American sexism was born in Soviet Russia

As my friend, a historian Sergei Volkov, a well-known Russian historian, writes in LiveJournal, the tendency of the development of Euro-American sentiments from the “sexual revolution” to the present madness around “sexism” quite fits into a certain pattern. The revolutionary leftist ideocracy, proclaiming at first all sorts of “freedom”, eventually begins to establish its own restrictive orders, reaching the point of complete idiocy. If the system is not very rigid, it can take decades, otherwise it happens quite quickly.

It is known, for example, that in Soviet Russia at first the propaganda of “free love” was not forbidden, but it is curious that by the mid-20s they tried to introduce it into some limits. The Sverdlov Communist University in its 1924 edition (“The Revolution and the Youth”) prescribed:

“Sexual selection should be built along the lines of the class revolutionary proletarian expediency. The elements of flirtation, courtship, coquetry and other methods of special sexual conquest should not be included in love relationships. The class, in the interests of revolutionary expediency, has the right to intervene in the sexual life of its fellow members; the sexual should in all things submit to the class, without interfering with the latter, serving it in everything. ”

Of these instructions, I personally particularly liked that “sexual attraction to a class-hostile object is just as distortion as sexual attraction of a person to a crocodile”. And then not even 10 years later, Stalin came, and “morality” triumphed in law.

a reply to: RussianTroll

In America some leftist take this quite literally-

Man killed while sexually assaulting alligator:

worldnewsdailyreport.com...

Bernie Sanders is no Stalin. He will not save the morally corrupt in the USA for sure.

a reply to: RussianTroll

But to be more serious, I do remember reading at some point that the main reason Stalin changed that policy is that birth rates declined so severely that it had to be changed or the Soviet would "un-breed" itself into nothingness.

originally posted by: Fools
a reply to: RussianTroll

But to be more serious, I do remember reading at some point that the main reason Stalin changed that policy is that birth rates declined so severely that it had to be changed or the Soviet would "un-breed" itself into nothingness.

You're right. Stalin realized that if he wants to rule the state, then it, at least, should be. And the international leftist organizations that committed the revolution in October 1917 saw the Russian people and the state as a means for the world revolution. Therefore, he began to introduce an ideology in which he combined revolutionary slogans with Christian values adapted to Marxism and communism.

ohh sigh...russians AGAIN to blame soooooooo cheap !
the worlds biggist producer of porn are blending out t*ts and C*nts on media
WHO is sick ! hahaha

originally posted by: ressiv
ohh sigh...russians AGAIN to blame soooooooo cheap !
the worlds biggist producer of porn are blending out t*ts and C*nts on media
WHO is sick ! hahaha

Leon Trotsky wrote that "the revolution made a heroic attempt to destroy the so-called family hearth." In magazines of those years, marriage was branded as an obsolete and outdated institution. The authors of propaganda articles were merciless: "The proletariat must immediately proceed to the destruction of the family." Marriage was assigned only the role of a purely "physiological union of the male worker and the female worker." And children born in this “union” should be immediately taken away and transferred to a collective dependency so as not to distract parents from shock work.

Many Muscovites know a beautiful art-deco mansion on Malaya Nikitskaya Street, Ryabushinsky’s mansion. Now it houses the museum of M. Gorky. In 1921, it opened a psychoanalytic children's home-laboratory for children of the Soviet elite. Vera Schmidt, the spouse of the future famous polar explorer Otto Schmidt, became the head of the children's home laboratory. Among the pupils were the son of Schmidt themselves and the children of high-ranking Bolsheviks, including the son of Stalin, Vasily. In total, 30 children from one to five years old were admitted to the psychoanalytic orphanage.

The basis of the education of the "new" person was the ideas of Sigmund Freud about the sexual fantasies of childhood, which over time can turn into neurotic disorders if adults do not take the necessary measures. The measures are sexual education from an early age and the free expression of sexual instincts. In this case, the Soviet followers of Freud believed, the child would grow up a harmonious personality, free from neuroses and complexes.

Isn’t it, one-to-one, what is happening in the EU countries now?

In the three years of work in the orphanage, 50 teachers have changed. They simply could not stand it and received "deep internal conflicts." As a result, sexual education, which was not limited to any framework, led to the “uncontrollable autoerotism of children,” which frightened not only educators, but even such sincere supporters of psychoanalysis as Schmidt’s spouses were.

Stalin closed this communist experiment, like many others.

a reply to: RussianTroll

This is the linear thing. I am beginning to understand your line of thought. End result is the west is currently the latest evolution of Trotsky wing of communist thinking or lifestyle. I agree with you that hypersexualism of the west now has its roots in the Frankfurt school. I was just unaware - until you brought attention to it here - that they were all in fact Trotsky school people. Trotsky was a disgusting human being for sure.

Speaking of that, were the later western communist such as Castro and Che more Lenin or Stalin in your regard?

originally posted by: Fools
a reply to: RussianTroll

This is the linear thing. I am beginning to understand your line of thought. End result is the west is currently the latest evolution of Trotsky wing of communist thinking or lifestyle. I agree with you that hypersexualism of the west now has its roots in the Frankfurt school. I was just unaware - until you brought attention to it here - that they were all in fact Trotsky school people. Trotsky was a disgusting human being for sure.

Speaking of that, were the later western communist such as Castro and Che more Lenin or Stalin in your regard?

Most revolutionaries are at first very radical romantics. After a possible victory, when they are faced with real problems of governing the state, then a separation occurs, sometimes very radical, to the point that friends become enemies.

As Thomas Carlyle wrote, any revolution is conceived by romantics, carried out by fanatics, and the scoundrels use their fruits.

If Lenin was moved by Russophobia and hatred of Russia, the execution for terrorism of his elder brother Alexander was a strong motive for him, then Trotsky represented the interests of a whole stratum of Jewish atheistic society that did not fit into either Judaism or Zionism. He was an intellectual, a brilliant orator and followed his ideas to the end. He had great support from the Rothschilds. In Vienna, Austria, there is a cafe with a table on which it is written that Baron Rothschild and Leo Trotsky often played chess here, spending time with long intellectual conversations about the future world order. Stalin was much easier than all. He was from the common people and thought of specific categories. Therefore, not because of some love for Russia, he was able to save the state, win the Great War and get the love of many people. For this he is hated in the West.

Che Guevara remained a revolutionary romantic. He did not fit into the routine of government, rushed around the world and implemented utopian but beautiful ideas. For this, many people love him. Fidel took over the state burden and his convictions began to transform to the harsh reality. But they were largely driven by the idea of ​​Justice, and he never changed it. Therefore, it is so popular, people were ready to give their lives for it.

I do not know to what extent they resemble each other, everything happened in different conditions. But, in my opinion, Che looks more like Kropotkin with a Kalashnikov assault rifle, and Fidel looks more like a mixture of Stalin and Mao.

I will add
I would say that the Stalin regime is a clear application to Occam's razor)))

Sexism is mostly non-existent.

It is experienced by a minority. But reported by the media as if it is a behaviour expressed by the majority of males. This is to create a furor and make the paper/channel more popular.

Real sexism is a result of the illusion of the male being traditionally stronger and the female being passive. I say ‘illusion’ because that is exactly what it is. The female is strongest. She is passive to win her prey then psychologically strong to get her own way. This is only valid for the last few centuries.