>Почему так?

Почему Россия не Америка? Культурное ядро зрело в относительной безопасности, на острове, в тепличных практически условиях, а не среди лесов, болот, с континентальным климатом, под набегами ордынских народов, в дали от морской торговли, которая была только с сезонным доступом, под контролем соперников.

Среди лесов и пустынь, населенных змеями и не всегда добрыми индейцами.

Я про Британию говорил, если что.

В таком случае леса и болота были, да и набеги, только французских народов, три века французского ига.

А в пидорашенской рашковании набеги закончились когда московия начала подниматься и сама стала ордой. Короче говоря, вялые отмазы через климат и "вечную жертву".

Нет, про климат валидный аргумент.

Если интересно более подробней, есть ролик Кирилла Борисовича Назаренко, например
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxrQEX832GQ

>ролик Назаренко и пропагандона Егора Яковлева

да ты сразу Гоблина-Пучкова посоветуй, не стесняйся

Посоветуй, не видел у него похожего

Леса и болота у них в основном в северной части. Ядро развивалось на юге, и климат там заметно теплее, с незамерзающим английским каналом.

>три века французского ига.

Какое нахуй оно французское? Ты наркоман что ли? Франко-говорящее в лучшем случае. Назывались они Норманами, и это было не иго, а обычный феодальный режим совершенно неэкстрактивного характера. В высокие и поздние средние века как разы французы были по сути под англо-норманским игом -- про Анжуйскую империю слышал? За что была Столетняя война?

>набеги закончились когда московия начала подниматься и сама стала ордой.

Укро-алтернативно-реальностная история, лол.

Вот так сами по себе они и закончились, да. Никто им силой не помог закончится? Крымско-ногайские набеги закончились в 18ом веке, если что, а начались примерно во времена начала правления Ивана Третьего, как раз когда Московия начала экспансию и стряхивание с себя ига. И постепенное уничтожение и вытеснение этих ордынских народов и сформировала восточные регионы бывшей укранины, за которые сейчас идет война. Прото-украинцы же в это время сосали польско-литовский хуй, или переходили в подданство к царю, например заселяя нынешнюю Слободу Украину(ныне харьковскую область).

Ну вот видишь, начинаются детали - без болот, ну ладно, болота есть, но не на юге. Ну так и в сраной климат не однородный, блядь.

И так далее, эти детали уже не важны.
Англия не жила веками в мире и процветании без войн и катаклизмов, даже революции и "смута" была. И никак нельзя сказать, что рашка, которая по факту всегда была расширяющейся империей, может быть оправдана этой вот мифической "жертвенностью" в связи с тем, что на неё тоже кто-то набегал и нападал, вот и всё.

ПС: думаю, ты не очень умный, если не видишь юмора во фразе "французское иго"

>Ну так и в сраной климат не однородный, блядь.

И дальше-то что, блядь? Он неоднородный и влияющий на всю жизнь - в российском климате получается тупо меньше ресурсов, чем в Англии или США. Но тебе детали не важны, ты продолжишь повторять "разницы нет".

Сам придумал "жертвенность" и успешно побеждаешь который комментарий подряд. Не надоело?

Опять жертвенность пошла... Теперь им ресурсов, блядь, не хватает

Читаешь жопой, как обычно?

>в российском климате получается тупо меньше ресурсов, чем в Англии или США

Хуета какая. В США леса и пустыни, какие нахуй ресурсы. Ну нефть и газ это для современности, их и в сраной доухя.

Впрочем можно еще посмотреть на огромное количество стран в мире, от Скандинавии до Японии, где никаких ресурсов особо не было никогда, если не пытаться высасывать из пальца что-нибудь.

>климат не однородный

в 15ом веке был однородный. На карту с Koppen классификацией посмотрел, и политическую карту 14-15ого века, прежде чем обосраться?

>эти детали уже не важны.

Если ты хохлодегенерат, то да, действительно не важны.

>еками в мире и процветании без войн и катаклизмов, даже революции и "смута" была.

