Napetost v Ukrajini - Krimu
- Ustvarjalec teme darjan
- Začetni datum
In pol nam tastarim pravijo, da smo živeli v enoumju...
Tukaj in zdaj pa mladinci lapajo, da je treba izselit vse, ki se z oblastjo ne strinjajo...
Če nihče nikoli ne bi kritiziral oblasti in se ji uprl, bi še danes živeli v temačnem srednjem veku.
Tukaj in zdaj pa mladinci lapajo, da je treba izselit vse, ki se z oblastjo ne strinjajo...
Če nihče nikoli ne bi kritiziral oblasti in se ji uprl, bi še danes živeli v temačnem srednjem veku.
Sploh ne, razgaljam samo kratkovidnost in zaslepljenost kaviar socialistov tipa Čomski. Se mu pa čudim, da tako gromoglasno pljuva po Zahodu, hkrati pa tam tudi živi.
Naj gre živeti v Rusijo in pljuvati po Putinu - če upa.
Naj gre živeti v Rusijo in pljuvati po Putinu - če upa.
Citat:
Uporabnik Abraham pravi:
In pol nam tastarim pravijo, da smo živeli v enoumju...
Tukaj in zdaj pa mladinci lapajo, da je treba izselit vse, ki se z oblastjo ne strinjajo...
Če nihče nikoli ne bi kritiziral oblasti in se ji uprl, bi še danes živeli v temačnem srednjem veku.
Nihče ne trdi, niti ne zahteva, da je trbe kogarkoli izseliti. Ampak če tujev v Sloveniji pljuva po Sloveniji - potem ga lahko samo vprašam, kaj za vraga tu išče. Naj gre domov, če mu je tam lepše.
PS: pa očitno ne ločiš med oblastjo in sistemom...
Nazadnje urejeno:
Taki in podobni so tipični primer hinavstva. Pač lapajo prek vlade ker je to moderno ali se celo s tem preživljajo, v resnici pa jim je tam, kjer so, čisto kul in ni šanse da bi menjali okolje.
Abraham, pa naj se uprejo, naj naredijo politično stranko, gredo v parlament, etc...ne pa da se skrivajo za raznimi blogi in novičarskimi portali, češ da samo plasirajo resnico, spreminjajo pa naj svet drugi v njihovem imenu?
Abraham, pa naj se uprejo, naj naredijo politično stranko, gredo v parlament, etc...ne pa da se skrivajo za raznimi blogi in novičarskimi portali, češ da samo plasirajo resnico, spreminjajo pa naj svet drugi v njihovem imenu?
Citat:
Uporabnik SeriousSam pravi:
Citat:
Uporabnik Abraham pravi:
In pol nam tastarim pravijo, da smo živeli v enoumju...
Tukaj in zdaj pa mladinci lapajo, da je treba izselit vse, ki se z oblastjo ne strinjajo...
Če nihče nikoli ne bi kritiziral oblasti in se ji uprl, bi še danes živeli v temačnem srednjem veku.
Nihče ne trdi, niti ne zahteva, da je trbe kogarkoli izseliti. Ampak če tujev v Sloveniji pljuva po Sloveniji - potem ga lahko samo vprašam, kaj za vraga tu išče. Naj gre domov, če mu je tam lepše.
PS: pa očitno ne ločiš med oblastjo in sistemom...
Ti ne ločiš med pljuvanjem po svoji državi in kritiko vladanja, ampak vse mečeš v isti koš, ker ti tako ustreza.
In očitno ni edini, glede na to, da je Obama pogorel na senatskih volitvah. Kolikša je že podpora Obame?
A Obama, da je ne mid-term volitvah pogorel zaradi Ukrajine, ali kaj?
US volitve vedno odločajo notranjepolitične teme - Obama ni izpolnil pričakovanj Američanov na notranje-političnem področju, zato je pogorel.
No, povej mi, kako bi jo odnesel kritik, tipa Čomski, v Rusiji? Bi šel bolj po poti Ane Politkovske, ali morda Aleksandra Litvinenka?
