Posts from Forum Auto-translated

Regarding human rights organizations and media outlets funded from abroad. Are there any specific figures on the enormous amounts of money involved? Of course, money is poured into them, but certainly no more than the state pours into its own media. At least in Russia, I don't know about Ukraine. Naturally, in such a situation, competing with state media can only be done with good support from outside; market mechanisms don't work here, and the competition is unequal. It's not an option for commercial entities to get involved; the only option is to wait for help from abroad. Or do you think it's better that alternative viewpoints are not represented in the media? I don't see anything wrong with that.
Secondly, it's telling that human rights organizations are funded from abroad. Ideally, they shouldn't exist at all because there are law enforcement agencies, courts, and so on, but in reality, it always turns out that someone dies from a bottle in their anus, under the wheels of a car belonging to some official, in prison due to inhumane conditions, and so on. This is precisely why the activities of such organizations are possible, so it's more of an indicator of the poor work of state law enforcement agencies. They are funded from abroad, of course, with certain goals, but it's still better that they are funded from abroad than not at all.
And thirdly, human rights organizations and a dozen media outlets are not institutions, and their ability to promote some worldview simply pales in comparison to the capabilities of the state propaganda machine.

Let me explain in simple terms: imagine you own a bearing manufacturing company, and across from your office, a tailoring and sewing school opens. For your employees. Free of charge. Sponsored by your competitor. What will your reaction be?

Dude, I don't even know how to describe someone who not only makes mistakes but also holds a position that is almost the opposite of reality.

For me, that "dude" is you. I'm curious, do you actually believe in the paranoia you're spreading? Or are you just getting paid for this nonsense? Or receiving other benefits from the Monarch. In principle, it's a well-known fact about the number of trolls working for Putin. I'll try not to respond anymore, as trolls get paid for responses.

Let me explain it simply: imagine you own a company that manufactures bearings, and across the street from your office, a tailoring and sewing school opens. For your employees. Free of charge. Sponsored by your competitor. What would be your reaction?

Let's skip the allegories.

Let's skip the allegories.

OK, no allegories – you are the leader of a country, and organizations operating within your territory engage in educational and propaganda activities among the population, without aiming for profit (and not having any), sponsored from abroad. What will be your reaction?

Added 10 minutes later
And regarding democracy, here is a real-life example – a poll on ХВ – /topic/10612/

Based on its results, posts from true democrats:

The main problem with polls is that there is always a significant portion of participants who lack sufficient experience to assess the situation. And they vote just for fun. Also, many fanatical conservatives and, conversely, radicals voted. Only experienced players, the elite of the community, should make decisions.

Although, actually, there is some truth to it – I would ban anonymous users from participating in the poll.

It's a well-known topic: people call a situation where society is ruled by Democrats "democracy."

Okay, no allegories – you are the leader of a country, and organizations operating within your territory are engaged in educational and propaganda activities among the population, without the goal of making a profit (and without actually making any), and are funded from abroad. What would be your reaction?

If only... I am not the leader of a country, and my point of view is that of an ordinary citizen, not a leader. And as an ordinary citizen, I think about my own interests, which include receiving the most accurate information possible. This is not beneficial to the leader of the country, I understand, but that is his problem, not mine. And if he were honest, and his organization worked well, then the activities of these organizations would be pointless.
In general, I don't like arguing about politics; my point of view is determined only by the belief that lies are bad, and truth is good. It's a bit naive, but the solution to this issue has long been invented: two points of view must be provided on any issue. State-controlled media do not provide an alternative point of view, which is why pro-Western media, which also cover everything rather one-sidedly, are popular.
The truth lies somewhere in the middle; I just wanted to say that I don't see anything wrong with the existence of such organizations and such media for myself. For myself, not for Putin; Putin doesn't care about me, so I won't care about him either.

If you reason logically, explain things clearly, and no one can argue with you effectively, it means you're spouting nonsense for which you're getting paid. Ironclad logic! Just like my grandmother's.

If only things were different. I am not the leader of a country, and my point of view is that of an ordinary citizen, not a leader. And as an ordinary citizen, I think of my own interests

That is exactly the main flaw of democracy — you think of your own interests, but at the same time, you want to make decisions for the collective, whose interests may diverge from yours.

