(Part 2) Best products from r/europe

My lexicon for mathematics has it's origins in the USSR and was translated in the former GDR. Every engineering student had this relative cheap lexicon in the format of the bible with more than 900 pages. Yes, it the bible for scientists and engineers!

http://www.amazon.com/Handbook-Mathematics-I-N-Bronshtein/dp/3540434917

Kudos to the Russian culture for this amazing work!!!!

I would like to make a travel to the Russian far east (Sakhalin). Siberia must be gorgeous. Sadly I haven't the money for such an adventure.

I've read on European forums Russians have a great heart, which makes me more curious.

You're right that Putin didn't force anyone to do anything - he encouraged it. Putin is a devoted follower of judo, the art of adding to your enemy's own momentum in order to defeat him. He wrote a book about it. So when Bush does something that makes people distrust us, Putin does everything he can to maximize the effect.

>the unpopularity for the war came from very different political and social parties.

That's how you know an external force was behind it. When you're trying to destabilize your enemy, you don't fund only his right wing, or his left wing - because your goal isn't to make him right-wing or left-wing - you fund extremists on both right and left. The goal of destabilization is to divide and paralyze your enemies, so they can't stop you from doing something like invading Ukraine, for example. Russia does that in the US too - in 2016 they supported not only right-wingers like Trump, but also extreme leftists like Jill Stein. Anything to encourage our instability.

No, I wasn't in Europe at that time, but it's still true.

Edit: quote from Putin's book:

>This decisive victory gave judo's creator the chance to confirm that he was right about the importance of a set of techniques - like kuzushi - for putting an opponent off-balance in preparation for a throw. Any novice judoka knows that today. But at the time, for many people, the technique was a revelation. Jigoro Kano himself maintained that kuzushi was an important stage of a throw, since an opponent, even a more powerful one, can be overcome without too much effort after being properly off-balanced.

They are acceptable, but the marriages themselves are arranged. About the extramarital sex thing, in the book I read about them it was definitely not acceptable (and only practiced in secret) after marriage, but common and freely practiced before marriage.

Anyway, the !Kung are really interesting because they led this lifestyle up until the 70s and were researched by several anthropologists who lived with them for years.

If you're interested this book offers an amazing insight into the lives and society of a hunter gatherer people.

You're welcome! If you enjoyed that, you might also like this book. It's fascinating, though it's best to keep in mind that it's trying to tell an entertaining story and as such fuzzes the truth a little bit for the sake of entertainment.

Instead of politician, Boris Johnson could make a great university professor

He wrote a superb biography of Winston Churchill and a great political history of The Roman Empire.

I'm sure the students would love him

A very enjoyable post, I loved reading your thoughts. Would this happen to be your book? Cause if so I'm actually interested in getting it as a gift for a friend of mine who's an aspiring traveler.

Do you have any plans to author any works on Armenia or its culture/soviet/locations/what-have-you in the future? I enjoyed your writing style and wouldn't mind exploring it some more from a perspective such as yours.

> Nope you missed a massively important word in that quote: basically. I didn't mean to imply he wanted to be a literal monarch, I was more referring to his superior position in Rome over the Senate.

In the context of Rome at any point of history after the year 244 AVC
(509 BCE), the word “monarch” would be way more appropriate when
referring to a sole head of state than “king”. The self-conception of the
Republic (even after the establishment of the Empire proper by Octavianus)
was being defined in opposition to the barbaric rule of the kings whose
overthrow was considered as fundamental formative event throughout
the political spectrum.

Of course, your argument makes sense to some extent: Caesar managed
to quasi-legally undermine the concept of shared leadership of the state
by annually chosen consuls. When he asserted himself as “in perpetuum
dictator” he eliminated one of the most basic principles of any republican
system: that of limited terms. Also, his later effort to promote his adopted
son Octavianus as his successor indeed bears resemblance to hereditary
monarchies – but that’s where the similarities end: Even later after the
principate had been firmly established, no emperor could ever take the
succession of one of his descendants for granted. Legitimacy even of
emperors had to be justified before the still powerful senate with each
iteration. That was the context that was not yet fully developed in Iulius
Ceasar’s time so his assassination could be adequately described as a
“republican reflex” in a transitional time when Republican mindset was
still strong in large parts of the population. (It would die in the hands of
Marc Antony with his murder of Cicero in 710 (43 BCE).)