Malo op-ed pr0na za sorodno misleče.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Cohen
Nick Cohen (born 1961) is an English journalist, author and political commentator. He is a columnist for The Observer, a blogger for The Spectator and TV critic for Standpoint magazine. He has written for the London Evening Standard and the New Statesman. Cohen has written five books: Cruel Britannia: Reports on the Sinister and the Preposterous (1999), a collection of his journalism; Pretty Straight Guys (2003), a highly critical account of the New Labour project; What's Left? (2007), which he describes as the story of how the liberal left of the 20th century came to support the far-right of the 21st; and Waiting for the Etonians: Reports from the Sickbed of Liberal England (2009). His most recent book, You Can't Read this Book, was published by HarperCollins in 2012 and deals with censorship. The Orwell Prize for political writing shortlisted What's Left? in 2008.
Russia Today: why western cynics lap up Putin’s TV poison
Vladimir Putin is the world’s corrupt policeman. He finds the seediness in every country and nurtures it. On some occasions, he exploits cynicism and paranoia at once; on others, he banks it for later use. Often he appears to fan corruption for the hell of it because that is all he knows how to do.
The posters appearing on British advertising hoardings promoting his propaganda channel give a notion of the scale of his effort. His underlings have rebranded his Russia Today station “RT” – in the hope that its dumb viewers will not realise that they are watching a channel whose political line follows the Kremlin line with puppyish eagerness.
While reputable news organisations from the BBC to the New York Times fire news reporters who try, however inadequately, to tell the truth, Russia Today has extended its reach. Putin is about to increase its $300m budget by 40%. Its resources will soon compare with Fox News. But while Fox serves the peculiar tastes of the American right, Russia Today has global ambitions. The channel broadcasts in English, Arabic and Spanish and can reach 600 million people. It claims to have surpassed a billion hits on YouTube, and will add German- and French-language channels. For the supposedly pariah leader of a country whose population is collapsing and mafia economy stagnating, Putin has the best publicity money can buy.
Anyone who writes critically about him soon learns the price of lese majeste. BuzzFeed revealed that state-sponsored Russian trolls maintain a Stakhanovite regime of tweeting and commenting on hostile news pieces as they spread the Kremlin’s message across the web. (Hello down there in the comments, by the way. Hope the sanctions aren’t hurting the pay cheques.)
The reaction of the naive observer to Russia’s prostitution of journalism is to think its elite has found a new way to steal from the Russian masses. The obvious question is the best one: what’s the point? However many the communists killed, Marxist-Leninists still persuaded people to follow them in large numbers until the 1970s. No one tries to persuade you today that Britain or any other country would be happier if the prime minister had Putin’s dictatorial powers and the state became a collection of thieves without an independent judiciary, opposition parties or free press to constrain it.
But the reality of modern Russia is not the impediment it seems. Suppose instead of trying to sell you Putin, Russia Today were to sell you the idea that Britain is as bad as a dictatorship. You might agree, however foolish the sentiment. If you are campaigning for change in a manifestly imperfect but still free and prosperous society, you exaggerate in the hope of attracting attention. (If the government passes this restriction on freedom of speech, we’ll be no better than Iran. If the Tories stay in control of the NHS, we’ll have third-world hospitals and so on.) A lie is still a lie, even if it is made in a good cause. But I can see why people do it.
The disbelief that oozes through much of public debate in our time is rarely in the service of any cause, however. It is radical indifference; a furious determination to condemn accompanied by an equally determined refusal to commit. Like Russell Brand, millions of people don’t want to say what change they want to see, because a commitment would force them to take a position and lay them open to attack.
They aren’t cynics but pseudo-sophisticated innocents. They shout “liar” automatically at everyone who tries to rule over them – and doubtless they are right more often than not. But to dispense with the search for proof – the need to demonstrate that the politician or banker is lying – leaves the supposedly wised-up open to capture by cults, conspiracy theorists and Russia.
