than if they were imposed from on high to shake hands or else.

I'm sure it's all still there. It's just behind layers of culture and media that refuse to acknowledge it. Like Jeff Foxworthy's tame "You Might Be a Redneck" bits, there's back-and-forth stereotypes we still have of each other. Germans having rigid and strict work ethics even appeared in The Simpsons back in the 90s, so despite several decades of brainwashing, it's still there. You just gotta know where to look, like any kind of truth. If all you do is behold the gatekeepers, it's not that the smugglers don't exist, it's that you're choosing not to see them. Beneath the veil of PC is a very eager populace dying to tell some racy jokes at the slightest provocation!

 

On 6/20/2017 at 11:06 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

History is only somewhat predictable; we can never know if the man in the red cape will be the next Augustus or the next Stalin. However we can do what we can to ensure we survive and thrive under either conditions, and if absolutely cannot survive under certain conditions, we can fight in every way available to us in an effort to avert it. I'm neither optimistic nor pessimistic, I'd say I'm generally cautious and treat current events like an on-going movie series, at least until I can have a more direct impact on it like Stef or Cernovich.

Speaking of direct impacts and whether or not the next big leader is a benefactor or a dictator, I'm reminded of a major part of my family history that I only recently (this March, in fact) became aware of. The short version is one man had a miserable life because he stuck to his principles in a situation where principles weren't popular, and another person deliberately abandoned those principles to NOT have a miserable life, but had the opportunity and authority to save the former's life. AND he's STILL alive, and his mind is still sharp! It's my most immediate goal to be able to close some deals right away so I can finance a trip back to Europe to speak to him about his life and his choices. It's been nagging me ever since I learned what he did. I can neither condemn nor commend him, and that moral grey has been bothering me.

Ideally, we don't find ourselves in a situation in which caving our principles can be considered laudable under ANY context. But that's what separates us from socialists: we don't confuse idealism with reality. We have to make peace with what actually is, not with what we wish it to be.

 

On 6/20/2017 at 11:06 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Quote

Ah, gaming talk with people who enjoy a great work that I do as well. Also mild waxing of theoretical social structure for stable futures, to boot! Good times...

I also prefer the House endings over the rest, but on some levels I feel that the game suffers from a few writing faux pas here and there. There's just not enough fleshing out the "real" face of the Legion, and to top if off the game was heavily rushed, so many of their greater ideas were forcibly scrapped, or at best, converted into DLCs which didn't quite fit the greater whole. I would have LOVED it had the "real ending" been the clash between Courier Six and Ulysses, which would have illustrated much more profoundly the consequences of your actions as a player and as a citizen of New Vegas and the greater wasteland, with the climatic Second Battle for Hoover Dam serving as little more than an impressive primer for the true coup de grace. But alas, the horrors of the Big Empty and the ghost stories of the Sierra Madre and the truth behind the rumors of the Burned Man and the final confrontation at the end of the Lonesome Road all had to be shoehorned into DLCs, segregated from the greater story as a whole, and forced to feel disjointed from the greater work. If only Obsidian could've been permitted to make the game they wanted, and not forced to generate a cash cow on an unforgiving schedule...

As a consumer who bought the Game of the Year Edition, I'd argue it is a good as it could ever have been. Now mind you I'd have liked it if we could see more and bigger families, as well as in depth meta-historical libraries and meet close friends and family of the major leaders, but who can say for certain that'd make a better game world. 

I enjoyed most of the DLCs, though I'd say I prefer them as DLCs than main stuff since (Lonesome Road in particular) they're harder to role-play (or more precisely, mentally imagine to fill the voids, i.e. emergent story telling) and give the player a more defined role whereas the main game was as sandbox-y as can be expected for a semi-modern open world game. 

I'd argue the "holes" here and there make for an ironic boon because we can imagine what the answers are and make up stories to explain XY or Z, and that I think makes for effective marketing and popularizing since if, for example, the maker was a Leftist we'd find his rational as to why things are the way they are flawed if not downright wrong, and vice versa.

That and I enjoy not having everything answered since it gives me creative freedom.

Quote

But I digress. For all his flaws, I adore Mr. House. The game tries really hard to make you feel bad about something, regardless of which choice you make, but in the end I believe in House's vision. Philosophically I might be more aligned with Yes Man's Independent route, but pragmatically I just don't see it panning out like a unified Mojave under a dictatorial benefactor with an uncompromising will, a shrewd pragmatist's personal "moral" code, and unmatched brilliance. No matter my doubt, House always said the right thing to wash away my worries. I agree that Caesar's vision is far more realistic, and with the intervention of the Courier, the flaws in the Legion's structure could be corrected to set it on a better, longevital course. But the fundamental flaw that the system relies heavily on that powerful leader remains. The Independent route suffers from having no visionary to guide the wastes, the NCR route suffers from the burden of the bloating republic stagnating on its own overly-ambitious and unruly size and lack of consistent direction, and yet ideologically I'd favor them over the other options, if it were a real choice I was forced to make.

I'd say I felt the gravitas of the game as well. When I first played, I fell for both Mr. House and Caesar. I knew I'd replay the game later to do the other, but it being my first play through I couldn't just flip a coin and stick with. Eventually I decided to join the Legion (this was long before I found FDR and became an AnCap/NatCap by the way, I think I was still a Communist or perhaps growing out of that and becoming a blank-slate Nationalist) and was very happy to keep the Caesar alive and make myself his heir. I considered the NCR doomed to collapse under its own weight, both as a Republic and as a people, whereas the Legion (or really Neo Roma)  had something going for it that I knew could become a new nation-state. 

However from a more recent perspective, I realize they're all attractive in their own way, but I'd argue the Independent route is the most player-creative-friendly since I can easily imagine setting up my own nation based in New Vegas and being the NatCap King of Nevada, as well as being the ruler-less state-less vacuum for AnCap to move in.

Having spent literal YEARS discussing the merits of the game on another board ostensibly catered to the series... A bunch of us came to the conclusion that had the "original" (or something like it) plan for the game's ending been maintained, had Bethesda given Obsidian a decent chunk of time to work with, instead of an unreasonable and rushed development, we might've seen a game like the original Dark Souils in which the creators saw no NEED for DLCs, and where subsequent DLCs would truly add to the narrative without feeling tacked on. Sadly, what we got was a (still great) game with an ending that felt second to the greater character story that can only be completed if you finish the DLCs in a particular order, and that regardless of how you play them, they'll always feel tacked on, because they were. Not because they were afterthoughts; they certainly weren't. But they were added later, because they couldn't be added in to begin with.