под угрозой набегов веками не жила. В лучшем случае под угрозой феодальных стрелок с осадами, в которые в большинстве случаев большую часть населения вообще не затрагивал никак. "Катаклизмы" их и "революции" были смехотворными в сравнении с средним поволжским голодом.

>может быть оправдана

Что значит оправдана? Кто тут что-то оправдывал? Она такая какая она есть из-за Environmental determinism. Других объяснений просто нет, и быть не может. Хохлодегенераты (та ещё нация в списке наций) целую квази-расовую эссенциалистскую теорию построили про орков и эльфов(хохлы разумеется не орки), в целях военной пропаганды и строительства нации. Т.е. я поговорил с укро-зомби-хайвмайндом, день прошел не зря.

>которая по факту всегда была расширяющейся империей

Не всегда. Когда формировалась культура, до периода экспансии, она была под игом и набегами, в влажном континентальном климате.

>не видишь юмора

ах ах, это был не аргумент, это был юмор. Я тут типа должен в сортах говна разбираться, где хохлодегенерат шутит, а где несет бред точно такого же розлива искренне.

>хохлодегенерат

Дальше можно не читать.
Лол, там еще какие-то простыни дальше идут про экодетерминизм.
Короче, выйди в окно, русня ебаная.

Лекция про климаты от сраной llm для невежественного хохлодебила:

Of course. This is an excellent question that gets to the heart of how climate shapes human existence.

In short, surviving in a **Dfb (Humid Continental) climate** is significantly more difficult and resource-intensive than in a **Cfb (Marine West Coast) climate**. The primary reason is the **extreme seasonal temperature variation** in the Dfb zone, which dictates nearly every aspect of life, from shelter and food security to energy consumption and daily activity.

Here is a detailed breakdown of the difficulties, comparing the two climates.

---

### Defining the Climates

* **Cfb (Marine West Coast Climate):**
* **Characteristics:** Mild year-round. Cool summers, mild winters. No dry season, with precipitation distributed evenly throughout the year.
* **Examples:** London (UK), Vancouver (Canada), Paris (France), Seattle (USA).
* **Key Trait:** **Temperature Moderation.** The ocean acts as a giant heater in winter and an air conditioner in summer.

* **Dfb (Humid Continental Climate):**
* **Characteristics:** Large seasonal temperature range. Warm to hot summers, but **very cold, snowy winters**. Precipitation is still fairly even.
* **Examples:** Moscow (Russia), Montreal (Canada), Minneapolis (USA), Warsaw (Poland).
* **Key Trait:** **Seasonal Extremes.** Located in the interior of continents, far from the moderating influence of the ocean.

---

### Difficulties of Surviving in a Dfb Climate vs. Cfb

#### 1. Winter Survival and Energy Demands

This is the single biggest difference.

* **Dfb (High Difficulty):**
* **Prolonged, Bitter Cold:** Winters are not just cold; they are *long* and can be brutally cold, with temperatures routinely dropping below -20°C (-4°F) and staying there for weeks.
* **Massive Heating Needs:** Surviving requires a reliable, powerful, and continuous heating source for 4-6 months of the year. This demands significant fuel—whether it's natural gas, heating oil, wood, or electricity. The cost is enormous, both financially and in terms of resource gathering.
* **Infrastructure Stress:** Pipes can freeze and burst if not properly insulated. Roads are constantly damaged by freeze-thaw cycles and require heavy salting and plowing.
* **Hypothermia Risk:** Exposure to the cold without adequate shelter and clothing is a direct and immediate threat to life.

* **Cfb (Low Difficulty):**
* **Mild Winters:** Winter temperatures typically hover around freezing, with cold spells being short-lived. Snow is occasional and often melts quickly.
* **Modest Heating Needs:** Heating is required, but the demand is far lower and less constant. A simple heating system is often sufficient.
* **Minimal Cold-Weather Hazards:** The risk of hypothermia and infrastructure failure due to cold is comparatively minimal.