The Institute of Modern Russia releases a report this week that shows how the collapse of communism liberated Moscow. Communists had to pretend to support leftwing movements – Putin can support anyone. Where the old communists claimed the Soviet Union was freer and more democratic than the west, Putinists claim “all liberalism is cant and anyone can be bought”. Russia Today feeds the huge western audience that wants to believe that human rights are a sham and democracy a fix. Believe that and you will ask: what right have we to criticise Putin? At least he is honest in his way.
...
Russia Today’s second mission is to spread conspiracy theories that help Russian power and provide sensational audience-grabbing stories – in every sense of the word. If you have heard that the Ukrainians who oppose Putin are fascists, that there is a land called “Novorossiya” in south-east Ukraine that historically belonged to Moscow, or that Assad did not gas Syrians, the odds are the story will have started on Russia Today.
...
I said that no one believed Putin offered a future for humanity. But his post-communist, postmodern flexibility means that many are prepared cut a deal when the bent copper makes an offer. Alex Salmond admires him because the break-up of Britain is in Russia’s interests. Nigel Farage, Marine le Pen and all the other leaders of Europe’s far right run to him because he shares their hatred of the EU. Despite his alliance with what we once called neofascism, the old communist left in Germany, George Galloway and Julian Assange support him because opposition to the west trumps anti-fascism in their book.
Russia Today provides a platform for anti-fracking greens because Putin wants us to remain dependent on Russian oil and gas. Viktor Orbán and Recep Tayyip Erdogan see how Putin has accumulated dictatorial power in Russia and wish to imitate him in Hungary and Turkey. London’s banks and law and PR firms work for him because the oligarchy pumps money their way. In Europe and at the United Nations, bigots of all descriptions welcome Putin’s leadership in fighting calls for gay equality and religious freedom.
However battered he looks, Putin knows how to manipulate all he comes across. It is about time the rest of the world knew it too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Cohen
Nick Cohen (born 1961) is an English journalist, author and political commentator. He is a columnist for The Observer, a blogger for The Spectator and TV critic for Standpoint magazine. He has written for the London Evening Standard and the New Statesman. Cohen has written five books: Cruel Britannia: Reports on the Sinister and the Preposterous (1999), a collection of his journalism; Pretty Straight Guys (2003), a highly critical account of the New Labour project; What's Left? (2007), which he describes as the story of how the liberal left of the 20th century came to support the far-right of the 21st; and Waiting for the Etonians: Reports from the Sickbed of Liberal England (2009). His most recent book, You Can't Read this Book, was published by HarperCollins in 2012 and deals with censorship. The Orwell Prize for political writing shortlisted What's Left? in 2008.
Russia Today: why western cynics lap up Putin’s TV poison
Vladimir Putin is the world’s corrupt policeman. He finds the seediness in every country and nurtures it. On some occasions, he exploits cynicism and paranoia at once; on others, he banks it for later use. Often he appears to fan corruption for the hell of it because that is all he knows how to do.
The posters appearing on British advertising hoardings promoting his propaganda channel give a notion of the scale of his effort. His underlings have rebranded his Russia Today station “RT” – in the hope that its dumb viewers will not realise that they are watching a channel whose political line follows the Kremlin line with puppyish eagerness.
While reputable news organisations from the BBC to the New York Times fire news reporters who try, however inadequately, to tell the truth, Russia Today has extended its reach. Putin is about to increase its $300m budget by 40%. Its resources will soon compare with Fox News. But while Fox serves the peculiar tastes of the American right, Russia Today has global ambitions. The channel broadcasts in English, Arabic and Spanish and can reach 600 million people. It claims to have surpassed a billion hits on YouTube, and will add German- and French-language channels. For the supposedly pariah leader of a country whose population is collapsing and mafia economy stagnating, Putin has the best publicity money can buy.
Anyone who writes critically about him soon learns the price of lese majeste. BuzzFeed revealed that state-sponsored Russian trolls maintain a Stakhanovite regime of tweeting and commenting on hostile news pieces as they spread the Kremlin’s message across the web. (Hello down there in the comments, by the way. Hope the sanctions aren’t hurting the pay cheques.)
