The Generational Divide in Eastern Europe: The Soviet Boomers

In the West, we spend a lot of time endlessly debating the various generations and their voting patterns, values, and economic niche in our societies. While there are exceptions to any rule, certain generalizations have come into focus about the Silent Generation, the Baby Boomers, Generation X, Millennials and the Zoomers.

But what about in Eastern Europe? Do they have a similar generational divide?

Well, again, in the West, this generational divide was created mostly as a result of the cultural revolution of the 60s. Generations before then certainly differed in their views and their historical circumstances, but something changed from the 1960s onwards that divided the population into distinct cultural cohorts. The equivalent occurred in the East during the late 80s and the early 90s, following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the cultural revolution that occurred in its aftermath. Once again, everything in Slavland revolves around the USSR and people’s relationship to it, memory of it, and attitude towards what it represented.

The Soviet Generation is basically anyone who came of age in the Soviet Union and spent their formative years as a part of that system. These people generally have a nostalgia for the USSR that is tied both to their memories of their halcyon youth as well as a general support for the actual economic, social, and political system in which they lived. This is partially explained by the fact that the late Soviet Union was generally a stable, crime-free and an all-encompassing cradle-to-grave nanny-state. More than any other generation, the Soviet Generation is largely monolithic in its views and attitudes because their source of information was standardized and they did not have access to alternative media. This makes analyzing them quite easy, although it makes conversing with them rather tedious at times — you know what they’re going to say before they even formulate the thought in their heads.

It is worth mentioning that these people are often pejoratively referred to as the Sovok Generation, and when people in Eastern Europe refer to “sovoks” or the state of being “savok-like” they are referring to Soviet attitudes, values, and ways of doing things. It’s not a very nice word, but it’s also not quite at the level of being a curse or a slur. It is used in much the same way as the phrase “Ok, Boomer” is used by Millennials to deride their parents’ generation and their values.

A sovok, of course, is a broom in Russian and for some reason, it became popular to refer to Soviet nostalgists as sovoks, probably because of their tendency to deny that anything bad was happening during Soviet Union days. As an example, if someone were to bring up the existence of the archipelago of gulags in Siberia that the Soviet Union had created, the sovok would deny that such a thing existed and simultaneously insist that the people in them deserved to be incarcerated before just sweeping the discussion under the rug, as it were.

Anyway, because of their demographic weight, almost all culture in Eastern Europe revolves around them and their views on the world and their tastes. Because they remain committed and dedicated TV watchers, all official propaganda is broadcast with them in mind. As a result, you get non-stop state-funded dramas about World War II that play on repeat almost continually, with barely any commercial breaks. Spend some time living with these folks and you get used to the non-stop rat-at-tat of machine-gun fire wafting through the paper-thin commieblock walls and angry German barking noises coming from the TV. It is only interrupted occasionally by those god-awful “narodinye” music concerts that feature singers in their 60s singing love songs from better days and commercials advertising laxatives and the services of private health spas.

Hey, what can I say? The TV people clearly know their target demo.

Furthermore, there has yet to be an Obama-like politician (in Russia at least) who demonstrated the power of social media and internet outreach to younger folks to produce an electoral landslide in his favor, although Alexey Navalny came close. TV remains the powerhouse of political campaigning because it targets the largest, most consistant voting bloc in the country. As a result, all politicians promise to increase pensions, social benefits, and other socialist policies aimed at people in their 50s and above. Post-Soviet old-timers also have an economic interest in being pro-Communist/Socialist considering that they now collect checks from the government to fund their retirement — something that they were promised during the ancien régime and which they hold modern politicians accountable for delivering on.

In contrast, pro-Soviet sentiment is virtually non-existent in the post-Soviet generation that comprises the younger age demographic. They generally view the red flag with a sense of unease and associate it with stagnation, corruption and repression. The official state cult of World War II and the Soviet Union’s victory over Nazi Germany and her allies does not resonate with the youth, but, again, it resonates quite deeply with the Soviet Generation, who was raised on it. In the 70s and into the 80s, the Soviet government, which had been surprisingly quiet about World War II, started leaning into WWIIism once the Marxism and building a socialist utopia thing began to lose resonance with the public. As for why the Soviet state was loath to embrace WWIIism initially, it may have been because they had incorporated many of the countries that they had fought against into its empire. Unlike the Allies, the Soviets sometimes demonstrated a Realpolitik attitude towards reincorporating and reusing old cadres from the various vassal state that they had conquered which led to lower-level Nazi officials finding official employment in the newly-reformed Stasi, for example. It was all that or it was the embarrassment that the Soviet state felt at the scale of destruction that they had suffered. Or maybe the idea simply hadn’t crossed their minds yet or it was rejected by party elites for being too “militarist” or “imperialist” or “bourgeoise.”

