RSS
The latest in our series of translations of Russian national-conservative intellectual Egor Kholmogorov.
For the first part, see: Russians in the 2oth Century. Part I: Origins to WWII.
Incidentally, while counter-mainstream commenters in the West are hardly well compensated, this is unfortunately doubly true in Russia. If you have enjoyed our translations of him, a contribution to Egor Kholmogorov would be much appreciated:
- Paypal: holmogorowATyandex.ru
- Yandex Money: 4276380058863064
Considering the disastrous state of US-Russian relations, the West’s lack of Russia expertise is no longer just regrettable, but potentially catastrophic. So far as neoliberalism.txt is concerned, Russian nationalism basically consists of Stalin, Dugin, and The Foundations of Geopolitics (or rather its Wikipedia summary) – a narrative that the American Alt Right and European identitarians uncritically buy into (e.g. searching “Dugin” on Counter-Currents or AltRight.com yields hundreds of results, vs. virtually zero for Kholmogorov, or Sputnik & Pogrom). This conveniently makes it very easy to dismiss more nuanced and genuine right-wing Russian perspectives.
Expanding the English language presence of other Russian intellectuals is probably by far not the worst way to go about remedying this sad state of affairs.
***
Russians in the 2oth Century. Part II: Late Stalinism to the Present Day
Translated by Fluctuarius Argenteus
Original: http://100knig.com/russkie-v-xx-veke/
***
From the Genocide of Tradition to the Era of the Russian Party
However, the post-WWII Russian national revival was highly ambiguous and unstable. Right after the first signs of a political shaping of Russian national sentiment came the harsh backlash of the Leningrad Affair. The show trials led to the extermination of government officials that came to prominence during the war and bore certain traits of Russian national consciousness. The campaigns against “cosmopolitanism” and “kowtowing to the West” did little to strengthen Russian patriotism and much to inflame xenophobic passions that, in the long run, turned against the Russians themselves.
After Stalin’s death, the Soviet leadership started regressing to pre-war ideological dogmas. As early as 1955, they unleashed a fierce persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church, using all the classic tricks of the Union of the Militant Godless, save for the physical elimination of the priesthood. Churches were shut down and destroyed, church services were routinely obstructed and impeded. Thus began the construction of the Russian person of the ottepel era: a godless enthusiast of science and progress, almost devoid of aesthetic feelings that were replaced with futuristic optimism.
One of the telltale signs of an ongoing profound “reprogramming” of the Russian nation was the liquidation of “unpromising villages”, a campaign unleashed in 1958 mostly in Central and Northern Russia – that is, the heartland of the Russian nation. The traditional Russian system of settlement in a network of small villages was uprooted. Russian peasants, forcibly removed from their traditional habitat, were herded into “urban-type settlements” that bore more resemblance to concentration camps, quickly evolving into hotbeds of alcohol abuse and criminality. A simultaneous mass housing construction campaign did much to improve the living conditions of the Russians but was also followed by social and economic maladaptation: the cohesive whole of traditional culture was destroyed to make way for the worship of the television set.
The psyche of the 1960s Russian was denationalised to the extreme, with traits of national identity forsaken in the name of modernist urbanism and a mixture of principles that were Occidentalist and Soviet (but patterned after the West) in nature.
Ilya Glazunov. Ilya Glazunov. The Contribution of the Peoples of the USSR to the Development of World Culture and Civilization (1980).
A sudden change came in 1965 soon after Khrushchev’s downfall. An ethnic revival swept the Soviet Union, with only limited support from the Communist establishment. The so-called “Russian Party” was formed out of a part of the 1960s Soviet intelligentsia and second-tier apparatchiks. It was largely a grassroots civic movement organised by enthusiasts, reaching its apex during the celebrations of the sixth centenary of the Battle of Kulikovo in 1980 (afterwards, this trend tragically reversed).
Georgy Sviridov. Snowstorm Romance.
The main manifestations of the Russian Revival were the protection and partial restoration of Russia’s medieval architectural legacy (first and foremost, Orthodox churches) and the spread of a vogue for everything Old Russian, which became something of a marker of ethnic Russianness. There were close counterparts to Western folk revival, in music (e.g. the great Russian composer Georgy Sviridov), design, ethnic symbolology. Nearly every household used to have a calendar with a picture of the Church of the Intercession on the Nerl as a symbol of rediscovered Russianness. After the end of overt persecution, the “religious fad” (as it was dubbed by indignant Komsomol agitators) made a comeback.
Essentially, Old Rus became a legally permissible symbol of Russian tradition in a climate where the later medieval era and the Imperial period were “ideologically compromised”. Self-identification with Old Rus became a form of ethnic Russian awareness, especially in urban areas. A new urban Russian identity found its reflection in the runaway popularity of Ilya Glazunov, who used contemporary pop art techniques to infuse ethnic Russian imagery with a sharp symbolism.
The “villagers”.
The literary icon of the Russian Revival was the Pochvennichestvo group, which were first and foremost linked to the “village prose” movement in literature. One of their greatest concerns was the defense of Russian nature against destruction by the “great construction projects” of Socialism, in particular, a protest against the flooding of traditional Russian territory during the construction of enormous man-made water reservoirs. The driving force of the “village prose” was a protest against the destruction of the Russian village on the basis that it was “unpromising”.
While the “villagers” tried to stay within the confines of the Soviet system, Alexander Solzhenitsyn adopted a much more radical position. Over the 1960s, he evolved from a humanistic Narodism critical of the repressive Soviet system to a stark distinction between the Soviet and the Russian and a firm emphasis on the revival of Russianness from underneath the Soviet yoke. In his Letter to the Leaders of the Soviet Union , Solzhenitsyn proposed his own programme of de-Communisation in the USSR as a condition of preserving the Russian people. Using the image of the Chinese menace, relevant in the 1970s USSR, Solzhenitsyn called on the Soviet leaders to abandon fidelity to the Communist ideology, invoked by the Chinese, in favour of Russianness, and start settling the wide expanses of Russia instead of exporting revolution:
I am mostly concerned with the fate of specifically Russians and Ukrainians, both being faithful to the old proverb (“grow where you are planted”) and more profoundly – due to the incomparable suffering that we have endured. And I write this under an ASSUMPTION that you have mostly the same concerns, that you do not shy away from your origins, your fathers, grandfathers, ancestors, and the nature you grew up with, that you are not devoid of nationality…
Under the central planning that we are so proud of, we could have avoided despoiling Russian nature by creating inhuman agglomerations of millions. We did exactly the opposite: sullying our wide Russian expanses and disfiguring our dear Moscow, the heart of Russia…
The Russian hope for winning time and winning salvation lies in our vast North-Eastern expanses, not yet defaced thanks to our 400-year clumsiness, we can build not an insane all-devouring civilisation of “progress” – no, we can start with an already stable economy and populate the land according to its requirements and principles. These vast lands give us a hope of not dooming Russia to die in the crisis of Western civilisation. (And, thanks to wasteful collectivisation, there is much empty land even closer.)
Let us remember Stolypin and give him his due without dogmatic bias. In 1908, in the State Duma, he prophetically uttered: “THE LAND IS THE SOURCE OF OUR POWER IN THE FUTURE, THE LAND IS RUSSIA”. And regarding the Amur railway: “If we stay asleep in lethargy, the Amur region will be permeated with foreign influences, and, when we wake up, it might turn out to be Russian in name only…”
The national leaders of Russia, faced with the menace of a war with China, will still have to rely on patriotism and patriotism alone. When Stalin made the same turn during the war – remember! – no one was surprised, not a tear was shed for Marxism, everyone accepted this as the most natural, Russian, and our own thing to do!
Essentially, Solzhenitsyn offered a compromise that would encompass a gradual transformation of the Soviet state. While keeping its power and reshaping it on the basis of nationalism, the Soviet leadership would jettison Communist ideology and reinvent itself as a national autocracy.
Russian history has made me into an opponent of any and all revolutions and armed insurrections. This includes future ones: those that you [the Soviet leadership] desire (not in our country) and those that you fear (in our country). Through my studies, I have grown convinced that mass bloody revolutions are always injurious to the nations that they affect… Over the last half-century, Russia’s readiness for democracy and multi-party parliamentarianism could have only decreased. Their sudden introduction now would only lead to a new and grievous repetition of 1917…
Russia lived with authoritarianism for a thousand years, but at the onset of the 20th century it still preserved much of the nation’s physical and spiritual health. This, however, was due to fulfilling one important condition. That authoritarianism had, if only at its source, at its beginning, a strong moral foundation. Not an ideology of universal violence, but Orthodoxy, yes, seven centuries of the Orthodoxy of Sergius of Radonezh and Nilus of Sora, not yet twisted by Nikon, not yet bureaucratised by Peter…[1]
Everything depends on what kind of authoritarianism we are to expect in the future. It is not authoritarianism itself that is intolerable; it is the everyday ideological falsehood. It is not authoritarianism that is intolerable; it is despotism and violence, insurmountable violence…
Our country should be governed by considerations of an internal, moral, healthy development of our people: the liberation of women from wage slavery, especially from hard physical labour; setting right our schools and the education of children; saving our soils, waters, the entirety of Russian nature; restoring healthy cities; settling the North-East…
An amazing fact: even though Solzhenitsyn was forcibly expelled from the USSR and could not engage in any real dialogue with the Soviet establishment, some practical aspects of the 1970s Soviet policy followed the course chartered in the Letter to the Leaders of the Soviet Union. In the mid-1970s, the destruction of the Russian countryside gave way to welfare programs for the “Non-Chernozem Zone”[2] – tardy but still useful for strengthening the basis of national life – as well as an intensified development of the North-East and the construction of the Baikal-Amur Mainline, envisioned by Stolypin and mentioned by Solzhenitsyn. Unsurprisingly, however, the Soviet leadership didn’t even consider Solzhenitsyn’s call for an ideological shift.
Solzhenitsyn’s Letter caused his ideological breakup with the Liberal dissident intelligentsia led by Andrei Sakharov. The row between “Westernisers” and “Nativists”, both in the USSR and among émigrés, reached levels of acrimony unseen since the final third of the 19th century. The mathematician Igor Shafarevich, a like-minded thinker and Solzhenitsyn’s close ally, circulated an essay called Russophobia in samizdat, killing all prospects of reconciliation between the two camps. In the essay, he branded the Soviet Liberal intelligentsia a “small people” opposed to the “big people” [the Russian majority of the nation]. Like Solzhenitsyn, he saw the essence of the Russophobia of the “small people” in them ascribing the entirety of Soviet atrocities to the “innate nature of the Russians”, their national character, and the Russian historical tradition as a whole.
The Russians Nailed to the Cross
One could imagine that the Soviet system would find a way to merge with Russian ethnic tradition and give birth to a more or less viable synthesis. However, those hopes were dashed in the 1980s with the dramatic self-destruction of the Soviet régime. Moreover, one of its first precursors was manifested in Andropov’s crackdown on the “Russian Party”. As a result of its suppression, it entered the era of Perestroika – with its cutthroat competition of ideologies and reform projects – in a drastically weakened condition.
For other Soviet republics, Perestroika was synonymous with an upsurge of nationalism and Russophobia. Everywhere in the USSR, the Russians were subjected to pogroms, persecutions, and expulsions that varied as per the traditions of the local dominant ethnic groups. However, the Russians themselves experienced the same processes as a form of national nihilism, fawning adulation of everything Western, and a surging Russophobia of the intelligentsia.
A national and traditional alternative to Communism was heavily marginalised and ridiculed by the Perestroika press that linked all talk of ethnic Russian problems to the Pamyat Society[3], while the “democratic” camp denied those problems existed at all.
By the time of the destruction of the Soviet Union, a veritable vivisection of the historical territory of the Russian people, the Russians failed to achieve the degree of awareness and consolidation that would have helped to resist this breakup or to at least use it in the interests of the Russian people.
Allegations claiming that Russian nationally-minded politicians welcomed this breakup and supported the idea of “Russian sovereignty” are delusional. On the contrary, Yeltsin pushed the sovereignty of the RSFSR in the name of a “multinational people” and challenged ethnic autonomies to “grab as much power as you can swallow”.
Transnistria was the only place where the Russians managed to mount a resistance sufficient to stop their assimilation into foreign and emphatically anti-Russian projects of nation-building. The fate of the Russians in Central Asia was dire, with local radicals pushing the policy of expulsion while the government of the Russian Federation turned a blind eye to ethnic Russian refugees. The so-called Ichkeria of Dudaev and Maskhadov became a bloodstained page in the history of the Russian people due to a near-total ethnic cleansing of its Russian population. With the tacit approval of the European Union, the Baltic states maintain discriminatory policies against their “non-citizens”.
The situation of Russians in the Ukraine turned to tragedy. A nationalist frenzy led to ever-increasing attacks on the Russian language and Russian identity that had as their final goal not only a suppression of the identity of the country’s ethnic Russian citizens, but its complete replacement. Education curricula, linguistic policies, and TV propaganda gradually remade Russians into Ukrainians that were expected to hate Moscow for standing in the way of the country’s “European choice”.
In 2014, this aggressive de-Russification erupted into open military conflict, the final outcome of which it is at present impossible to predict. We can notice an obvious Russian insurrection of national liberation in Novorossiya, but, due to limited Russian government support, it is unclear whether the Donetsk and Lugansk Republics would be able to go “the way of the Crimea” and gain independence, or whether they will get pushed back into the Ukraine under the aegis of the “Minsk Agreements”.
