no you don’t understand officer, they were protesting and blocking my way so it was perfectly legal to run them over and backup over them multiple times
This has so many excellent little touches
Прельщают
многих
короны лучи.
Пожалте,
дворяне и шляхта,
корону
можно
у нас получить,
но только
вместе с шахтой.Well they did prevent some exiled failson crown prince from hanging around DC for 50 years as the figurehead of would-be regime change. I’d prefer the Chinese method if possible, but if it works it works.
It was a civil war and the Tsarist forces killed thousands of women and children. Focusing on these is a beautiful example of “propaganda is about where you’re looking, not what you’re seeing”
To be clear, killing children sucks and it’s not surprising that these ones are focused on because they’re children that have well documented names and faces and time&place&method of death.
But war is messy and always involves doing some shit that sucks. It is arguable that killing the children was the least bad option (compared to letting them live and risking the chance that they serve as a figurehead to rally around and ultimately either extend the war or, at worst, cause the reinstitution of the monarchy) but even if we decide that such risk was minimal and they should’ve been spared, then it’s just one shitty thing compared to millions of similarly shitty things by their opposition.
It doesn’t hurt to acknowledge that sometimes people fuck up and sometimes shit happens in war that isn’t justifiable, even with otherwise good people.
and it’s not surprising that these ones are focused on because they’re children that have well documented names and faces and time&place&method of death.
And/or because the Red Army killed them, while the thousands and more that died at the hands of the Tsardom are forgotten, like how people use Laika as a symbol of Soviet cruelty while ignoring the countless animals killed in the US space program.
Not to mention that the nobility spent the preceding millennia and a half offing each other in the most horrific ways possible, including children (the princes in the tower, for example). So libs pearl-clutching over the Romanovs while ignoring all that history is telling.
I don’t like killing kids, or anyone for that matter. It’s not the kids fault. I’m not crazy about killing Nick 2 and Alexandra either. It’s sad when death is unavoidable. I’m not a socialist because I want to kill, I’m a socialist because I want people to be liberated.
But that’s my ideals. The Russian revolutionary movement was NFA. Read Chernychevsky! A viable movement dedicated to killing tsars had been working tirelessly for 70+ years, and Alexander 2 got got. Guess who didn’t get an assassin’s bullet? 13 year old Nick 2, Alexander’s grandson. And what was Nick 2’s rule like? It was absolute and total terror. He and Alexandra were objectively monstrous and maniacal, deranged, sadistic and spiteful. They sent enemies of the state to the front lines of ww1, a war they were losing on purpose, in order to terrify and eliminate all opposition. Lenin’s bro was murdered by the tsar, countless peasants, women, children had their lives destroyed in every which way. Bloody Sunday in 1905 taught the Russian masses everything they needed to know about their monarchy.
I don’t want to say the whole royal family needed to die. But historical circumstances have allowed me to keep my hands clean, which wasnt the condition of the Russian masses, especially the soldiers. When Jack Reed entered the Winter Palace, described in his book Ten Days that Shook the World, Russian soldiers almost killed him! But despite the tense conditions, all in all, the Oct 1917 revolution was practically bloodless, an absolute miracle considering everything that had to happen to make it possible. But just because it was nearly abloodless doesn’t mean the soldiers didnt have a hair trigger from decades of hellish world war. The revolution ended the most vast, devastating, and bloody war that had happened up to that point, inspiring and instructing generations of revolutionaries all over the world to engage in political struggle rather than adventurism.
I don’t like it, but I understand it in those circumstances. Royal bloodlines are an objective historical condition that had to be eliminated. That doesn’t mean killing children, but to the soldiers that did the deed, that was a risk that couldn’t be taken. The Bolsheviks were the only faction who could have seized power in October, because they were the only faction not falling all over themselves to give Kornilov a mandate for martial law and mass murder in order to restore the monarchy. The Bolsheviks barely made it out of the civil war, and if they had not, and one of those kids ascended to the tsar, then all those soldiers sent to the front lines to die, all their ancestors, families and communities who starved and suffered under the monarchy, would have suffered and died for nothing.