Regardless, the two-headed Russian eagle has yet to move past World War II and her eye remains firmly fixed on the past, fighting the last century’s wars over and over again in her own mind. Russia cannot form a vision of the future because she has not yet reconciled with her past.

Since we’re on the topic of demographics and World War II, it’s worth pointing out that the war did indeed blow a giant hole in the Slav population. But, if reproductive rates had remained consistent in the years following the war, this wound could have healed over in short order and the body of the people could have recovered in a few generations time. Instead, because of the Soviet industrialization policy, the aquifer that produced fresh Slavic souls was deliberately destroyed with the destruction of Slavic villages where families traditionally had upwards of 8 children or more through collectivization policies implemented by the government. Peasants were herded into the cities to begin their new lives as proletarians and to repent of their wicked kulak ways. The housing crisis, plus the Soviet cultural reforms which encouraged feminism and women’s rights along with the suppression of religion all worked towards contributing to the demographic slump that occurred soon after. In this sense, the Soviet situation almost exactly mirrors what occurred in the West, and in the United States, in particular. A baby boom following the war, followed by a steep drop-off, which left a huge demographic cohort dwarfing the subsequent ones that followed. Just like in the US, the Soviet Boomers grew up in a time of relative peace and plenty. Jobs grew off of trees as the Soviet Union needed anyone that they could get their hands on to rapidly build new cities, new factories, new roads and new missiles. When this all came to an end following the collapse of the USSR, the Soviet generation was left shell-shocked and many lost all that they had worked for. Previous generations were largely self-reliant and relied on the social safety net provided by their large families and village communities. But the Soviet generation, whether they had a choice or not, actually believed the promise that the state made to take care of them. As a result, they were the first generation to abandon the concept of large, nuclear and extended families and embraced the nanny-state whole-heartedly. They have become a huge burden on the post-Soviet economy with their constant trips to state-subsidized clinics and demands for ever-increasing pensions paid for by a much smaller working-age demographic.

Most Soviet old-timers have also retained bits and pieces of old Soviet propaganda in their minds, although these have been warped by time and the revisionist efforts of Neo-Sovietist writers and propagandists. Nikolai Starikov stands out as a shining example of this new form of Soviet apologism and revisionism, although it has become a veritable cottage industry in the countries of the former Soviet Union.

As a result, Soviets have a rather eclectic list of likes and dislikes that don’t make any sense from a Western perspective. For example, they hate Solzhenitsyn, whom they view as a traitor and they love Stalin, whom  they view as the savior of Russia. Oh and they also hate Lord of the Rings for its anti-industial themes and because they believe that Sauron and Mordor represent the USSR — which they might, actually, come to think of it. But the controversy around the Lord of the Rings and its publication in the USSR is a story for another time. Soviet Boomers generally vote either for the Communists or for Putin, depending on whether they’re feeling particularly peeved at the government during that election cycle or not. As a rule, they are very concerned with economics first and foremost, and in particular, economic self-sufficiency. At heart they are autarkists, and nurse a burning hope for the Soviet promise of one day overtaking the West in the production and efficient distribution of widgets.

In short, their worldview and preferred political platform, in a nutshell, is economic nationalism (although they abhor the use of that particular N-word), cradle-to-grave big government socialism, and worshipping at the altar of the secular state religion of WWIIism.

I would also be remiss if I didn’t point out that the Soviet generation has a bizarre view of history and largely views the twentieth century through a conspiratorial lens. Please strap in for this next part and try to follow along as best you can. Most Soviet old-timers believe all of the following points simultaneously, even the ones that contradict one another. And so, without further ado:

  • Jews are not to be trusted. (Stalin condemned the Jews as being saboteurs of the Socialist project and the USSR subsequently supported the Arabs and their fight against Israel.)
  • Jews are very clever and have a lot to teach Eastern Europeans
  • Jews are responsible for the Russian Revolution and the carnage that followed.
  • Lenin had some good ideas.
  • Lenin was a secret Jew.
  • Hitler was a secret Jew funded by the United States and Great Britain.
  • Stalin was an enemy of the Jews and killed by the Jews.
  • Anti-Semitism is wrong and the Soviet Union was not anti-Semitic.
  • The Soviet Union saved the Jews from Hitler (and that’s a good thing).
  • The Jews destroyed the Soviet Union.
  • The Jews murdered the Tsar, but the Tsar was oppressing the people so he had to go.
  • The gulags are a myth.
  • The gulags were necessary to weed out traitors to the Soviet Union.
  • “Your great-grandfather was sent to the Gulags”.
  • Solzhenitsyn lied about the Gulags and was a traitor.
  • Stalin was a Russian patriot.
  • National-Socialism is abhorrent and evil.
  • Social-Nationalism is what made the USSR great.
  • The Soviet system was just and fair.
  • The Soviet Union stole wealth from Russians and redistributed it to the other socialist republics.
  • Ethnicity is not important, Socialism can establish world peace.
  • The Turks are a race of criminals and scoundrels.
  • Gorbachev was a traitor to the Soviet Union.
  • Comrade Andropov was a swell guy.
  • Krushchev was a drunk Ukrainian peasant.
  • Zhukov should have succeeded Stalin.
  • The KGB were just NKVD and Chekha thugs.
  • “I had many friends in the KGB.”