The real story really is the conflict between the two couriers. Benny serves as an ingenious sleight-of-hand as a faux antagonist and his failed assassination attempt on the player character and the greater geopolitical strife of New Vegas are merely the catalysts that get the journey started. But it was your character's history with Ulysses that got him to set the events of the game in motion, and his setting of the events in motion that begat the confrontation at the hellscape ends of the world that would determined whether civilization would survive or whether a new apocalypse would be ushered in. Even something as sentimental as a robotic companion that won't truly "die" because it's just a copy of the real thing you befriended serves as a powerful emotional anchor for the final conflict, where you have to choose the attachment of something inorganic over the lives of millions of people, and yet the decision is a hard one to make. Really, the final boss of the game wasn't Lanius, it was Ulysses. He followed in the great Fallout tradition of well-meaning but flawed individuals whose goals threatened the entire world, and putting him down or stopping him some other way was the REAL endgame. Who holds Hoover Dam just doesn't compare to saving the whole fucking world. Plus, there's plenty of game files that hint that the game wasn't really meant to end after the battle for the dam.

Some of us disagreed about exactly how it could've played out, but essentially you either heard all about the enigmatic "original Courier Six" just like the vanilla game, or as the creators initially intended, you had the chance to MEET said character, then spend the rest of the game realizing they were this figure who almost got you killed, and after the major conflict with the Legion was settled, they'd send you their ultimatum to face you to decide the fate of the wastes, and he'd make his same grand point when you confront him, that none of this really needed to happen at all- it happened because you just had to keep going. It was a great commentary about your characters, as well as a clever jab at how players typically approach video games, in a way that wouldn't be seen until Chara's monologue to the player in Undertale. Yeah you just helped save an entire city, maybe helped them build a new country, but you also ushered in certain doom because you couldn't just leave this character's past alone, and he just had to make his point clear.

To a lesser (but still very poignant) extent, the other DLC antagonists also serve as a much more profound confrontation than the vanilla game's final act. Between a madman you chase all across the desert with ambitions of "wiping the slate clean" and absolutely deranged and morally-vacuous scientists hell-bent on escaping their prison and using the world as "test subjects" for their demented experiments, and of course Ulysses and his poetic aspirations about "waking the sleeping giants of the Old World", each represents a far greater catastrophic threat than an army attacking a strategic position, and the squabbles between different groups in the setting where that attack will take place. It's like looking at the first few mission in Tactics and insisting that defeating the raiders was the real victory, when it was in fact the menacing Calculator that had to be defeated at all costs which served as the true adversary for the whole game. Naturally, the squabbles and your character's role in either pacifying or exacerbating them make for a more complete and "real" world, and these are where the lovable charm of the games has always been found. But it's in those greater conflicts (that cannot be avoided by simply idling away the days) that ground the stories, and lead to a more epic conclusion that makes your choices feel all the more satisfying. Whether or not you made The Den a better place matters because you stopped a second global holocaust. Whether or not New Vegas gets claimed or remains independent only matters because the rest of the world was spared from a life-ending catastrophe.

How New Vegas should be governed is certainly the more thought-provoking ending to the game. It gives all sorts of opportunities for very different players to decide what their "perfect world" would look like, given the same opportunities to shape it as the Courier does. I know I was more of an Anarchist when I initially played the game, so I absolutely strove to achieve the Independent ending back in 2010, and was kinda disappointed that it was realistic. There's certainly much less philosophy to talk about where antagonists whose motivations are purely genocidal are concerned. Still, those antagonists, and just how hard it is to shake them from their genocidal purposes can be, is so much more personally interesting to me. I know many a Fallout fan absolutely adores the Master because of his doomed Unity plans, precisely because of how damned certain he is that they will work, and just how crestfallen and hopeless he becomes should you demonstrate to him that they cannot succeed. His (possible) parting line of "Go now. Leave while there is still hope" is just so haunting...

 

I think that's enough for now, right? =)

[Siegfried von Walheim]

14 hours ago, SnapSlav said:

I must apologize for the long (loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong) delay. The truth is that I've been very busy with work, but that still doesn't excuse the fact that I've kept you hanging all this time.

Yes it is; Mazlow's hierarchy of needs and all that. I remember you work in California, guessing based on what I read in a field where Leftists are commonplace...

14 hours ago, SnapSlav said:

Yes, the person was female, but it wasn't "that" type of relationship. She was an elderly mother of someone I'd been conversing with, and when I heard her speak I noticed her (familiar) accent, so I asked about it, and when I felt that brief "kinship" of being fellow slavs- and she didn't -I remembered how we damned Serbs see brotherhood in our fellow slavs where they themselves see none... or even worse, grudges. (Just look at what happened to LONG time friends Vlade Devac and Drazen Petrovic, or the documentary "Once Brothers" that covers their falling out, all because of a flag.)
On that note...It's a lovely idea that we could see our bonds and unite over them rather than fixate on the divisions and remain divided. But I just don't see it happening. Too much pride and too much resentment. Even I, after all my eagerness to see fellowship in other slavs, have been jilted enough times that I've grown more cynical towards the prospects of any form of unity. There's just too much bad blood and grudges. It's not going to happen. =/

Who can say? Did anyone 2000 years ago predict the GERMAN BARBARIANS or the BLUE-SKINNED SAVAGES would one day rule the world and be all Roman Law and Christian?

14 hours ago, SnapSlav said:

 

You're pretty close as far as the name goes. I always learned it as "Land of the Southern Slavs", but the difference is basically just syntax. They're otherwise identical, so you're fairly spot on!

Well, I figured "South Slavland" but adding "land" in English doesn't necessarily imply "nation". 

14 hours ago, SnapSlav said:

As for the war itself... I was a child growing up in the states when it happened, so I never got to experience it firsthand. I just learned about it from my mother. My most poignant memory about it were asking my mother when we'd get to go visit family in Yugoslavia again (having already been then when I was 5 before the war) and seeing a sadness overcome her face when she told me, "We can't, it's too dangerous there right now." Of course she tried to explain why and that there was a war going on, but I couldn't understand what that meant. I was 6, for crying out loud. I hadn't fully understood what death was, yet, so like hell I was going to grasp the significance of hundreds of thousands of people killing each other in a civil war that basically amounted to land-grabs.