The contemporal notion of the “king” as an autocratic monarch mainly
derives from medieval (feudal) and early modern (absolutist) configurations
of public order. Apart from the hereditary succession, it presupposes a
rigorous top-down direction of influence and (mainly in feudalism) the
distribution of territorial power in the hands of a few actors of the inner
circle of the monarch (usually relatives). This concept simply doesn’t
map at all to the structure and political institutions of Rome whose
success story of that “from rags to riches” city state resulted in a degree
of centralization that was rivaled by few others in all of history. Besides,
Roman politics even during the golden years of the Republic had a
distinctly authoritarian character because it was a popular position
for a politician to assume. Case in point: Cato Maior’s expulsion of
the philosophers
is probably the most obvious example for this tendency. – Another
trait conventionally ascribed to monarchical forms of government that
was a natural part of everyday Republican politics.

Furthermore, when Caesar assumed power, he did so with the support
of the general populace. (You could cite Napoléon III as a modern
analogue.) His appeal to the majority was so immense that he has
been given the epithet “democratic dictator”.

Keep in mind that the Serbian side of the war had legacy weapons from the Yugoslav army. Croatia had help from Germany. Bosnia had an arms embargo on them and Europe generally does not like Muslims, so it was pre-planned and well executed. Mind you, places like Sarajevo had multi-ethnic groups (including Serbs) who defended the city against the Serb siege. It was a multicultural ideal over nationalism. One good place to start to learn a little more is via Joe Sacco. Books by him include The Fixer, Soba, and Safe Area Gorazda.
https://www.drawnandquarterly.com/search/joe%20sacco
You can also see 'Welcome to Sarajevo' starring Woody Harrelson, and 'Hunting Party' by Richard Sheppard (the DVD also has interviews with the journalists that the film is based on). There is also 'No Man's Land' by Danis Tanović which got an Oscar for best Foreign film. Robert Fisk did some good reporting on that conflict (well, massacre) as well. This is an informative read by Rolling Stone writer, Chuck Sedetic: https://www.amazon.ca/Blood-Vengeance-Familys-Story-Bosnia/dp/0393335488

The notion of public being enraged and oppressing the individual can only be uttered in the presence of a self-ruling society. Because in that case the majority opinion rules the state elements. So when we say, "protecting the individual against the public" we are talking about ensuring your rights in the presence of the state.

What you are suggesting seems to be more in the lines of social elements rather than legal. The guarantees brought by human rights' main function is against the state. They protect the individual from a legal person rather than a real one.

Laicité is not something that directly protects the person from raging crowds of belivers or non-believers. It allows people to not be in a advantage or disadvantage for freely practicing their religions, because it bans the state from getting involved. Now, freedom of religion is a different concept than laicité. Freedom of religion can exist in a Theocracy too for example. Such country(Say it's Christian) can allow Muslims to form sects, cults and let them pray whenever, wherever and still only let Christians in the government offices and ban other religions/atheists from many benefits. Laicité however offers a more prosperous society by effectively banning the state from anything religious.

I mean it should be taken into account that in case of freedoms usually the part of state is argued rather than the general public however democratically represented the public opinion is. That is because the legal system actually has effective power over violations. Written words do not hold much power over the simple man. It is the actual political power that does.

You can read this book to have an idea about how civil unrest is prevented or made

This is lovely. I am in love with the "what if?" - situation where Novgorod at least wasn't destroyed by Muscovy. The city represented such a different way of organizing for the Rus.

This is kind of a story that requires the reaction "awww...".