And on it goes.

Overall, they’re a mixed bag, to put it lightly. On the one hand, there is nothing wrong with economic nationalism and one could even make the argument for implementing some elements of socialism to raise living standards as part of a populist political platform. On the other hand, these ideas are simply not enough to form a romantic and uplifting message that captivates the hearts of the younger generations and chart a new civilizational course for Eastern Europe. What’s worse, these relatively sound and grounded ideas are tarnished by their constant and deliberate association with the Soviet Union.

In much the same way that myopic nationalists in the West deliberately associate their good ideas with the toxic brand of the Third Reich, so too do the old-timers in the East poison the well by associating the re-opening of Russian factories and social conservatism with gulags and secret police dragging people out of their apartments in the middle of the night.

Furthermore, they, like their Baby Boomer counterparts in the West, consider themselves the pinnacle of human evolution, and generally have an attitude of knowing better and being better than any generation that came afterwards. Their children and grandchildren (if they have any) will point out that everything built by their generation is ugly, which the eternal Sovok will, of course deny in much the same way that Western Baby Boomers demonstrate a peculiar appreciation for the sprawling strips malls and vacant parking lots that they built in the West.

More than anything, the Soviet Generation is terrified of being called the N-word and go to great lengths to extol the virtues of “the friendship of nations” that they supposedly successfully built in the USSR. They will frequently point out that there was no ethnic conflict in the Soviet Union, because Soviet values had defeated ethnic chauvinism by giving humanity a common goal and mission: efficient widget production and generous pensions, basically. If you point out that the Soviet Union achieved and maintained this uneasy peace through its military might, well… be prepared to have the N-bomb hurled at you.

And then, of course, one can’t help but notice the rather schizophrenic messaging around the war in Ukraine. See, you have young Russian nationalists with Slavic rune patches…

… or insignia derived from right-wing video games and fantasy novels ….

… shooting at Neo-Nazi mercenaries with SS Black Sun patches who are on the payroll of a Jewish oligarch.

And then you have Soviet pensioners coming out to welcome the militias of Luhansk and Donetsk People’s Republics by waving the red Soviet Flag. Lenin, of course, created the modern state of Ukraine to weaken Russia. Putin himself mentioned this fact in his speech declaring war on Kiev and called for the “de-communization” of Ukraine!

But they wave their red flag regardless. And then the mayor of Mariuple goes on to declare that a statue to the Soviet granny who came out of her home and waved a red flag at Ukrainian troops (viral video) will be built in the center of town!

This is Eastern European meta-political schizophrenia at its finest. I can only shrug and laugh at this point. Hopefully you find it as amusing as I do.

And of course, both sides also routinely accuse the other of being Nazis in their official propaganda. Sergei Lavrov just recently announced that, unbeknownst to everybody, Hitler was actually Jewish and that Jews are the real anti-Semites. He was then quickly condemned by Jews, who as a community, accuse Putin and his government of being Fascists and prefer to support the Jewish president of Ukraine. Lavrov’s statements are sure to raise eyebrows in the West, especially among members of the Dissident Right. But, if you had understood that Lavrov and most of the people in the Kremlin and the bureaucracy are Soviet Boomers, you could have basically set a timer and put your feet up while waiting for him to drop the obligatory “Hitler was a secret Jew anti-Semite” line. All I can say is that a lot of things become clearer about modern Russia when you understand the Sovok Mindset™.

Anyways I could write volumes upon volumes about the Sovoks and their Lies, but I feel that at this point I should tone down the criticism a bit and point out that compared to the generations that followed, these guys are the only ones holding the line against the onslaught of Western neoliberal values that the youth are so eager to gobble up and copy. Fundamentally, we have to conclude that they are simply a product of the informational environment that they grew up in. They cannot hate the Soviet Union because they grew up in it and to reject it is to reject decades of conditioning and hard work dedicated towards realizing the promised Socialist utopia. It’s easy to make fun of them and their beliefs, but they did not have the internet growing up, and they had to reconcile the whispered warnings of their far wiser parents’ generation and the realities of having to adjust and make a living in the Soviet system. They saw themselves as the Generation That Was Promised — as modernizers that would usher in an era of peace and plenty. When this vision crashed and burned, they reached out and clung to whatever they could to give them some sense of grounding and purpose. They did their best to rationalize irreconcilable realities and historical meta-narratives and as a result, their worldview is schizophrenic, to say the least.