In the Russian Federation proper, the first post-Soviet decade was a time of semi-official Russophobia, with anti-Russian doctrines daily proclaimed in the press and on TV by the intelligentsia. The word russkiy became taboo and was gradually supplanted by the more politically correct rossiyskiy[4]. The government favoured the interests of all ethnicities and minorities while completely ignoring the Russians.
This effectively stimulated the collapse of the Russian ethnos. Some groups, such as Cossacks and Pomors, saw that identifying as separate nations was more advantageous, especially given that government sponsorship of ethnic culture specifically catered to minorities only. Groups with fantasy identities sprang up, such as “Ingermanlanders”, while others such as “Siberians” even managed to contrive an artificial language.
The post-Soviet period threw the Russians as an ethnic group into a spiral of horrific demographic collapse. Birth rates fell through the floor while mortality soared, fuelled by drug abuse, alcoholism, street and organised crime. The phrase “the Russian Cross” entered Russian popular speech, referring to the intersection of two lines denoting soaring mortality and plummeting birth rates. Experts earnestly claimed that the Russian population would shrink to 50 million, and analysts routinely fed the papers with scenarios of Russia’s imminent collapse.
An “against the grain” factor of this period was a massive resurgence of Orthodoxy. Millions of Russians returned to the faith, churches and monasteries were reopened, and Orthodox rituals and worldviews returned to everyday life. The Orthodox Christian identity became the main marker of self-awareness for countless people. As a rule, the Orthodox renaissance was inextricable from a sense of belonging to the Russian historical, cultural, and aesthetic tradition.
From a rejection of the 1990s “liberal hell” there came a growth of national awareness as a form of resistance to Russia’s plunge into darkness and self-annihilation. The motives of “I feel sorry for the Empire”[5],“we’ll have our revenge”, “don’t let them bring us to our knees” were brought together in a forceful, if ideologically vague, rejection of a decadent reality. And all of this energy of resistance was marked by the word “Russian”.
It seems all the more natural that, with the self-reconstructive processes of the Russian state relaunched in the early 2000s, the entire trend depended on a larger role for Orthodoxy and an assimilation of ideas and energy accumulated by the Russian resistance in earlier decades. It is not usual now to see those ideas and their heralds manifest in government policies.
Nevertheless, it is still premature to speak of a normalisation of the Russian people’s place in Russia.
The Russian Question in the 21st Century
The 20th century, both in its Soviet and post-Soviet legacy, left Russians with a number of extremely difficult problems:
- The Russian ethnic group is torn apart and dismembered by state boundaries that came into being after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Certain newly independent states pursue a deliberate and consistent policy of attacking the Russian language and ethnic identity.
- The national habitat of the Russians has shrunk, and their demographic situation is precarious. Two decades of calamitous population collapse have given way to a fragile equilibrium that can change for the worse at any moment.
- Russian ethnic awareness has been artificially dissociated from its Orthodox Christian origins and is presently subjected to dangerous attacks, running the gamut from denial of Russian history and traditional Orthodox values to overt Russophobia, e.g. statements on Russian “genetic deficiency” disseminated by certain media from within Russia itself.
- Even the Russian language, the only official language of Russia according to the Constitution, is a constant target of opprobrium. Its status is put into doubt or denied in some regions of the Russian Federation, and the time reserved for its study in school curricula is curtailed in favour of regional languages. The compulsory study of minority languages is imposed even on ethnic Russian students, who are not native speakers.
- Fundamental Russian traditions of environmental adaptation have been forcibly eroded. The campaign against “unpromising villages” wrecked the traditional Russian network of settlements. A total hyper-urbanisation that went hand in hand with the destruction of villages, towns, cemeteries, and churches led to the shrinkage of family memories to three generations at most.
Solving these problems is paramount for the Russian Federation as a state. The very existence of the state is dependent on the direction of the activity and energy of the Russians. A decline of that energy immediately leads to obvious signs of state collapse. Conversely, a growth in Russian activity, as happened in 2014, brought Russia back to being a Great Power. While discussing the “Russian question”, we speak of either unity and development, or the collapse and degradation of Russia as a state.
The cohesion of the Russians and the Russian state is the principal guarantee of Russia’s territorial integrity. The Russian people, Russian culture, and the Russian language have always been and still remain the main factor of Russia’s unity. Regarding such remote enclave or semi-enclave territories as Kaliningrad Oblast, the Crimea, Sakhalin, or the Kuril Islands, their unity with Russia is mainly sustained by the virtue of them being populated mostly by Russians, and moreover, Russians with a heightened ethnic awareness of living at the “frontier”. If not for this “Russian factor”, had everything been dependent only on geopolitics and geography, those territories would have been irrevocably lost during the early 1990s crisis.
Incidentally, even though Kaliningrad is the most “recent” Russian territory, it has stronger ties to the country than many 19th century acquisitions. This is due to it being populated almost exclusively by Russians. We can state with utmost certainty that the level of a particular region’s integration into Russia, its level of compliance with federal laws and regulations, is directly tied to the percentage of Russians in the area. Regions where their numbers are insufficient tend to become ground zero for interethnic conflicts, terrorism, radicalism, and more or less overt separatist propaganda.
Map of ethnic Russian percentage in Russia (via Seva Bashirov).
It is imperative to emphasise a very strong link between ethnic Russian presence and traditionally practised Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is effectively an alternate form of Russian ethnic presence, and by and large an analogue to Russianness. We could delineate the following three types of Russian regions:
- Regions dominated by the ethnic Russian population and Orthodoxy. Their integration is near-absolute;
- Regions with a non-dominant ethnic Russian presence, but with a dominant Orthodox tradition. There, integrating factors prevail over disintegrating ones;
- Regions with a low Russian and Orthodox presence. In these regions, the level of disintegration is so high that its containment requires special political (and sometimes law enforcement) measures.
As a sui generis type, we could single out regions where, amidst a high Russian percentage, Orthodox identity is constantly attacked by certain cultural, religious, or ideological minorities. Those are mostly large metropolitan areas or borderlands. In such regions, we can detect extremely contradictory ideological trends, including outbursts of radical nationalism (including ethnic Russian nationalism), the emergence of groups nihilistically opposed to the government, and the erosion of national awareness among Russians.
The growth of the ethnic Russian population, both absolute and relative to the population of specific regions, the bolstering of Russian identity linked to Orthodox Christian tradition and the historical memory of the nation, is the guarantee of Russia’s cohesion as a state. The stronger its Russianness, the stronger the unity of the state. Conversely, demographic and cultural decline amongst Russians can only undermine the integrity of the Russian state.
References
[1] Saints Sergius of Radonezh (1314 – 1392) and Nilus of Sora (ca. 1433 – 1508) are often credited with developing a specifically Russian tradition of monastic life and ascetic mysticism within the larger Orthodox communion.
Nikon (1605 – 1681), Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1652-66, enacted a series of reforms bringing church liturgy and doctrine closer in line with that of the Constantinople Patriarchate, which was seen by many as an attack on Russian traditions and provoked a church schism that endures to this day.
Under Peter the Great, the office of the Patriarch was abolished, and the Russian Orthodox Church was completely subsumed into the government apparatus, losing even nominal autonomy.
[2] A bureaucratic term comprising most of Northern and Western European Russia, dominated by low-fertility soils and low-yield agriculture.
[3] A Russian nationalist movement founded in 1980, now largely dormant. Its heyday was during the early Perestroika years, when it became one of the most prominent nationalist organisations. However, it quickly fragmented into several factions, most of them espousing anti-Semitism and conspiracy theories, which made Pamyat supporters an extremely easy target for Liberal ridicule and Russophobic propaganda.
[4] The difference between russkiy and rossiyskiy, both technically meaning “Russian”, is quite difficult to convey in translation. Essentially, the former adjective is more traditional and has strong historical and ethnic connotations, while the latter was meant to invoke allegiance to the modern Russian state regardless of one’s ethnicity (and swiftly acquired connotations of “related to any ethnicity living in Russia EXCEPT the Russians themselves”).
[5] Memetic phrase from the classic Soviet Ostern White Sun of the Desert (1970), used as a sometimes ironic, sometimes earnest expression of shame and guilt for the gap between Russia’s potential and its sorry state.
Kholmogorov’s great lament for the natural contraction and return of the Russian language and culture back to its ethnic homeland and roots does not resonate much in the lands where Russian imperialism dominated for many centuries. In fact, the words ‘imperialism’ and ‘Russian’ never once cross or surface in this made for hire article representing modern day Russian propaganda. It’s a song of lament not unheard of before by dying empires – the song of the vanquished conqueror. Boo, hoo…
(Or maybe do, the sooner the likes of you self-destruct, the better.)
As such there is no reason whatsoever to regret or oppose historical Russian imperialism.
On the contrary, its revival would be quite welcome as it would free up parking spaces in New York City by getting rid of a dozen or so alleged countries currently represented in the United Nations.
Don’t debase yourself to African levels of whining about ‘imperialism’.
(Or maybe do, the sooner the likes of you self-destruct, the better.)
(Or maybe do, the sooner the likes of you self-destruct, the better.)
‘Debase’??…what a stupid thing to say!
That’s one thing Russian nationalists really whine too much about, most Russians in the Baltic states are descendants of Soviet era-settlers, their treatment is totally reasonable and humane when compared with the historical standard in such situations (e.g. “suitcase or the coffin” for the Europeans in Algeria). Russians who are unable to learn the local languages after having lived there for decades should just relocate to Russia.
Bit much of a resentful victimhood narrative in this article. I don’t get how one can complain that Russians’ “national habitat” has shrunk when Russia is still the largest country on earth.
That sounds a bit like a description of AK tbh. How does one reconcile enthusiasm for transhumanism and other futurist ideas with all this talk of Orthodox Christianity as the basis for national identity?
One question: what does the part about the “genetic deficiency” of Russians which is supposedly claimed in some Russian media refer to?
As a result, "Baltic states pay the price for Russophobic policies:" http://www.pravdareport.com/business/finance/15-09-2016/135633-baltic-0/
"Being deprived of European allowances, the Baltic states will have a deficit of the state balance of payment worth 20-25% of the budget. Taking into account reduction of the Russian transit and closure of market for their own goods in Russia, the case is about a default which will surpass the well-known Great Depression in the US many times:" http://www.pravdareport.com/business/finance/15-09-2016/135633-baltic-0/
More: "It should be noted that [in Latvia] the infrastructure was built in the USSR. 'Russian occupiers' saved the backward republics, developed their ports, transit infrastructure, and often to the detriment of its own ports."
---You see, Russians do not whine -- they made proper commercial decisions re the ungrateful midgets: "Russia's decision was a political one and it's an absolutely justified response to those indecencies against Russians and their President, which are constantly being heard from the Baltic presidents and PMs."
--- This is what the US cowardly Congress is still not able to do -- to cut off the ungrateful midget state in the Middle East from the US taxpayers money.
See more at http://www.pravdareport.com/business/finance/15-09-2016/135633-baltic-0/
This thought crossed my mind too. Don’t expect Karlin to take the initiative and give you a straight answer, though. 🙁
He is of course a more civilized writer* than 99% of the articles published on this website.
At the same time, it is like 19th century political pamphlets, rather than academic history, as there is a description of symptoms, without explanatory framework of the economic and technological changes which are the aetiology. For example, which are the real reason that, for example, people are not returning to villages (although the internet will actually make this easier in the future).
Also why is Russian language constantly shrinking, while Spanish and English are expanding?
–
*I find the guy sympathetic with his passion for books.
Bit much of a resentful victimhood narrative in this article. I don't get how one can complain that Russians' "national habitat" has shrunk when Russia is still the largest country on earth.That sounds a bit like a description of AK tbh. How does one reconcile enthusiasm for transhumanism and other futurist ideas with all this talk of Orthodox Christianity as the basis for national identity?
One question: what does the part about the "genetic deficiency" of Russians which is supposedly claimed in some Russian media refer to?
Agreed. Especially since the article doesn’t deign to mention the complete expulsion of the Russian population of Chechnya. Now that’s something a Russian nationalist might reasonably angry about.
I have to agree with Mr Hack that this article suffers from complete obliviousness about the effects of Russian expansionism on various non-Russian peoples. Such a one-sided narrative of Russian victimhood isn't credible, but unfortunately it's a common failing of nationalists to see only the grievances and suffering of their own group and create an elaborate mythology around that.
I took that as a reference to Chechnya:
And yes, that’s certainly something Russians could be legitimately angry about. Baltic states…not so much.
I have to agree with Mr Hack that this article suffers from complete obliviousness about the effects of Russian expansionism on various non-Russian peoples. Such a one-sided narrative of Russian victimhood isn’t credible, but unfortunately it’s a common failing of nationalists to see only the grievances and suffering of their own group and create an elaborate mythology around that.
I have to agree with Mr Hack that this article suffers from complete obliviousness about the effects of Russian expansionism on various non-Russian peoples. Such a one-sided narrative of Russian victimhood isn't credible, but unfortunately it's a common failing of nationalists to see only the grievances and suffering of their own group and create an elaborate mythology around that.
He is a publicist and this is activism aimed at a Russian audience, so you will not expect academic objectivity, as in a history book written by professionals – at the same time, it is still trying to write in a more objective way than 99% of this site. It’s good to put him in English so people can see one of the orientations which exists at the moment. He is not a professional or academic expert of history – but is also not an idiot (unlike most stuff published here) and he tries to think through his positions to some extent.
Russians certainly have many legitimate grievances and are right not to trust the West in its present configuration. I have my doubts though whether Mr Kholmogorov's ideological myth-making can play any positive role.