This is precisely why democracy works well only in collectives where the members recognize and accept the interests of the collective. Usually, these are small groups of intelligent people working toward a common goal, like-minded individuals. An alternative option is a small group of strong people who need to divide territory without conflicting with each other.

As the size of the collective increases, stratification occurs — some are smarter, some are stronger, some stand out in other ways. There is also a diffusion of motivation — members of the collective think more and more about themselves and less and less about the collective.

Therefore, within the framework of a state, democracy in its original idea is completely inapplicable — 99% of the population does not realize the needs and capabilities of the state, and is instead occupied with solving their own minor problems.

From this stems the practice of democracy that we observe worldwide — the elite makes a decision among themselves, and then it is legitimized in society through democratic mechanisms. The opinion of society is taken into account, but the elite themselves, in the process of internal squabbles, make adjustments based on the popularity of the decisions.

which are also related to obtaining the most truthful information

Truthful information is not hard to get, especially in our internet age. No one really hides it; everything is widely available.

The task of the media in all states at all times has been and will be not informing, but PR and propaganda — forming a point of view in the masses that is favorable to the leadership. Accordingly, the task of opposition media is to form a point of view in the masses that is favorable to the opposition. And the task of foreign media is to implant a point of view favorable to other countries.

In my understanding, opposition is good and necessary, especially if it is a constructive opposition. Regarding this topic — Snoopy and Peterius are examples of a constructive opposition; it is possible and necessary to talk with them, while Ichthyander and Roger are examples of a non-constructive opposition; they should be either ignored or ridiculed.

And as for foreign sponsors, they need to be dealt with harshly regardless of what they say. Their interests a priori diverge from the interests of the state, so in the event of any wrong action, the conversation is short — suitcase, station, Washington.

This is exactly how all reasonable states behave — both in the States and in Europe, there are strict restrictions on the participation of foreigners in public life. For example, the law on the registration of foreign agents (with corresponding obligations and restrictions) has been in effect in the USA for many decades, and it seems to me that this is not at all because Americans are afraid of some competition. This is ordinary social hygiene — not letting fleas under your shirt.

Not long ago, a similar law was finally passed in Russia. Now it has been passed in Ukraine. Clearly, there is a lot of stink, but one just needs to see who this stink is coming from — almost exclusively from human rights activists who feed on Western grants. For some reason, I feel absolutely no pity for them.

Perhaps, after being cleansed of them, a constructive opposition will begin to form in society.

Added after 1 hour 20 minutes
A good text:

Degradation of the system and society according to M.I. Veller

"...the relationship between a person and the state is the relationship of a subsystem with a system. Otherwise, it cannot be understood; otherwise, one would have to bring a deus ex machina onto the stage and invent a devil to counter it.

The interests of the person and the state coincide in the sense that by doing more for the state, the person lives better, wealthier, more interestingly, more diversely, fully realizing all their possibilities. But they do not coincide in that, to solve its own grandiose tasks, the system frequently crushes, drives, and sacrifices specific individuals.

But to proclaim the rights of the subsystem as higher than the rights of the system is a foolish benevolence. It is like bees attempting to privatize their own share of the hive. The right of a rivet not to be hit on the head by a sledgehammer, but otherwise, to hell with the ship. Why are you, rivet, needed without the ship? Then rivet me out gently and under anesthesia; the better I am, the more perfect the ship is.

In the history of every state and civilization, there was a peak of maximum achievements — be it the military power of an empire or grandiose urban planning. Characteristically, people did not live the most comfortably during this period. Having passed the peak, they became softer, cared more about people, wanted less to achieve god-knows-what for god-knows-why — and gradually the civilization weakened and dissipated. After the peak of deeds, people rejoiced for a long time in how well they lived, and then the great deeds shone from the past as a golden legend, and the decline grew. As soon as a state passes the peak of great deeds, it inclines toward decay.

At first, it inclines imperceptibly, almost not at all — the summit of a large semicircular mountain seems like a flat area for a long time, and then it gets steeper. The system passing the peak of development. While people are breaking their backs building a grandiose Temple — the system is powerful. When, exhausted, they say: 'Who needs this? It's better to live a bit better,' — the system, therefore, weakens. They will live a bit better, and then they will fall victim to the Barbarian neighbors and disappear."

Perhaps, after being cleansed, a constructive opposition will begin to form in society.

Nope, it won't.