Sadly, that's all it really was. Just people claiming territory. First the Slovenians saying "We're independent now, this is ours, it's not yours anymore", and then decades of disputes over which mountain range belonged to whom. Like Milo says time and time again, the American experiment really is unique, because it wasn't formed on the basis of who came from which stretch of what land; it was ideological-based. Well it WAS a matter of who came from which stretch of what land in Europe, and you'll hear complaining about it ALL the time from all the ethnic groups who insist that they're separate from the rest of their countrymen. No I'm not Italian, I'm Sicilian. No I'm not Spanish, I'm Catalan. No I'm not English, I'm Scottish, for God's sake! And so on it goes... Just imagine trying to tell these people, who staked their claims on ancestral homeland and lineage, that their claim wasn't as important as this bigger picture. As Stef pointed out in a fairly recent video, every time multi-ethnic nation states have been attempted, they always devolved into the same squabbling and fragmentation. The term "Balkanization" specifically refers to this phenomenon of a nation splintering because of what happened to Yugoslavia, and what happened to Yugoslavia is just so typical of these types of attempts at forcing people to band together who wouldn't come to that decision on their own. Yeah, the CIA was involved, and yeah, trying to take over land because you wanted valuable resource deposit were involved, but ultimately these efforts to sow dissent would never have taken root if the soil of fragmentation weren't so fertile.

 

No, the Greeks are not considered Slavic. Though we do share a kinship with each other, strangely enough. Go figure, a Czech feeling less camaraderie towards a Serb than a Greek does to the same...

I think given time and the right conditions, that could change. Germany, France, Scandinavia, and mainland Italy used to be heavily divided. Heck, Russia used to be dozens of smaller countries! Now it's breakable into roughly 3 based on religion and geography. 

14 hours ago, SnapSlav said:

 

Being able to look at people and assessing them as "worth saving" or "dead weight" is a goal I often aim for. However cold and dismissive it may appear, I'm always trying to identify "threats" or "lost causes", and I'm very detached and pragmatic when it comes to the matter of severing ties. Not even blood relation gets in the way of determining whether you're worth keeping in my company or better off persona non grata. The problem is that I still hold that delusion of fellowship, at times, when I should instead be identifying "threats" or "lost causes". It's a bad habit I've been trying to rid myself. I realize how monstrous it appears to some people, but that's just the way it is. I don't hold any "monstrous" intentions. Hell, no matter how much I wish to disregard someone, I still don't wish them ill. I don't spite them when they're sick, I don't mock them, I just desire to stay away from them, and them me. I probably could do MORE to isolate myself from certain people.

I think you're taking what I said months ago too far. I have changed a fair bit here;

Don't be too hard, internally, against the victims of abuse. Recognize they're victims, and move on. Recognize "who can be saved" based on subtle tells (are they curious? Do they act in adherence with what they say? Do they ever concede points willingly?) and decide for yourself if that person is worth reaching out for. You lose time, but could gain a friend.

Of course if your job involves these people, don't risk it. I don't know what you do, but if it's something where you can choose who you work with or relocate, I'd suggest that. As an author I can be highly selective of who I work with and, eventually, who and how I'll publish. Chances are I'll either indie-publish or self-publish since the Regressive Left has infested the publishing world...

14 hours ago, SnapSlav said:

I suppose it doesn't help that "being social" and "NOT burning bridges at all costs" is integral to my line of work... Oh the irony. I'd be so much better suited to callously assessing people as "already dead" or not by my nature, which is inherently detached and pragmatic. Yet I go out of my way to fight that nature, because work. Still, the nature is there, so maybe should I ever get successful enough that I become "so fuck-you rich", I'll find it quite EASY to fall back on very cold analytical assessments of people's worth. XD

I know Stef has commented about this sort of thing, I'll refer to him on it. I'll try to paraphrase what I remember: recognize your limitations in a given scenario, and work from there. Don't try to change it, rather instead keep doing what you're doing for as long as you must until you have demonstrated yourself so well that your "bohemian politics" become "quirks".

14 hours ago, SnapSlav said:

 

Never change! =D

On that aspect, I won't. On others, I must!

14 hours ago, SnapSlav said:

 

I know I had a "different" upbringing than most around me. One half of the family was assimilated American "mutt", and the other was culturally-intact immigrant. So I grew up hearing stories of the American dream and swallowing the creeping-Socialism blue pill in schools, as well as stories of what it was like "in Europe". Many of the things I'd hear regarded demographic strife of the day; the Muslims this, the English that, etc. So that rubbed off on me in unintended ways, but even then I was so obsessively-specific that when I reported to my parents that "some Mexican kids" were bullying me, I was just being accurate. I didn't think they were ganging up on me because of our racial differences, I'm pretty sure it was because they were a group of 4-5, and I was a loner. I just recognized the differences in people, and never shied away from pointing them out. Still, my parents felt like they had to sit me down and tell me not to be racist. So I saw the fear of "don't be racist" at a VERY young age, and grew inoculated against it early on. In time, when the problem of political correctness grew rampant, I'd already learned why it was bullshit well before the brainwashing was too far gone. The same could not be said of... well, never mind.

I remember when I was first in a fight with non-Whites. My experience at home was different. My mother wept, and my father taught me to fight back with my fists. Sadly this meant getting into trouble with the school system which punishes victims as well as aggressors. Eventually I just grew big enough and savvy enough not to be bothered by wannabe thugs and avoid the real ones. 

14 hours ago, SnapSlav said:

 

I'm sure it's all still there. It's just behind layers of culture and media that refuse to acknowledge it. Like Jeff Foxworthy's tame "You Might Be a Redneck" bits, there's back-and-forth stereotypes we still have of each other. Germans having rigid and strict work ethics even appeared in The Simpsons back in the 90s, so despite several decades of brainwashing, it's still there. You just gotta know where to look, like any kind of truth. If all you do is behold the gatekeepers, it's not that the smugglers don't exist, it's that you're choosing not to see them. Beneath the veil of PC is a very eager populace dying to tell some racy jokes at the slightest provocation!

I know that very well. And those kinds of people are the kinds that build nations!

14 hours ago, SnapSlav said:

Speaking of direct impacts and whether or not the next big leader is a benefactor or a dictator, I'm reminded of a major part of my family history that I only recently (this March, in fact) became aware of. The short version is one man had a miserable life because he stuck to his principles in a situation where principles weren't popular, and another person deliberately abandoned those principles to NOT have a miserable life, but had the opportunity and authority to save the former's life. AND he's STILL alive, and his mind is still sharp! It's my most immediate goal to be able to close some deals right away so I can finance a trip back to Europe to speak to him about his life and his choices. It's been nagging me ever since I learned what he did. I can neither condemn nor commend him, and that moral grey has been bothering me.

Interesting. I'd argue if a man has to act badly to survive, he can be morally excused to a certain extent. If I was a German under Nazi rule, I could be excused for not engaging with Jews and not hiding any. Actively hunting for them is a different story.