The reaction of the naive observer to Russia’s prostitution of journalism is to think its elite has found a new way to steal from the Russian masses. The obvious question is the best one: what’s the point? However many the communists killed, Marxist-Leninists still persuaded people to follow them in large numbers until the 1970s. No one tries to persuade you today that Britain or any other country would be happier if the prime minister had Putin’s dictatorial powers and the state became a collection of thieves without an independent judiciary, opposition parties or free press to constrain it.
But the reality of modern Russia is not the impediment it seems. Suppose instead of trying to sell you Putin, Russia Today were to sell you the idea that Britain is as bad as a dictatorship. You might agree, however foolish the sentiment. If you are campaigning for change in a manifestly imperfect but still free and prosperous society, you exaggerate in the hope of attracting attention. (If the government passes this restriction on freedom of speech, we’ll be no better than Iran. If the Tories stay in control of the NHS, we’ll have third-world hospitals and so on.) A lie is still a lie, even if it is made in a good cause. But I can see why people do it.
The disbelief that oozes through much of public debate in our time is rarely in the service of any cause, however. It is radical indifference; a furious determination to condemn accompanied by an equally determined refusal to commit. Like Russell Brand, millions of people don’t want to say what change they want to see, because a commitment would force them to take a position and lay them open to attack.
They aren’t cynics but pseudo-sophisticated innocents. They shout “liar” automatically at everyone who tries to rule over them – and doubtless they are right more often than not. But to dispense with the search for proof – the need to demonstrate that the politician or banker is lying – leaves the supposedly wised-up open to capture by cults, conspiracy theorists and Russia.
The Institute of Modern Russia releases a report this week that shows how the collapse of communism liberated Moscow. Communists had to pretend to support leftwing movements – Putin can support anyone. Where the old communists claimed the Soviet Union was freer and more democratic than the west, Putinists claim “all liberalism is cant and anyone can be bought”. Russia Today feeds the huge western audience that wants to believe that human rights are a sham and democracy a fix. Believe that and you will ask: what right have we to criticise Putin? At least he is honest in his way.
...
Russia Today’s second mission is to spread conspiracy theories that help Russian power and provide sensational audience-grabbing stories – in every sense of the word. If you have heard that the Ukrainians who oppose Putin are fascists, that there is a land called “Novorossiya” in south-east Ukraine that historically belonged to Moscow, or that Assad did not gas Syrians, the odds are the story will have started on Russia Today.
...
I said that no one believed Putin offered a future for humanity. But his post-communist, postmodern flexibility means that many are prepared cut a deal when the bent copper makes an offer. Alex Salmond admires him because the break-up of Britain is in Russia’s interests. Nigel Farage, Marine le Pen and all the other leaders of Europe’s far right run to him because he shares their hatred of the EU. Despite his alliance with what we once called neofascism, the old communist left in Germany, George Galloway and Julian Assange support him because opposition to the west trumps anti-fascism in their book.
Russia Today provides a platform for anti-fracking greens because Putin wants us to remain dependent on Russian oil and gas. Viktor Orbán and Recep Tayyip Erdogan see how Putin has accumulated dictatorial power in Russia and wish to imitate him in Hungary and Turkey. London’s banks and law and PR firms work for him because the oligarchy pumps money their way. In Europe and at the United Nations, bigots of all descriptions welcome Putin’s leadership in fighting calls for gay equality and religious freedom.
However battered he looks, Putin knows how to manipulate all he comes across. It is about time the rest of the world knew it too.
Citat:
Uporabnik SeriousSam pravi:
A Obama, da je ne mid-term volitvah pogorel zaradi Ukrajine, ali kaj?
US volitve vedno odločajo notranjepolitične teme - Obama ni izpolnil pričakovanj Američanov na notranje-političnem področju, zato je pogorel.
No, povej mi, kako bi jo odnesel kritik, tipa Čomski, v Rusiji? Bi šel bolj po poti Ane Politkovske, ali morda Aleksandra Litvinenka?
Obama je pogorel zaradi vsote vsega sr*nja, ki ga je naredil.