What’s more, they seem incapable of realizing that their worldview is not universal and simply not shared by subsequent generations or those who lived outside the territories of the USSR. New ideas and geopolitical realities bounce off of them as their worldview has already firmly cemented and is continually reinforced by state propaganda geared at keeping them happy, leaving little room for doubt or deeper thinking to change their accepted vision of reality. Their vision of the future is myopic, as it is simply based on a nostalgia for the past.

In conclusion, in much the same way as the fate of the West is largely in the hands of the post-war generation, who still retains some semblance of wealth and electoral power, so too is the current political situation in Russia largely dominated by the needs, concerns and worldview of the Soviet Boomers. Funny enough, both of these demographic groups in the East and the West have more in common with one another then they care to admit.

God help us all.

26 replies
  1. Poupon Marx
    Poupon Marx says:

    Interviews with Russian university women on feminism, male-female roles, marriage, etc. In all the West, the Russian women are the best in all categories. For those of you just waking up, Russia is the last place on the planet for Indo-European women who are the ideal of traditional and modern. I’m talking about an entire country, not pockets here and there. Additionally, European descended South American women are much more desirable than the zombie Western educated woman. Also, opinion comment of Ellie, the creator of this series, is most heartening.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzAyNgdDtzM

    https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/15985426-men-on-strike?from_search=true&from_srp=true&qid=dXiHz7RiNL&rank=1

    Men on Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream – and Why It Matters
    by Helen Smith

    American society has become anti-male. Men are sensing the backlash and are consciously and unconsciously going “on strike.” They are dropping out of college, leaving the workforce and avoiding marriage and fatherhood at alarming rates. The trend is so pronounced that a number of books have been written about this “man-child” phenomenon, concluding that men have taken a vacation from responsibility simply because they can. But why should men participate in a system that seems to be increasingly stacked against them?

    As Men on Strike demonstrates, men aren’t dropping out because they are stuck in arrested development. They are instead acting rationally in response to the lack of incentives society offers them to be responsible fathers, husbands and providers. In addition, men are going on strike, either consciously or unconsciously, because they do not want to be injured by the myriad of laws, attitudes and hostility against them for the crime of happening to be male in the twenty-first century. Men are starting to fight back against the backlash. Men on Strike explains their battle cry.

    Look, men, you don’t have to put up with infantile, stunted, programmed, outer-directed shells of broken women in Amurka, Canuckistan, and Western YourRope. They are flotsam-going in and out with the tide, and with the current-straight into the drain.

    Reply
  2. Travis R
    Travis R says:

    I only got to the “list” lol.
    While some of it is contradictory, much if it only seems contradictory. From what I have read the overthrow of the czars was the work of jews. The jews did commit the Holodomor. They led to the downfall of the USSR and then profited most handsomely.
    Not very politic to say but worth more study.

    Reply
    • JM
      JM says:

      @Travis R

      “The jews did commit the Holodomor. ”

      The forced collectivization and grain/food requisitioning wasn’t confined to Ukraine. It also happened equally to the Russian peasantry. That takes the ‘national’/’racial’ edge off the claim: that it was a Russian (under Jewish leadership) ‘genocide’ against the Ukrainian people.

      The policy, applied to the Russians and Ukrainians was an outrage. But it wasn’t irrational, nor was it – primarily – genocidal in intent. Its purpose was to build industry at the expense of agriculture…in this case, in the form of feeding the cities and purchasing machinery abroad with the proceeds of grain exports.

      Reply
      • rerevisionist
        rerevisionist says:

        USSR ‘industry’, including tanks, jeeps, camps, etc was ‘largely’ built up by Jews in other countries sending money – i.e. credit to buy other people’s output. Unless you have actual figures, for example for the value of agricultural production, it’s impossible to be sure how true your claim is. Though of course Jews will say it’s true.
        .
        Probably starving peasantries was part of the policy, along with killing off of non-Jew in countries where wars could be procured.

        Reply
        • JM
          JM says:

          @rerevisionist

          “USSR ‘industry’, including tanks, jeeps, camps, etc was ‘largely’ built up by Jews in other countries sending money – i.e. credit to buy other people’s output. Unless you have actual figures, for example for the value of agricultural production, it’s impossible to be sure how true your claim is. Though of course Jews will say it’s true.
          Probably starving peasantries was part of the policy, along with killing off of non-Jew in countries where wars could be procured.”