Generally speaking, to have principles, one must live by them as best as he is able. That means not starting fights that cannot be won nor trying to be included in the "unprincipled people's" table. And, at some point, reach out for the like minded and form communities based on shared values.

14 hours ago, SnapSlav said:

Ideally, we don't find ourselves in a situation in which caving our principles can be considered laudable under ANY context. But that's what separates us from socialists: we don't confuse idealism with reality. We have to make peace with what actually is, not with what we wish it to be.

 

Having spent literal YEARS discussing the merits of the game on another board ostensibly catered to the series... A bunch of us came to the conclusion that had the "original" (or something like it) plan for the game's ending been maintained, had Bethesda given Obsidian a decent chunk of time to work with, instead of an unreasonable and rushed development, we might've seen a game like the original Dark Souils in which the creators saw no NEED for DLCs, and where subsequent DLCs would truly add to the narrative without feeling tacked on. Sadly, what we got was a great game with and ending that felt second to the greater character story that can only be completed if you finish the DLCs in a particular order, and that regardless of how you play them, they'll always feel tacked on, because they were. Not because they were afterthoughts; they certainly weren't. But they were added later, because they couldn't be added in to begin with.

The real story really is the conflict between the two couriers. Benny serves as an ingenious sleight-of-hand as a faux antagonist and his failed assassination attempt on the player character and the greater geopolitical strife of New Vegas are merely the catalysts that get the journey started. But it was your character's history with Ulysses that got him to set the events of the game in motion, and his setting of the events in motion that begat the confrontation at the hellscape ends of the world that would determined whether civilization would survive or whether a new apocalypse would be ushered in. Even something as sentimental as a robotic companion that won't truly "die" because it's just a copy of the real thing you befriended serves as a powerful emotional anchor for the final conflict, where you have to choose the attachment of something inorganic over the lives of millions of people, and yet the decision is a hard one to make. Really, the final boss of the game wasn't Lanius, it was Ulysses. He followed in the great Fallout tradition of well-meaning but flawed individuals whose goals threatened the entire world, and putting him down or stopping him some other way was the REAL endgame. Who holds Hoover Dam just doesn't compare to saving the whole fucking world. Plus, there's plenty of game files that hint that the game wasn't really meant to end after the battle for the dam.

Some of us disagreed about exactly how it could've played out, but essentially you either heard all about the enigmatic "original Courier Six" just like the vanilla game, or as the creators initially intended, you had the chance to MEET said character, then spend the rest of the game realizing they were this figure who almost got you killed, and after the major conflict with the Legion was settled, they'd send you their ultimatum to face you to decide the fate of the wastes, and he'd make his same grand point when you confront him, that none of this really needed to happen at all- it happened because you just had to keep going. It was a great commentary about your characters, as well as a clever jab at how players typically approach video games, in a way that wouldn't be seen until Chara's monologue to the player in Undertale. Yeah you just helped save an entire city, maybe helped them build a new country, but you also ushered in certain doom because you couldn't just leave this character's past alone, and he just had to make his point clear.

To a lesser (but still very poignant) extent, the other DLC antagonists also serve as a much more profound confrontation than the vanilla game's final act. Between a madman you chase all across the desert with ambitions of "wiping the slate clean" and absolutely deranged and morally-vacuous scientists hell-bent on escaping their prison and using the world as "test subjected" for their demented experiments, and of course Ulysses and his poetic aspirations about "waking the sleeping giants of the old world", each represents a far greater catastrophic threat than an army attacking a strategic position, and the squabbles between different groups in the setting where that attack will take place. It's like looking at the first few battles in Tactics and insisting that defeating the raiders was the real victory, when it was in fact the menacing Calculator that had to be defeated at all costs that served as the true adversary for the whole game. Naturally, the squabbles and your character's role in either pacifying or exacerbating them make for a more complete and "real" world, and these are where the lovable charm of the games has always been found. But it's in those greater conflicts that cannot be avoided by simply idling away the days that ground the stories, and lead to a more epic conclusion that makes your choices feel all the more satisfying. Whether or not you made The Den a better place matters because you stopped a second global holocaust. Whether or not New Vegas gets claimed to remains independent because the rest of the world was spared from a life-ending catastrophe.

How New Vegas should be governed is certainly the more though-provoking ending to the game. It gives all sorts of opportunities for very different players to decide what their "perfect world" would look like, given the same opportunities to shape it as the Courier does. There's certainly much less to talk about where antagonists whose motivations are purely genocidal are concerned.

 

I think that's enough for now, right? =)

While saving the world is obviously bigger than lobbying for a particular political faction, it is much less likely to be a problem for people in the real world. In the real world, bad guys usually think they're good guys and it is up for the IRL protagonist to discern who the real bad guys and good guys are and act accordingly. 

I'd argue the thing with the "courier backstory" is weak based on how it's not something ever likely to happen in real life, and largely (if not entirely from what I remember) faultless on the part of the player. 

That being said ED-E (who I pronounce E-dee) is a cute eyebot and the DLCs added great and enjoyable variety even if their stories were less interesting (except in the Zion Valley thing, which was very biblically themed and something I didn't appreciate at first). 

As is the case in real life, the individual characters matter far more than the groups they represent. A good King cannot make the system moral, but he can make it fair. It is a centuries' long project to unite and assimilate disparate and rowdy groups of people. America was highly divided politically, even by modern anti-Trump hysteria standards, until Lincoln smashed the South and public schools started brainwashing little Americans into believing in the nation-state--which I'd argue as an effect was a good thing, although I think peaceful parenting and honest arguments would have been better, people such as Stef were not in political power and therefore the result of a bad thing (public education) was as good as it could ever have been (pan-Americanism as compared to fractured provincialism). 

I think the way the Slavs are going to be united is most likely through a changing in the public school and religious curriculum. Should they promote pan-Slavic nationalism, then 40 years from now a pan-Slavic state could emerge. I think a better approach is peaceful parenting and good arguments, however I think the former is more likely to happen as I think only a minority of people will become good parents, leaving the journey to AnCap a multi-generational one.

On the other hand, I think, based on what I know, the Eastern Europeans have far stronger faith with greater cultural backbones and that will shield them from the horrors of what the Western and Central Europeans are enduring. Perhaps petty provincialism can save Western civilization in the East. After all, nationalism failed the West after WWI and while I'm pretty sure we'll become nationalists again it probably will be when things are beyond the pale and therefore a matter of time instead of when crisis can all be averted. 

Which is why I'm seriously considering emigrating to Russia in 5 or 10 years should the situation in America not improve. Russians have their problems, but their continued existence is not one of them. 