#### 2. Food Security and Agriculture

* **Dfb (High Difficulty):**
* **Short Growing Season:** The frost-free period is limited, often to just 3-5 months. This places a hard limit on what can be grown and demands a frantic rush to plant, grow, and harvest.
* **Dependence on Storage:** Surviving the winter requires extensive food preservation techniques—canning, pickling, root cellaring, and, in the modern era, reliance on global supply chains. A failed harvest was historically a catastrophe.
* **Limited Crop Variety:** Only cold-hardy crops (like potatoes, carrots, cabbage, rye) can be grown reliably.

* **Cfb (Low Difficulty):**
* **Long Growing Season:** The frost-free period is much longer, often 6-9 months or more. In some areas, some growth can occur year-round.
* **Greater Crop Variety:** The mild climate supports a wider range of crops, including many fruits and vegetables that cannot survive a Dfb winter.
* **Easier Year-Round Production:** With techniques like cold frames, it's possible to have fresh produce for a larger part of the year.

#### 3. Shelter and Construction

* **Dfb (High Difficulty):**
* **Robust Construction Required:** Buildings must be engineered to withstand heavy snow loads on roofs and the physical stress of deep frost penetrating the ground (frost heave).
* **Essential Insulation:** High-quality, extensive insulation in walls, attics, and foundations is not a luxury; it is a necessity for survival and economic viability. Double or triple-paned windows are standard.
* **Complex Foundations:** Foundations must be dug below the frost line to prevent the building from shifting.

* **Cfb (Low Difficulty):**
* **Standard Construction Suffices:** While good practice is needed, the demands on building structure and insulation are far less extreme. The primary concern is often weatherproofing against rain, not insulating against deep cold.

#### 4. Transportation and Mobility

* **Dfb (High Difficulty):**
* **Winter Disruption:** Snow and ice can paralyze transportation for days. Surviving requires owning and maintaining specialized equipment: snow shovels, snow blowers, winter tires, and sometimes even chains.
* **Constant Maintenance:** Public and personal resources are heavily dedicated to snow removal and road de-icing.
* **Isolation Risk:** Rural areas can become isolated during and after heavy snowstorms.

* **Cfb (Low Difficulty):**
* **Minimal Disruption:** Transportation is rarely halted by weather. Rain is the main disruptor, but it doesn't cause the same level of long-term paralysis as a major blizzard.

#### 5. Health and Psychological Factors

* **Dfb (High Difficulty):**
* **Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD):** The long, dark, cold winters with limited sunlight can have a significant negative impact on mental health.
* **Physical Hazards:** Risks include frostbite, falls on ice, and heart attacks from shoveling snow.
* **Confinement:** People, especially the very young and old, can be confined indoors for long periods.

* **Cfb (Low Difficulty):**
* **Milder Impact:** While SAD exists, the winters are shorter, brighter, and more manageable. Outdoor activity is possible year-round, benefiting physical and mental health.

### Summary Table

| Factor | Dfb (Humid Continental) | Cfb (Marine West Coast) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **Winter Severity** | Very cold, long, snowy | Mild, short, occasional snow/rain |
| **Heating Demand** | Very High, essential for survival | Moderate, for comfort |
| **Growing Season** | Short (3-5 months) | Long (6-9+ months) |
| **Food Security** | High dependence on storage/preservation | Easier access to fresh produce |
| **Shelter** | Requires heavy insulation, deep foundations | Standard insulation and construction |
| **Transportation** | Frequently disrupted by snow/ice | Rarely disrupted, mainly by rain |
| **Key Challenge** | **Overcoming extreme cold and its effects** | **Coping with frequent cloudiness and rain** |

### Conclusion

Surviving in a **Dfb climate** is a constant battle against the environment, particularly the profound challenges of winter. It requires foresight, significant energy investment, robust infrastructure, and resilient practices for food and shelter.

Surviving in a **Cfb climate**, while presenting its own challenges like cloud cover and rain, is fundamentally easier. The ocean's moderating influence creates a less harsh, more predictable, and more forgiving environment that demands far fewer resources simply to endure the seasons. The primary difficulties in a Cfb climate are more about comfort and morale, whereas in a Dfb climate, they are often about basic survival.

Лекция про почвы, и их взаимодействие с климатом:

Of course. This is an excellent question that gets to the heart of how climate and geology shape agricultural potential. In short, the soils of France and southern England are, on average, inherently more productive for a wider range of crops than those surrounding Moscow.

Here is a detailed comparison.

---

### Soils Around Moscow (Central European Russia)

This region lies within the **Taiga** and mixed forest zones, characterized by a **humid continental climate** with cold winters and relatively warm, but often short, summers.

**Predominant Soil Types:**
* **Podzols (Spodosols):** This is the classic soil of the northern coniferous forest. They are highly acidic, have a leached-out, nutrient-poor layer (the E horizon), and are generally infertile.
* **Alfisols & Luvisols:** These are more common in the mixed forest belt south of Moscow. They are less acidic than Podzols and have a clay-rich subsoil (argillic horizon) that can hold nutrients. However, they still require significant amendment for high productivity.
* **Histosols (Peat Soils):** Found in waterlogged areas, these are rich in organic matter but are acidic and often require drainage to be farmable.

**Inherent Agricultural Productivity:**

* **Major Limitations:**
1. **Climate:** The short growing season and harsh winters limit the types of crops that can be grown (primarily spring cereals, potatoes, flax).
2. **Acidity:** Widespread soil acidity locks up essential nutrients like phosphorus and reduces the activity of beneficial soil microbes.
3. **Natural Fertility:** The natural leaching process under forest vegetation results in soils that are low in base cations (calcium, magnesium, potassium) and organic matter in the topsoil.
4. **Texture:** Many soils are sandy or have a heavy, compacted subsoil, leading to poor drainage or workability.

* **Productivity Summary:** Soils around Moscow are **inherently low to moderate in productivity**. They require substantial and continuous inputs—primarily **liming to reduce acidity** and **application of fertilizers**—to achieve good yields. The agriculture is more focused on resilience and adaptation to the climate rather than high-intensity production.

---

### Soils in France and Southern UK

This region enjoys a **Temperate Maritime Climate** (Oceanic climate) with mild, wet winters and cool summers. This climate is exceptionally favorable for plant growth and soil formation.

**Predominant Soil Types:**
* **Brown Earths (Cambisols/Eutrudepts):** These are the quintessential, highly productive soils of much of lowland Britain and northern France. They are well-drained, have a loamy texture, and are only mildly acidic to neutral. They are inherently fertile and easily worked.
* **Luvisols/Alfisols:** Similar to those near Moscow but formed under a more favorable climate, they are often more weathered but still very productive, especially for cereals.
* **Rendzinas (Rendolls):** Found over chalk and limestone (e.g., the **Champagne** and **Downs** regions). These are shallow, dark, calcareous soils that are highly productive for cereals and, famously, vineyards.
* **Clay-rich Soils (Vertisols):** Found in regions like parts of Normandy. These are heavy, fertile soils that can be challenging to work but are very productive for pasture and certain crops.

**Inherent Agricultural Productivity:**

* **Major Advantages:**
1. **Climate:** The long growing season and reliable rainfall allow for a diverse range of crops, including winter-sown cereals which typically yield higher than spring-sown ones.
2. **Natural pH:** Large areas, particularly over limestone/chalk, are naturally neutral to alkaline. This optimal pH range makes nutrients readily available to plants.
3. **Weathering & Fertility:** The maritime climate promotes a more balanced weathering cycle, leading to a steady release of nutrients and the build-up of stable, rich organic matter.
4. **Versatility:** The combination of favorable climate and generally good soil physical properties makes this region suitable for everything from high-yielding wheat and barley to root crops, high-value horticulture, and permanent pasture.

* **Productivity Summary:** The soils of France and southern England are **inherently moderate to high in productivity**. While they still benefit from modern management, their natural starting point is far superior. They can support a much wider variety of high-value and intensive agricultural systems with less corrective input needed compared to the Moscow region.