- NSA + Edward Snowden
- ObamaCare
- Sirija (uprla se je celo ameriška vojska)
- Libija (falirana država, umor Gadafija, umor veleposlanika)
- Irak (falirana država)
- ISIS (ga je sam pomagal kreirati)
- Ukrajina (v konfliktu z Rusijo + Putin mu je speljal Krim tako, da niso vedli, kaj se jim je zgodilo)
Pa še kaj bi se našlo.
Za Čomskega v Rusiji mi pa dol visi, ker ni v Rusiji. Špekuliral pa ne bom.
Opiraš se na špekulacije, jaz pa na dejstva. Za razliko od tebe je Pac_man-a zanimivo brati, kljub temu, da imamo različne poglede na stvari.
Nazadnje urejeno:
12 strani dolg NATO-v research paper "Russia's Hybrid Warfare: Waging War below the Radar of Conventional Collective Defence" (PDF)
http://t.co/mN2DINMRs2
http://t.co/mN2DINMRs2
Tole sem pokradel od tukaj:
http://anton-shekhovtsov.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/international-observers-moscow-rostov.html
Vsaj nekateri "mednarodni opazovalci" volitev 2. novembra so do Donbasa naredili ovinek čez Moskvo in tega niso preveč skrivali.
International fake observers of the fake elections in the Donbass arrived in Moscow on the 31st of October and checked in the 5-star Metropol Hotel. They had a late dinner at the hotel restaurant and some of them went for a walk to the Red Square:
Alessandro Bertoldi, member of Forza Italia and "observer" of the terrorist "elections", Moscow, 31 October 2014
Vladimir Djukanovic, member of the Serbian Progressive Party and "observer" of the terrorist "elections", Moscow, 31 October 2014
The "observers" arriving to the Russia-Ukraine border in Kuybyshevo
At the border, (pro-)Russian extremists put armed escorts into the buses of "observers" and then they crossed the border. None of them passed any official Ukrainian border control.
(Pro-)Russian extremists' armed escort on the way from Kuybyshevo to Donetsk
International "observers" and terrorists of the "Donetsk People's Republic" at the Ramada Hotel, Donetsk, 1 November 2014
US "observer" Srđa Trifkoviæ's room at the Ramada Hotel, Donetsk
Some of them met with French/Serbian Eurasianist fighters:
Manuel Ochsenreiter, editor of the far right Zuerst! journal (far left), and Dragana Trifkovic, director of the Belgrade Centre of Strategic Research (far right), with French/Serbian Eurasianists fighting against Ukrainians in Eastern Ukraine
2x Trifkoviæ, eden sicer Američan. Naključje ali družinski posel?
http://anton-shekhovtsov.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/international-observers-moscow-rostov.html
Vsaj nekateri "mednarodni opazovalci" volitev 2. novembra so do Donbasa naredili ovinek čez Moskvo in tega niso preveč skrivali.
International fake observers of the fake elections in the Donbass arrived in Moscow on the 31st of October and checked in the 5-star Metropol Hotel. They had a late dinner at the hotel restaurant and some of them went for a walk to the Red Square:
Alessandro Bertoldi, member of Forza Italia and "observer" of the terrorist "elections", Moscow, 31 October 2014
Vladimir Djukanovic, member of the Serbian Progressive Party and "observer" of the terrorist "elections", Moscow, 31 October 2014
The "observers" arriving to the Russia-Ukraine border in Kuybyshevo
At the border, (pro-)Russian extremists put armed escorts into the buses of "observers" and then they crossed the border. None of them passed any official Ukrainian border control.
(Pro-)Russian extremists' armed escort on the way from Kuybyshevo to Donetsk
International "observers" and terrorists of the "Donetsk People's Republic" at the Ramada Hotel, Donetsk, 1 November 2014
US "observer" Srđa Trifkoviæ's room at the Ramada Hotel, Donetsk
Some of them met with French/Serbian Eurasianist fighters:
Manuel Ochsenreiter, editor of the far right Zuerst! journal (far left), and Dragana Trifkovic, director of the Belgrade Centre of Strategic Research (far right), with French/Serbian Eurasianists fighting against Ukrainians in Eastern Ukraine
2x Trifkoviæ, eden sicer Američan. Naključje ali družinski posel?