          The dramatic industrialization of “Soviet” Russia prior to WWII is so well documented that any assertion that it was mainly provided externally leaves one breathless. Try telling that to the peasantry and working people who achieved it in total violation of all labor norms and rights. Any opposition within the Communists was totally destroyed. Western businesses sold their wares to Russia on a commercial basis and thus one can say that they “participated” indirectly in the Five Year Plans. They of course weren’t all Jewish owned (e.g. Ford). This is well documented (e.g. Antony Sutton).

          The significant assistance was provided by the USA but this only started in 1941 and three times more went to their other pawn, Britain, than to Russia.

          Clearly the main focus of the real power in the USA (Jews and a significant body of the Anglo-elite) was on destroying the government in Germany which was obviously viewed as a greater danger than “Soviet” Communism or of the British Empire. Their turn was to come in the course of the war and after it.

          BTW, you must be aware of the existence of several studies by very well informed authors on the aggressive intentions of ‘Stalin’ (e.g. by Viktor Suvorov) built up in the form of an enormous appropriately offensive military machine well and truly prior to 1941, all generated by the Russians themselves. Did these authors get this wrong?

          Reply
      • Bobby
        Bobby says:

        JM. Don’t forget that the Holodomor was supervised by Lazar Kaganovich. The forced collectivization and grain/food requisitioning in Russia was supervised by Genrick Yagoda. Both Kaganovich and Yagoda were Jewish. Many Jews were under their command. By the time Stalin had died in 1954, well over 50 million Russian peasants had been killed not counting the over 8 million in Ukraine. Hardly any of the peasants were Jewish. Sure sounds like a genocide to me.

        In his book, ‘Stalin and His Hangmen’: The Tyrant and Those Who Killed for Him, author Donald Rayfield goes into great detail on these subjects.

        Reply
        • JM
          JM says:

          @Bobby.

          “Don’t forget that the Holodomor was supervised by Lazar Kaganovich. The forced collectivization and grain/food requisitioning in Russia was supervised by Genrick Yagoda. Both Kaganovich and Yagoda were Jewish. Many Jews were under their command.”

          If one has the view that the Russian Revolution was essentially Jewish in inspiration and leadership, it would seem that it is redundant to list the operatives who, as events unfolded, carried out its instructions in order to “prove” that all the undoubted horrors were essentially caused by the Jews.

          But there is one far more truthful reality concerning the question of the role of Jews in “Soviet” Russia and in the Eastern European empire and that is that Jews were almost purpose built to lead the performance of certain tasks. On the domestic front – the forced collectivization and grain/food requisitioning in Russia – very dirty business indeed, the ancient mutual hatred of the peasantry and Jews, the very alien character of the Jew, made them ideal instruments.

          Similarly, most of the leaderships in Eastern Europe were Jews parachuted in from Russia, untainted by any loyalty to the native populations and with noses extremely capable of sniffing out the slightest trace of nationalism/hostility to the alien master. And in reverse, the capacity of the Russian political overlord to almost instantly pull the ground from underneath this imposed alien ‘leadership’, not least by enlisting the native hostility to the Jew. The latter happened several times, with early exemplars being in Hungary and Czechoslovakia.

          Reply
      • Travis R
        Travis R says:

        Seems like an awfully simple defense. The jews didn’t just kill Ukrainians they killed everyone that didn’t profit them.
        So they were even more evil than I thought?

        Reply
      • Travis R
        Travis R says:

        So what your saying is they did it but it wasn’t personal.

        That just makes them worse.

        Killing millions of people wasn’t personal. Was it a statistic ?

        Reply
  3. Chris
    Chris says:

    “Lenin, of course, created the modern state of Ukraine” .. this obviously is a sore point for the Jews because Googling it leads to an avalanche of deboooooonkers showing up in the 1st page of hits.

    Reply
    • JM
      JM says:

      @Chris
      ““Lenin, of course, created the modern state of Ukraine” .. this obviously is a sore point for the Jews because Googling it leads to an avalanche of deboooooonkers showing up in the 1st page of hits.”

      I agree about the intensity and its motivations – it’s there for all to see but this should not to be taken as meaning there was no such entity as a Ukrainian nation, albeit one closely tied to the past of Russia, ethnically, linguistically and economically. This is why Lenin, consistent with his handling of the “National Question” for all of the “prison of nations” within the Tsarist Empire, wrote this (Pravda No. 82, June 28 (15), 1917):

      “The new, coalition Provisional Government’s policy failure is becoming more and more obvious. The Universal Act on the organisation of the Ukraine, issued by the Ukrainian Central Rada[1] and adopted on June 11, 1917, by the All-Ukraine Army Congress, plainly exposes that policy and furnishes documentary proof of its failure.

