Ah. I’ve read of a legal process describing a real life attempt at anarcho-communism, ended with a few murders and the bosses of the settlement doing drugs trade.

So maybe it’s not at all about political ideologies, just about lacking people of proper qualifications in their experiment.

Well, it is one big process.

Hard to trace the power which allowed for all those slow processes of subversion to happen, but a lot of it stems ultimately from the USSR’s breakup and those who managed to make profit on it.

Western countries’ MIC’s which no more had to prepare for real war, so same big funding, but less accountability. Western politicians making profit on reducing their militaries - it’s a profitable process of selling properties and scrapping tech and such. Western advisors in ex-USSR helping their new mafia elites. Western businesses who first managed to secure some agreements to do business in ex-USSR.

Then - the tech sector, via plenty of qualified labor from ex-USSR moving to USA and other western countries. Cheap fossil fuels sold by Russia to EU countries, which became a major factor in their economies in the 90s and 00s.

Politicians in this were very notably not complacent, just looking out for themselves and noticing opportunities for themselves.

Also a lot happened just due to technical progress and lack of macro-level competition. Soviet system notably had deadlocks because interested parties couldn’t agree to one countrywide system. Suppose USSR somehow managed to survive till now, with its collegial and totalitarian-bureaucratic, but not mafia-style, government. Then total surveillance being introduced in the West now and long ago in China wouldn’t be successfully implemented in the USSR, for the similar reasons EU countries want to have their own surveillance, but not US surveillance over their citizens. In USSR it would be between ministries and factions not willing to be controlled by others. So in USSR there’d likely be some status quo.

I mean, it’s purely a hypothesis, it already imploded and there’s nothing more to say about this. Just - such things as now would sometimes happen during the Cold War too, but having a big totalitarian state as a counterweight helped a lot. Like an example of what will happen if this is allowed, and like an alternative (if we are going to have totalitarianism, then let’s at least have the red workers-and-peasants kind), and like a real threat in case of weakening of western nations.

So one can imagine that USSR’s breakup did lead in many ways to what we have now. At the same time had it not happened, then maybe on my side of the screen everything would already be surveilled (or maybe it is).

A few stolen elections in a row were approved by US politicians and various European politicians almost unanimously, because of “supporting Yeltsin against reaction”, and “if not this imperfect democracy, then Commies or neo-Nazis”, and “but we’re having a reboot of relations”, and then with almost open realpoliticking shit about how Putin is convenient to do business with, and if there’s a change of regime, it won’t be as easy.

So I would argue about root causes a lot. Especially since the root cause would be Western interference during USSR’s breakup, first aimed at preserving USSR, then after that failing aimed at preserving Russia as 1) some sort of superpower, 2) authoritarian regime led by Yeltsin’s crowd.

It doesn’t even matter that they likely didn’t know what they were doing, likely led by Tom Clancy books style idiotic ideas of the dangers and chances in that process, and the main “threat” perceived was some “radical reactionary takeover” leading to someone launching nukes just for the sake of it. It even reads idiotic, but such opinions were said officially, however nuts it was.

EDIT: And also there’s the subject of Ukraine’s nukes. If someone didn’t know, it’s not Russia that pressured Ukraine to get rid of its nukes in favor of Russia. It’s USA. Convenient to have one hegemon in a region, with whom you can deal, except that hegemon might eventually accept the idea that they are the hegemon.

Früher war mehr Lametta?

As someone still in Russia, a bit of the same.

That is, I expected things to get worse, but not “avalanche of shit, cockroaches and rat bones” levels of worse.

Except the idolization part started receding much earlier, when I actually learned English well enough to understand that these are very intolerant societies. Say, where in Russia people disagreeing with you on some key matters would look at you like a fool or just decide to stop this conversation so that neither of you would offend the other, in English-speaking countries, it seems, there was simply no way to survive outside of some echo chamber and God forbid you find none to fit into. But that was like 10-15 years ago, now, of course, in Russia you can get jailed or strongly fined for words.

But I thought there’s some deeper wisdom and in those harsher societies people are also somehow better capable to maintain their common freedom and dignity yadda-yadda. In fact that’s not what I see.

As a bit of gloating - at least now the “why are you not all revolting against Putin” Western types can be answered with their own regrettable example instead of common sense and logic, these are fine, but an example is more efficient.

…what?

Rephrasing for the slower types - you’re not an authority on what libertarianism is in the real world. I have my own experience to judge by.

Also have you read “a libertarian walks into a bear”?

No, I don’t even know what it is and I suspect nothing of value was lost.

In your specific situation maybe. Even in mine maybe.

That’s not what libertarianism means in practice. In the real world it’s always “I don’t want to pay for other people, even if that means defunding the fire department so my house burns down”.

No, in the real world nothing is always what you’d want to claim.

Somebody can’t tell the difference between their own identity and which identities the humanity as a whole needs. Probably.

libertarians have neither

I would say that an ideology based on non-violence, choice and responsibility, with those being impossible to delegate, is exactly about having a heart and a brain at least potentially, unlike the rest.

In any case people who, I think, could be interested in dating me (maybe they were so strongly hinting at something else, but being autistic and very shy and lacking willpower, I’ll never know) were of all kinds of political views. Some of those were even glad to hear about the libertarian kind of opinions. But importantly that wasn’t the subject of our interactions.