---

### Direct Comparison Table

| Feature | Moscow Region | France & Southern UK |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **Climate Zone** | Humid Continental | Temperate Maritime (Oceanic) |
| **Dominant Soils** | Podzols, Acidic Luvisols | Brown Earths, Rendzinas, Luvisols |
| **Inherent Fertility** | Low to Moderate | Moderate to High |
| **Soil pH** | Predominantly Acidic | Neutral to Mildly Acidic (large areas alkaline) |
| **Growing Season** | Short | Long |
| **Primary Limitation** | Acidity & Low Nutrient Base | Drainage (on heavy clays) / Nutrient Management |
| **Management Need** | **High** (Lime, Fertilizer essential) | **Moderate** (Fertilizer for yield, less lime) |
| **Agricultural Focus** | Hardy cereals (rye, spring wheat), Potatoes, Flax | Diverse: Wheat, Barley, Corn, Oilseed Rape, Vineyards, Horticulture, Dairy |

### Conclusion

The fundamental difference lies in the interplay of **climate and geology**.

The cold continental climate and coniferous forests around Moscow produce **acidic, leached, and nutrient-poor soils** like Podzols. Their agricultural potential is inherently constrained.

In contrast, the mild, maritime climate and deciduous forests of France and southern England foster the development of **well-structured, neutrally-balanced, and naturally fertile soils** like Brown Earths. This, combined with a longer growing season, provides a superior natural foundation for productive and diverse agriculture, which is why these regions have been agricultural powerhouses for centuries.

Про безопасность. Разумеется llm натренирован в основном на western scholarship:

Of course. This is a fascinating comparison of two regions emerging from very different historical trajectories in the Late Middle Ages. While life for the average person was precarious everywhere, the sources, nature, and intensity of insecurity differed significantly between the rising Russian state and the established kingdoms of Western Europe.

Here is a detailed comparison of the sense and practical aspects of security for an average denizen in 14th-15th century Moscow-led Russia versus contemporary Britain and France.

### **Moscow-Led Russia: Security Under the "Mongol Shadow"**

The defining experience for Russia in this period was the legacy of the Mongol-Tatar yoke (beginning in the 13th century) and the subsequent rise of Moscow as the primary collector of tribute and, eventually, the nucleus of resistance.

**Primary Sources of Insecurity:**

1. **Tatar Raids:** This was the omnipresent, existential threat. Even as the Golden Horde's central power waned, successor khanates (like the Kazan and Crimean Khanates) continued devastating raids. Their primary objectives were:
* **Plunder:** Seizing wealth, crops, and livestock.
* **Slaves:** The capture of people for sale in the massive slave markets of the Black Sea and the Orient was a central economic driver. This was a uniquely terrifying prospect for the peasant or townsfolk.
2. **The "Meshcherka" (Tribute):** The need to satisfy the Horde's tribute demands was a constant economic burden. Failure could provoke a punitive raid. This tribute was extracted by the Russian princes themselves, particularly the Muscovite Grand Prince, making the state apparatus itself an instrument of this external pressure.
3. **Internal Strife:** The period was marked by the "Wars of Russian Unification," where Moscow subjugated rival principalities like Tver, Novgorod, and Ryazan. While these were often conflicts between princely armies, they could lead to localized devastation, conscription, and shifting allegiances that put populations at risk.

**Practical Aspects of Security for the Average Person:**

* **Geography and Settlement:** The Russian forest (taiga) was both a refuge and a danger. Villages were often isolated and hidden, but travel between them was perilous. Settlement patterns were heavily influenced by the need for defensibility.
* **The Role of the State (Moscow):** Security was increasingly centralized. The Grand Prince of Moscow's primary legitimacy came from his role as defender of the land. He built fortified lines (abatis lines, or *zasechnaya cherta*) of felled trees, fortresses, and watchtowers along the southern "Wild Field" frontier. This provided a measure of collective, state-organized defense that was absent in the earlier feudal period.
* **Personal Experience:** Life was characterized by a constant, low-grade anxiety about a sudden, violent raid from the steppe. The threat was external, alien, and often resulted in death or a fate worse than death: slavery. There was little to no chance of a peasant successfully negotiating with a Tatar raiding party.

**Sense of Security:**
The sense of security was **low and existential**. The threat was from a foreign "other" whose culture and religion were alien. The psychological landscape was one of being a frontier society under a constant state of siege. This fostered a culture of collective endurance, orthodoxy as a unifying identity, and a willingness to submit to a strong, centralized authority (the Muscovite prince) as the only viable alternative to annihilation.

