Russia is not Puritan. It doesn't hold politicians to the same sexual standards as America. Putin's infidelity didn't reduce his support for a bit. Nemtsov's flamboyance might have actually boosted his reputation. Affairs with (more or less) adult women can't hurt your image here
Context for the photo. In 2006 Putin came out to the group of kids having an excursion around Kremlin. He approached a boy Nikita, asked him several questions, put his T-shirt up and kissed him in a belly. Then he quickly walked a way
That impressed many
One of Putin's critics Alexander Litvinenko actually accused him of pedophilia. Litvinenko was a runaway FSB officer who moved to London and published a book "Blowing up Russia". Basically he argued that it was the Federal Security Service that blew up residential houses in 1999
On 4-16 September, 1999 four residential houses were blown up in Moscow, Buinaksk and Volgodonsk. 307 died, 1700 were wounded. Officially it were Chechens who did this and these terrorist attacks were a major justification for the Second Chechen War that brought Putin to power
Litvinenko argued that houses were blown up not by "Chechens" but by the officers of the Federal Security Service at the orders of their new director Vladimir Putin. Yeltsin's family prepared a transition of power, but Putin was a total noname with rate of approval of like 1,5%
According to Litvinenko the FSB blew up houses to get a casus belli for the Second Chechen War. Victory in the war made Putin electable and allowed to proceed with the transition of power very quickly. There was no other way to boost a noname to the National Leader in four months
Timeline of 1999:
August 4-16 - House explosions
August 16 - Putin becomes Prime Minister
September 23 - First bombings of Grozny
December 26 - Russian army besieges Grozny
December 31 - Yeltsin tells he's "tired" and resigns in favour of Putin, who becomes the acting president
Did Litvinenko tell truth? I can't say. What I can say is that he was poisoned by the radioactive polonium-210 and his suspected assassin (Луговой) later became a member of the Russian Parliament. The end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Yes, and that is super duper quadruper important to understand
Koreans are poor (don't have an empire) and, therefore, must do productive work to earn their living. So, if the Americans want to learn how to do anything productive they must learn it from Koreans etc
There is this stupid idea that the ultra high level of life and consumption in the United States has something to do with their productivity. That is of course a complete sham. An average American doesn't do anything useful or important to justify (or earn!) his kingly lifestyle
The kingly lifestyle of an average American is not based on his "productivity" (what a BS, lol) but on the global empire Americans are holding currently. Part of the imperial dynamics being, all the actually useful work, all the material production is getting outsourced abroad
Reading Tess of the d'Urbervilles. Set in southwest England, somewhere in the late 1800s. And the first thing you need to know is that Tess is bilingual. He speaks a local dialect she learnt at home, and the standard English she picked at school from a London-trained teacher
So, basically, "normal" language doesn't come out of nowhere. Under the normal conditions, people on the ground speak all the incomprehensible patois, wildly different from each other
"Regular", "correct" English is the creation of state
So, basically, the state chooses a standard (usually, based on one of the dialects), cleanses it a bit, and then shoves down everyone's throats via the standardized education
Purely artificial construct, of a super mega state that really appeared only by the late 1800s
There's a subtle point here that 99,999% of Western commentariat is missing. Like, totally blind to. And that point is:
Building a huuuuuuuuuuge dam (or steel plant, or whatever) has been EVERYONE's plan of development. Like absolutely every developing country, no exceptions
Almost everyone who tried to develop did it in a USSR-ish way, via prestige projects. Build a dam. A steel plant. A huge plant. And then an even bigger one
And then you run out of money, and it all goes bust and all you have is postapocalyptic ruins for the kids to play in
If China did not go bust, in a way like almost every development project from the USSR to South Asia did, that probably means that you guys are wrong about China. Like totally wrong
What you describe is not China but the USSR, and its copies & emulations elsewhere
What I am saying is that "capitalist reforms" are a buzzword devoid of any actual meaning, and a buzzword that obfuscated rather than explains. Specifically, it is fusing radically different policies taken under the radically different circumstances (and timing!) into one - purely for ideological purposes
It can be argued, for example, that starting from the 1980s, China has undertaken massive socialist reforms, specifically in infrastructure, and in basic (mother) industries, such as steel, petrochemical and chemical and, of course, power
The primary weakness of this argument is that being true, historically speaking, it is just false in the context of American politics where the “communism” label has been so over-used (and misapplied) that it lost all of its former power:
“We want X”
“No, that is communism”
“We want communism”
Basically, when you use a label like “communism” as a deus ex machina winning you every argument, you simultaneously re-define its meaning. And when you use it to beat off every popular socio economic demand (e.g. universal healthcare), you re-define communism as a synthesis of all the popular socio economic demands
Historical communism = forced industrial development in a poor, predominantly agrarian country, funded through expropriation of the peasantry
(With the most disastrous economic and humanitarian consequences)
Many are trying to explain his success with some accidental factors such as his “personal charisma”, Cuomo's weakness etc
Still, I think there may be some fundamental factors here. A longue durée shift, and a very profound one
1. Public outrage does not work anymore
If you look at Zohran, he is calm, constructive, and rarely raises his voice. I think one thing that Mamdani - but almost no one else in the American political space is getting - is that the public is getting tired of the outrage
Outrage, anger, righteous indignation have all been the primary drivers of American politics for quite a while
For a while, this tactics worked
Indeed, when everyone around is polite, and soft (and insincere), freaking out was a smart thing to do. It could help you get noticed