It’s easy (and politically expedient) to denounce killing kids, and doing so inevitably makes enemies horrified by the brutality of it. Millions of children end up dead for being on the wrong side of power, and that is sad and understandably repulsive. The Russian revolution is punctuated by unavoidable tragedy. Perhaps the murder of the royal family was an omen portending the unavoidable and senseless disasters that would befall many Russians in the coming years, the battle for Kronstadt a particularly chilling example. Those soldiers were heroes of the revolution, the children were a liability. One hates to weigh any life against another, and arbitrary value judgements are antithetical to Marxism.
But weighed against decades of mass suffering, driven by the depravity and idiocy of the royal family, the most authentic response I can muster is a reluctant shrug. If Nick 2 and Alexandra wanted to preserve their children’s lives, then they shouldn’t have been such fucking monsters.
Now is the time of monsters refers to what decent people must become to build a better world.
Sorry, but no. The “now is the time for monsters” translation is a flourish by Slavoj Zizek. Gramsci is referring to a “crisis of authority,” and Gramsci is gesturing toward a the discipline of dialectical materialism in the post ww1 period, how it might be rejected by the younger generation, and providing insight into the divisive and degenerative bourgeois modes of praxis. The bolded text is the actual English translation:
That aspect of the modern crisis which is bemoaned as a “wave of materialism” is related to what is called the “crisis of authority”. If the ruling class has lost its consensus, i.e. is no longer “leading” but only “dominant”, exercising coercive force alone, this means precisely that the great masses have become detached from their traditional ideologies, and no longer believe what they used to believe previously, etc. The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear. this paragraph should be completed by some observations which I made on the so-called “problem of the younger generation” — a problem caused by the “crisis of authority” of the old generations in power, and by the mechanical impediment that has been imposed on those who could exercise hegemony, which prevents them from carrying out their mission.
The problem is the following: can a rift between popular masses and ruling ideologies as serious as that which emerged after the war be “cured” by the simple exercise of force, preventing the new ideologies from imposing themselves? Will the interregnum, the crisis whose historically normal solution is blocked in this way, necessarily be resolved in favour of a restoration of the old? Given the character of the ideologies, that can be ruled out—yet not in an absolute sense. Meanwhile physical depression will lead in the long run to a widespread scepticism, and a new “arrangement” will be found—in which, for example, catholicism will even more become simply Jesuitism, etc.
The very poverty which at first inevitably characterises historical materialism as a theory diffused widely among the masses will help it to spread. The death of the old ideologies takes the form of scepticism with regard to all theories and general formulae; of application to the pure economic fact (earnings, etc.), and to a form of politics which is not simply realistic in fact (this is always the case) but which is cynical in its immediate manifestation (remember the story of the Prelude to Machiavelli, written perhaps under the influence of Professor Rensi, which at a certain moment—in 1921 or 1922—extolled slavery as a modern means of political economy).
Gramsci did like using metaphors of “monsters” in the notebooks, its not completely off base. But we should study Gramsci rather than memes and, god forbid, Zizek.
They died of natural causes, you can’t just keep eating Faberge eggs everyday and expect to live a long and healthy life. They’re linked to high cholesterol, heart disease and bullet magnetism.
publicly, even
When a right winger says something along the lines of this meme I chuckle. Who told them we tolerate their crap? They must be mistaking us for libs or hippies.
it’s mostly just “you libs/left accept the trans and the blacks and the gays but not the racists? how dare you.”
It was grimly fortuitous that the line was wiped out, but I don’t think the reds would have done what they did if the white army wasn’t about to overrun their position. Much better a trial etc, but whaddyagonnado
deleted by creator
O W N E D
deleted by creator
