Skip to content
Soyviet Union

41 Comments

No idea how LGBT are associated with communism, considering Stalin locked up gay people in the gulag.

Their highly publicized existence and immunity from social stigma destroy social capital. The first duty of the (((Party Vanguard))) is always to crush social capital by any and every means at hand, because patriotic high-trust societies don’t go for The Revolution. In late 20th, early 20th Century America, that means bringing the Frisco Freakshow to small-town America and shoving it under everyone’s nose, and using the (((judicial system))) to come down like the hammer of God on anyone who dares object to Drag Queen Story Time and sex-change operations for eight-year-olds.

The first decade after the revolution in Russia is instructive. The Soviet Criminal Code of 1922 legalized homosexuality. The Party bulldozed churches and preached “free love” and declared marriage, families, etc., to be “bourgeois” and “counterrevolutionary.” This is straight out of Gramsci–the people won’t embrace the Revolution until every shred of cultural pride and dignity (Marx called it “false consciousness) is wiped out and destroyed.

The Bolsheviks, after their victory, dealt with revolt after revolt by the “freed” rural proletariat who were disgusted and horrified by what they saw until they started bombing rebellious towns with poison gas. Go look up the Tambov Rebellion.

But once the Bolsheviks consolidated power, all that “free love” stuff got very thoroughly memory-holed. Russian women went back to the kitchen with a quickness, and went back to being property–just State-owned rather than by individuals. Their purpose was to be the broodmares to give birth to next generation of soldiers for the Revolution.

What I’m trying to say is that the degeneracy is not something they pursue for its own sake. It’s a tactic. They do it to anger and disgust the normies in the hope that those same normies will be so hopeless and despairing and desperate that they’ll be willing to follow (((them))) and burn everything down and start over.

It didn’t work so well for (((them))) in the USSR–did I mention the Tambov Rebellion?–and in Germany it got them Hitler instead of the (((Spartacists))) and (((Rotfront))). But if they were self-aware or historically aware they couldn’t be Leftists in the first place. What we see now is the same old ideas from more than a century ago, but the SJWs believe they’re going to get it right this time. “Do it again, but harder!” There’s an old saying about insanity being doing the same thing over and over while expecting something new to happen, isn’t there?

Women weren’t property in Tsarist Russia! That’s (((feminist))) propaganda about the past and you should know better.

They had no more rights than their husbands, who were bound to the land and property of the aristocracy in Russia for centuries after feudalism disappeared in Western Europe.

Russia under the Tsars was a perfectly horrible place to live for just about anyone not born into an aristocratic family. And then the Communists came along and made everything worse for everyone not a Party member. Or, rather, (((Party))) member.

They had no more rights than their husbands

If they had more rights than their husbands then Russia would have been a colder Africa?

Russia under the Tsars was a perfectly horrible place to live for just about anyone not born into an aristocratic family.

I dunno, how bad could it have been? I suspect that harsh measures had to be instated to address the diversity issue, since Russia was a country both Asiatic and White, and I find it difficult to judge the Ruskies historically as they kept suffering attempts at Regime Change by the Western European powers.

Up until the point that Germany went for the full Pyrrhic victory and sent in Lenin to do the ultimate regime change.

” I find it difficult to judge the Ruskies historically as they kept suffering attempts at Regime Change by the Western European powers.”

Not even remotely true. The Western powers wanted the Ukrainian steppes and the Baltic territories, which were never Russia. Nobody sane wanted the Russian homelands. Not even the Tatars or Mongols.

Napoleon only marched on Russia to proactively keep them from continually attacking France. (It didn’t work.) Hitler attacked Russia because he knew they were going to destroy Germany if he didn’t crush them first. (It didn’t work.)

Russia was not a particularly diverse nation (see the definition of “nation”) until fairly recently, when the breakup of the Soviet Union allowed mass migration throughout the region. Of course, the (((Soviets))) deliberately relocated peoples to cause ethnic strife.

And the (((Soviets))) also stole land from their neighbors and colonized them–though that is an old Russian tradition, predating the Revolution by centuries. All Russia’s neighbors hate them, from the Finns to the Balts to the Ukies to the Tartars and all the rest, and it’s been well and truly earned.

Not even remotely true. The Western powers wanted the Ukrainian steppes and the Baltic territories, which were never Russia.

I did not say that the Western Powers wanted Russia, they effected Regime Change on Russia in a continual effort to have a Russian administration that would be more compliant with and favorable toward them.

During the Napoleonic Wars, Britain (which had cohencidentally been bailed out of war-induced bankruptcy by the Rothschilds) played CIA style games with Russia, kicking off a system of meddling by the West against the East that would culminate with Germany’s most unfortunate decision to inject and install Lenin.

Hitler attacked Russia because he knew they were going to destroy Germany if he didn’t crush them first. (It didn’t work.)

It would have, if only the German Army hadn’t gotten hung up in the weeds and, more importantly, the USA hadn’t been feeding and funding the Red Army (a trend that continued throughout the Cold War…). I wonder if Stalin ever felt insulted that he was being used as an obvious pawn, or if he was content to be a mercenary if it, as his quote supposedly goes, allowed him to try and live in the shadow of the tsars by conquering Europe from the east?

Reply if you’ve seen a place like this in real life.

A vision of a wholesome society motivated the communists, after all. As Leon Trotsky envisioned it:

Man will become immeasurably stronger, wiser and subtler; his body will become more harmonized, his movements more rhythmic, his voice more musical. The forms of life will become dynamically dramatic. The average human type will rise to the heights of an Aristotle, a Goethe, or a Marx. And above this ridge new peaks will rise.

I don’t think Trotsky had gays, transgenders, obese feminists, soyboys, low-IQ diversitarians, etc., in mind when he wrote these words nearly 100 years ago.

It’s true. The New Soviet Man, as depicted in thousands of murals, was notably masculine, tall, physically fit, blond, and serious. He was everything these green-haired tattooed soyboys with manbuns are not.

Wasn’t that state-funded art to represent an ideal in the hope that if you show it enough, people will follow it?

Similar to how we have had statues of great Americans all over DC for a century+ yet during that time pretty much every politician in DC has been instead the mirror opposite, a degenerate piece of Schiff?

Yet the kitschy modern hipster lifestyle seems to be what Trotsky lived in during his final days, as he couch-surfed among the degenerate pinko artists down in Mexico.

He also supposedly banged Frida Kahlo, which has me wondering about his tastes and also if Trotsky’s supposed “pure communism” extended to supporting swinging.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar