Serious Reminder, that if you don't support Russia: You don't support Incels

[NorthernWind]

Like of course, why do i have to hold some german ethnocorporation that subjugated and enslaved russians in high regard? Poles and finns were more socially developed than russians, even russian nationalists of the 19th century admitted it would be impossible to assimilate a nation like poles who had their own language, literature, military, law making, parliament etc whereas the big russian "nation" wasn't even personally free. Who would assimilate poles or finns? Piss poor, illiterate, malnourished and overtaxed russian peasants?

Russian intelligentsia was a way more developed compared to that of Finland or Poland. Poland started to develop faster in Russian empire.
You seem to have 'romantic' view of Poland. Poland in XVIII century was absurdly corrupt and ineffective country. It doesn't even had serious industry. And their peasants were oppressed by various magnates especially in the eastern part of the country ( today's Lithuania and Belarus ).
Also you present yourself as Russian but you have strong disdain for Russians while slavishly worshipping other nations.

 

[slavcel11]

Every country and society oppresses it's own population to the some degree.

Yeah, clearly there was no difference between some ostsee german citizen and russian peasant in russian empire. Clearly one of them wasn't personally free, wasn't exempt from military service, didn't have lower taxes and high salary, didn't have his own legislation, could be subjected to corporal punishment etc. "Some" degree of oppression and privilege right there.

 

[slavcel11]

Russian intelligence was a way more developed compared to that of Finland or Poland.

While some 90% of russians were illiterate slaves. The reality and everyday life of an average pole was more sophisiticated and nuanced than that of an average russian. This was understood and discussed at length by that same russian intelligentsia and liberals.

Poland started to develop faster in Russian empire.

Like of course - give other nations rights and privileges while holding your titular popluation as slaves. Russian modus operandi since the first years of tsardom of russia. What a lovely tradition, definitely worth clinging on to. Only a russophobe would say otherwise.

 

[WhitePilledRage]

I actually admire the Chad lifestyle, but I hate normie cucks especially LTNs because they remind me of the limit of what I can ascend to.

 

[NorthernWind]

Yeah, clearly there was no difference between some ostsee german citizen and russian peasant in russian empire. Clearly one of them wasn't personally free, wasn't exempt from military service, didn't have lower taxes and high salary, didn't have his own legislation, could be subjected to corporal punishment etc. "Some" degree of oppression and privilege right there.

There were also differences between various German states. Prussian serfdom was far more oppressive compared to some other German states.

 

[NorthernWind]

While some 90% of russians were illiterate slaves. The reality and everyday life of an average pole was more sophisiticated and nuanced than that of an average russian. This was understood and discussed at length by that same russian intelligentsia and liberals.

Actually some native Russian 'gubernias' had higher literacy level than those on the former Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth territory.

Again, it's all relative. USSR had high literacy levels but some illiterate farmer in Portugal could have lived better than literate and educated soviet worker or kolkhoznik.

 

[slavcel11]

Actually some native Russian 'gubernias' had higher literacy level than those on the former Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth territory.

Of course, this is called cherrypicking. The overall number of russians who could read at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries was 28%. For poles it was about 42%, for germans 80%, for latvians 85% and so on. Above 90% of finns were literate for example. These are not some relative numbers. Talk about russian assimilation of all these peoples jfl.

 

[slavcel11]

There were also differences between various German states. Prussian serfdom was far more oppressive compared to some other German states.

So what, doesn't change the fact that some (german) ethnic coroporation enslaved the titular population of russia and gave out privileges to other nations at the expense of russians. And like i said, russian autocracy was above any legality, you can't find another example in european history. It's the most oppressive of them all.

 

[NorthernWind]

So what, doesn't change the fact that some (german) ethnic coroporation enslaved the titular population of russia and gave out privileges to other nations at the expense of russians. And like i said, russian autocracy was above any legality, you can't find another example in european history. It's the most oppressive of them all.

Was it really above any legality? How Saltykova was sued then?

 

[slavcel11]

Was it really above any legality? How Saltykova was sued then?

But we're not talking one isolated example here and there, but the whole century-lasting political tradition that shaped the mentality of russian power. This shit dates back to Ivan III, who used to forcefully relocate huge numbers of russian nobles simply because he didn't want them to take root in their home estates and oppose his rule. These were not mere peasants, but local elites that were supposed to be equal to him in terms of nobility and privileges, were he some other european monarch. Then one could read the famous correspondence between Ivan Grozny and some other monarchs, from Elizabeth I of England to polish Sigizmund II to really get a feel of it. Even russian aristocracy couldn't feel safe around russian monarch, who solely governed russia like "the owner of the russian land". Russian monarch was the one and only true owner of russia, he gave out lands and privileges and could take all of this away at will. He wasn't bound by law. And this above-law mentality trickled down from him to his subordinates to other less privileged populations.

 

[NorthernWind]

But we're not talking one isolated example here and there, but the whole century-lasting political tradition that shaped the mentality of russian power. This shit dates back to Ivan III, who used to forcefully relocate huge numbers of russian nobles simply because he didn't want them to take root in their home estates and oppose his rule. These were not mere peasants, but local elites that were supposed to be equal to him in terms of nobility and privileges, were he some other european monarch. Then one could read the famous correspondence between Ivan Grozny and some other monarchs, from Elizabeth I of England to polish Sigizmund II to really get a feel of it. Even russian aristocracy couldn't feel safe around russian monarch, who solely governed russia like "the owner of the russian land". Russian monarch was the one and only true owner of russia, he gave out lands and privileges and could take all of this away at will. He wasn't bound by law. And this above-law mentality trickled down from him to his subordinates to other less privileged populations.

But this means that aristocrats were under control of higher power. They probably weren't so unrestricted as magnates in Polish-Lithuania.

 

[slavcel11]

But this means that aristocrats were under control of higher power.

Is this a good thing though? What this effectively resulted in was perpetuating this infantile, sheepish russian sentiment towards the state and the power of an autocrat. Remember how other nations formed historically: the privileges that once belonged only to the aristocracy (the minor nation) were over time extended to include other populations (the big nation). This wasn't a thing in russia, where even aristocracy didn't have their own irrevocable set of rights that couldn't simply be taken away, for their monarch was above any law or institution.

 

[NorthernWind]

Is this a good thing though? What this effectively resulted in was perpetuating this infantile, sheepish russian sentiment towards the state and the power of an autocrat. Remember how other nations formed historically: the privileges that once belonged only to the aristocracy (the minor nation) were over time extended to include other populations (the big nation). This wasn't a thing in russia, where even aristocracy didn't have their own irrevocable set of rights that couldn't simply be taken away, for their monarch was above any law or institution.

I don't think that there is some absolute 'good'.
Certain things can only be good for someone, not everyone.
I'm not a supporter of democracy and 'equal rights' for everyone.
Democracy means that some redneck or bimbo with lip and breast implants have the same right to vote and influence politics as an experienced diplomat or expert.