I know, and that’s why I find his arguments potentially quite dangerous. Peoples that base their identity on a narrative of their total innocence and victimisation at the hands of others tend to be insufferable and lash out in rather excessive ways.
Russians certainly have many legitimate grievances and are right not to trust the West in its present configuration. I have my doubts though whether Mr Kholmogorov’s ideological myth-making can play any positive role.
He's not going to appeal much to the practical people like myself. And sure this kind of dreamer - (what Jung would call 'intuitive personality type') is probably generally not going to have so much of an audience in an English speaking world.
Russians certainly have many legitimate grievances and are right not to trust the West in its present configuration. I have my doubts though whether Mr Kholmogorov's ideological myth-making can play any positive role.
He is not shy, that he believes in expanding territory and that Russia should have a global leadership on the world stage, etc – but that’s his opinion, and at least he has courtesy to write it in a usually civilized way.
He’s not going to appeal much to the practical people like myself. And sure this kind of dreamer – (what Jung would call ‘intuitive personality type’) is probably generally not going to have so much of an audience in an English speaking world.
Sputnik i Pogrom are what the alt-right calls “racist liberals”, and they are not even that racist.
They are good sometimes, but so is Dugin.
AK, I think you severely underestimate Dugin just because he happens to be objectively wrong about some areas where you are knowledgeable.
Dugin also happens to be objectively right on some topics where you are completely wrong, such as transhumanism.
That Dugin is more interesting to the alt-right than SiP is normal, considering that this is the movement which does not think that the ultimate purpose of human existence is increasing GDP.
In general he deals with the kinds of things – methaphysical, philosophical and spiritual stuff – which cannot be expressed in numbers but are nevertheless real things of which one can have real knowledge, contrary to that retarded quote of Lord Kelvin that you love so much.
Don’t get me wrong, I really like your blog and I think it’s valuable, but I can also appreciate someone like Dugin and imo both types of thinking are necessary if one seeks to better understand the world.
By the way I have read parts of “Foundation of Geopolitics”, it’s really an impressive book and one can only regret that the only way it will ever be “known” by troglodytes in the west is by some wikipedia “summary”.
1. Prosvirnin can be described as a liberal racist, but S&P ≠ Prosvirnin. I mean it has like a dozen regular writers, and a couple of hundred of occasional contributors (myself amongst them). Their ideologies range from liberals living in Prague to devout Orthodox Christians and hardcore Falangists.
Duginists are not racists at all. They are multiculturalist, socially conservative authoritarians who dislike Russian nationalists. Heck, I recall Dugin once criticized Pozner (of all people) for having Rogozin on his show because he spread hate or some SJW nonsense like that. It is almost impossible that any of their websites would have accepted my article on Russian IQ, for instance.
2. There is a fine line between "methaphysical, philosophical and spiritual stuff" and obscurantism. While I'm not a great judge of that stuff, I am pretty sure that this (Dugin's latest) is closer to the latter than to Oswald Spengler. Google Translation of a fragment:
He's not going to appeal much to the practical people like myself. And sure this kind of dreamer - (what Jung would call 'intuitive personality type') is probably generally not going to have so much of an audience in an English speaking world.
And yet this is precisely what Karlin is trying to do here, by translating these Russian myths into the English language and then presenting them here to a wider audience. Also, you seem to imply that there are two platforms for expressing thought here, one for the English speaking world, and one for the Russian speaking one – as if logical thinking (‘practical’?) is the sole province of the English communicating world (most of the world), and a Russian speaking one, where belief in fairy tales and half truths dominate. This is precisely the stereotypical view of Russia and Russians that Russophobes would like to promote.
We might disagree with these concepts, but I think this can be a useful categorization for this kind of conversation.
If someone with intuitive kind of mind, and their own ideological agenda with local appeal (in this case, it includes some old fashioned things like imperialism, religion, and so on) - writes about the recent history of their own country. This is not going to have popular resonance in an English speaking world.
At the same time, it is good to translate it to English, so that people can access more of the political orientations of other countries.
I can read similar intuitive pieces on American history (the left-wing versions, published sometimes in New York Times), and not have any personal resonance to them, but also find a useful window into American ideologies.
As for my view on Kholmogorov. I'm too much of a practical person, to want to spend time reading his views, let alone to agree with them. At the same time, it is obvious that he is quite thoughtful, and puts effort into his writing and blogging (and thinking about ideology), so it'll be good to see him being translated. Just compare this post to the average standard of this website (it is a much higher standard).
This makes me more interested in Russia, actually, as a place where mysticism hasn’t completely died and buggery isn’t the normal mode of accepted sex.
Jung had divided four forms of cognition – intellectual, intuitive, sense based, and feeling based. (And he also would categorize people along these lines). Intuitive people are present in all countries, although probably the anglosaxons are less tolerant of them in areas like politics.
We might disagree with these concepts, but I think this can be a useful categorization for this kind of conversation.
If someone with intuitive kind of mind, and their own ideological agenda with local appeal (in this case, it includes some old fashioned things like imperialism, religion, and so on) – writes about the recent history of their own country. This is not going to have popular resonance in an English speaking world.
At the same time, it is good to translate it to English, so that people can access more of the political orientations of other countries.
I can read similar intuitive pieces on American history (the left-wing versions, published sometimes in New York Times), and not have any personal resonance to them, but also find a useful window into American ideologies.
As for my view on Kholmogorov. I’m too much of a practical person, to want to spend time reading his views, let alone to agree with them. At the same time, it is obvious that he is quite thoughtful, and puts effort into his writing and blogging (and thinking about ideology), so it’ll be good to see him being translated. Just compare this post to the average standard of this website (it is a much higher standard).
Your reliance on Jungian archetypes and psychology seems rather dated though. I used to read his type of pop psychology as a kid*...I haven't really heard anybody today rely so much on his views as you do. He must still be held in high esteem within Jewish circles?...
*at some point I quit reading novels written by Herman Hesse too...I still enjoy reading comic books from that era though!
Dugin also happens to be objectively right on some topics where you are completely wrong, such as transhumanism. That Dugin is more interesting to the alt-right than SiP is normal, considering that this is the movement which does not think that the ultimate purpose of human existence is increasing GDP.In general he deals with the kinds of things - methaphysical, philosophical and spiritual stuff - which cannot be expressed in numbers but are nevertheless real things of which one can have real knowledge, contrary to that retarded quote of Lord Kelvin that you love so much.Don't get me wrong, I really like your blog and I think it's valuable, but I can also appreciate someone like Dugin and imo both types of thinking are necessary if one seeks to better understand the world.By the way I have read parts of "Foundation of Geopolitics", it's really an impressive book and one can only regret that the only way it will ever be "known" by troglodytes in the west is by some wikipedia "summary".
I don’t want to make this thread about Dugin, but to briefly address this.
1. Prosvirnin can be described as a liberal racist, but S&P ≠ Prosvirnin. I mean it has like a dozen regular writers, and a couple of hundred of occasional contributors (myself amongst them). Their ideologies range from liberals living in Prague to devout Orthodox Christians and hardcore Falangists.
Duginists are not racists at all. They are multiculturalist, socially conservative authoritarians who dislike Russian nationalists. Heck, I recall Dugin once criticized Pozner (of all people) for having Rogozin on his show because he spread hate or some SJW nonsense like that. It is almost impossible that any of their websites would have accepted my article on Russian IQ, for instance.
2. There is a fine line between “methaphysical, philosophical and spiritual stuff” and obscurantism. While I’m not a great judge of that stuff, I am pretty sure that this (Dugin’s latest) is closer to the latter than to Oswald Spengler. Google Translation of a fragment:
Wow, the guy seems to be even madder than I had imagined.
We might disagree with these concepts, but I think this can be a useful categorization for this kind of conversation.
If someone with intuitive kind of mind, and their own ideological agenda with local appeal (in this case, it includes some old fashioned things like imperialism, religion, and so on) - writes about the recent history of their own country. This is not going to have popular resonance in an English speaking world.
At the same time, it is good to translate it to English, so that people can access more of the political orientations of other countries.
I can read similar intuitive pieces on American history (the left-wing versions, published sometimes in New York Times), and not have any personal resonance to them, but also find a useful window into American ideologies.
As for my view on Kholmogorov. I'm too much of a practical person, to want to spend time reading his views, let alone to agree with them. At the same time, it is obvious that he is quite thoughtful, and puts effort into his writing and blogging (and thinking about ideology), so it'll be good to see him being translated. Just compare this post to the average standard of this website (it is a much higher standard).
Oh, I don’t know. I seem to find a lot of other interesting bloggers at this site. Kholmogorov certainly isn’t the only show in town! 🙂
Your reliance on Jungian archetypes and psychology seems rather dated though. I used to read his type of pop psychology as a kid*…I haven’t really heard anybody today rely so much on his views as you do. He must still be held in high esteem within Jewish circles?…
*at some point I quit reading novels written by Herman Hesse too…I still enjoy reading comic books from that era though!
Actually I started reading Jung's books - after I bought his autobiography in the large bookshop in London. He's relaxing and easy reading.
He's a perceptive and interesting writer. I don't think that his theories are scientifically valid, or that he succeeded in his ambitions, or that you could build a psychology from his ideas. But I would recommend reading his essays, and finding some interesting perceptions in there.
That said, I am not expert in any of the areas he writes about, so I would not take strong position. Just say that it is entertainment.
You can read free pdf the English of his book 'Psychological Types'.
(Scroll through the first 4 blank pages)
https://monoskop.org/images/8/8d/Jung_Gustav_Carl_Psychological_Types_1946.Pdf
1. Prosvirnin can be described as a liberal racist, but S&P ≠ Prosvirnin. I mean it has like a dozen regular writers, and a couple of hundred of occasional contributors (myself amongst them). Their ideologies range from liberals living in Prague to devout Orthodox Christians and hardcore Falangists.
Duginists are not racists at all. They are multiculturalist, socially conservative authoritarians who dislike Russian nationalists. Heck, I recall Dugin once criticized Pozner (of all people) for having Rogozin on his show because he spread hate or some SJW nonsense like that. It is almost impossible that any of their websites would have accepted my article on Russian IQ, for instance.
2. There is a fine line between "methaphysical, philosophical and spiritual stuff" and obscurantism. While I'm not a great judge of that stuff, I am pretty sure that this (Dugin's latest) is closer to the latter than to Oswald Spengler. Google Translation of a fragment:
So his Eurasianism leads him to combining Christian and Islamic eschatology?
Wow, the guy seems to be even madder than I had imagined.
On the other hand, he somehow managed to build a successful career, even though he only graduated from the shit university, at age 42. So probably he is cleverer, more sane and more cynical than we think. He knows his audience want the crazy material, and he provides it.
Dugin is not a Christian. His philosophy was influenced by the 'Sufi' esoterism of Rene Guenon, the famous apostate.
Your reliance on Jungian archetypes and psychology seems rather dated though. I used to read his type of pop psychology as a kid*...I haven't really heard anybody today rely so much on his views as you do. He must still be held in high esteem within Jewish circles?...
*at some point I quit reading novels written by Herman Hesse too...I still enjoy reading comic books from that era though!
I’m not so sure what is popular in Jewish higher circles. The only Jewish ancestry people I know are in Israel (everyone in their 20s) – and they read George R.R. Martin and – the girl I know the most, is reading Harry Potter.
Actually I started reading Jung’s books – after I bought his autobiography in the large bookshop in London. He’s relaxing and easy reading.
He’s a perceptive and interesting writer. I don’t think that his theories are scientifically valid, or that he succeeded in his ambitions, or that you could build a psychology from his ideas. But I would recommend reading his essays, and finding some interesting perceptions in there.
That said, I am not expert in any of the areas he writes about, so I would not take strong position. Just say that it is entertainment.
You can read free pdf the English of his book ‘Psychological Types’.
(Scroll through the first 4 blank pages)
https://monoskop.org/images/8/8d/Jung_Gustav_Carl_Psychological_Types_1946.Pdf
Wow, the guy seems to be even madder than I had imagined.
Superficially, I would agree with you – and imagine it’s one of the mad people who sometimes try to talk to you in the bookshop, smelling often of urine.
On the other hand, he somehow managed to build a successful career, even though he only graduated from the shit university, at age 42. So probably he is cleverer, more sane and more cynical than we think. He knows his audience want the crazy material, and he provides it.
On the other hand, he somehow managed to build a successful career, even though he only graduated from the shit university, at age 42. So probably he is cleverer, more sane and more cynical than we think. He knows his audience want the crazy material, and he provides it.
Sometimes I try to enjoy him more by thinking he might be low-key troll baiting people. His marketing success seems to be based on playing to the hilt every stereotype Westerners have about Russians: the wild-eyed, bearded Old Believer for Stalin vowing to destroy decadent America for once and for all. His fans and enemies alike have bought into it completely, so good on him: I liked seeing him on Alex Jones at least, they have a real great buddy movie chemistry going.
He really would make a great movie villain.
The thing is - there are other scammers who do it more subtly, but somehow the most obvious and blatant version, is the most successful.
Looking at the writing style of Dugin, it is written almost as if it is a parody of people pretending to be educated when they are not - for example, the random insertion of banal German words into the text - which themselves have no special signification in German language.
Wow, the guy seems to be even madder than I had imagined.
His real passions are for early 20th century occultism or Islamism of the Khomeini school, so they get mixed into whatever he’s writing about at the time. His Orthodoxy is just more like a necessary box tick to play a real Russian patriot (bonus points for choosing to be an Old Believer).
