Here is an interesting article on the unit in question:
https://greydynamics.com/pmc-veterans-60-omsb-veteran-putins-loyalists/
"By elevating Putin above all scrutiny, it has created a system where major decisions – including the invasion of Ukraine – can be made without meaningful accountability. The result is a self-reinforcing cycle, where military aggression feeds the cult of personality, which in turn enables further aggression."
I remember a few years back I was one of those people arguing that removing Putin would bring even more chaos and possibly use of nuclear weapons.
I see now that that is part of the pro-Russian propaganda's insidious effect. Even if you "criticize" Putin, you still want him to remain, and therefore nothing changes, in spite of criticism. The "system" remains firmly in place (perhaps even more-so), which means there is no incentive to stop.
The only thing that will stop that is legitimate criticism, which at this point means arguing that Putin has to step down or even to be removed by force. No other form of "criticism" will challenge "the system" in place in Russia. Putin IS "the system".
Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to say that the Russian military is weak.
I'm more one of those people who accept the adage "the Russians are never as strong as you think, the Russians are never as weak as you think".
But one thing I've noticed is the cult of personalities present among some Russian formations.
If you look at the Akhmat group(s), they have flags/patches with Kadyrov (or his father) on them. That is their official standard. A supermiposed face of a fat Kadyrov smiling.
Now you have some Russian "elite" groups whose flag/standard is a photo of Putin doing the Putin face.
It's cringe, tbh.
Imagine being an old-guard unit of the Russian military, with a storied history and an epic flag and standard, and the people to your left and right have a flag with Putin scowling or Kadyrov smiling...
I have yet to see a single Ukrainian army unit whose official standard is Zelensky...
Daily reminder that real life James Bond shit isn't done by the West.
However, it is done by the East...
"The democratic camp must respond with a genuine populist agenda involving an expansion of social programs, higher taxes on the wealthy and the growth of a communal economy that is no longer reliant on economic growth to obtain social stability"
Real populism has never been tried, unironically.
And I thought Wordpress blogs were a thing of the past...
"The secret of Nietzsche’s appeal to people from opposite ends of the political spectrum is thus revealed: To the radical right, it is his rejection of equality and the democratic ideas that are based on it that is scintillating and rings true (besides his often and—as I have argued—misunderstood flirtations with the concept of race); to the left, it is his anti-essentialism with its emphasis on the plastic nature of identity that promises liberation from societal oppression. But, as it is typical in politics, the catch is that each side, to maintain its political ideology, has to reject the other’s Nietzscheanism: The radical right cannot easily accept the idea that identity, including racial identity, is dynamic and malleable, and the left, in order to promote its progressive agenda in the democratic public forum, cannot easily give up on the idea of the moral equality of all."
Can't believe this came from TabletMag...
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/nietzsche-left-right
The problem that anti-eugenecists have with eugenics is that eugenecism makes sense. You can only argue against it from an irrational, selfish perspective ("we have to remain, even if we are bad"). And the problem with eugenecists is that the end stage of eugenecism is essentially conceptual death.
A eugenecist wants the best people, the best society, the best relationship with nature, the best it could possibly be. They will tinker and tweak, until they reach that greatness; that harmony; that perfection.
The only issue is, when all the populations of the world become high-income societies that are then at or below replacement due to "universal education", none will be able to replace themselves without one group of people effectively dying off.
And even then, if everyone would be the same, would nations or "different" people remain? What would be the point? We'd truly, at that stage, have more need for a one-world government than a patchwork of nations. A eugenecist utopia, as it were. But that would be the death of the "world" as we know it. Conceptual death.
Even worse, if by some irrational "miracle" nations do remain, then people will, ironically, demand, and then force another people to become them, even though there is no difference between them. Tragically, this irrationality will just kill even more people as the various states (and the people within them) become desperate to survive by any means (return to the animal kingdom).
And, at the end of those wars, at that point, when the survivors start dying of old age, what is left?
The last person may then think that it's better that they kill themselves to "benefit nature" or something like that, rather than continue on as a parasite. Or, if AI achieves singularity, they may ironically choose to become "more than human", becoming something else entirely; a new species.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrBdYmStZJ4&ab_channel=BrianR
Women's rights and reproductive education is eugenics. There simply is no counter to this. Margeret Sanger was a eugenecist. Feminism is eugenics. Progressivism is, in a way, eugenics.
This paper makes that clear.
However, eugenics aside, once/if the "target universal education by 2030" is reached, you still have to maintain population levels.
What do we do then?
OK, I'm keeping it 100% man.
Look, OK.
I'm more attracted to a cute little European girl than I am to a cute little African girl.
I'm not saying the little African girl isn't cute, it's just that I'm more attracted to the European one.
@frost I just did some more reading, and it's essentially the same across the board (I've looked at France, Spain, the UK, Italy, Germany and NL).
There may be some small spikes here and there but the trend is still unquestionably downwards.
It's like a bouncy ball.
The crazy thing is, this trend appears to be global. Even "developing nations" are experiencing a decline in their fertility-rates. The fertility-rate of Yemen (once the highest fertility-rate on the planet, and one of the world's poorest nations) is dropping like a stone.
We are definitely living in interesting times...
@frost while they were higher in the past, American birth-rates were still steadily dropping year after year, even as far back as the 1800's (the birth rate in 1900 was almost half that of 1800).
Looking to the past to address current problems will most likely lead to people repeating the same past mistakes all over again ("we learn from history that we do not learn from history").
Guys this is super important to me, because I, you know...I like cute little girls?
Like.
If we don't do something about this, then there'll be no more cute little girls.
I mean, at that point, is life even worth living?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSdL1zeOfdk&ab_channel=MultiversodosHerois
@frost likely won't work long-term and will probably lead to fucked-up children.
Orphan Nation?
Total Nuclear Family Destruction?
5th-Wave Feminism?
Breaking the "Egg Wall"?
I don't know man, whatever...