[SnapSlav]

On 9/11/2017 at 10:39 AM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

I remember you work in California, guessing based on what I read in a field where Leftists are commonplace...

Actually, I live in "the most conservative" area of Southern California. Granted, that really only means the lowest percentage of leftists to everyone else is 30% (and it's usually 60%, instead of bay area 80% and above). But in my particular field, there's also a rather large number of conservatives, which I attribute to the job being very competitive. So the nature of our work weeds out most (but not all) of the leeches, and my office is on the boarder of this area that's "the most conservative" of So Cal. So I don't have to hide that much amongst my peers. Clients is another story...

The real problem is the leftist government. My little corner of the state may be more reasonable as a whole, but we're still being legislated into the ground by our dear Governor Moonbeam...

 

On 9/11/2017 at 10:39 AM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Who can say? Did anyone 2000 years ago predict the GERMAN BARBARIANS or the BLUE-SKINNED SAVAGES would one day rule the world and be all Roman Law and Christian?

[...]

I think given time and the right conditions, that could change. Germany, France, Scandinavia, and mainland Italy used to be heavily divided. Heck, Russia used to be dozens of smaller countries! Now it's breakable into roughly 3 based on religion and geography. 

I really, really doubt it. Hate to be a stick in the mud, but even if this optimistic vision of yours does happen, it'll be generations and centuries beyond me. I'll only ever live to see the divide continued. The transformation of Russia serves as a very encouraging spectacle of what might be possible, but for reasons I cannot understand, the other slavs just don't share the same values. They're much more inclined to go with the multi-cult vision of the world, because they want to join the EU's new world order. Somehow being repeatedly invaded is a memory only the Russians have about the world around them. In spite of having been enslaved by the invading Muslims for centuries, the other slavs are totally cool with joining the very power that's welcoming in their historical enemies. Very few pockets are putting their feet down and demanding anything of the waves of migrants, and Serbia is one of those few pockets. No surprise at all, then, that when they're asked to work and make themselves useful, the migrants just walk right through the country. It's pathetic how transparent this situation is, and yet how clouded every looking at it wishes it to be.

 

On 9/11/2017 at 10:39 AM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

I think you're taking what I said months ago too far. I have changed a fair bit here;

Don't be too hard, internally, against the victims of abuse. Recognize they're victims, and move on. Recognize "who can be saved" based on subtle tells (are they curious? Do they act in adherence with what they say? Do they ever concede points willingly?) and decide for yourself if that person is worth reaching out for. You lose time, but could gain a friend.

Of course if your job involves these people, don't risk it. I don't know what you do, but if it's something where you can choose who you work with or relocate, I'd suggest that. As an author I can be highly selective of who I work with and, eventually, who and how I'll publish. Chances are I'll either indie-publish or self-publish since the Regressive Left has infested the publishing world...

On the contrary, I believe I took it precisely the right degree of far enough. Most of what I said was simply an explanation of my own nature as it pertains to that philosophy of looking after your own legacy to protect what is right in the world. When I say I look to identify "threats" or "lost causes", it's precisely because they're the kinds of people who do NOT exhibit a sort of curiosity or humility. They don't show a potential to realize that they were wrong all along, they exclusively project delusion and hypocrisy. For example, there are people in my family I've deemed "lost causes", and as such have cut all ties to them whatsoever. It's the decision to cut ties with family that others might consider monstrous, but to me it's just what needed to be done. We're talking people who threaten to call the police because they get themselves so worked up that "I'm" the one threatening them. And of the few times they actually try to "debate" me, their crowning argument is "no, you're wrong". There's no room for growth in people like this. They don't show any signs of integrity, or an inclination for curiosity. They're dead-set in their ways, and their ways are "everyone else is wrong". All those internet stereotypes of SJWs who decry "racist, sexist, xenophobic' toward all their enemies? Yeah, these people literally say exactly that. So am I taking things too far when I look at people like this and my assessment is "this is a genetic dead end, AND they can never offer me anything of value in my life, so drop them like a hot plate and never look back"? I'd say no, it's an appropriate reaction, given the circumstances.

When it comes to strangers, I'm just more closed-off, out of caution. Again, my surroundings being so rife with liberals, it's a behavior that's largely born out of necessity. Chances are simply much too high that if I were to be open and honest with everyone I ever met, I'd be on the receiving end of an Antifa-styled mob beating. But when two of us who share enough in common both approach each other (equally cautiously), and we both pick up enough cues from one another that we kinda guess we may believe some of the same things, we usually both timidly toss out a few comments to see how the other reacts. I've met a couple really cool people by taking such chances after getting a certain vibe from them over the course of conversation.

 

On 9/11/2017 at 10:39 AM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

I'd argue the thing with the "courier backstory" is weak based on how it's not something ever likely to happen in real life, and largely (if not entirely from what I remember) faultless on the part of the player.

It's quite likely, in fact. Not more likely than otherwise, but 10% is nothing to dismiss. So getting shot in the head, you have a 1 in 10 chance of surviving. Clearly, the Courier was one such fluke. As for the Courier's actions that led to Ulysses' response, he made his point by the end of the lonesome road that it WAS entirely your fault, regardless of whether you knew what you were doing or not. Just as you had the choice to turn back and not face the consequences of your actions, you didn't have to take this job or that. You didn't have to do many of the great (or terrible) deeds, but you chose to.

 

On 9/11/2017 at 10:39 AM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Which is why I'm seriously considering emigrating to Russia in 5 or 10 years should the situation in America not improve. Russians have their problems, but their continued existence is not one of them.

It's certainly a good choice, for the time being. While the rest of the world welcomes in their own demise, Russia is one of the few places that seems to be trying to stay alive in any of the ways that matter.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

On 9/14/2017 at 4:04 PM, SnapSlav said:

Actually, I live in "the most conservative" area of Southern California. Granted, that really only means the lowest percentage of leftists to everyone else is 30% (and it's usually 60%, instead of bay area 80% and above). But in my particular field, there's also a rather large number of conservatives, which I attribute to the job being very competitive. So the nature of our work weeds out most (but not all) of the leeches, and my office is on the boarder of this area that's "the most conservative" of So Cal. So I don't have to hide that much amongst my peers. Clients is another story...

The real problem is the leftist government. My little corner of the state may be more reasonable as a whole, but we're still being legislated into the ground by our dear Governor Moonbeam...

Hmm... Why do you live in California if you hate it so much? I get it if it's financial, as that's why I still live in a place where I'm a hated ethnic minority. Once that's settled though, I'd recommend leaving the area for somewhere in the Midwest. 