It makes me feel like I chose the wrong profession. I should just grow a beard, get a shit degree at shit university, and start writing some banal stuff about politics and end times, without actually having any real education or knowledge, or even having any fluency in foreign languages - and you can become famous off this with articles in the New York Times and BBC News?
But really he is a genius at marketing - and that is a natural talent I am sure.
But he is only a slight villain, in terms of being a scammer or seller of snake oil. Otherwise, I am sure he is quite harmless (as long as he gets some money and attention).
The thing is – there are other scammers who do it more subtly, but somehow the most obvious and blatant version, is the most successful.
Looking at the writing style of Dugin, it is written almost as if it is a parody of people pretending to be educated when they are not – for example, the random insertion of banal German words into the text – which themselves have no special signification in German language.
It’s amazing how he even became recorded by prestigious media in English – when you google him in English, you can even find interviews with the BBC and articles in the New York Times.
It makes me feel like I chose the wrong profession. I should just grow a beard, get a shit degree at shit university, and start writing some banal stuff about politics and end times, without actually having any real education or knowledge, or even having any fluency in foreign languages – and you can become famous off this with articles in the New York Times and BBC News?
But really he is a genius at marketing – and that is a natural talent I am sure.
But his English is like this (and his French and German are far worse).
He is genius at networking and promotion though - to make a career with these talents.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGunRKWtWBs
It makes me feel like I chose the wrong profession. I should just grow a beard, get a shit degree at shit university, and start writing some banal stuff about politics and end times, without actually having any real education or knowledge, or even having any fluency in foreign languages - and you can become famous off this with articles in the New York Times and BBC News?
But really he is a genius at marketing - and that is a natural talent I am sure.
He claims to be one of the world’s leading language learning experts, and has given lectures on how to become fluent in the English, French and German languages.
But his English is like this (and his French and German are far worse).
He is genius at networking and promotion though – to make a career with these talents.
With the possible exceptions of Poland and Armenia, the victims of Russian imperialism are completely irrelevant countries with no history or culture worth mentioning. In some cases these victims are completely fictitious countries as well, such as Belarus and the Ukraine.
As such there is no reason whatsoever to regret or oppose historical Russian imperialism.
On the contrary, its revival would be quite welcome as it would free up parking spaces in New York City by getting rid of a dozen or so alleged countries currently represented in the United Nations.
I wouldn't say Armenia is a 'victim' of Russian imperialism.
Auspiciously Russian Orthodox Christianity expanded southwards at a perilous time for Armenia: it would have been very difficult for Armenia in its condition at the time to remain Christian given that to its south is Muslim Persia/Iran and to its east and west are Turkic counties whose goal was and is extermination of Armenians from their native lands. (Persia/Iran has been and is very friendly to Armenians, but the pressure of Islam from Persia/Iran would be hard to counter).
Even now, Armenia is the only country in the region which welcomes Russian presence in the Caucasus - for obvious reasons.
Oh yeah, just replace 'Russian' with 'Israeli'.
You sound just like them.
As such there is no reason whatsoever to regret or oppose historical Russian imperialism.
On the contrary, its revival would be quite welcome as it would free up parking spaces in New York City by getting rid of a dozen or so alleged countries currently represented in the United Nations.
Belarus is a now successfully governed country – they can be studied and learned from, as an example for many countries around the world.
But it's still a gay and fake country whose existence is objectionable and offensive. It's very irritating seeing it on maps.
Dugin also happens to be objectively right on some topics where you are completely wrong, such as transhumanism. That Dugin is more interesting to the alt-right than SiP is normal, considering that this is the movement which does not think that the ultimate purpose of human existence is increasing GDP.In general he deals with the kinds of things - methaphysical, philosophical and spiritual stuff - which cannot be expressed in numbers but are nevertheless real things of which one can have real knowledge, contrary to that retarded quote of Lord Kelvin that you love so much.Don't get me wrong, I really like your blog and I think it's valuable, but I can also appreciate someone like Dugin and imo both types of thinking are necessary if one seeks to better understand the world.By the way I have read parts of "Foundation of Geopolitics", it's really an impressive book and one can only regret that the only way it will ever be "known" by troglodytes in the west is by some wikipedia "summary".
I would hardly say ‘the alt-right’ as a whole, more like a much smaller subset of people into mystical crap
Sure, Belarus has done quite well in the post-Soviet period in relative terms.
But it’s still a gay and fake country whose existence is objectionable and offensive. It’s very irritating seeing it on maps.
Belarussian national myths (partisans blowing up Wehrmacht trains and the like) can hardly be called "gay" either.
And as AK recently noted, the US is the gayest country of all, where more than 12% of the population claim to be homos.
As such there is no reason whatsoever to regret or oppose historical Russian imperialism.
On the contrary, its revival would be quite welcome as it would free up parking spaces in New York City by getting rid of a dozen or so alleged countries currently represented in the United Nations.
Looks to me like you’ve got plenty of freed up parking space within your cranium. A Scandinavian Ukrainaphobe pretending to be intelligent – how desperate?
But it's still a gay and fake country whose existence is objectionable and offensive. It's very irritating seeing it on maps.
What’s this strange habit of calling countries “gay” that are actually not known for being pro-homo? It really irritated me yesterday when Greasy William called Japanese nationalism “gay” just because the Japanese are convinced xenophobes.
Belarussian national myths (partisans blowing up Wehrmacht trains and the like) can hardly be called “gay” either.
And as AK recently noted, the US is the gayest country of all, where more than 12% of the population claim to be homos.
It was very routine when I was a boy to disparage people and things as "gay". When I was 14 we once rioted (a tame riot--this was an upper class school) over being served "gay" food for lunch in the school cafeteria.
Belarus and the Ukraine aren't gay because they're homo-sexual or have bad myths. They're gay because they're bad and shouldn't exist.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/phobia
Why would anyone be afraid of such a pathetic failed state–and completely gay and fake country–such as the Ukraine?
Belarussian national myths (partisans blowing up Wehrmacht trains and the like) can hardly be called "gay" either.
And as AK recently noted, the US is the gayest country of all, where more than 12% of the population claim to be homos.
American millennial men use “gay” as an all purpose pejorative. I believe this has been stamped out in Generation Zyklon by Homintern. This is because as teenagers we were convinced that to be gay was very very bad.
It was very routine when I was a boy to disparage people and things as “gay”. When I was 14 we once rioted (a tame riot–this was an upper class school) over being served “gay” food for lunch in the school cafeteria.
Belarus and the Ukraine aren’t gay because they’re homo-sexual or have bad myths. They’re gay because they’re bad and shouldn’t exist.
Besides, I'm not sure one should use "gay" in this meaning anyway, after all it was once a perfectly normal, positive word that homos usurped and ruined for everyone else.
My (highly anecdotal) impression is that "gay" as an insult was used more frequently in the upper class schools than in the prole ones.
It was very routine when I was a boy to disparage people and things as "gay". When I was 14 we once rioted (a tame riot--this was an upper class school) over being served "gay" food for lunch in the school cafeteria.
Belarus and the Ukraine aren't gay because they're homo-sexual or have bad myths. They're gay because they're bad and shouldn't exist.
I understand, but it still feels like incorrect use of language to me. Lukashenko in his uniform doesn’t look like a pansy homo to me. Tin-pot maybe.
Besides, I’m not sure one should use “gay” in this meaning anyway, after all it was once a perfectly normal, positive word that homos usurped and ruined for everyone else.
It has nothing to do with Lukashenko or his regime.
It's the same reason I hate Austria's existence, which you should be able to relate to as a German.
I am always in favor of Anschluss. Fake countries must be destroyed.
I for one welcome the return of Grossdeutschland, the return of the Russian Empire, the reincorporation of Taiwan into China, and the unification of all 26 colonies of British North America.
Your inquiry about our usage of the word "gay" displays a typically German autism.
I don't mean this as an insult, it's endearing and one of the many reasons that the German people and their culture must persist.
It was very routine when I was a boy to disparage people and things as "gay". When I was 14 we once rioted (a tame riot--this was an upper class school) over being served "gay" food for lunch in the school cafeteria.
Belarus and the Ukraine aren't gay because they're homo-sexual or have bad myths. They're gay because they're bad and shouldn't exist.
Exact same story in the UK, and I suspect much of the Anglo world.
My (highly anecdotal) impression is that “gay” as an insult was used more frequently in the upper class schools than in the prole ones.
Unless indoctrinated otherwise, I'd say most teenage boys, everywhere, regard homosexuality as something pretty bad.
e.g.:
A: "Are they still talking about Russian collusion on TV?"
B: "Yeah, looks like it"
A: "Gayyyyy"
Homintern made us well aware of the homo-sexuals, which boomers and earlier did not. We reacted correctly--condemning it.
Generation Zyklon however is intensively brainwashed to worship homo-sexuals and other sexual degenerates.
Fortunately if Audacious Epigone is to be believed they're rejecting their conditioning.
My (highly anecdotal) impression is that "gay" as an insult was used more frequently in the upper class schools than in the prole ones.
Well, it’s exactly the same with the term schwul in German.
Unless indoctrinated otherwise, I’d say most teenage boys, everywhere, regard homosexuality as something pretty bad.
I have no idea? Perhaps, after visiting a good shrink, you’ll be able to pinpoint the cause(s) of your pronounced disorder.
It disorders the map.
It's also extremely annoying seeing things like "Kyiv" and "Lviv" printed on maps. It's Kiev and Lemberg.
Belarussian national myths (partisans blowing up Wehrmacht trains and the like) can hardly be called "gay" either.
And as AK recently noted, the US is the gayest country of all, where more than 12% of the population claim to be homos.
It’s just extremely lazy trolling
My (highly anecdotal) impression is that "gay" as an insult was used more frequently in the upper class schools than in the prole ones.
It’s also the best way to express extreme disappointment.
e.g.:
A: “Are they still talking about Russian collusion on TV?”
B: “Yeah, looks like it”
A: “Gayyyyy”
Besides, I'm not sure one should use "gay" in this meaning anyway, after all it was once a perfectly normal, positive word that homos usurped and ruined for everyone else.
I don’t think you understand why I hate Belarus so much.
It has nothing to do with Lukashenko or his regime.
It’s the same reason I hate Austria’s existence, which you should be able to relate to as a German.
I am always in favor of Anschluss. Fake countries must be destroyed.
I for one welcome the return of Grossdeutschland, the return of the Russian Empire, the reincorporation of Taiwan into China, and the unification of all 26 colonies of British North America.
https://cdn.britannica.com/700x450/27/61827-004-491AC77E.jpg
My (highly anecdotal) impression is that "gay" as an insult was used more frequently in the upper class schools than in the prole ones.
Our generation is an interesting time capsule on this front.
Homintern made us well aware of the homo-sexuals, which boomers and earlier did not. We reacted correctly–condemning it.
Generation Zyklon however is intensively brainwashed to worship homo-sexuals and other sexual degenerates.
Fortunately if Audacious Epigone is to be believed they’re rejecting their conditioning.
The only disorder is the existence of the Ukraine.
It disorders the map.
It’s also extremely annoying seeing things like “Kyiv” and “Lviv” printed on maps. It’s Kiev and Lemberg.
It disorders the map.
It's also extremely annoying seeing things like "Kyiv" and "Lviv" printed on maps. It's Kiev and Lemberg.
It’s only ‘extremely annoying’ because you exhibit all of the classic symptoms associated with a branch of xenophobia called Ukrainaphobia. Since you like definitions, let me include this one for your benefit:
Perhaps, several years of psychiatric treatment under the guidance of a qualified physician might help cure you of this unpleasant malady, so that you’ll quit hearing the evil little noises within your brain whenever you hear the word Ukraine or Ukrainians. Good luck Chum.
https://youtu.be/PitssRMj5gA
I’m warning you, old ‘Son of Thor’ the treatment can be a long and nasty affair. Here’s a short video clip of a typical Ukrainaphobe undergoing treatment, being fed visual stimulation of three blackshirted types (actually blackhatted types) beating up a Ukrainian national for the crime of singing some native Ukrainian songs in a local pub. It’s graphic and violent:
Surprise surprise…Mr. Hack…is a hack.
And what is with people from the former Soviet Union always suggesting psychiatric treatment?
Admiral Martyanov does the same thing.
And yes, I do indeed conceptually reject the Ukraine. It’s fucking bullshit, and even if it were real it’s worthless.
At the same time, it is like 19th century political pamphlets, rather than academic history, as there is a description of symptoms, without explanatory framework of the economic and technological changes which are the aetiology. For example, which are the real reason that, for example, people are not returning to villages (although the internet will actually make this easier in the future).
Also why is Russian language constantly shrinking, while Spanish and English are expanding?
-
*I find the guy sympathetic with his passion for books.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7H3bYxSHpbg
let it go.
I'd say Karlin blog is the opposite of fake news, but for a reason which takes some time to understand. It's not because it is very accurate, correct and conscientious (I don't read here and find that I agree with it, or even that it is very similar to my viewpoint) - but rather because he doesn't care if we agree with him or not, and posts in honest way whatever random shit he thinks at the time, without trying to persuade us to his viewpoint. You can read relaxedly every day, with not any unpleasant sense of being propagandized.
This is probably a result of his being used to having his own strange views, which makes one less obsessed with other person's agreement. You could disagree with everything he says, but you would not feel any unpleasantness or ill-will. This is a civilized attitude, and is part of the spirit of people - usually more intelligent or individualist people - who happily take complex and therefore less common viewpoints, rather than trying to coincide their viewpoints to other people's, or make other people's views change until they coincide with their own (with consequent intolerance for divergence in other people, and the desire to propagandize them to conforming with you).