Prispevek je sicer dolg kot ponedeljek 2. januarja, ampak toplo priporočam, da preberete celega. Zjuganovu nebi rekel "socialistični demokrat", sicer pa članek dobro opiše stanje duha v Rusiji.
The Hidden Author of Putinism
How Vladislav Surkov invented the new Russia
Za vse ostale pa povzetek:
“I am the author, or one of the authors, of the new Russian system,” Vladislav Surkov told us by way of introduction. On this spring day in 2013, he was wearing a white shirt and a leather jacket that was part Joy Division and part 1930s commissar.
...
He offers to not make a speech, instead welcoming the Ph.D. students, professors, journalists, and politicians gathered in an auditorium at the London School of Economics to pose questions and have an open discussion. After the first question, he talks for almost 45 minutes, leaving hardly any time for questions after all.
It’s his political system in miniature: democratic rhetoric and undemocratic intent.
...
As the former deputy head of the presidential administration, later deputy prime minister and then assistant to the president on foreign affairs, Surkov has directed Russian society like one great reality show. He claps once and a new political party appears. He claps again and creates Nashi, the Russian equivalent of the Hitler Youth, who are trained for street battles with potential pro-democracy supporters and burn books by unpatriotic writers on Red Square.
...
One of Surkov’s many nicknames is the “political technologist of all of Rus.” Political technologists are the new Russian name for a very old profession: viziers, gray cardinals, wizards of Oz.
...
Their first clients were actually Russian modernizers: In 1996 the political technologists, coordinated by Boris Berezovsky, the oligarch nicknamed the “Godfather of the Kremlin” and the man who first understood the power of television in Russia, managed to win then-President Boris Yeltsin a seemingly lost election by persuading the nation that he was the only man who could save it from a return to revanchist Communism and new fascism. They produced TV scare-stories of looming pogroms and conjured fake Far Right parties, insinuating that the other candidate was a Stalinist (he was actually more a socialist democrat), to help create the mirage of a looming “red-brown” menace.
...
Surkov is more than just a political operator. He is an aesthete who pens essays on modern art, an aficionado of gangsta rap who keeps a photo of Tupac on his desk next to that of the president.
And he is also the alleged author of a novel, Almost Zero, published in 2008 and informed by his own experiences.
...
The novel is a satire of contemporary Russia whose hero, Egor, is a corrupt PR man happy to serve anyone who’ll pay the rent. A former publisher of avant-garde poetry, he now buys texts from impoverished underground writers, then sells the rights to rich bureaucrats and gangsters with artistic ambitions, who publish them under their own names. Everyone is for sale in this world; even the most “liberal” journalists have their price. The world of PR and publishing as portrayed in the novel is dangerous. Publishing houses have their own gangs, whose members shoot each other over the rights to Nabokov and Pushkin, and the secret services infiltrate them for their own murky ends. It’s exactly the sort of book Surkov’s youth groups burn on Red Square.
Born in provincial Russia to a single mother, Egor grows up as a bookish hipster disenchanted with the late Soviet Union’s sham ideology. In the 1980s he moves to Moscow to hang out on the fringes of the bohemian set; in the 1990s he becomes a PR guru.
...
Perhaps the most interesting parts of Almost Zero occur when the author moves away from social satire to describe the inner world of his protagonist. Egor is described as a “vulgar Hamlet” who can see through the superficiality of his age but is unable to have genuine feelings for anyone or anything: “His self was locked in a nutshell ... outside were his shadows, dolls. He saw himself as almost autistic, imitating contact with the outside world, talking to others in false voices to fish out whatever he needed from the Moscow squall: books, sex, money, food, power, and other useful things.”
Egor is a manipulator but not a nihilist; he has a very clear conception of the divine: “Egor could clearly see the heights of Creation, where in a blinding abyss frolic non-corporeal, un-piloted, pathless words, free beings, joining and dividing and merging to create beautiful patterns.”