      “Without seceding from Russia, without breaking away from the Russian State,” reads the Act, “let the Ukrainian people have the right to shape their own life on their own soil…. All laws by which order is to be established here in the Ukraine shall be passed solely by this Ukrainian Assembly. And laws establishing order throughout the Russian State must be passed by the All-Russia Parliament.”

      These are perfectly clear words. They state very specifically that the Ukrainian people do not wish to secede from Russia at present. They demand autonomy without denying the need for the supreme authority of the “All-Russia Parliament”. No democrat, let alone a socialist, will venture to deny the complete legitimacy of the Ukraine’s demands. And no democrat can deny the Ukraine’s right to freely secede from Russia. Only unqualified recognition of this right makes it possible to advocate a free union of the Ukrainians and the Great Russians, a voluntary association of the two peoples in one state….”

      Of course there was a lot of water under the bridge between then and Khrushchev’s handing over Crimea, but none doubt the existence of a Ukrainian nation, one whose history is now made use of by the Money Power, through its Neo-Cons and their instruments to get at the main prize, Russia.

      Reply
      • Chris
        Chris says:

        This word Ukrainian however appears to be a political coinage born in the cauldron of nationalism and secularism to try to dispense with the religious roots and complex ethno-religious identity of that area.

        It was an attempt to banish the memory of KIEVAN RUS’ and the THE KINGDOM OF RUTHENIA, which of course sounds too much like “Russia”. For modern man to remember this would also send him to an article on OLD EAST SLAVIC, where he will learn that it is the predecessor to exactly three modern languages: UKRAINIAN, BELARUSIAN AND RUSSIAN.

        The word Ukrainian itself means “borderland”, which of course begs the question “whose border?”.

        Synonyms.com lists synonyms for ‘Ukrainian” which include: Rusniac, Rutene, Rousniak, Malo-Russian, Ruthene, Rusniak, Little Russian, Russniac, Ruthenian, Russniak, Ruthen, and Rusnak. Again, all too close to “Russian” for political comfort.

        There is still a Ruthenian sui juris Catholic rite and the separate Ukrainian Rite was created only post WW1. The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia does not include the word Ukrainian and refers to the area as ‘Little Russia’.

        On the Orthodox side, a separate Ukrainian Orthodox church was only created December 15, 2018.

        Lenin had his reasons to puff up the idea Ukrainian independence, and now the Jews do.

        Solzhenitsyn in one of last writings wrote that Russia should shed all the former Soviet republics except Belarus and Ukraine, because isolation of those countries from Russia was culturally absurd and likely to make those countries playgrounds for the West. He was right of course. I’m with the Nobel Prize winner on this one. Oh how the Nobel committee rues the day it conferred that one!

        Reply
  4. jimmie
    jimmie says:

    Everybody is, and all are, in various degrees, “product of the informational environment that they grew up in.” Furthermore youth is the season of hope, and ‘hope is swift and flies with swallows’ wings, kings it makes gods and meaner creature kings.”
    Remembering the feelings of hope is the next best thing to the feelings. Therefore the implied sarcasm should be tempered by considerations of this type. Unless the writer favors the idea (propounded by some sources, literature and science fiction in the past), that people should be eased into death at the age of 30.
    After WW2 in Italy for example, the Fascist party survived as the third most consistent party for many years, after the Christian Democrats and the Communists. This was helped by the position of the Church, favoring the right as a bulwark against bolshevism. And by the tale that the Church had never been anti-Semitic (interested parties should read the official Vatican documents printed at the beginning of the 20th century, predicting dire consequences at large in Europe if the Jews were not stopped.) In the circumstances Jews – in Italy – were sufficiently prudent as not to rock the boat.
    This changed with the Vatican II council with a 180-degree reversal of all that the Catholic church had taught to date from the times of Constantine.
    Equally Germans who emigrated to Germany after WW2, while still alive (few are left), never spoke with disparagement of National Socialism.
    Given Mr. Slavski penchant for colorful characterizations, he may have a go at what the current young generation may be nostalgic about when old themselves (in the West and among Russian westernizers) – LBGTism? Massively industrialized pornography in the hand of the usual suspects? Race being a construct? Black Lives Matter? Antifa? George Soros instead of Stalin? Record crime and drug consumption? … There is only the embarrassment of the choice.