Besides, I'm not sure one should use "gay" in this meaning anyway, after all it was once a perfectly normal, positive word that homos usurped and ruined for everyone else.
I have another reply not related to this comment per se.
Your inquiry about our usage of the word “gay” displays a typically German autism.
I don’t mean this as an insult, it’s endearing and one of the many reasons that the German people and their culture must persist.
Your inquiry about our usage of the word "gay" displays a typically German autism.
I don't mean this as an insult, it's endearing and one of the many reasons that the German people and their culture must persist.
It wasn’t an entirely serious question…and I think I understand the reasoning behind your preference for large power blocs (iirc a few weeks ago you expressed enthusiasm for the ideas of imperial federation people like Joseph Chamberlain had at the turn of the 20th century, and indeed something like this might have been necessary for Britain to survive as an independent great power in the 20th century, just as Germany would have had to dominate central Europe…instead both were relegated to secondary status in a world dominated by two giant continental-scale powers, the US and the Soviet Union). It’s hard to disagree from the perspective of a Darwinian struggle between nations, and one can certainly argue that in such a contest the rights of smaller nations should be irrelevant. I can’t say though I like it on a level of values.
It’s interesting that this blog is leading to community. You know and remember my views.
And I find you endearing.
Granted, I’ve known Karlin for a long time, but still.
Ron Unz is truly a miracle worker.
Incidentally I have German cousins. My aunt married a German (actually half-German–his mother was Swedish). They are from the Rhineland, which I have visited to see them. It’s beautiful, and I had the good fortune to see a Beethoven concert in Bonn.
My German uncle’s father was a Wehrmacht general who in the first World War lost his leg to a French grenade at Verdun.
I am almost reconsidering my hatred of foreign languages to learn German. Almost.
The mayor is a part-Indian CDU cuck who used his brown skin color as an argument why he should be elected ("It would be a fantastic sign of our cosmopolitanism if someone with brown skin could become mayor").
Probably better that your uncle's father didn't live to see it...
He’s certainly created the best commenting system I’ve seen on the net, simple yet powerful, with all the functions one needs. And yes, it’s nice there’s something of a community at least on some parts of the site.
Parts of Bonn seem to be infested by Arab thugs now (there was a case a few years ago when a German youth was beaten to death that got some media attention…the probable perpetrator, a Moroccan, was acquitted because there wasn’t sufficient proof one of his friends hadn’t landed the deadly blows, and none of them talked…or were made to talk). It’s also supposedly a centre of Salafism.
The mayor is a part-Indian CDU cuck who used his brown skin color as an argument why he should be elected (“It would be a fantastic sign of our cosmopolitanism if someone with brown skin could become mayor”).
Probably better that your uncle’s father didn’t live to see it…
99% of stuff on this site (if you accidentally step outside your bookmarked Karlin page), is a kind of fake news/propaganda/moralizing. That is just my personal opinion – you can take it or leave it.
I’d say Karlin blog is the opposite of fake news, but for a reason which takes some time to understand. It’s not because it is very accurate, correct and conscientious (I don’t read here and find that I agree with it, or even that it is very similar to my viewpoint) – but rather because he doesn’t care if we agree with him or not, and posts in honest way whatever random shit he thinks at the time, without trying to persuade us to his viewpoint. You can read relaxedly every day, with not any unpleasant sense of being propagandized.
This is probably a result of his being used to having his own strange views, which makes one less obsessed with other person’s agreement. You could disagree with everything he says, but you would not feel any unpleasantness or ill-will. This is a civilized attitude, and is part of the spirit of people – usually more intelligent or individualist people – who happily take complex and therefore less common viewpoints, rather than trying to coincide their viewpoints to other people’s, or make other people’s views change until they coincide with their own (with consequent intolerance for divergence in other people, and the desire to propagandize them to conforming with you).
Anybody who can make statements like you make is a bonafide, f’n, nutjob:
You sound like somebody who’s stark raving mad! Put away your silly books and go outside and get some fresh air and sunshine (and don’t forget to take those pills)…
Bit much of a resentful victimhood narrative in this article. I don't get how one can complain that Russians' "national habitat" has shrunk when Russia is still the largest country on earth.That sounds a bit like a description of AK tbh. How does one reconcile enthusiasm for transhumanism and other futurist ideas with all this talk of Orthodox Christianity as the basis for national identity?
One question: what does the part about the "genetic deficiency" of Russians which is supposedly claimed in some Russian media refer to?
Well…Europe in 2018 is supposed to be somewhat different than Africa in the 1950s…
But I guess folks like yourself don’t mind being compared to Algeria…
The thing is you can’t have it both ways…the Western and EU propaganda loudspeaker proclaims itself the guardian of universal humanistic values…[even to the point of always being quick to drop ‘humanitarian’ bombs]…
Not to mention that the EU rules about such stuff as voting rights…language rights…education rights…employment rights etc are spelled out in great detail…
Yet none of this applies in the Baltics somehow…Russian people born in those Baltic countries, some for many generations…after all the Baltics were part of the Russian empire for three centuries…do not have citizenship, voting rights, language rights or any other of those EU rights…
And all of that is fine if you just come out and say these facts plainly…ie the high-sounding bullshit coming from the Western megaphone is just that…cut the crap and come out and say it…
We note even in South Africa which native peoples really did suffer true injustice…the whites still have the right to vote and the right to their property etc…
Anyway…the Baltics naturally belong in the Russian sphere of influence and as the Western Empire collapses they will be needing Mother Russia soon enough…as they have throughout their history…
And they will find that most in the US couldn’t give a crap about them…and in fact do not even know they exist…
And as far as I know, Russians can become citizens in the Baltic states, they just have to pass some language/civics test...according to Wikipedia more than 50% of Russians in Latvia are citizens:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russians_in_Latvia#Current_situation
If you're too stupid or too lazy to learn the national language after decades of residence, you don't deserve citizenship anyway.I've never claimed to believe in EU values so such criticism doesn't affect me personally.
The issue is Soviet-era settlers and their descendants. And even many of them have become naturalized by now.
...
...
...
..........................?
It is unfortunate that their useless languages were not wiped out like Prussian.
lol, when the Balts go raping and chopping up Russians every week, you might compare that to South Africa. And personally I think what happened to the Baltic peoples during the Stalin era was much, much worse than the “true injustice” done to blacks in South Africa during apartheid.
And as far as I know, Russians can become citizens in the Baltic states, they just have to pass some language/civics test…according to Wikipedia more than 50% of Russians in Latvia are citizens:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russians_in_Latvia#Current_situation
If you’re too stupid or too lazy to learn the national language after decades of residence, you don’t deserve citizenship anyway.
I’ve never claimed to believe in EU values so such criticism doesn’t affect me personally.
How predictable.
https://s20.postimg.cc/mv2ajx0bh/medical-complaint-stupid-moronic-doctors-stupidity-11800675_low.jpg
That’s not true as I understand it, Russians whose ancestors were citizens of the Baltic states before the 1940 annexations automatically received citizenship after the Baltic states became independent again in the early 1990s.
The issue is Soviet-era settlers and their descendants. And even many of them have become naturalized by now.
And as far as I know, Russians can become citizens in the Baltic states, they just have to pass some language/civics test...according to Wikipedia more than 50% of Russians in Latvia are citizens:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russians_in_Latvia#Current_situation
If you're too stupid or too lazy to learn the national language after decades of residence, you don't deserve citizenship anyway.I've never claimed to believe in EU values so such criticism doesn't affect me personally.
The crypto-Nazi rends his cheeks in sorrow at the fate of the Reich’s little helpers.
How predictable.
Obviously doesn't mean the Baltic states should mistreat their Russian minorities today...but as long as you can't come up with anything more than "one has to learn the local language to become a citizen...unfair!", this whining about "discrimination" is pathetic.
Given the fact that the '6M Jew, 5M others, & gas chambers' have been shown to be easily debunked frauds / scams, your "crypto-Nazi" childishness does not hold water.
The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are scientifically impossible frauds.
see the 'holocaust' scam debunked here:
http://codoh.com
No name calling, level playing field debate here: http://forum.codoh.com
How predictable.
Probably they would not turn into Reich’s little helpers if USSR did not annex them in 1940 and subjected them to typical Bolshevik treatments of mass murders and deportations.
The opposite is true – without the executions and deportations there would have been many more little helpers.
In my opinion it is up to the Russians to solve their problems as they see them.
What western observers see as problems maybe are not a problem at all inside present Russia.
Does the west bother with the problems in the west that Russians see ?
Punitive psychiatry.
I can rcommend the commenters here two books, the first is about political changes in E Europe, Europe defined as the area ending with the Ural mountains, the second about the immensely complicated migrations and assimilations that took place there:
Anne Applebaum, ‘Between East and West, Across the borderlands of Europe’, Londen, 1995
Kevin Alan Brook, ‘The Jews of Khazaria’, Northvale NJ, 1999
It disorders the map.
It's also extremely annoying seeing things like "Kyiv" and "Lviv" printed on maps. It's Kiev and Lemberg.
Actually it’s Lwów.
How predictable.
As utu has pointed out, the usual Soviet terror programme was already used against the Baltic states in 1940/41 before any Balt ever had the chance to become a Nazi collaborator, so you’ve got the causality backwards.
Obviously doesn’t mean the Baltic states should mistreat their Russian minorities today…but as long as you can’t come up with anything more than “one has to learn the local language to become a citizen…unfair!”, this whining about “discrimination” is pathetic.
Your non-denial of the crypto-Nazi charge is welcome though - I might find my Bavarian cousins more bearable with a bit more such honesty from them.
Obviously doesn't mean the Baltic states should mistreat their Russian minorities today...but as long as you can't come up with anything more than "one has to learn the local language to become a citizen...unfair!", this whining about "discrimination" is pathetic.
‘You shouldn’t complain because we could have done much worse’ is not a terribly cogent argument, nor a rhetorically potent one – the long and lamentable life of the German expellees’ whinging chorus makes that obvious.
Your non-denial of the crypto-Nazi charge is welcome though – I might find my Bavarian cousins more bearable with a bit more such honesty from them.
Look, I don't want to come across as heartless or anti-Russian, obviously the Baltic states should respect the minority rights of their Russian populations regarding Russian schools and the like, and not attempt a policy of forced assimilation or expulsion by stealth (which, to my knowledge at least, they don't and haven't tried to do). But all I see from Russian nationalists on this issue is barely veiled arrogance of a "Why do these insignificant nations even exist?" kind, which can't be helpful for mutually acceptable solutions.
Your non-denial of the crypto-Nazi charge is welcome though - I might find my Bavarian cousins more bearable with a bit more such honesty from them.
That chorus (rather muted nowadays due to the passage of time) is politically irrelevant, and has been so for decades, so I don’t see your point.
Look, I don’t want to come across as heartless or anti-Russian, obviously the Baltic states should respect the minority rights of their Russian populations regarding Russian schools and the like, and not attempt a policy of forced assimilation or expulsion by stealth (which, to my knowledge at least, they don’t and haven’t tried to do). But all I see from Russian nationalists on this issue is barely veiled arrogance of a “Why do these insignificant nations even exist?” kind, which can’t be helpful for mutually acceptable solutions.
There were anti-Russian indimidation and de facto mass expulsions in many Central Asian countries and even in some ethnic minority regions of the Russian Federation like Chechnya and Tuva. Yet this doesn't seem to harm Russia's relationship with these nations at all as Russia has cut its losses and moved on to making deals.
The incentives and precedents that Russia is setting are extremely perverse for diaspora Russians. We can all see that if you allow a significant ethnic Russian minority to stay, you get rewarded with intimidation and subversion, but if you just kick out Russians when you have the chance, there are no consequences down the line and you'll likely have friendlier relations with Russia a few decades later.
It's also depressing when you see Russians defend this logic with the same perverse racial logic that Western liberals use - "white people like Balts should act with higher moral standards than everyone else" - as it just suggests that the core of poz is already ingrained and it's only a matter of time before they're the same as the West.
Perhaps Russians expected better of Latvians than Kyrgyz. I have been told that support of Latvian independence circa 1991 was startlingly high among the Russians in the Baltic states.
Idiots.
Yeah, shame and honor are white people concepts. Sorry.
The fundamental question for Russia in 21st century is: survival of nation and civilization, in the face of deliberate attacks from a western elite which has ceased to be rational or competent, period.
Nitpicking about genetic DNA, memorized quarrels over textbooks in Lithuania or Tartarstan, ignorant small minded oprobriums against Mr. Dugin, mask but do not manage a conceal a fundamental inadequacy and smallness of intellect.
And Solzhenitsyn, an great man, epic chronicler of Soviet tragedies, and a fool limited by his fatal, forgivable, and fortunately not life long provincialism in outlook. He was right, and wrong. He did great harm to his people and his motherland. And he would have readily owned up to this bit of repentance himself, because in the end, he was a man with a noble soul. The article’ lavish quoting of Solzhenitsyn’s totally unrealistic and dreamy proposal without adding a somber footnote was also lamentable.
Look, I don't want to come across as heartless or anti-Russian, obviously the Baltic states should respect the minority rights of their Russian populations regarding Russian schools and the like, and not attempt a policy of forced assimilation or expulsion by stealth (which, to my knowledge at least, they don't and haven't tried to do). But all I see from Russian nationalists on this issue is barely veiled arrogance of a "Why do these insignificant nations even exist?" kind, which can't be helpful for mutually acceptable solutions.