The heights of creation! Egor’s god is beyond good and evil, and Egor is his privileged companion: too clever to care for anyone, too close to God to need morality. He sees the world as a space in which to project different realities. Surkov articulates the underlying philosophy of the new elite, a generation of post-Soviet supermen who are stronger, more clearheaded, faster, and more flexible than anyone who has come before.
When I worked in Russian television, I encountered forms of this attitude every day. The producers who worked at the Ostankino channels might all be liberals in their private lives, holiday in Tuscany, and be completely European in their tastes. When I asked how they married their professional and personal lives, they looked at me as if I were a fool and answered: “Over the last 20 years we’ve lived through a communism we never believed in, democracy and defaults and mafia state and oligarchy, and we’ve realized they are illusions, that everything is PR.”
“Everything is PR” has become the favorite phrase of the new Russia; my Moscow peers were filled with a sense that they were both cynical and enlightened. When I asked them about Soviet-era dissidents, like my parents, who fought against communism, they dismissed them as naive dreamers and my own Western attachment to such vague notions as “human rights” and “freedom” as a blunder. “Can’t you see your own governments are just as bad as ours?” they asked me. I tried to protest—but they just smiled and pitied me. To believe in something and stand by it in this world is derided, the ability to be a shape-shifter celebrated.
...
The Kremlin switches messages at will to its advantage, climbing inside everything: European right-wing nationalists are seduced with an anti-EU message; the Far Left is co-opted with tales of fighting U.S. hegemony; U.S. religious conservatives are convinced by the Kremlin’s fight against homosexuality. And the result is an array of voices, working away at global audiences from different angles, producing a cumulative echo chamber of Kremlin support, all broadcast on RT.
The Hidden Author of Putinism
How Vladislav Surkov invented the new Russia
Za vse ostale pa povzetek:
“I am the author, or one of the authors, of the new Russian system,” Vladislav Surkov told us by way of introduction. On this spring day in 2013, he was wearing a white shirt and a leather jacket that was part Joy Division and part 1930s commissar.
...
He offers to not make a speech, instead welcoming the Ph.D. students, professors, journalists, and politicians gathered in an auditorium at the London School of Economics to pose questions and have an open discussion. After the first question, he talks for almost 45 minutes, leaving hardly any time for questions after all.
It’s his political system in miniature: democratic rhetoric and undemocratic intent.
...
As the former deputy head of the presidential administration, later deputy prime minister and then assistant to the president on foreign affairs, Surkov has directed Russian society like one great reality show. He claps once and a new political party appears. He claps again and creates Nashi, the Russian equivalent of the Hitler Youth, who are trained for street battles with potential pro-democracy supporters and burn books by unpatriotic writers on Red Square.
...
One of Surkov’s many nicknames is the “political technologist of all of Rus.” Political technologists are the new Russian name for a very old profession: viziers, gray cardinals, wizards of Oz.
...
Their first clients were actually Russian modernizers: In 1996 the political technologists, coordinated by Boris Berezovsky, the oligarch nicknamed the “Godfather of the Kremlin” and the man who first understood the power of television in Russia, managed to win then-President Boris Yeltsin a seemingly lost election by persuading the nation that he was the only man who could save it from a return to revanchist Communism and new fascism. They produced TV scare-stories of looming pogroms and conjured fake Far Right parties, insinuating that the other candidate was a Stalinist (he was actually more a socialist democrat), to help create the mirage of a looming “red-brown” menace.
...
Surkov is more than just a political operator. He is an aesthete who pens essays on modern art, an aficionado of gangsta rap who keeps a photo of Tupac on his desk next to that of the president.
And he is also the alleged author of a novel, Almost Zero, published in 2008 and informed by his own experiences.
...