---

### **Britain and France: Security in the "Feudal Crucible"**

The 14th and 15th centuries in Western Europe were defined by the Hundred Years' War (1337-1453) and its aftermath, including the Wars of the Roses in England (1455-1487).

**Primary Sources of Insecurity:**

1. **Feudal Warfare and Chevauchées:** Unlike set-piece battles between armies, the most common and devastating military tactic was the *chevauchée*—a large-scale, mounted raid designed to burn, pillage, and terrorize the countryside. Its goals were:
* **Economic Warfare:** Destroying the enemy's tax base and resources.
* **Provocation:** To goad the enemy army into a disadvantageous battle.
* **Plunder:** Paying the armies through looting.
2. **Routiers and Free Companies:** Demobilized soldiers, often without pay, formed "Free Companies" that would plunder the countryside indiscriminately, regardless of allegiance. In France, during lulls in the war, these bands terrorized whole regions, becoming a state within a state.
3. **Internal Conflicts:** The Jacquerie (1358) in France and the Peasants' Revolt (1381) in England were massive, violent uprisings born from war taxation and social discontent. Furthermore, noble feuds (like the Percy-Neville feud in England) and civil wars (the Wars of the Roses) could bring violence to one's doorstep.
4. **Brigandage:** Lawlessness was rampant, with bandits taking advantage of weakened or distracted authorities.

**Practical Aspects of Security for the Average Person:**

* **The Feudal Contract:** In theory, security was a local matter. A peasant's protection came from their lord's castle and the knights he could field. In practice, this was highly unreliable. A local lord might be powerless against a large *chevauchée* or a Free Company.
* **Walled Towns:** The key to security was living within or having swift access to a walled town or city. Urban militias were a crucial defensive force. For the rural peasantry, however, getting to safety with their movable goods and livestock before the raiders arrived was a constant race against time.
* **Personal Experience:** The violence was often "domestic." The soldier burning your farm might be a Frenchman or an Englishman, but he could also be a countryman fighting for a rival lord. The threat came from both "foreign" armies and "domestic" lawless elements. There was sometimes a possibility of negotiation or paying a ransom for a town, which was rarely an option with Tatar raids.

**Sense of Security:**
The sense of security was **unpredictable and cyclical**. A region could be peaceful for decades, then be utterly devastated by a passing army or a local civil war. The threat was not an existential "other" in the same way as the Horde was to Russia, but rather a breakdown of the established (feudal) order. This fostered a desire for strong royal justice and the rule of law to curb the excesses of both foreign armies and local nobles.

---

### **Comparative Summary**

| Aspect of Security | **14th-15th Century Moscow-Led Russia** | **14th-15th Century Britain & France** |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **Primary Threat** | **External Raids** from the Steppe (Tatars). Focus on plunder and **slavery**. | **Feudal Warfare** (*Chevauchées*, civil wars). Focus on economic warfare and plunder. |
| **Nature of Threat** | **Existential & Alien.** A clash of civilizations and religions. Often sudden and total. | **Political & "Domestic".** Violence was part of the political system, often between Christians. |
| **Source of Protection** | **Centralizing State** (Moscow). Fortified frontier lines, standing princely armies. | **Local Lords & Walled Towns.** Feudal obligations and urban militias. Royal authority was often distant. |
| **Psychological Impact** | **Constant, Frontier-Siege Mentality.** Fostered collective identity and submission to a strong central authority. | **Cyclical & Unpredictable.** Periods of peace interrupted by intense, localized violence. Fostered a desire for law and order. |
| **Economic Insecurity** | Heavy, consistent burden of **tribute** and risk of total loss from raids. | Heavy, unpredictable burden of **war taxation** and localized destruction from armies. |
| **"Average" Experience** | A peasant in Ryazan lived with the ever-present fear of a Tatar arrow from the steppe. | A peasant in Normandy lived with the fear of seeing smoke on the horizon, signaling an English *chevauchée* or a routier band. |

### **Conclusion**

Both environments were profoundly insecure, but the quality of that insecurity was different.