The irony is that if they had simply kicked out the Soviet era migrants in the early 1990s, Estonia and Latvia would likely have better relations with Russia today.
There were anti-Russian indimidation and de facto mass expulsions in many Central Asian countries and even in some ethnic minority regions of the Russian Federation like Chechnya and Tuva. Yet this doesn’t seem to harm Russia’s relationship with these nations at all as Russia has cut its losses and moved on to making deals.
The incentives and precedents that Russia is setting are extremely perverse for diaspora Russians. We can all see that if you allow a significant ethnic Russian minority to stay, you get rewarded with intimidation and subversion, but if you just kick out Russians when you have the chance, there are no consequences down the line and you’ll likely have friendlier relations with Russia a few decades later.
It’s also depressing when you see Russians defend this logic with the same perverse racial logic that Western liberals use – “white people like Balts should act with higher moral standards than everyone else” – as it just suggests that the core of poz is already ingrained and it’s only a matter of time before they’re the same as the West.
Look, I don't want to come across as heartless or anti-Russian, obviously the Baltic states should respect the minority rights of their Russian populations regarding Russian schools and the like, and not attempt a policy of forced assimilation or expulsion by stealth (which, to my knowledge at least, they don't and haven't tried to do). But all I see from Russian nationalists on this issue is barely veiled arrogance of a "Why do these insignificant nations even exist?" kind, which can't be helpful for mutually acceptable solutions.
Don’t look at me, I live in an insignificant nation, and I feel the world could do with a few more of them. Internet Russians apart, Balts get the criticism they do because they wrap themselves in the cloak of European values and don’t live up to them.
Perhaps Russians expected better of Latvians than Kyrgyz. I have been told that support of Latvian independence circa 1991 was startlingly high among the Russians in the Baltic states.
Idiots.
The current regime of "European values" also approved the terror that drove out the German minorities of many countries after World War II. I don't see why they wouldn't approve of mass expulsions of Russians given that they view Russia and the Russian diaspora as guilty of the same nationalist sin as those Germans. (Europe would have probably gone less crazy about Russia if it had annexed some non-Russian territory like Abkhazia. But Crimea is ethnic Russian so it's all seen as ethnic nationalism and that's the ultimate sin in today's Europe.)
“Ukraine” is not a nation and doesn’t have any rights. It’s a completely artificial Soviet homunculus created to dilute the power of the Russian state. The idea was that if Russia was split into three states, then the Communist Party apparatus would always be bigger and stronger in any power play compared to the collective power of three disjointed Russian states.
The idea was correct, and the dynamic worked as long as the Soviet Union existed.
There’s no reason for Ukraine and Belarus to exist in 2018. They continue along in a shambling zombie fashion in a last-ditch attempt to sell their remaining Soviet legacy anti-Russian influence in a Russia vs USA power play.
Once it becomes obvious that this Soviet legacy has run out the American owners of Ukraine and Belarus will scrap them. (I give it 10-15 years, given how slow and dumb the American State Department is.)
Voline ( Vsevolod Mikhailovitsch Eichenbaum), ‘The unknown revolution (Kronstadt 1921 Ukraine 1918-21)’, New York 1955
Even in WWII Ukrainians fought on the German side against the USSR.
Henning von Vogelsang, ‘Die Armee, die es nicht geben durfte, Russen in deutscher Uniform und ihre Rettung in Liechtenstein’, 1995 Ulm-Kissleg
Already around 1000 CE Kiev was an important city, do not even know if Moscow then existed.
Kevin Alan Brook, 'The Jews of Khazaria', Northvale NJ, 1999
Thats, in my opinion is enough to make a group of people a nation.
Who are "the American owners of Belarus"?????
Belarus will eventually accede to Russia, but Ukraine not so much. It's rather like (todays) Poland in that respect, which is unlikely to reintegrate the Deutschland anytime soon. Maybe it will split in two, only time can tell.
Nitpicking about genetic DNA, memorized quarrels over textbooks in Lithuania or Tartarstan, ignorant small minded oprobriums against Mr. Dugin, mask but do not manage a conceal a fundamental inadequacy and smallness of intellect.
And Solzhenitsyn, an great man, epic chronicler of Soviet tragedies, and a fool limited by his fatal, forgivable, and fortunately not life long provincialism in outlook. He was right, and wrong. He did great harm to his people and his motherland. And he would have readily owned up to this bit of repentance himself, because in the end, he was a man with a noble soul. The article’ lavish quoting of Solzhenitsyn’s totally unrealistic and dreamy proposal without adding a somber footnote was also lamentable.
Did Solsjenytsyn write lies anywhere ?
Hard to believe that a hundred years ago there was no nation Ukraine.
Voline ( Vsevolod Mikhailovitsch Eichenbaum), ‘The unknown revolution (Kronstadt 1921 Ukraine 1918-21)’, New York 1955
Even in WWII Ukrainians fought on the German side against the USSR.
Henning von Vogelsang, ‘Die Armee, die es nicht geben durfte, Russen in deutscher Uniform und ihre Rettung in Liechtenstein’, 1995 Ulm-Kissleg
Already around 1000 CE Kiev was an important city, do not even know if Moscow then existed.
Kevin Alan Brook, ‘The Jews of Khazaria’, Northvale NJ, 1999
It was very routine when I was a boy to disparage people and things as "gay". When I was 14 we once rioted (a tame riot--this was an upper class school) over being served "gay" food for lunch in the school cafeteria.
Belarus and the Ukraine aren't gay because they're homo-sexual or have bad myths. They're gay because they're bad and shouldn't exist.
So you are triggered by Ukraine and Belarus?
They think they are nation, they are not tribal and they – especially Ukrainians – kill their neigbours for not being them.
Thats, in my opinion is enough to make a group of people a nation.
https://youtu.be/3T5l70SG19I
Once it becomes obvious that this Soviet legacy has run out the American owners of Ukraine and Belarus will scrap them.
Who are “the American owners of Belarus”?????
Belarus will eventually accede to Russia, but Ukraine not so much. It’s rather like (todays) Poland in that respect, which is unlikely to reintegrate the Deutschland anytime soon. Maybe it will split in two, only time can tell.
I have to agree with Mr Hack that this article suffers from complete obliviousness about the effects of Russian expansionism on various non-Russian peoples. Such a one-sided narrative of Russian victimhood isn't credible, but unfortunately it's a common failing of nationalists to see only the grievances and suffering of their own group and create an elaborate mythology around that.
Non- or anti-Russian post-Soviet victim narratives are a dime a dozen, and they all sound something like “those Commie Russkie barbarians raped our virgin soil with their tractors, sullied our 40,000-year old culture with their Pushkin and Tolstoy, and ate all of our lard and sausages”.
They are built around a central assumption of Soviet Communism being just a smokescreen for a form of master race supremacy for the Russians and colonial exploitation for the rest.
They imply that the Russians were the main beneficiaries of the Soviet system, and all and any retaliative and punitive measures against the Russians are a legitimate and justifiable act of righteous post-colonial retribution. Those Russkie colonialists should just shut their trap and deal with it, because muh #whiteprivilege.
The central nerve of the article is that this post-Soviet butthurt narrative is entirely bogus on the following grounds:
1) The Russians got near ZILCH real benefits out of being the purported “master race” of the Soviet Union. Any territorial, cultural, or economic perks that the Russians got out of the Soviets were transitory and half-hearted, could be undone at any moment, and were usually granted out of immediate geopolitical or macroeconomic calculations rather than any real sense of “Great Russian chauvinism” among the Communist leadership.
The Russians were essentially treated as the horse in Orwell’s Animal Farm: the more official propaganda eulogised about the beauty of the Russian language or the largesse of the Russian soul, the more Sisyphean labour was required from the Russians for another Great Building Project.
2) However, the Russians got ALL of the flak for being the purported “master race” of the Soviet Union, becoming an easy target for lurid post-Soviet/colonial victim narratives going as far as likening them to Brits in India, Afrikaners in apartheid S. Africa or Whites in the Jim Crow South.
All and any damage inflicted by Communism upon Russian livelihood is seen as either non-existent or insignificant in comparison with the uniqueness of Estonian, Kazakh, Ukrainian, etc. suffering in the 20th century – or even justified because muh #whiteprivilege.
As if Russians hadn’t been artificially pauperised, famished, deported, and mass-murdered by the million, and were drinking chai with milk under white umbrellas while their Latvian and Uzbek peons busted their arses in the rice fields.
Yet even the average European man is supposed to feel guilt over the empire. It doesn't matter if an Englishman remembers his ancestors as the coal miners who were slaughtered by the state for protesting their conditions, he is still supposed to feel guilt over the profits of dead white capitalists. Russians are hardly treated different in this.And here we go with the communist nonsense. India almost entirely continued as it had been in the British empire. The whites of South Africa spent massive resources on the biologically hopeless task of uplifting blacks to the level of whites and it's hardly their fault that blacks cannot do it. The blacks of America were less dysfunctional under segregation with much safer communities, stabler families and so on. There is no plausible trajectory for any of these "victim" groups in which they'd do much better on their own.
For the Baltic states, however, there are perfectly good comparisons in countries that avoided communism and it's clear that the communist period was a massive setback, 50 years of missed economic progress as they were forced into the path of Soviet mis-industrialization. In 1917 there was the excuse that the system hasn't been tried but in 1939 communism was a demonstrated disaster.
Perhaps Russians expected better of Latvians than Kyrgyz. I have been told that support of Latvian independence circa 1991 was startlingly high among the Russians in the Baltic states.
Idiots.
Whenever our leaders speak about “European values”, it means celebrating non-white minorities, sexual minorities, decolonization and so on. In the current vision of “European values”, colonists left behind by white empires are not protected minorities, they’re evil people who deserve to get mass raped and murdered. Russian minorities in the Baltic states should be very happy that they’re not being treated according to “European values”.
The current regime of “European values” also approved the terror that drove out the German minorities of many countries after World War II. I don’t see why they wouldn’t approve of mass expulsions of Russians given that they view Russia and the Russian diaspora as guilty of the same nationalist sin as those Germans. (Europe would have probably gone less crazy about Russia if it had annexed some non-Russian territory like Abkhazia. But Crimea is ethnic Russian so it’s all seen as ethnic nationalism and that’s the ultimate sin in today’s Europe.)
As such there is no reason whatsoever to regret or oppose historical Russian imperialism.
On the contrary, its revival would be quite welcome as it would free up parking spaces in New York City by getting rid of a dozen or so alleged countries currently represented in the United Nations.
{With the possible exceptions of Poland and Armenia, the victims of Russian imperialism …..}
I wouldn’t say Armenia is a ‘victim’ of Russian imperialism.
Auspiciously Russian Orthodox Christianity expanded southwards at a perilous time for Armenia: it would have been very difficult for Armenia in its condition at the time to remain Christian given that to its south is Muslim Persia/Iran and to its east and west are Turkic counties whose goal was and is extermination of Armenians from their native lands. (Persia/Iran has been and is very friendly to Armenians, but the pressure of Islam from Persia/Iran would be hard to counter).
Even now, Armenia is the only country in the region which welcomes Russian presence in the Caucasus – for obvious reasons.
That painting by Ilya Glazunov is rather cool. But there is no Chernobyl Blowout element in it. Such a traumatic moment of the USSR, and even the world at large.
I wouldn't say Armenia is a 'victim' of Russian imperialism.
Auspiciously Russian Orthodox Christianity expanded southwards at a perilous time for Armenia: it would have been very difficult for Armenia in its condition at the time to remain Christian given that to its south is Muslim Persia/Iran and to its east and west are Turkic counties whose goal was and is extermination of Armenians from their native lands. (Persia/Iran has been and is very friendly to Armenians, but the pressure of Islam from Persia/Iran would be hard to counter).
Even now, Armenia is the only country in the region which welcomes Russian presence in the Caucasus - for obvious reasons.
Armenia is more a victim of Turkish imperialism.
Exactly.
And not just Turk imperialism: far, far worse: Genocide.
It has been a great mistake for the EU to admit so many irrelevant and toxic countries such as the Baltics , Poland , Chekia , Slovakia , Hungary , Romania ,Bulgaria , as well as to foster a coup d`Etat and a civil war in toxic Ucraina .
This will be the end of the EU .
Historic and poweful european countries like France , Italy , England , Spain . feel marginalized by Brussels ( by Germany ? ) , in benefit of the toxics . England already voted out of the EU , and the anger towards this EU is growing in Italy , France and Spain .
The EU should have stablished just trade agreements with the toxics , and with Russia too , which is the most important , historic , and reliable country of eastern europe . But the Americans blind with hegemonism and russophobia would not tolerate it , what will lead to the end of the EU , and of Nato , or worse to an atomic war that will finnish with what remains of the white race .
Juncker in 2025 wants to make Albania and Mecedonia EU members.
OT: what do the believing Christians here think about the Miracle of Fatima?
Muhammad's daughter? Probably better off asking Talha . . .