    Reply
  5. Robin
    Robin says:

    This Pro Russian Site will be gone soon with its lies and excuses for war in Europe, Stealing history=genocide. Russians stole 198 gold Scythian relics, destroyed
    dozens of Orthodox churches, national monuments and cultural heritage sites, shot the bust of a famous Ukrainian poet in the head. 250+ cultural institutions have been destroyed Ukraine’s declaration of independence in 1918, the Ukrainian people have suffered 104 years of war, occupation, genocide and colonial oppression at the hands of imperial Russia.

    World War I never ended for Ukraine, nor World War II. It’s a multi-generational war. Putin wants to wipe out Ukraine, Ukrainians & Ukrainian identity. He will not succeed. Russian TV calls for genocide against Ukraine – the murder of 5% of the population (2 million people). There is no denying this is a Nazi regime “To justify Russia’s actions in Ukraine requires changing what it means to be Russian, by inscribing genocide into the national identity. To be Russian is to revel in the eradication of Ukraine. The cost of this change will be borne by all who identify as Russian, forever.” Russian fascist invaders are stealing several hundred thousand tonnes of grain from occupied Ukraine. They block grain ships on the Black Sea.

    Repeating the Holodomor famine-genocide of 90 years ago in a more interdependent world, Russia wages war on global food security. Canada has become the third country in the world after Estonia and Latvia to declare that Russia is committing acts of genocide against Ukraine. Now it is obvious that the #Holodomor, the destruction of churches and other cultural values in Ukraine in 1920s-30s were not abstract “repressions”, but a planned genocide of Soviets against #Ukraine and everything #Ukrainian.
    In 2022, they returned with exactly the same goals. “The opponents of the letter Z must understand that they will not be spared. Everything is serious here: concentration camps, re-education, sterilization!” – this was declared by Shakhnazarov on the state TV #RussiaWarCrimes The synergies between the Serb nationalist and Russian nationalist projects are real and deepening. And both embrace acts of atrocity and genocide glorification — in Bosnia and Ukraine.

    Reply
    • Victor
      Victor says:

      Robin, you are probably one of the Ukrainian Bandera neo-Nazis if you dare to write such shameless lies about the history of Ukraine and the desire of President Putin and the Russians to destroy it. Russia only needs the security of its borders without US and NATO military biological laboratories, missiles and “dirty” atomic bombs on the territory of Ukraine.

      Reply
  6. Karl Haemers
    Karl Haemers says:

    It’s astonishing to read that any Russians ever believed in Stalin’s Communism, and moreso that some might even today. It’s hard to imagine that any amount of propaganda could overcome the obvious reality that Stalin impoverished the nation by devoting most resources to the equipping of immense armies devoted to world conquest and enslaving most of the USSR’s young men in the military. The vast “proletariat” in the USSR suffered and died from this impoverishment to glut Stalin’s deranged megalomania, but the survivors are nostalgic for Stalin and Communism? It can’t be enough to blame it all on the Germans. Russians were dying of starvation and privation before Barbarossa. Viktor Suvorov made this clear in Icebreaker. The Lend-Lease flood of resources to the USSR from the US after Barbarossa did little to help the Russian peasants. It was more military funding and supplies to re-equip Stalin’s armies and seize half of Europe.

    Reply
    • Weaver
      Weaver says:

      Just from what I was told at Unz, Suvorov’s later book “The Chief Culprit” is even better. I’m open to the possibility that Suvorov was partly correct but perhaps partly wrong. I want to see evidence that Hitler had truly detected a Soviet plan of attack, but maybe it was just obvious.

      As an American, my view of the war has largely been that the US should have stayed out. So, I barely know the history. One day I’ll read Suvorov.

      Reply
  7. Weaver
    Weaver says:

    I very much appreciate this.

    I assume the n bomb in the article is “nationalist.” Russia seems to have some serious problems. Putin seems to understand that he needs more Russian children, also that Western universities are dangerous. But maybe it’s too late to change the trend.

    May we politely include Dr. MacDonald and his “Indo European individualism” as boomeresque? Also, Vdare as such but again, politely.

    I noticed at RT and MoA that posters who did seem Iranian and others Latin seemed open to right wing ideas, also the Russians. It made me want to write study guides in different languages explaining Russell Kirk, Francis/Burnham, Chesterton/Belloc, Aristotle, and other core thinkers that I at least like parts of.

    These “left wing” people seem rather right wing, surprisingly.