The novel is a satire of contemporary Russia whose hero, Egor, is a corrupt PR man happy to serve anyone who’ll pay the rent. A former publisher of avant-garde poetry, he now buys texts from impoverished underground writers, then sells the rights to rich bureaucrats and gangsters with artistic ambitions, who publish them under their own names. Everyone is for sale in this world; even the most “liberal” journalists have their price. The world of PR and publishing as portrayed in the novel is dangerous. Publishing houses have their own gangs, whose members shoot each other over the rights to Nabokov and Pushkin, and the secret services infiltrate them for their own murky ends. It’s exactly the sort of book Surkov’s youth groups burn on Red Square.
Born in provincial Russia to a single mother, Egor grows up as a bookish hipster disenchanted with the late Soviet Union’s sham ideology. In the 1980s he moves to Moscow to hang out on the fringes of the bohemian set; in the 1990s he becomes a PR guru.
...
Perhaps the most interesting parts of Almost Zero occur when the author moves away from social satire to describe the inner world of his protagonist. Egor is described as a “vulgar Hamlet” who can see through the superficiality of his age but is unable to have genuine feelings for anyone or anything: “His self was locked in a nutshell ... outside were his shadows, dolls. He saw himself as almost autistic, imitating contact with the outside world, talking to others in false voices to fish out whatever he needed from the Moscow squall: books, sex, money, food, power, and other useful things.”
Egor is a manipulator but not a nihilist; he has a very clear conception of the divine: “Egor could clearly see the heights of Creation, where in a blinding abyss frolic non-corporeal, un-piloted, pathless words, free beings, joining and dividing and merging to create beautiful patterns.”
The heights of creation! Egor’s god is beyond good and evil, and Egor is his privileged companion: too clever to care for anyone, too close to God to need morality. He sees the world as a space in which to project different realities. Surkov articulates the underlying philosophy of the new elite, a generation of post-Soviet supermen who are stronger, more clearheaded, faster, and more flexible than anyone who has come before.
When I worked in Russian television, I encountered forms of this attitude every day. The producers who worked at the Ostankino channels might all be liberals in their private lives, holiday in Tuscany, and be completely European in their tastes. When I asked how they married their professional and personal lives, they looked at me as if I were a fool and answered: “Over the last 20 years we’ve lived through a communism we never believed in, democracy and defaults and mafia state and oligarchy, and we’ve realized they are illusions, that everything is PR.”
“Everything is PR” has become the favorite phrase of the new Russia; my Moscow peers were filled with a sense that they were both cynical and enlightened. When I asked them about Soviet-era dissidents, like my parents, who fought against communism, they dismissed them as naive dreamers and my own Western attachment to such vague notions as “human rights” and “freedom” as a blunder. “Can’t you see your own governments are just as bad as ours?” they asked me. I tried to protest—but they just smiled and pitied me. To believe in something and stand by it in this world is derided, the ability to be a shape-shifter celebrated.
...
The Kremlin switches messages at will to its advantage, climbing inside everything: European right-wing nationalists are seduced with an anti-EU message; the Far Left is co-opted with tales of fighting U.S. hegemony; U.S. religious conservatives are convinced by the Kremlin’s fight against homosexuality. And the result is an array of voices, working away at global audiences from different angles, producing a cumulative echo chamber of Kremlin support, all broadcast on RT.
Nazadnje urejeno:
I
Izbrisan uporabnik #488
Med zahtevnim delom opazovanja regularnosti volitev, se je Dragana Trifkoviæ imela čas slikat z našim najljubšim naci sadistom. Mulo še brca, čeprav sem ga že proglasil za truplo.
Pismo, iste face se menjajo na 200 krajih. The Truman Show?
Kdo je naci?
P.S.
Zgoraj ni obkrožen Srđa Trifkoviæ, ampak skrajni desničar Manuel Ochsenreiter, ljubljenec RT in prav tako opazovalec.
P.P.S.
Še ena fotografija z vsemi liki skupaj:
Pismo, iste face se menjajo na 200 krajih. The Truman Show?
Kdo je naci?
P.S.
Zgoraj ni obkrožen Srđa Trifkoviæ, ampak skrajni desničar Manuel Ochsenreiter, ljubljenec RT in prav tako opazovalec.
P.P.S.
Še ena fotografija z vsemi liki skupaj:
Nazadnje urejeno: