>>33532
nie jesteś polakiem

Przebrzydła szumowino, pachołku moskiewski,
Ty farbowana świnio, marszałku kurewski
Chamie zbuntowany, zatęchła sklerozo
Gnoju zasmarkany, ty zdrajco "ZOMZO"

Gnido zarzygana, jadowita mendo
Ty kukło gówniana, kacapski przybłędo
Tchórzu zajadany, ropiejący strupie
Padalcu rozdeptany, ty wrzodzie na dupie.

Ty diabelskie łajno, ty głupi żołdaku
Ty kurwo sprzedajna, ty ruski zupaku
Wypierdku Breżniewa, ty ślepy pedale
Kurduplu tępogłowy, ty głupi bęcwale

Ty sukinsynie śmierdzący, pluskwo zasuszona
Wrzodzie ropiejący, ty małpo zielona
Ty strachu na wróble, zboczony sadysto
Judaszu za rabie, tępawy marksisto.

Ty pało gumowa, wredny okupancie
Zakało narodowa, złamany palancie
Cuchnący pierdzielu, pełzająca glisto
Ponury skurwielu, czerwony faszysto.

Ty sługo kremlowski, lokaju sowiecki.
Ty zbóju wojskowy, pomiocie radziecki
Ty mówco obłąkany, nadęty bufonie
Za naród sprzedany piekło cię pochłonie.

>>47193

>muscovy was but a rump state of the mongol horde, just like all the other neighboring khaganates, inherited it's political system, social cohesion and the whole shebang straight from mongols

Social cohesion is not a concept the Mongols have invented, and problems like these are faced by literally every polity.
There are numerous approaches at maintaining any kind and style of cohesion. Given that the Horde collapsed, and Russia didn't, the strategies clearly were different at least in places.

It's about as much of a rump state as you're a successor of your ancestors, i.e. you happen to exist and happen to keeping to exist.
Moscow territory had people of one or another kind living there since the bronze age. Moscow as a polity known as it is, grew as any normal Rus' city given its environment, times and the baggage of inter-knyazdom succession wars and the invasion. Moscow was burned before Mongol raids, yet it was rebuilt. "Rump states" typically lack this much integrity to do so.

>semi-nomands with a city complex at karakorum

And? They still were different in their disposition. There's a reason only one polity emerged from that conflict intact.

>plc was created solely to pool resources to keep raids of asiatic people - muscovites and tatars - at bay if that's what you mean

Castles hardly were invented purely against Asians, and they sure weren't all made in one day and in the same year by the same people, that's nonsense. Europe faced worse from Arabs.

>what would become rus has no relation to what would become muscovy

Other than coming from the same stock, being made by the same people, sharing the same faiths, same social issues, same motivations, same methods, etc.

>it's completely two different civilizations on two different rivers inhabited by completely different people. in volga basin it was volga finns in the north and assorted turkics in the south with ancestors of russians emerging as they crossbred.

This view on ethnic breeding isn't supported by reality, and ethnicities don't melt like water.
Incidental existence of other non-Slavics anywhere on Earth, just like of any other human, has no bearing on the fact of Slavic sub-organization - tribes being a part of larger Slavic organization - i.e. total Slavic 'ethnogenesis process' happening since before Venedi.
There were finns out there, and turks, and what have you - and there were slavs also, because that's how such big groups of self-organizing people work.
Before USSR modern economy melting pot incurred more imperial prices, Moscow was Slavic by and large. But there was no prevalent mass of mythical finno-turks mongrels of perfectly even breed back then, and there isn't now, because such things are not sustainable, neither biologically, nor geographically, in any configuration of Russia of old.

>these people got conquered by rus in late 900s and remained a part of it until early 1200s

Rus is ethnically and culturally Slavic. It's a theological schism, not biologically cultural.

>which is your whole relation to the slavic thing. urbanization of moscow proper all done by mongols.

It already was a city before the Mongols came.
And there were other Slavic cities older than it, whose culture it, obviously, shares, because that's how these processes work. Initial seed conditions were already set well before.

>the term is as old as history itself, first observed during greko-persian wars

And it is as meaningless as telling an ancient Greek or Persian the term "jingoism".
Incorrectly ripping tiniest historical minutiae out of their historical context, - least of all from people with interest and wilful dishonesty where it may be, as those ancients, all the while ignoring their personalities, - and presumably being some democracy et al fetishist (presumably due to a hypocritical anti-autocratic disposition, by particular historical choice) without even understanding what it entails no less, - is as pointless (unless done with narrative in mind) as it is to use them for everything. Any polity in Middle East is not Middle East is not China is not Asia is not Eurasia is not northest Eurasia is not...etc.
Despotism may vary in its quality, may be present or absent outright, and is not an Asian invention.
Pejorative despots, i.e. unjust, cruel rulers, - either don't make it, or create lasting institutional problems that aren't conductive to a given polity's survival, humane life and mental well-being.
Cruel despotism and Christianity based monarchies are mutually exclusive in spirit, and incur all the issues in practice when sufficiently bad rulers had power. Russia, as far as its history went, had little to no unjust despotism that was any worse than its peers in Europe. It had incompetences on occasion, instead.

Beyond that, you'd have to specify the actual meaning of "oriental despotism" you've chosen to use. This meme term is inadequate.

>but it is: european monarchies were decentralized with power delegated to gentry - muscovy was a centralized rule with tax collectors instead as the whole political system was copied straight from mongols

When a king commands you to act, you better act. A monarch without power is not a monarch.
A system where delegation does not fulfill its appointed responsibilities shall not be able to function.
Whether a mass of nation-generating subjects and their nobility follow a font of honour because the mediocrity or outsider-ness of the kingly line, whether appointed or self-made (e.g. like Rjurik, yes) serves as a universally satisfactory and fair solution to disputes, or because the kingly line subordinated others by force does not mean responsibilities and obligations are absent. That is punishable. Europe and Asia proper both had all sorts of inhumane responses to insubordination.
Russia too, but in lesser quality, 'mostly'.

Much like the nature of power does not change irrespective of the configuration, no amount of decentralization in this system changes the way actual mechanic works. And it works exactly the same. Any sufficiently big mundane polity requires delegation to function, but a decentralized polity with a monarch is -monarchy-. And if it isn't, then it is likely ruled by virtual despots of other sorts, because that's how power works.

But the gentry', you say?
It is no more different than boyars or any other nobility. Which Russia, had too, before and during monarchic rule, hello there!
Being a court unto yourself or being a part of another's court is effectively the same thing.

>other than iberia and peleoponese wood used to be abundant across all europe

So? There are all sorts of considerations, practical military included, in terms of previous line of argument.

>not really. south is very distinct, central is distinct and north is distinct.

Oh but it is. Its eventual standardization circa 1900~ and onwards doesn't mean that it is lacking in identity whether in relation to others, or its own history. You simply take Europe for granted, being a part of it, and so you perceive this little slice of history-in-the-making as mundane like a normal human, rather than history spanning a lot, and future.

>you actually do see antwerp style spanning from britany all the way to liefland

That's fair, but I was making a point. Not all of us has made it out alive. Ditto for dreams, good or bad.
Europe could've turned out in any way, though it is what it is.

>what's that even supposed to be?

You know how Anglo-Saxons have built their global culture? It's exactly that, but different. Pax Britannica is similar concept at the core, even if it concerned other things.
Yeah, it's non-existent, and there never was any proper push for that in Slavics, but eh. But the sentiment has existed for a very long time in some, in Russia and not.

>there was never a single slavic speaking people, there never will be

It's precisely because the Slavic process went sideways early on. There are benefits to this, but there also demerits.

>and frankly russians shouldn't even be considered a slavic people as russians are a mix of finns, khazars and admirably slavs (and that is only thanks to russian empire's race mixing policies) it doesn't make you one of us per se any more than it makes you finns of turkics.

What can I say? I do hope you'll never meet a geneticist in your life. That said it's not up to anyone's consideration what Russians are and are not.
Slavics still make up most of Russian population. It's not a wholly conventional ethnicity due to sheer size alone, nor is the term "Russian" fully coterminous with Slavics post-USSR, but Russian Slavs and Russian non-Slavs are very much distinct. Big nation, complex system, what do you know.

>this whole rant is very loosely related to the topic. here's a map of castles - you can clearly see civilizational divide on it

My rant, I presume? In that case it is more related to the topic than any sort of dull generalizations on the nature of operation of ethnic structures.
The primary reason this whole "Russia = Horde" association exists is pure political machination.
It is irritating to listen to, like any other bullshit of similar type, but it's a problem only in discourse with Europeans of naive or ignorant sort.
As far as Russian life itself is concerned, this delusion exists only in your minds. To us it's mostly a historical meme quote and occasional political grandstanding pragmatic rhetoric.
At least you're not an Aryan fetishist, I'll grant you that much.