On 9/14/2017 at 4:04 PM, SnapSlav said:

 

I really, really doubt it. Hate to be a stick in the mud, but even if this optimistic vision of yours does happen, it'll be generations and centuries beyond me. I'll only ever live to see the divide continued. The transformation of Russia serves as a very encouraging spectacle of what might be possible, but for reasons I cannot understand, the other slavs just don't share the same values. They're much more inclined to go with the multi-cult vision of the world, because they want to join the EU's new world order. Somehow being repeatedly invaded is a memory only the Russians have about the world around them. In spite of having been enslaved by the invading Muslims for centuries, the other slavs are totally cool with joining the very power that's welcoming in their historical enemies. Very few pockets are putting their feet down and demanding anything of the waves of migrants, and Serbia is one of those few pockets. No surprise at all, then, that when they're asked to work and make themselves useful, the migrants just walk right through the country. It's pathetic how transparent this situation is, and yet how clouded every looking at it wishes it to be.

Serbia's not exactly a "small pocket" given their former Kingdom was the main force in expelling the Turks in the 19th century. 

Even if it'll take centuries, that's hardly a bad thing. It's not great, but it's bearable. We humans can only do so much in our short 50-year lives, we ought to take pleasure in nudging the rock even if just an inch, for every generation that pushes it an inch is a generation less it'll take to be gone with the boulder. 

On 9/14/2017 at 4:04 PM, SnapSlav said:

 

On the contrary, I believe I took it precisely the right degree of far enough. Most of what I said was simply an explanation of my own nature as it pertains to that philosophy of looking after your own legacy to protect what is right in the world. When I say I look to identify "threats" or "lost causes", it's precisely because they're the kinds of people who do NOT exhibit a sort of curiosity or humility. They don't show a potential to realize that they were wrong all along, they exclusively project delusion and hypocrisy. For example, there are people in my family I've deemed "lost causes", and as such have cut all ties to them whatsoever. It's the decision to cut ties with family that others might consider monstrous, but to me it's just what needed to be done. We're talking people who threaten to call the police because they get themselves so worked up that "I'm" the one threatening them. And of the few times they actually try to "debate" me, their crowning argument is "no, you're wrong". There's no room for growth in people like this. They don't show any signs of integrity, or an inclination for curiosity. They're dead-set in their ways, and their ways are "everyone else is wrong". All those internet stereotypes of SJWs who decry "racist, sexist, xenophobic' toward all their enemies? Yeah, these people literally say exactly that. So am I taking things too far when I look at people like this and my assessment is "this is a genetic dead end, AND they can never offer me anything of value in my life, so drop them like a hot plate and never look back"? I'd say no, it's an appropriate reaction, given the circumstances.

Given what you've described, I'd say that's a perfectly reasonable point. 

On 9/14/2017 at 4:04 PM, SnapSlav said:

When it comes to strangers, I'm just more closed-off, out of caution. Again, my surroundings being so rife with liberals, it's a behavior that's largely born out of necessity. Chances are simply much too high that if I were to be open and honest with everyone I ever met, I'd be on the receiving end of an Antifa-styled mob beating. But when two of us who share enough in common both approach each other (equally cautiously), and we both pick up enough cues from one another that we kinda guess we may believe some of the same things, we usually both timidly toss out a few comments to see how the other reacts. I've met a couple really cool people by taking such chances after getting a certain vibe from them over the course of conversation.

Reminds me of 1984...

On 9/14/2017 at 4:04 PM, SnapSlav said:

It's quite likely, in fact. Not more likely than otherwise, but 10% is nothing to dismiss. So getting shot in the head, you have a 1 in 10 chance of surviving. Clearly, the Courier was one such fluke. As for the Courier's actions that led to Ulysses' response, he made his point by the end of the lonesome road that it WAS entirely your fault, regardless of whether you knew what you were doing or not. Just as you had the choice to turn back and not face the consequences of your actions, you didn't have to take this job or that. You didn't have to do many of the great (or terrible) deeds, but you chose to.

Unfortunately I can't remember enough to comment. I know I did the DLCs (every time) out of order, so that might have screwed up my knowledge of their extended story lines.

On 9/14/2017 at 4:04 PM, SnapSlav said:

It's certainly a good choice, for the time being. While the rest of the world welcomes in their own demise, Russia is one of the few places that seems to be trying to stay alive in any of the ways that matter.

It doesn't hurt I have historical cousins living by the Volga. Or maybe formerly living by the Volga given WWII. Also they have a strong Christian moral code that I respect, even if they may or may not be close to Libertarian. They could get there. Russia has little history of being free, yet they're freer and wealthier now than ever. I wonder what their "peak" would be...

In the shorter term (next 5 years) I plan on moving to a more conservative country in a freer, safer state. Ideally one without regulations against homeschooling and low taxes. I don't know what Russia's tax and homeschooling policies are, but I have heard they respect freedom of speech more than we do and are wiser to BS. I don't discount the idea of changing my citizenship to Russian and assimilating into the Russian culture--it depends on circumstances and how well I can learn the language as well as what ever happens here in America. 

[SnapSlav]

On 9/15/2017 at 4:38 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Hmm... Why do you live in California if you hate it so much?

Hating the government isn't the same as hating the location. But to answer your question, perhaps mostly because I'm sentimental. I'm a So Cal native. I was born here, grew up (mostly) here, and despite all the traveling I've done, I quite like it here. Money is part of the issue, but it's certainly not all of it. In a sense, Southern California right now is what New York used to be a century ago, in that "if you can make it here, you can make it anywhere!" It makes more sense to be successful out here, and then move somewhere else (if it really gets so bad that I feel like I have to) than moving right now, and having a harder time in the long-run. Also, the longer I stay, the more of a chance I have to leave a lasting impact. I'm not going to get dragged down into the swamp, but I'm not going to jump shit just yet, that's for sure...

 

On 9/15/2017 at 4:38 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Serbia's not exactly a "small pocket" given their former Kingdom was the main force in expelling the Turks in the 19th century. 

Even if it'll take centuries, that's hardly a bad thing. It's not great, but it's bearable. We humans can only do so much in our short 50-year lives, we ought to take pleasure in nudging the rock even if just an inch, for every generation that pushes it an inch is a generation less it'll take to be gone with the boulder.

It was bigger then than it is now. Serbia used to include Kosovo, Montenegro, and more. Even some portions got taken by Bosnia after the war. Don't get me wrong, I couldn't be more pleased to be wrong if the slavs did work together and saved Western civilization. I just know that every slav I've ever met has been an island, not a welcoming port, with the few exceptions being ethnic slavs born over here like me.