What’s being described here is the slow but inevitable collapse of the Russian Empire. The Russian Federation is now the last of the “white man’s empires” and it’s hard to imagine that it won’t go the way of all the other European empires. Naturally, the dominant colonial ethnicity, which, almost by definition, sees itself as a master race, is trying to hang on. The British, French and Portuguese, Dutch and Spanish empires went through the same process and that’s to say nothing of “intra-European” colonialism which persists in certain European states, not least the Russian Federation itself. Thus, what we learn is that Russians are just a typically European people, doing the typically European things that all Europeans do. Even the “Russian v European” argument is typically European. We all see our continent as “us v them”. We are unique but all the others are clones of each other and, naturally, are ganging up on us! When a European country suffers a major defeat, you always get a revisionist about 15 – 20 years down the road who wants to return to the status quo ante, to “make X great again”, to borrow a phrase. Germany had Hitler, France had De Gaulle, England (and I say “England” advisedly) had Thatcher and Russia has Putin. For Hitler, it was the 1918 defeat, for De Gaulle, it was the 1940 defeat, for Thatcher, it was the loss of the world’s largest empire and for Putin, it’s the collapse of the Soviet Union. Thus, the good news is that Putin is just a perfectly normal and typically European passing phenomenon. The bad news is that if he continues to use military force, he will bring down a second, far more devastating, defeat on his own country, as Hitler did.
By the way, the author’s claims about Ukraine are totally false and Russians make up only about 1/3 of Transnistria’s population.
And, of course, I’d still love to know what a mere translator feels the need to conceal their identity.
Gracias, спасибо.
I wonder, is it too simplistic to say that the zionists (and neocons) hate Russia because Stalin stole the revolution from them, and put them back on the typically Russian track of rule by Царь?
Were the purges an actual civil war, not just a deranged maniac?
"Lenin and Trotsky were planning to build a Jewish gay feminist communist paradise, but along came Russian chauvinist Djugashvili and mucked everything up"
and Neo-Stalinists:
"Lenin and Trotsky were planning to build a a Jewish gay feminist communist hell, but along came Russian patriot Djugashvili and put everything back on track".
Belarussian national myths (partisans blowing up Wehrmacht trains and the like) can hardly be called "gay" either.
And as AK recently noted, the US is the gayest country of all, where more than 12% of the population claim to be homos.
Stop player hating.
Who are "the American owners of Belarus"?????
Belarus will eventually accede to Russia, but Ukraine not so much. It's rather like (todays) Poland in that respect, which is unlikely to reintegrate the Deutschland anytime soon. Maybe it will split in two, only time can tell.
I’d put the odds of this as 50-50 at best. It is slowly drifting in the opposite direction. As AK put it, it currently is a bit like Donbas, though unlike Donbas it hasn’t been shelled by the West.
Does anyone know the origin of this common fairytale?
(Or maybe do, the sooner the likes of you self-destruct, the better.)
You mean like some Russian nationalists or Sovoks do about he 90s in their own country? Or Serbs do all the time, about Kosovo etc.?
Main tenets:
* Serbs are the oldest people on earth, most other peoples stemming from them
* ancient Egyptian civilization had been, basically, Serbian & as well as Indian
* nothing about China & Africa (phenotypically too different)
* Serbs established Mesopotamian civilization, while a branch of Serbs moved northward, founding Siberia (S-b-r, it's the same as S-r-b, so...)
* most Egyptian pharaohs & Roman emperors were Serbs
* Jesus was, in all likelihood, a Serb, and some say that Serbs were builders of the Tower of Babel
* ancient Greeks were Serbs, too, and Homer & Aristotle wrote, basically, in Serbian
...........
I'm not pulling your leg, this is for real. You got tons of stuff on Internet, Youtube, books at archive.org etc.
I don't know of any contemporary nationalism in such a surrealist garb.
Another Ukrainaphobic lunatic trying to express his nonsensical views. You sorry SOB’s all missed the boat and your true calling in the 19th century, when you thugs were called blackshirts. Your pathetic calls of Russian fascism didn’t work then, and certainly wont work today, over a hundred years later:
I’ve already outlined the cure for your evil illness in comment #45. Don’t wait to sign up, it still may not be too late.
Most Europeans of the colonial era were peasants who were drafted into fighting imperial wars that benefited them in no way. Even with the industrial revolution, the average working class coal miner who dug up the fuel for the gunboats worked in terrible conditions for little pay and probably supported socialist politics that was against colonial empires (which only benefited a small set of elites).
Yet even the average European man is supposed to feel guilt over the empire. It doesn’t matter if an Englishman remembers his ancestors as the coal miners who were slaughtered by the state for protesting their conditions, he is still supposed to feel guilt over the profits of dead white capitalists. Russians are hardly treated different in this.
And here we go with the communist nonsense. India almost entirely continued as it had been in the British empire. The whites of South Africa spent massive resources on the biologically hopeless task of uplifting blacks to the level of whites and it’s hardly their fault that blacks cannot do it. The blacks of America were less dysfunctional under segregation with much safer communities, stabler families and so on. There is no plausible trajectory for any of these “victim” groups in which they’d do much better on their own.
For the Baltic states, however, there are perfectly good comparisons in countries that avoided communism and it’s clear that the communist period was a massive setback, 50 years of missed economic progress as they were forced into the path of Soviet mis-industrialization. In 1917 there was the excuse that the system hasn’t been tried but in 1939 communism was a demonstrated disaster.
Bur how do you explain that the 3 countries that have lost more % of population in the world in the last 20 years are the Baltics ? Letonia has lost 20% of its population ( from 2,4 million down to 1,9 million ) , and Estonia and Lituania follow close in the rank .
http://www.lavanguardia.com/internacional/20180105/434075444343/letonia-pais-desaparece.html
How do you explain this baltic " succes " ?
I wonder, is it too simplistic to say that the zionists (and neocons) hate Russia because Stalin stole the revolution from them, and put them back on the typically Russian track of rule by Царь?
Were the purges an actual civil war, not just a deranged maniac?
This is a depressingly common view held by both SJWs/Russian (((Liberals))):
“Lenin and Trotsky were planning to build a Jewish gay feminist communist paradise, but along came Russian chauvinist Djugashvili and mucked everything up”
and Neo-Stalinists:
“Lenin and Trotsky were planning to build a a Jewish gay feminist communist hell, but along came Russian patriot Djugashvili and put everything back on track”.
So, if anything, your comment supports my conclusion.
But I wonder if it is actually the case.If you read my question more closely-I'm asking if this view is the source of Zionist hatred.
"Lenin and Trotsky were planning to build a Jewish gay feminist communist paradise, but along came Russian chauvinist Djugashvili and mucked everything up"
and Neo-Stalinists:
"Lenin and Trotsky were planning to build a a Jewish gay feminist communist hell, but along came Russian patriot Djugashvili and put everything back on track".
Well, that sounds exactly like jew thinking to me.
So, if anything, your comment supports my conclusion.
But I wonder if it is actually the case.
If you read my question more closely-I’m asking if this view is the source of Zionist hatred.
It looks like the apple hasn’t fallen too far from the tree. ‘Punitive psychiatry’ given a real boost in the 1980’s under the guidance of Chairman Andropov, seems to have found a new life under the tutelage of former KGB officer Putin (surprise,surprise):
http://www.newsweek.com/russia-putin-psychiatry-punitive-crimea-uzbekistan-prison-jail-kremlin-moscow-661179
Being a Croat, I know something about Serbian mythology. Kosovo is just a belated, small-scaled variant of what their rational historians call “romantic school of historiography”. It all has begun in the 1870ies, with “historians” like Miloš Milojević, and then continued with quasi-historians & writers Sima Lukin Lazić, ..and then to lunatics like Jovan Deretić (not to be confused with a literary historian bearing the same name), Olga Pjanović Luković etc.
Main tenets:
* Serbs are the oldest people on earth, most other peoples stemming from them
* ancient Egyptian civilization had been, basically, Serbian & as well as Indian
* nothing about China & Africa (phenotypically too different)
* Serbs established Mesopotamian civilization, while a branch of Serbs moved northward, founding Siberia (S-b-r, it’s the same as S-r-b, so…)
* most Egyptian pharaohs & Roman emperors were Serbs
* Jesus was, in all likelihood, a Serb, and some say that Serbs were builders of the Tower of Babel
* ancient Greeks were Serbs, too, and Homer & Aristotle wrote, basically, in Serbian
………..
I’m not pulling your leg, this is for real. You got tons of stuff on Internet, Youtube, books at archive.org etc.
I don’t know of any contemporary nationalism in such a surrealist garb.
Some Serb (or Bulgarian?) was arguing that the Balkans were the true homeland of the Slavs and Slavic was the indigenous langage of what is now much of Greece.
In Ukraine there was a comedy show that featured a teacher claiming that Ukrainans built the pyramids and dug out the Black Sea. This was presented as real news on Rusisan nationalist websites and some Russian nationalists actually believe this is what it taught in Ukraine. It looks like in Serbia it is no joke, however.
…
…
…
…
……………………..?
Main tenets:
* Serbs are the oldest people on earth, most other peoples stemming from them
* ancient Egyptian civilization had been, basically, Serbian & as well as Indian
* nothing about China & Africa (phenotypically too different)
* Serbs established Mesopotamian civilization, while a branch of Serbs moved northward, founding Siberia (S-b-r, it's the same as S-r-b, so...)
* most Egyptian pharaohs & Roman emperors were Serbs
* Jesus was, in all likelihood, a Serb, and some say that Serbs were builders of the Tower of Babel
* ancient Greeks were Serbs, too, and Homer & Aristotle wrote, basically, in Serbian
...........
I'm not pulling your leg, this is for real. You got tons of stuff on Internet, Youtube, books at archive.org etc.
I don't know of any contemporary nationalism in such a surrealist garb.
You being a Croat you should shut up about Serbs and rather start talking about Croats to show some contrition in attempt to atone for the crimes your people committed during the WWII.
http://www.studiacroatica.org/libros/mythe/indice.htm
https://www.hercegbosna.org/STARO/engleski/download.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUpgUGA2wbo
How predictable.
Given the fact that the ‘6M Jew, 5M others, & gas chambers’ have been shown to be easily debunked frauds / scams, your “crypto-Nazi” childishness does not hold water.
The ‘6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ are scientifically impossible frauds.
see the ‘holocaust’ scam debunked here:
http://codoh.com
No name calling, level playing field debate here: http://forum.codoh.com
They both suck cocks in hell.
Wow, the guy seems to be even madder than I had imagined.
Well, I don’t know about christian, muslim or any other eschatology, but for me all religions are dealing with the same problem, no matter how you look at it, or who you think is right!
On the bureaucratic level, the racism/nationality discrimination in Baltic states is not uniform, and it’s not fair to label Lithuania – which seems quite just – , alongside a kind of systematic discrimination which is used in Estonia and Latvia.
Lithuania does not seem to have problems, and recognized dual citizenship, naturalizes people born in the country. I don’t see the issue.
In Latvia, by comparison, people can have been born and lived for decades, but do not have the correct form of blood. ‘Stateless persons’, who do not have the same rights – for example, they cannot travel or live in the EU. Note – the complicity of EU itself in giving the stateless fundamentally different rights, in comparison to Latvians – aside from the fact they have to pay taxes yet do not even have the basic right to vote.
In Estonia, although naturalization seems to be easier – reading about the discrimination of non-naturalized and Russian-speaking minorities could be even stronger in terms of on restrictions in the professional level (many professions are banned to them), or in terms of rights to acquire property, as well as non-official xenophobia at the workplace.
For example, reflected in labour market statistics, if you’re Russian there, the unemployment rate is between 2-4.5 times higher and your income is 1.5 times lower on average.
http://rulit.org/read/359
The transition was surely hard for many older Russians and their situation deserves some sympathy. But the petty complaints by Russian nationalists remind me, in a highly negative way, of the endless complaining and lobbying by professional "antiracists" and migrant community activists in Western Europe. Almost as if Russians were honorary "people of color" suffering from institutionalized racism.
Usual pro-Serb faggotry.
http://www.studiacroatica.org/libros/mythe/indice.htm
https://www.hercegbosna.org/STARO/engleski/download.html
Thats, in my opinion is enough to make a group of people a nation.
Those poor, poor misunderstood and highly ‘civilized’ Poles, trying to bring ‘Christian’ culture to their neighbors…my only question to you Mr. Krakowska, is what came first, the ‘pacification’ of Ukrainian lands, or the Volyn massacre? Who first opened the door to the barbarism that was to follow?
The Ukraine is not, and as such has no rights to complain about Polish (or Russian) incursions.
Face it. You are part of a pathetic, fake, loser nationality which does not deserve to exist. You should be completely ashamed of your origins and try to hide them.
Lithuania does not seem to have problems, and recognized dual citizenship, naturalizes people born in the country. I don't see the issue.
In Latvia, by comparison, people can have been born and lived for decades, but do not have the correct form of blood. 'Stateless persons', who do not have the same rights - for example, they cannot travel or live in the EU. Note - the complicity of EU itself in giving the stateless fundamentally different rights, in comparison to Latvians - aside from the fact they have to pay taxes yet do not even have the basic right to vote.
In Estonia, although naturalization seems to be easier - reading about the discrimination of non-naturalized and Russian-speaking minorities could be even stronger in terms of on restrictions in the professional level (many professions are banned to them), or in terms of rights to acquire property, as well as non-official xenophobia at the workplace.
For example, reflected in labour market statistics, if you're Russian there, the unemployment rate is between 2-4.5 times higher and your income is 1.5 times lower on average.
http://rulit.org/read/359
Percentage of Russians is much lower in Lithuania, so they can be more relaxed about it.
When more than 50% of Russians in Latvia hold Latvian citizenship (and that was back in 2007, I’d suppose it’s even higher now), you can’t seriously claim there’s some kind of racial discrimination barring Russians from citizenship.
The transition was surely hard for many older Russians and their situation deserves some sympathy. But the petty complaints by Russian nationalists remind me, in a highly negative way, of the endless complaining and lobbying by professional “antiracists” and migrant community activists in Western Europe. Almost as if Russians were honorary “people of color” suffering from institutionalized racism.