    Reply
  8. Poupon Marx
    Poupon Marx says:

    A quick contrast between cultures:

    https://dcdirtylaundry.com/witness-the-girl-maiming-scar-cult-being-pushed-by-biden-and-leftists-who-encourage-young-girls-to-have-their-breasts-sliced-off-with-medical-scalpels/

    https://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=253297

    Lucius Vanini- I replied to you comment on May 2 regarding pessimism toward the West, and the state of scientific achievement of China contra JUSA. It was never posted. Themes and subjects which are not cheerleading or restatement of the obvious-even though I almost always document my assertions or declarations-seem to matter not. As I explained, such immature, sophomoric, and flat line thinking is not in the best interest of the commonweal.

    After all, isn’t that wha the meta debates are all about, keeping information from people that is “harmful”? Maybe unpleasant, even objectionable, but not vulgar. Why doesn’t this weasel creature come out and refute what I am saying? Ron Unz does frequently. Also, I repeat: Darkmoon.me did the same, capricious censoring of strong opinions that were not soft soap and rounded edges. They decamped, leaving the site sterile, reduced and lowered in quality of discussion. I’m not scratching anybody’s back.

    Reply
  9. anonym
    anonym says:

    “meta-political schizophrenia at it’s finest” Perfect description of what happens when Jewish power takes control over a country.

    Everything has to be perceived from a Jewish perspective. The parasite takes control over it’s host, and since the parasite is both dependent on the host, and have nothing but contempt for it, we end up with the same cognitive dissonance and schizofrenia. We’re like the father of an adopted teenage son, who hates us, but keeps staying at home, takes our money, eats our food and generally makes our life intolerable.

    An army of Jewish political thinkers, philosophers and lobbyists working frantically to tweak things into their own favour, which leads to a myriad of double standards, inconsistencies, lunacies and, in the end, a permanent state of confusion.

    Reply
  10. A-S
    A-S says:

    So basically Russia is just run by Jews. When “racism” and “nazis” are the ultimate evil and jews and jew-defenders the ultimate good even when they’ve committed an actual genocide, and the people believe in all sorts of contradictory nonsense, those are symptoms of Jewish power. It’s the same here in America.

    Reply
    • Weaver
      Weaver says:

      I disagree that it’s exclusively Jews at issue. An argument a Jew made at Unz, which seems solid, is that the original English Enlightenment involved no Jews.

      The Chamber of Commerce pretty much anywhere is pro-immigrant. An argument Belloc made is that capitalism trends towards monopoly, and it’s a short step to socialism from that.

      “Managerial state” is a great way to look at modern society. Even without Jews, there’s a problem. Furthermore, leftists in the US haven’t only been Jews. Urban European immigrants to America tended to be more left wing. Jefferson and Aristotle both warned against large cities.

      Jews had been pushed from power by the time the Soviets collapsed. Solzhenitsyn blamed primarily Stalin for the Holodomir but does mention Jews involved. Jews supposedly used their international connections to make bank during the Soviet collapse. We continue to see Jews driven out then welcomed back into leadership positions within Europe with many of these revolutions.

      Reply
      • moneytalks
        moneytalks says:

        …” capitalism trends towards monopoly “…

        That is not precisely correct and it is an egregiously widespread nefarious malconception .

        Precisely , financial capitalism , which is practiced by the globalist oligarchy billionaires , is basicly monopolistic ; whereas , the vast majority by far of entrepreneurial capitalism ( small businesses ) never even get to the starting gate of monopoly economics .

        The problem with financial capitalism is mostly political and not with the fundamental economic supply/demand pricing theory of capitalism . In particular , “capital gains” taken out of an investment account is a pure cock-n-bull designation to artificially distinguish it from ordinary income — any money you can use to pay for living expenses .

        Monopoly finance capitalists are allowed to bribe politicians into passing deceptive legislation that permits them to legally avoid paying huge amounts of taxes that would otherwise be their “fair share” of payments for crucial government services that they – the financiers – need to facilitate their accumulations of wealth and expensive government services they need to secure their vast wealth accumulations . The public in effect subsidizes the wealth accumulations of “the rich” whom legally exploit the astonishingly profound and widespread ignorance , of the vast sheeple herd majorities , about money technologies .

        Reply
  11. Danny Howards III
    Danny Howards III says:

    Yes communism a not agreat system in it’s absence of democracy and free information and propaganda based and so on aswell as no private property.

    But you gotta give the system credit for:

    1. No subsaharian africans or very few in their lands! Major PLUS!

    2. Housing for everyone although in very bad quality for sure bit atleast their cities are not controlled by hostile low IQ susaharan africans.

    So, yeah, a catatostrofy in many areas with a few good point, like most other ideologies. Maybe Marx views on capitalist “jews” having no GOD but money and the like in some ways warned the followers of teideology of attitudes and the like certainly being held by some “jews” I suppose or similar somehow some scepticism towards organizations based on this certain people one may say or the like now anyways…

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.