 

On 9/15/2017 at 4:38 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Reminds me of 1984...

I wonder if I should feel honored, or disturbed... XD

Speaking of 1984, I really should get around to reading it. I never have, only Animal Farm (and found it fucking amazing). But right now my list of reading material is long enough... it'll have to take a seat in line!

 

On 9/15/2017 at 4:38 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Unfortunately I can't remember enough to comment. I know I did the DLCs (every time) out of order, so that might have screwed up my knowledge of their extended story lines.

Well most of what you learn that transpired between the Courier and Ulysses is revealed in the same DLC, Lonesome Road. The other DLCs largely hint at their shared history, but give very little concrete information to go off of until the finale when they confront each other in the Divide. Thematically, the 3 "main" DLCs all act as components of a larger, cohesive story. No surprise, then, that they're all directed by the same person, meanwhile Honest Hearts was handled by a different director, which easily explains the drastically different tone, theme, and disjointed feeling that it had with the rest of the game. Which order you play them in really only impacts the order that you learn different pieces of information. Though going by the overarching narrative, as well as the ending slides of the DLCs, Lonesome Road is truly intended as the finale of the story, the other DLCs serving as a primer, supporting the final confrontation to come.

The abridged version of Ulysses and the Courier's backstory is that both were Couriers, and their paths crossed several times, but it probably left more of an impression on Ulysses than his counterpart. When Ulysses discovered the Dam for the Legion, the Courier discovered Hopeville, which started a new settlement that eked out a living in the harsh area. Ulysses tracked the Courier to Hopeville, and having lost his home to the legion's conquests, he felt like he found a new home in Hopeville. This was destroyed (along with the entire settlement) when the Courier delivered the Enclave package containing a detonator that triggered all of the nuclear missiles in the underground silos of Hopeville, creating apocalyptic earthquakes that shattered the whole area, killing almost everyone there. Ulysses took this destruction of his "second home" very hard, and held a personal vendetta against the Courier for their role in its destruction, even if it was unknowingly. More importantly, Ulysses felt like a cog in a greater machine that he had no chance in influencing by observing both the NCR and Legion grow into unstoppable powers that were going to clash, but now the events of the Divide gave him warped inspiration on "how to kill a nation". So when he learned that the Courier survived the ambush in Goodsprings, he sent them a message that it was time to settle the score in the Divide, intending to use the Courier to "deliver" one more package: the very same detonator. So Ulysses could arm the remaining missiles and use them against the Courier's "home" (which varies, per playthough, depending on the actions of the player and which side they choose allegiance), both ending these powers that he felt had grown into engines of destruction, but also so he could exact his revenge against the courier by destroying their "home", and the nail in the coffin would be that were it not for the Courier's unnecessary interference, none of this would have even been possible. They would have made this second nuclear armageddon a reality, just as they had launched a missile earlier in the DLC, simply because they wanted to progress forward, and that meant doing whatever it takes. Ulysses would prove his point, get his revenge, and stop a war, all in one fell swoop.

As far as antagonist motivations writing goes, that's solid gold. He doesn't want some silly or cartoonishly evil scheme. It's not overly-and-unnecessarily complex. He's very direct about what he wants and why he wants it, and when you learn the deeper backstory behind it, it fleshes out his character more so you may even relate to him in some ways. Yes he's largely motivated by revenge, but he's also pursuing a goal to stop what he sees as a greater evil, not so different from how your character is working towards a greater goal in "resolving" the situation in the Mojave Wasteland.

 

On 9/15/2017 at 4:38 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

In the shorter term (next 5 years) I plan on moving to a more conservative country in a freer, safer state. Ideally one without regulations against homeschooling and low taxes. I don't know what Russia's tax and homeschooling policies are, but I have heard they respect freedom of speech more than we do and are wiser to BS. I don't discount the idea of changing my citizenship to Russian and assimilating into the Russian culture--it depends on circumstances and how well I can learn the language as well as what ever happens here in America.

I'm reminded of what I heard about the Seasteading Institute. I hope it gets off the ground, and provides a good opportunity to found (experimental) freer societies, though I imagine it will probably cost an arm and a leg to be given the chance to participate. You'd get to live out a fantasy of existing in a not-mutant-ravaged Rapture like in Bioshock- albeit one floating on the ocean surface, rather than sitting on the ocean floor -and potentially escape from a Leftist Apocalypse on land in a freer society, in one relocation! Then again, I first learned about this back when I was much more left-leaning, from a source that's increasingly obviously left-leaning, so for all I know, it's already been contaminated with all their bad ideas. I know a simple cursory look at their website right now that they spend an awful lot of attention to environmental concerns, and alarmingly little attention to social frameworks. Either they really plan on winging it with their floating societies and see what different permutations of anarchic structures can lead to, or I just misinterpreted their aims entirely...

[Siegfried von Walheim]

1 hour ago, SnapSlav said:

Hating the government isn't the same as hating the location. But to answer your question, perhaps mostly because I'm sentimental. I'm a So Cal native. I was born here, grew up (mostly) here, and despite all the traveling I've done, I quite like it here. Money is part of the issue, but it's certainly not all of it. In a sense, Southern California right now is what New York used to be a century ago, in that "if you can make it here, you can make it anywhere!" It makes more sense to be successful out here, and then move somewhere else (if it really gets so bad that I feel like I have to) than moving right now, and having a harder time in the long-run. Also, the longer I stay, the more of a chance I have to leave a lasting impact. I'm not going to get dragged down into the swamp, but I'm not going to jump shit just yet, that's for sure...

I sorta understand. I don't like where I have lived and grown up; It's easy for me to just say "screw it" and relocate once I've made money enough to do so. 

1 hour ago, SnapSlav said:

It was bigger then than it is now. Serbia used to include Kosovo, Montenegro, and more. Even some portions got taken by Bosnia after the war. Don't get me wrong, I couldn't be more pleased to be wrong if the slavs did work together and saved Western civilization. I just know that every slav I've ever met has been an island, not a welcoming port, with the few exceptions being ethnic slavs born over here like me.

You know it's interesting because a lot of my old school friends were Slavs, and interestingly enough it was somewhat dependent on their accent whether or not they would associate with each other. Generally speaking Russians and American-sounding Slavs didn't judge based on ethnic history while the Serbs (the one I knew anyway) did. 

Of course I know the Kingdom of Serbia shrunk after it was merged with its neighbors in forming Yugoslavia, and later civil wars. As far as I know they're the most red-pilled on Islamic terrorism/immigration of their neighbors, similar to the Magyars of Hungary. 

