site banner
Hour Day Week Month All
Hot Bump Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Advanced search parameters (with examples): "author:quadnarca", "domain:reddit.com", "over18:true"

Showing 7 of 7 results for

galeev author:daseindustriesltd

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 27, 2023

This is just Galeev's narrative, he's quite irrelevant. But those conspiracy theories are indeed his invention.

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 26, 2023

Yes. Basically you either fail to pass the bureaucratic filter, end up insolvent, or get big enough to attract attention of some oprichnik who wants a personal turf. If it were a hard-and-fast rule we'd all have starved of course but it's enough to ensure that Russia never gets back to like 2013 levels of wealth. Like in many other mundane things I concur with Galeev in his analysis here.

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 26, 2023

Galeev is a delusional Turkic supremacist and tries to conjure his dreams of Russian dissolution into reality with prolific twitter posting. He has been right exactly once – predicting that Russia will not succeed at conquering Ukraine, the rest is downstream of that take; but this could have been and was predicted by anyone with a modicum of insight into Russian system, e.g. me.

Putin looked weak.

This obsession with signaling is predicated on the idea that people in power don't know the real state of events and have to infer them from tea leaves and gestures, and is exactly why most popular analysis is hopeless. Looks don't matter, only actual capabilities. Putin looks like a pitiful monkey and he has been looking this way for a long time, but he has proven still having the capability to make Wagner run. This is enough. It'll be cold comfort for a rebelling general to know that as he dies, he's taking a few batallions' worth of FSO with him.

You just need a general popular with other generals.

So, Surovikin? He's refused to join the mutiny.

There isn't anyone. Putin has worked extraordinarily well to purge every charismatic figure from the army. Killing people cooler than him is his whole edge.

Or you could see a break away Republic by a local governor or some oligarchs.

Yes, well, which republic? Tyva or Chechnya, maybe. If Kadyrov and Shoigu remain "loyal", this doesn't happen. Governor, oligarchs – haha, as if.

Russia can well unravel, don't get me wrong. But this will have very little to do with the fact that Putin has looked weak the other day.

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 19, 2023

You are missing the point of Galeev's parable, I'm afraid. Far right dissidents are not representatives of their states, nor do they recognize the legitimacy of incumbent representatives. Of course the specific project of European identitarianism (or local populism) was still doomed, but the idea of shaping conditions for sovereignty via alliances of convenience with repulsive outsiders is well-supported by historical track record in the Old World. Indeed it's not even reputationally costly – you can fight for communist tyranny and then become heroes to some of the most anti-communist people on the continent, to have wistful songs composed in your honor. (Or you could fight for Nazis, so long as you have some cute songs to the effect that Fuhrer sucks). How does that work? A Russian pig dog slave won't understand, this is very subtle stuff. Freedom is best, and hard choices, after all. Unironically.

If anything, DRs are unusual in their tendency to justify their allies and sponsors ideologically as well, and to sincerely buy and propagate those excuses; it took the war to snap them out of it – incompletely, at that.

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 19, 2023

If you are smarter, you align yourself with perceived enemies of the elites: Putin, Xi, Orban, .... You say things like:

«What does this have to do with Lenin?»

Nowadays, John Locke is considered to be the founder of English liberalism. But Locke became widely popular only in the 19th century; in the 17th-18th he was scarcely read or quoted. Algernon Sidney was the ruler of minds at that time – it was his ideas, for example, from which the founding fathers of the United States drew. Sidney was an active participant in the English Revolution and a staunch Republican, so after the establishment of Cromwell's dictatorship he resigned from all posts. After the Stuart restoration he went to the continent, first to the Netherlands, then to France, unsuccessfully trying to organize a mutiny against the king. After an amnesty he returned to England, where he was arrested for treason. Two witnesses were required for a conviction for treason, but the authorities found only one. Then Lord Jeffreys did a feint and brought in Sidney's own book, Discourses on the government, as a second witness. The fact that the book had not even been printed and was kept in Sidney's desk failed to deter the judges and they sentenced him to execution. So Sidney became the chief martyr of the Whig movement and an icon of English liberalism and republicanism.

Much later, documents were published proving that the tyrannicidal Sidney lived on the money of the main tyrant of Europe and the enemy of England, Louis XIV, and sought money from him to organize a rebellion. The only thing they did not agree on was the price – Sidney wanted one hundred thousand ecus, but the king agreed to give only five times less.