Newbie: So, what states and forms of government exist?
Papon: There are 4 types of government, just like there are 4 types of people. Surely you don't think that states consist of fields and cities?
Newbie: Indeed, different countries consist of different people.
Papon: And there must be enough of these people, so that when the old government collapses, many hungry children are born on its ruins. And as they grow up, the sons see that their fathers left them nothing in inheritance. Incited by their mothers and friends, they begin to fight each other, passionately wanting to build a new country. Thus, the first form of government arises, based on rivalry, and the strongest and most intelligent are in power.
Newbie: Isn't this a wonderful society, where the best are at the head?
Papon: Of course, it's wonderful, if we're talking about a pack of wolves, not a country of people. But let's see what happens next: in a few years, or maybe decades. Tired of lawlessness, the people who created the new country love fighting and rivalry less and less, and they make an agreement among themselves. They place law on the throne and put a golden crown on top.
Newbie: What is this crown?
Papon: Nothing more than wealth. No longer relying on teeth and iron, tired of the struggle, the rulers increasingly rely on gold. And their children know no other weapon but money. Thus, without bloodshed, a new state is born. And in this state, two peoples live: one rich and all-powerful, the other poor and powerless. And both peoples worship golden dust. Material success here is more important than wisdom and love, beauty and friendship. And everyone, from young to old, worships Mammon.
Newbie: What a terrible state!
Papon: Yes, but the horrors don't end there. The rich part wants not only to replenish its coffers, it wants to have two, three, ten. Having exhausted the natural sources of income, the rich invent vicious ways, primarily usurers. And the poor part of the state, living from day to day and wanting to grab at least a crumb from the golden paradise, gets into debt from which it can no longer escape.
Newbie: And will the end of this power come?
Papon: It will naturally come, but not soon. First, a generation that despises the golden calf must be born and grow strong. When the poor children grow up and realize that there are simply more of them, they will attack their rulers wave after wave, forcing them to leave. The struggle will be peaceful and long, because the rich fight poorly and speak well. And when it comes to a great bloodshed, they will flee the country. And the former slaves will create a new government, where the main value will be freedom.
Newbie: And this is the most wonderful of all forms of government!
Papon: At first glance, yes. In such a country, everyone is free to speak and do as they please, and most importantly, they try not to interfere in other people's affairs. Everyone arranges life to their liking. And everything would be fine, but in such a free society, no laws work. Here, debauchery is called love, and rudeness is called a manner of communication. At the head of such a state will be the one who is more pleasing to the crowd. And everyone cares only about their own household, forgetting about common affairs.
Newbie: But surely such a country will become easy prey during a war!
Papon: No, something even worse will happen. On the day when the crowd drives out the rich, along with the triumph of freedom, its death is born. The man who led the crowd will become its hero, because he needs nothing and all his exploits are only for the sake of the fatherland. When freedom reaches its limit and the country is flooded with chaos and lawlessness, the crowd will crave discipline and again call him to restore order.
Newbie: And will this man succeed?
Papon: And even too well. He will surround himself with soldiers, destroy criminals, drive out invaders from the country, and make the laws work. Thus, the most terrible form of government is born. Having destroyed all enemies, this ruler will not give anyone a break. To maintain power, he will invent new enemies: both inside and outside the country.
Newbie: But surely the people, tired of war, will come and say to such a tyrant - enough!
Papon: They will come and say. And the crowd will realize what kind of monster it has created! Having drowned the last spark of freedom in blood, the tyrant will rule cruelly and mercilessly, inevitably moving towards his end. Because he only knows how to destroy. And the next generation will inherit only ruins and the memory of past greatness.
Newbie: And what will happen then?
Papon: Then? A new generation will grow up, wanting to correct the past. And here, the circle of human errors closes.

Where is this from? Google can’t find it…

Read it to the end. It’s pretty good.

And what about those who support the Maidan? Doesn't the presence of blatant Nazis and fascists standing alongside you bother you?

the first truly interesting post in the forum in the last N months.

I don't know what's so interesting here; I read the responses from the leaders of the "Maidan" in the spirit that "to achieve the ultimate goal – the overthrow of Yanukovych – all means are justified."

Ikhtiandr is awesome. I couldn't finish reading it because I was laughing too much. It immediately reminded me of all the "irrefutable" arguments of the Wicca regime's defender.

I'm curious why any topic that deviates from the main subject eventually turns into either insults or discussions about inappropriate things.