So don’t mix that American normalized intolerance with how women feel generally, please. Women are, ahem, as diverse as men.

but because they would personally rather not date a horrible person.

That’s not what women consider when choosing dates. Even the nicest (as a person) women.

They consider safety, reliability, how fun or not the person is, everything, but that everything is more practical than moral. Especially since evaluating someone by moral criteria from the first glance is an almost impossible task. Since women are in bigger danger from making mistakes, they usually know that.

Even when they share stupid posts from dating apps or whatever, the focus is on stupidity and awkwardness, not on someone being a douche, because honestly sex is not like other spheres of life and a woman being like “sorry, below 2 meter tall is not for me, and also I like guys with blue eyes and a car” is pretty normal, which, well, in other circumstances is being a douche.

And the proportion of good and bad people among men and women is the same, a reminder in case someone forgot this, ahem.

I don’t think this has much to do with the conservative\liberal category at all.

More like vulnerable\healthy, or insecure\content. The vulnerable and insecure parts of population in our time and situation might be more likely to feel conservative, but in essence this is not important.

I mean, OK, somewhere around 50s there were plenty of stats how women actually strongly prefer conservative men, while in average more men were liberal than conservative. Today this seems to be reverted.

The ideologies are secondary, just if a man talks too much of their ideology to a potential date, they need some therapy first, and if a man can’t manage some tact about their ideology when that correlates with misogyny, they are not trying hard enough to get that date, and if both are wrong but the other side wants to kill them with fire for their mind having been touched with that impure abomination of thought, then probably the other side needs some therapy. And - I know it’s hard to consider, but maybe, - some people are just not meant for each other, there’s that.

Couldn’t be more wrong. Authoritarians are often psychopaths, and cats (honestly) are kinda psychopathic animals, if very charming, invasive predators and all that. So like many of them love cats and hate dogs (dogs are too direct and chaotic).

And when I had authoritarian views (monarchist with hard limitations, kinda similar to paleo-libertarians if I think about it, but I didn’t have knowledge of such terms then ; it was really long ago and was a reaction at being autistic among not very nice people), I wanted to have a piece of territory covered in tall grass and bushes populated by cats, so.

I would say the future is in pooling resources.

Like it happens with torrents. As one p2p protocol very successful.

Self-hosting not applications, but storage and uniform services. Let different user applications use the same pooled storage and services.

All services are ultimately storage, computation, relays, search&indexing and trackers. So if there’s a way to contribute storage, computing resources, search and relay nodes by announcing them via trackers (suppose), then one can make any global networked application using that.

But I’m still thinking how can that even work. What I’m dreaming of is just year 2000 Internet (with FTP, e-mail, IRC, search engines), except simplified and made for machines, with the end result being represented to user by a local application. There should be some way to pay for resources in a uniform way, and reputation of resources (not too good if someone can make a storage service, collect payment, get a “store” request and then just take it offline), or it won’t work.

And global cryptographic identities.

Not like Fediverse in the end, more like NOSTR.

If you mean native American reservations, then it’s possible to leave them, there are no barbed wire fences and machine gun tops, and in general it’s not the same.

If by “ethnic” you mean not “white”, then there are probably plenty of variants.

Ah. Yeah. So when I first went to uni, I had long hair, oversize jeans and in general for me it seemed kinda hippie, but apparently made a different impression.

So there’s a moment when I stand talking to others from our group, feel a so-o-oftish touch on my shoulder and a male-made-feminine-with-effort slow voice “hi, my name’s Rustem”. I was fucking terrified.

So, not gay, but being autistic I might sometimes look that for normies. Broken signals might be perceived as gay signals or something like that.

Not really. A normal thing for most functional states 50 years ago. A comprehensive pipeline of training and preparation for various industrial and military roles.

From first aid to orientation on terrain to radio knowledge to flag signals. Flight clubs, other relevant sports, small arms disassembly and assembly. What to do in case of an emergency. Chemistry, electric engineering, mechanical engineering.

Computer games weren’t a thing, and cheap small drone planes too. But this is pretty normal, except nothing is official, because today nation-states prefer gray schemes.

That’s him advocating for wider adoption of prison culture or what?

Also I think I’d be dumb to try to make Röhm’s stormtroopers my role models to learn empathy and kindness, and they were much into that. Or Spartans.

There’s that story about a boy who cried “wolf”.

Unless you literally mean “being put in camps”, you shouldn’t use this as a metaphor for less dangerous events.

Also … why do you even think it would be better otherwise. A reminder - the other mainstream option was that party that didn’t even care about picking a popular enough candidate. Almost a kingdom inside the nation. They literally imitated Idiocracy, thinking that’ll be popular.

Anyway, as someone in Russia - I both appreciate that you over there still have some democracy and wish for you to see the fake parts of it as early as possible.

Even in Russia people often don’t know this.

They also don’t know that despite catch-alls and such, usually the word (I know it’s pretty generic in Arabic) was used for a leftist-Islamist hybrid typical for that time and not typical now (the Islamic Republic of Iran has some remnants of that ideology). And before that there was a socialist dictatorship. And before it a British-aligned monarchy.

Yet people trained by USSR for police and military work are still employed by Taliban in positions requiring qualifications, or so I’ve been recently told. Will be interesting to see what happens when they get too old. Will such new states disassemble into tribal zones or will they manage to create their own institutions at least for training people capable of maintaining a basic military organization.

Ex-Soviet everything since 1991.

Including Kaya Kallas.