Here the article appears with more of the drawings: http://www.goldschp.net/SIG/onfim/onfim.html

Later edit: seems like people like this, I could recommend a book of alternative history regarding the city, a small dive into the area in the 15th century. A pleasant and imaginative read if you fancy this kind of thing: https://www.amazon.com/Red-Corner-Alternate-History-Novel-ebook/dp/B00LJ2HGHI/ref=la_B001KE95SI_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1408611343&sr=1-2

Ah, Limonov... lovely fellow. Lovely in the way that a very original psycho-nutjob can be. There is a fantastic novel about him. Some highlights:

• He got famous with a book about his personal experience as a hobo in NY. Some of these experiences include interracial gay sex.
  
• During the Yugoslavian Wars, he supported the Bosnian Serbs so much that he decided to fight in the war. Here we have him shooting people in Sarajevo. Yes, it's real.
  
• Later he founded the National Bolshevik Party. He is inspired by Roman von Ungern-Sternberg, who is another strong competitor for the position of best/worst nutjob ever.

Here's the explanation of Alexander Macris (@archon on twitter) on why that's bullshit:


Cultural Marxism is not an invention of the paranoid right. It's a school of thought developed by left-wing Marxists and named by them as such because it describes the application of their own theory to culture rather than economics. Whether you agree with the movement or disagree with the movement, saying that it's not a movement, or that William Lind created a fictitious movement in 1998, is absurd. You are either misinformed or lying.

Below is a list of sources drawn exclusively from professors and scholars practicing cultural Marxism in which they use the term to describe the Frankfurt- and Birmingham-descended schools of thought.

1. Richard R. Weiner's 1981 book "Cultural Marxism and Political Sociology" is "a thorough examination of the tensions between political sociology and the cultural oriented Marxism that emerged int the 1960s and 1970s." You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Marxism-Political-Sociology-Research/dp/0803916450
   
   
2. Marxist scholars Lawrence Grossberg and Cary Nelson further popularized the term in "Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture", a collection of papers from 1983 that suggested that Cultural Marxism was ideally suited to "politicizing interpretative and cultural practices" and "radically historicizing our understanding of signifying practices." You can buy it here:http://www.amazon.com/Marxism-Interpretation-Culture-Cary-Nelson/dp/0252014014
   
   Note that the left-wing and progressive Professor Grossberg is a world-renowned professor who is the Chair of Cultural Studies at UNC, near my house. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Grossberg
   
   
3. "Culutral Marxism in Postwar Britain", by Dennis Dworkin, is described by Amazon as "an intellectual history of British cultural Marxism" that "explores one of the most influential bodies of contemporary thought" that represents "an explicit theoretical effort to resolve the crisis of the postwar Left". You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Marxism-Postwar-Britain-Post-Contemporary/dp/0822319144
   
   
4. "Conversations on Cultural Marxism", by Fredric Jameson, is a collection of essays from 1982 to 2005 about how "the intersections of politics and culture have reshaped the critical landscape across the humanities and social sciences". You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Jameson-Conversations-Cultural-Post-Contemporary-Interventions/dp/0822341093
   
   Note that Dennis Dworkin is a progressive professor at the University of Nevada, where his most recent book, "Class Struggles", extends the themes of "Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain".
   
   
5. "Cultural Marxism," by Frederic Miller and Agnes F. Vandome, states that "Cultural Marxism is a generic term referring to a loosely associated group of critical theorists who have been influenced by Marxist thought and who share an interest in analyzing the role of the media, art, theatre, film and other cultural institutions in a society. The phrase refers to any critique of culture that has been informed by Marxist thought. Although scholars around the globe have employed various types of Marxist critique to analyze cultural artifacts, the two most influential have been the Institute for Social Research at the University of Frankfurt am Main in Germany (the Frankfurt School) and the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies in Birmingham, UK. The latter has been at the center of a resurgent interest in the broader category of Cultural Studies." You can buy it here. http://www.abebooks.co.uk/Cultural-Marxism-Frederic-Miller-Agnes-Vandome/2237883213/bd
   
   The essay "Cultural Marxism and Cultural Studies," by UCLA Professor Douglas Kellner, says " 20th century Marxian theorists ranging from Georg Lukacs, Antonio Gramsci, Ernst Bloch, Walter Benjamin, and T.W. Adorno to Fredric Jameson and Terry Eagleton employed the Marxian theory to analyze cultural forms in relation to their production, their imbrications with society and history, and their impact and influences on audiences and social life... There are, however, many traditions and models of cultural studies, ranging from neo-Marxist models developed by Lukàcs, Gramsci, Bloch, and the Frankfurt school in the 1930s to feminist and psychoanalytic cultural studies to semiotic and post-structuralist perspectives (see Durham and Kellner 2001)." The essay is available here: http://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/essays/culturalmarxism.pdf
   
   Note that Professor Kellner is a progressive professor, an expert in Herbert Marcuse, and critic of the culture of masculinity for school shootings.
   