You know, speaking of video games, I grew up with a certain game called "Ogre Battle", and while the one I own wasn't the one directly based off the Yugoslav wars and ethnic cleansings (which were referred to as such in the game "Ogre Battle: Let Us Cling Together" in a way that very much contrasted its cutesy pixelated dioramaic form), the one I did play, "Person of Lordly Caliber", themed very heavily on the idea of fighting for idealism over realism, the distance between the military, the citizenry, and the countrymen; as well as the corruptibility of martial power and radical revolutions. 

Pretty progressive for 90's games I'd say.

1 hour ago, SnapSlav said:

 

I wonder if I should feel honored, or disturbed... XD

Well, I remember reading a scene similar to how you described your life back when I was a freshman in high school. The way the main guy warily approached others and the "woke" guy who seemed to not be genuinely indoctrinated. 

1 hour ago, SnapSlav said:

Speaking of 1984, I really should get around to reading it. I never have, only Animal Farm (and found it fucking amazing). But right now my list of reading material is long enough... it'll have to take a seat in line!

It's not that complicated beyond the idea that evil does evil for power's sake. Like Animal Farm, once you get it the magic wares off. Also a book I read in early High School back when I was a Communist. 

1 hour ago, SnapSlav said:

Well most of what you learn that transpired between the Courier and Ulysses is revealed in the same DLC, Lonesome Road. The other DLCs largely hint at their shared history, but give very little concrete information to go off of until the finale when they confront each other in the Divide. Thematically, the 3 "main" DLCs all act as components of a larger, cohesive story. No surprise, then, that they're all directed by the same person, meanwhile Honest Hearts was handled by a different director, which easily explains the drastically different tone, theme, and disjointed feeling that it had with the rest of the game. Which order you play them in really only impacts the order that you learn different pieces of information. Though going by the overarching narrative, as well as the ending slides of the DLCs, Lonesome Road is truly intended as the finale of the story, the other DLCs serving as a primer, supporting the final confrontation to come.

The abridged version of Ulysses and the Courier's backstory is that both were Couriers, and their paths crossed several times, but it probably left more of an impression on Ulysses than his counterpart. When Ulysses discovered the Dam for the Legion, the Courier discovered Hopeville, which started a new settlement that eked out a living in the harsh area. Ulysses tracked the Courier to Hopeville, and having lost his home to the legion's conquests, he felt like he found a new home in Hopeville. This was destroyed (along with the entire settlement) when the Courier delivered the Enclave package containing a detonator that triggered all of the nuclear missiles in the underground silos of Hopeville, creating apocalyptic earthquakes that shattered the whole area, killing almost everyone there. Ulysses took this destruction of his "second home" very hard, and held a personal vendetta against the Courier for their role in its destruction, even if it was unknowingly. More importantly, Ulysses felt like a cog in a greater machine that he had no chance in influencing by observing both the NCR and Legion grow into unstoppable powers that were going to clash, but now the events of the Divide gave him warped inspiration on "how to kill a nation". So when he learned that the Courier survived the ambush in Goodsprings, he sent them a message that it was time to settle the score in the Divide, intending to use the Courier to "deliver" one more package: the very same detonator. So Ulysses could arm the remaining missiles and use them against the Courier's "home" (which varies, per playthough, depending on the actions of the player and which side they choose allegiance), both ending these powers that he felt had grown into engines of destruction, but also so he could exact his revenge against the courier by destroying their "home", and the nail in the coffin would be that were it not for the Courier's unnecessary interference, none of this would have even been possible. They would have made this second nuclear armageddon a reality, just as they had launched a missile earlier in the DLC, simply because they wanted to progress forward, and that meant doing whatever it takes. Ulysses would prove his point, get his revenge, and stop a war, all in one fell swoop.

All this I completely forgot. 

Very interesting and definitely makes sense of the otherwise strange story. My only qualm is how could the Enclave nuked Hopeville when they no longer exist...unless the player is in his 30's. Which I consider a bit of an imposition on the whole "role playing" aspect of the game. 

1 hour ago, SnapSlav said:

As far as antagonist motivations writing goes, that's solid gold. He doesn't want some silly or cartoonishly evil scheme. It's not overly-and-unnecessarily complex. He's very direct about what he wants and why he wants it, and when you learn the deeper backstory behind it, it fleshes out his character more so you may even relate to him in some ways. Yes he's largely motivated by revenge, but he's also pursuing a goal to stop what he sees as a greater evil, not so different from how your character is working towards a greater goal in "resolving" the situation in the Mojave Wasteland.

I agree, given context, he makes a sensible villain. I wouldn't feel too badly for him, since he could have used the same trauma as an impetus to join a group like the Follows of the Apocalypse and basically be a post-apocalyptic Stefan Molynuex instead. 

1 hour ago, SnapSlav said:

I'm reminded of what I heard about the Seasteading Institute. I hope it gets off the ground, and provides a good opportunity to found (experimental) freer societies, though I imagine it will probably cost an arm and a leg to be given the chance to participate. You'd get to live out a fantasy of existing in a not-mutant-ravaged Rapture like in Bioshock- albeit one floating on the ocean surface, rather than sitting on the ocean floor -and potentially escape from a Leftist Apocalypse on land in a freer society, in one relocation! Then again, I first learned about this back when I was much more left-leaning, from a source that's increasingly obviously left-leaning, so for all I know, it's already been contaminated with all their bad ideas. I know a simple cursory look at their website right now that they spend an awful lot of attention to environmental concerns, and alarmingly little attention to social frameworks. Either they really plan on winging it with their floating societies and see what different permutations of anarchic structures can lead to, or I just misinterpreted their aims entirely...

I'm hugely skeptical of any group claiming to be founding a mico and experimental society, mainly because of what the motivations and mindsets of the leaders might be, as well as the consequences of trying to assimilate into such a group. It could very well be a cult. 

I think the idea of this one in particular is interesting. Or at least would have been interesting if what you thought they were about was the truth rather than a masturbatory hippy-dippy commune of doom. 

I think it would be cool if a city like Rapture could be built and sustained; humanity's ultimate ego trip. I mean the city, even as a ruin, was pretty cool in the game and seemed like it would have been a nice place to live minus the added crap Bioshock 2 revealed. I mean, the godlessness of the society left it vulnerable to religious extremists. I think for AnCap to really stand the test of time (arguably Rapture was a hypothetical AnCapia) it needs a moral backbone based on Classical Liberal and Christian principles as well as, especially for the inherently duplicitous and stupid, a God-figure to be the moral stick which keeps the donkey from lazily sipping carrot juice. (What a wonderful metaphor I made at midnight, eh? Point being good people need not a disincentive for bad while "neutral" and bad people do).