This publication caused a furor. One of Sidney's friends said he could not have been more ashamed if he had seen his son fleeing the battlefield with his own eyes. The liberal historian Macaulay wrote that few things hurt him as much as seeing Sidney's name on Louis XIV's list of pensioners.

However, let's look at the situation from the other side. Suppose you are a revolutionary and want to overthrow the regime. How exactly are you going to do it? By crushing it with authority? You basically have no choice but to turn to other regimes that are enemies of yours. Simply because loners don't solve anything in this world, only corporations do. Meanwhile, in the second half of the 17th century it was the states that became the strongest corporations on Earth, and in the second half of the 18th century they subjugated or destroyed all their rivals. So it turns out that opposing one state you are forced to turn to others for support, with no options.

So the moronic lamentations about Lenin and the money of the German General Staff just don't make any sense. Of course Lenin would have taken money from the devil, the alternative would have been to sit in Switzerland and smear snot on his face for the rest of his life.

Kamil Galeev, May 18, 2018

This, like a great deal of Galeev's old writing, says more about his own life strategy than about history. Nevertheless, his facts seem correct. And Lenin, after all, succeeded.

Fair enough. But then please don't take a high moral ground. You are just as evil as "elites".

You appeal to principle, but that's a principle of peacetime, not of genocide time. Would you have given the same counsel to, ah, Ukrainian soldiers siding with unironic Nazis? Or anti-Chinese Uighurs receiving support from hardcore Muslim movements? No, «the arrow doesn't turn», «this is different»? (Of course I won't say «siding with the US» because that's axiomatically righteous).

Let's not pretend that this is about anything other than objective incompetence and subjective lack of merit of the ideology. Right-wingers (more to the point, nationalists of any stripe sans the most shallowly «civic») are thoroughly routed in the West, same as in Russia incidentally. Russian rump looks to Ukrainian Nazis for guidance, Western one seeks salvation in Baste Putin. It's desperation tactics. Both right-wing camps understand their situation as genocide, slow or rapid, open or concealed. The same way Galeev understood the condition of Tatars before going to Washington DC.

Many camps assert to be driven by fear of genocide. It's the absence of attempts to unscrupulously find external sponsors that gives the lie to all the hand-wringing.

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 19, 2023

Why do you assume that MoD is in any position to fight? That soldiers will shoot at all?

I think the mutiny will fail, but mostly for boring logistical reasons and because their actual targets are guarded by the FSO, as again Galeev notes (that said, the role of FSO is obvious to anyone who's looked even once at the makeup of Russian internal forces). It's far from obvious that most of the regular army will even bother engaging them. Prig's reputation is far higher than anyone's in there, esprit de corps in the Russian army is non-existent (by design), and frankly they would rather pass the buck to the next regiment. The whole army is dysfunctional, no matter what Twitter guys say about offensive, counteroffensive or whatever.

We'll see if he's negotiated this with Kadyrov soon.

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 15, 2023

Kamil Galeev, who once hyped China up (and studied there; now seeking career opportunities in Washington), says in his telegram channel:

On the Coming U.S.-China War:

Pamela Crossley, one of the most thorough scholars of the Qing era, quoted British intelligence reports of the First Opium War era about the garrisons of coastal Chinese forts. How many soldiers are there in the garrison?

These estimates look something like this (I quote from memory):

Fortress A: 30,000 Chinese, 1,500 "Tatars" (obviously meaning Manchu-Mongolian "banner" armies).

Fortress B: 15 000 Chinese, 500 "Tatars".

And so on.

«Banner» Tunguso-Mongolian units were a very small part of the Qing forces in South China. Nevertheless, it was the Banner contingents that the British very clearly distinguished from all the others. Because they were the only units that tried to resist at all

For example. The British fleet approaches the fortress of Zhapu (random name). Initiates bombardment. A few hours later, Marines land and go into the breaches made by the artillery. The fortress is taken, and the prisoners are taken. 30 «banner» Manchus, 0 Chinese.

It turns out that both the Manchus and the Chinese are not easy to take prisoners. But for different reasons.

The Manchus are «samurai». They stand to the end – with bows and muskets against rifles. They try not to have to surrender; if taken prisoner, they often try to commit suicide.

The Chinese are smarter and don't wait for the Marines to land. They flee at the bombardment stage.

When planning military operations, the British proceeded from the size of the «banner» contingent of the enemy, not from the size of the larger Chinese contingent. The first (small) figure was real. The second (huge) was imaginary.

Now Galeev is a Tatar supremacist, but I concur about the Chinese. PRC's contribution to the Nature Index is an indictment of the metric.