* The **average Russian** faced a more monolithic and existential threat. The danger was a clear external enemy whose attacks were often a matter of life, death, or enslavement. The response was the gradual, grim acceptance of an autocratic state as the sole provider of security.
* The **average Briton or Frenchman** faced a more complex and politicized threat landscape. The lines between friend and foe were blurred, and violence was an instrument of policy among a competing nobility. The insecurity stemmed from the failure of the feudal system to protect its people, leading to social unrest and a gradual shift towards stronger, more centralized monarchies capable of enforcing internal peace.

In essence, the Russian denizen's insecurity was defined by the struggle for **survival against an external predator**, while the Western European's insecurity was defined by the struggle for **stability within a fractured political system.**

Похоже на Кондопогу

Великолепно, просто бля охуительно, как будто настенный календарь. Была бы стенка - напечатал бы, клянусь!

А вопросы очень правильные ставите, своевременные. Почему в США не было советского трамватического опыта, хм, ояебу! Вон оно че, Иваныч. Так-то, да...

Может они не были жидами?

>И никакого советского травматического опыта отнять и поделить для этого не потребовалось

Действительно, никакого травматического опыта. Жаль, что ты не интересуешься историей страны проживания, а то мог бы узнать и происхождения праздника 1 мая(спойлер: в память о казненных в США), мог бы узнать о шахтерских войнах, о битве у горы Блэр, да много о чем можно узнать, если захотеть. Но ты не хочешь...

Ни в какой сравнение с гражданской войной, раскулачиванием, сталинскими репрессиями и прочими прелестями.

Тупых сразу нахуй

Ну так беги, не задерживайся

+++

+100

зачем в сраных штатах америки вешают таблички "не пить" над унитазами?
https://t.me/denissexy/10907

Издание Atlantic пишет (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/10/trump-officials-military-housing-stephen-miller/684748/), что после убийства консервативного активиста Чарли Кирка топы администрации Трампа в целях безопасности переезжают в служебное жилье на военных базах, выделенное для старших офицеров.

Заместитель главы администрации Белого дома Стивен Миллер выставил (https://www.washingtonian.com/2025/10/16/stephen-millers-arlington-house-is-for-sale/) на продажу свой дом в пригороде Вашингтона Арлингтоне за 3,75 миллионов долларов и переехал на один из военных объектов. В день убийства Кирка жена Миллера Кэти увидел возле дома мужчину, который сказал ей, что следит за ней.

Через несколько дней на тротуаре возле их дома кто-то мелом написал "Стивен Миллер уничтожает демократию" и "Миллер нападает на семьи", а в округе появились плакаты, на которых Миллера сравнивали с нацистом и обвиняли в преступлениях против человечности.

Ответственность взяла на себя группа Arlington Neighbors United for Humanity, которая заявила, что Миллер не будет жить мирно, пока он "терроризирует детей и семьи". Они также устраивали протесты возле дома главы Бюджетно-административного управления Белого дома Рассела Воута. При этом они настаивают, что протестуют исключительно мирно и обсуждали это с охраной Миллера.

Министр внутренней безопасности Кристи Ноэм переехала на базу Береговой охраны Anacostia–Bolling после того как издание Daily Mail узнало адрес ее квартиры.

Госсекретарь Марко Рубио и глава Пентагона Пит Хегсет сейчас живут в домах для генералов на армейской базе Fort McNair. А министр по делам армии Дэн Дрисколл снимает дом вместе с другим политическим назначенцем Пентагона на военной базе Myer–Henderson Hall. Туда же хотела переселиться и директор национальной разведки Тулси Габбард, но ей не нашли подходящее жилье.

Проживание членов президентской администрации на территории военных базах не уникально. Так делали министры обороны Роберт Гейтс и Джим Мэттис, а также глава ЦРУ Майк Помпео. Но такое большое количество постояльцем беспрецедентно.

Норм диктатура начинается, уже прячутся в бункер

CNN: “Do you like capitalism?”
Zohran Mamdani: “No.”