   
6. For another reference, see http://culturalpolitics.net/cultural_theory/journals for a list of cultural studies journals such as "Monthly Review", the long-standing journal of Marxist cultural and political studies". Note that the website Cultural Politics is a progressive site devoted to "critical analysis" of the "arena where social, economic, and political values and meanings are created and contested."
   
   
7. You could also check out "Cultural Marxism: Media, Culture and Society", Volume 7, Issue 1 of Critical sociology, of the Transforming Sociology series, from the Institute for Advanced Studies in Sociology.
   
   I hope that this brief survey amply demonstrates that Cultural Marxism is a term created and actively used by progressive scholars to describe the school of thought that first developed at Frankfurt and Birmingham to apply Marxism to cultural studies.
   
   
   
   credit: http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sc1pi4

I just found a good condition second hand of the 50cm x 33cm 2005 edition for 50 pounds but the next cheapest on amazon was 95. The 50 quid one is still showing as available, so they might have multiple copies (https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/offer-listing/3822831255/ref=tmm_hrd_used_olp_sr?ie=UTF8&condition=used&qid=1504358596&sr=8-7) but I can't guarantee it's not an error. If you're willing to pay full price there is a new one for about 150 euros here: https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/offer-listing/3822831255/ref=tmm_hrd_collectible_olp_sr?ie=UTF8&condition=collectible&qid=1504358596&sr=8-7

I've got to say, the 2016 English edition still looks amazing and actually has an extra hundred pages or so, as well as the really nice slip case which doubles as a bookstand. It's not that much smaller either.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Blaeu-Atlas-Maior-Va-Joan/dp/3836538032/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1504358596&sr=8-2&keywords=taschen+atlas+maior

> Why are the comments in spiegel always so rabidly anti-US, and fervently pro-Russian? It's not just this article, every article in spiegel always seems to be that way.

I am sure that much of this is Russian-funded astroturfing. Even such high-ranking officials like the chief intelligence officer in New York responsible for overseeing all Russian covert operations against the U.S. and its allies in the United Nations (1995-2000) have admitted to visiting public libraries and posting conspiracy theories to online message boards. If I didn't know this for a fact, I would never believe that their threshold could be that low; that changing the mind of those reading abovetopsecret.com and the likes could be of any importance.

> What Europeans dont realize yet is that this is dangerous because with democratic institutions demographics matter a lot. Different religious and ethnic groups do have different values to some degree and I think a lot of Europeans don't recognize that. Most know that if you imported 500k rural Poles to your city they'll start to vote for banning abortion, but for some reason people are afraid to extrapolate that to other groups such as say North Africans. They prefer to live a fantasy where you will 'enlighten' these groups to give up previous in-group values en masse and integrate but if their demographics don't pressure it because they are a plurality or even a majority they will have more in-group pressure to retain than out-group pressure to change.

We don't realise it because we never really experienced true multiculturalism before, and many are still in denial about its effect. Now that demographics are rapidly changing, my point of view is Europe is going to start experiencing something similar to the 60s-70s in USA where there were massive civil rights protest movements. Tough with major differences due to the ethnic populations being different than what the US experienced (no hispanics, mostly Arabs/Muslims in France for instance).

USA being pretty much the blueprint for a nation becoming multicultural. We will see this play out in Europe over the next decades. Here is an interesting bestseller fiction book for what might happen to France over the next years: https://www.amazon.com/Submission-Novel-Michel-Houellebecq/dp/0374271577

For anyone interested this is the book he is reffering to.