Do you realize it is actually your discourse about Russians in the Baltics that is 100% certified social_justice.txt?
"White people in America/South Africa/etc. must shut up about their problems because
a) they actually don't have any problems because white privilege;
b) the ones that they actually have are due to their own stupidity/arrogance/etc.;
c) and they DESERVE to have problems anyway because they are former colonialists and MUST suffer for that.
In any case, all they must do is suck it up and don't complain, ever."
Now, replace "White people" with "Russians"...
That doesn't imply that, in reality, national minorities are fairly treated in Estonia or Latvia (even if we don't enjoy hearing their complaints).
I'm happy to see both points of view, and to see the point of view of the Estonians and Latvians who obviously have their own reasoning.
But the kind of dismissal of this creation of a non-citizen class, with the banning not only of dual-citizenship solutions for them, but also of banning of Russian citizenship, and of Latvian citizenship only by passing impediments. And of situation of Russian-language schooling?
I believe it's not difficult to say - with all emotional neutrality - that this is an unusual position to find yourself in, in which you are citizen of no-country, and now can't send your children to public school in your language.
And it's not as if the national minorities are doing any thing - any violence or hostile actions - to result in this conflict, (or the history) which really has nothing to do with them.
what do the believing Christians here think about the Miracle of Fatima?
Muhammad’s daughter? Probably better off asking Talha . . .
Muhammad's daughter? Probably better off asking Talha . . .
no, the miracle of the sun in 1917 Portugal. You’ve never heard of it?
Living in Portugal it is difficult to avoid hearing about it, especially since last year was the centennial.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBIs8cuIwTo
Look at the faces beginning just after 4 minutes in the video, these people seem to be convinced they were witnessing something out of the ordinary, wouldn't you agree?
Yet even the average European man is supposed to feel guilt over the empire. It doesn't matter if an Englishman remembers his ancestors as the coal miners who were slaughtered by the state for protesting their conditions, he is still supposed to feel guilt over the profits of dead white capitalists. Russians are hardly treated different in this.And here we go with the communist nonsense. India almost entirely continued as it had been in the British empire. The whites of South Africa spent massive resources on the biologically hopeless task of uplifting blacks to the level of whites and it's hardly their fault that blacks cannot do it. The blacks of America were less dysfunctional under segregation with much safer communities, stabler families and so on. There is no plausible trajectory for any of these "victim" groups in which they'd do much better on their own.
For the Baltic states, however, there are perfectly good comparisons in countries that avoided communism and it's clear that the communist period was a massive setback, 50 years of missed economic progress as they were forced into the path of Soviet mis-industrialization. In 1917 there was the excuse that the system hasn't been tried but in 1939 communism was a demonstrated disaster.
For the baltic pseudo-nations euroamerican capitalism will be other disaster , they are being depopulated in fact . They are just such micro weird provinces , that all they can be is servants of their neighbours , servants of the germans , of the swedes , of the danes , of the russians , and now or the yanks , which at it is well kown only leave behind military bases and wars .
It has nothing to do with Lukashenko or his regime.
It's the same reason I hate Austria's existence, which you should be able to relate to as a German.
I am always in favor of Anschluss. Fake countries must be destroyed.
I for one welcome the return of Grossdeutschland, the return of the Russian Empire, the reincorporation of Taiwan into China, and the unification of all 26 colonies of British North America.
I welcome the reunification of all illegally separated parts of Mongolia and rebirth of the Mongol Empire.
The so-called Baltic republics naturally belong to Germans (“Estland” and “Lettland”) and Poles (“Litauen”).
It is unfortunate that their useless languages were not wiped out like Prussian.
Well at least as far as Lithuanian is concerned that would certainly have been a true linguistic tragedy, as it is (or so I am reliably informed) the oldest extant Indo-European language.
For the uneducated, can you please tell us what makes a language "useless"?
That's why the Baltic languages 'belong to the Balto-Slavic branch of the Indo-European language family...'
https://youtu.be/3T5l70SG19I
While the occupation of Galicia was clearly unjust, the Pacification followed OUN terror attacks and was provoked by them. Just as Sovok partisans attacked Germans in Belarus to get Germans to kill Belarussian civilians to stir up anti-German feelings, so OUN attacked Poles to get Poles to respond heavy-handedly in order to stir up anti-Polish feelings.
It is unfortunate that their useless languages were not wiped out like Prussian.
Which “useless” language do you speak natively? Dutch?
no, the miracle of the sun in 1917 Portugal. You’ve never heard of it?
Living in Portugal it is difficult to avoid hearing about it, especially since last year was the centennial.
Look at the faces beginning just after 4 minutes in the video, these people seem to be convinced they were witnessing something out of the ordinary, wouldn’t you agree?
The thing about Fatima is that even if it was some type of mass hallucination then it was a hallucination that would have not been possible had the clouds and rain not broken at exactly the time that Lucia had predicted in advance. And I doubt little Lucia was much of a meteorologist.
Furthermore, we supposedly have witnesses who weren't even at Fatima but rather up to ~40km away who also witnessed the same sun miracle.
And of course we also had hard core skeptics who were adamant that they saw the miracle.
on the other hand, we also have some reasons for skepticism:
1. Some people in the crowd, including devout believers, were adamant that they saw nothing
2. According to the pro Fatima book The Whole Truth About Fatima, about 1/3 of the crowd didn't see anything
3. According to newspaper reports immediately after the event, most did not see the sun falling towards the earth but rather something less apocalyptic
4. The Catholic Church itself didn't mention the sun miracle in it's 1930 report
5. Lucia seems a somewhat unreliable person, her own mother and priest not believing her
6. "Sun Miracles" in general are pretty lame and obvious optical illusions although what was reported at Fatima does seem different
I have no idea what to make of Fatima. I do think that even if Fatima wasn't some type of miracle it is the only modern report of a miracle that can not be dismissed or convincingly explained.
Main tenets:
* Serbs are the oldest people on earth, most other peoples stemming from them
* ancient Egyptian civilization had been, basically, Serbian & as well as Indian
* nothing about China & Africa (phenotypically too different)
* Serbs established Mesopotamian civilization, while a branch of Serbs moved northward, founding Siberia (S-b-r, it's the same as S-r-b, so...)
* most Egyptian pharaohs & Roman emperors were Serbs
* Jesus was, in all likelihood, a Serb, and some say that Serbs were builders of the Tower of Babel
* ancient Greeks were Serbs, too, and Homer & Aristotle wrote, basically, in Serbian
...........
I'm not pulling your leg, this is for real. You got tons of stuff on Internet, Youtube, books at archive.org etc.
I don't know of any contemporary nationalism in such a surrealist garb.
LOL.
Some Serb (or Bulgarian?) was arguing that the Balkans were the true homeland of the Slavs and Slavic was the indigenous langage of what is now much of Greece.
In Ukraine there was a comedy show that featured a teacher claiming that Ukrainans built the pyramids and dug out the Black Sea. This was presented as real news on Rusisan nationalist websites and some Russian nationalists actually believe this is what it taught in Ukraine. It looks like in Serbia it is no joke, however.
Numerous crazy pseudo-historical books (Serbs > Egyptians, Siberia, Mesopotamia, Romans, Greeks) had been during 1990s & 2000s sold in 200,000 copies or more.
And Macedonians have, among other things, adopted the fantasy that Alexander the Great was a co-ethnic of contemporary Macedonians or Macedonian Slavs.
Go figure...
It is unfortunate that their useless languages were not wiped out like Prussian.
It is unfortunate that their useless languages were not wiped out like Prussian.
Well at least as far as Lithuanian is concerned that would certainly have been a true linguistic tragedy, as it is (or so I am reliably informed) the oldest extant Indo-European language.
For the uneducated, can you please tell us what makes a language “useless”?
Yet even the average European man is supposed to feel guilt over the empire. It doesn't matter if an Englishman remembers his ancestors as the coal miners who were slaughtered by the state for protesting their conditions, he is still supposed to feel guilt over the profits of dead white capitalists. Russians are hardly treated different in this.And here we go with the communist nonsense. India almost entirely continued as it had been in the British empire. The whites of South Africa spent massive resources on the biologically hopeless task of uplifting blacks to the level of whites and it's hardly their fault that blacks cannot do it. The blacks of America were less dysfunctional under segregation with much safer communities, stabler families and so on. There is no plausible trajectory for any of these "victim" groups in which they'd do much better on their own.
For the Baltic states, however, there are perfectly good comparisons in countries that avoided communism and it's clear that the communist period was a massive setback, 50 years of missed economic progress as they were forced into the path of Soviet mis-industrialization. In 1917 there was the excuse that the system hasn't been tried but in 1939 communism was a demonstrated disaster.
You say that the russian industrialization of the rural underdeveloped baltics was a failure .
Bur how do you explain that the 3 countries that have lost more % of population in the world in the last 20 years are the Baltics ? Letonia has lost 20% of its population ( from 2,4 million down to 1,9 million ) , and Estonia and Lituania follow close in the rank .
http://www.lavanguardia.com/internacional/20180105/434075444343/letonia-pais-desaparece.html
How do you explain this baltic ” succes ” ?
My (highly anecdotal) impression is that "gay" as an insult was used more frequently in the upper class schools than in the prole ones.
As an honorary prole, I can say that “gay” as an all-purpose insult was quite common in my youth. But I never used it much: certain people do protest too much. The one puerile word that I maintain is “dude”.
As an honorary prole, I can say that “gay” as an all-purpose insult was quite common in my youth. But then I grew up.
Some people do protest too much, methinks.
No reason to learn it.
Living in Portugal it is difficult to avoid hearing about it, especially since last year was the centennial.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBIs8cuIwTo
Look at the faces beginning just after 4 minutes in the video, these people seem to be convinced they were witnessing something out of the ordinary, wouldn't you agree?
I dunno. That’s why I asked what you thought.
The thing about Fatima is that even if it was some type of mass hallucination then it was a hallucination that would have not been possible had the clouds and rain not broken at exactly the time that Lucia had predicted in advance. And I doubt little Lucia was much of a meteorologist.
Furthermore, we supposedly have witnesses who weren’t even at Fatima but rather up to ~40km away who also witnessed the same sun miracle.
And of course we also had hard core skeptics who were adamant that they saw the miracle.
on the other hand, we also have some reasons for skepticism:
1. Some people in the crowd, including devout believers, were adamant that they saw nothing
2. According to the pro Fatima book The Whole Truth About Fatima, about 1/3 of the crowd didn’t see anything
3. According to newspaper reports immediately after the event, most did not see the sun falling towards the earth but rather something less apocalyptic
4. The Catholic Church itself didn’t mention the sun miracle in it’s 1930 report
5. Lucia seems a somewhat unreliable person, her own mother and priest not believing her
6. “Sun Miracles” in general are pretty lame and obvious optical illusions although what was reported at Fatima does seem different
I have no idea what to make of Fatima. I do think that even if Fatima wasn’t some type of miracle it is the only modern report of a miracle that can not be dismissed or convincingly explained.
There is an interesting book (in Portuguese) which explores the possibility that the apparitions of 1917 were in fact a "repetition" of an earlier Islamic (Shiite) tradition associated with the site. In this connection, many of the local place names are obviously or plausibly Islamic, starting of course with Fatima, which has a hillside known as "das Chitas" (presumably "of the Shiites"); the birthplace of the 3 seers was Aljustrel, and just a few miles away is the Freguesia (Parish) of São Mamede.
https://books.google.pt/books/about/Os_mouros_fatimidas_e_as_apari%C3%A7%C3%B5es_de.html?id=ktppkgAACAAJ&redir_esc=y
There’s not really much point to learning any language but English
This will be the end of the EU .
Historic and poweful european countries like France , Italy , England , Spain . feel marginalized by Brussels ( by Germany ? ) , in benefit of the toxics . England already voted out of the EU , and the anger towards this EU is growing in Italy , France and Spain .
The EU should have stablished just trade agreements with the toxics , and with Russia too , which is the most important , historic , and reliable country of eastern europe . But the Americans blind with hegemonism and russophobia would not tolerate it , what will lead to the end of the EU , and of Nato , or worse to an atomic war that will finnish with what remains of the white race .
http://politiek.tpo.nl/2018/04/21/bonusquote-hans-van-baalen-vvd-sloopt-jean-claude-juncker-donald-trump-in-kleiner-formaat/
Juncker in 2025 wants to make Albania and Mecedonia EU members.
https://youtu.be/3T5l70SG19I
Poland is a real country with real culture and history.
The Ukraine is not, and as such has no rights to complain about Polish (or Russian) incursions.
Face it. You are part of a pathetic, fake, loser nationality which does not deserve to exist. You should be completely ashamed of your origins and try to hide them.
If you live in a Anglo country.
His global influence greatly contributed to the perhaps well deserved total demoralization of USSR population, and he was undoubtedly at one point naive and overly simplistic about the aftermath following the Union’s dissolution, a fact he regretted towards the end of his life.
Like a lot of other dissidents from the former Soviet camp, Solzhenitsyn was contemptuous and dismissive toward any one who criticized the West and regarded them as leftists. perhaps some of them were. But we gain a much better insight into the state of western civilization as of 2018 by reading for example “Culture of Narscissism” by Christopher Lasche published in the 1970s, than reading Red Wheel by Solzhenitsyn.
Some Serb (or Bulgarian?) was arguing that the Balkans were the true homeland of the Slavs and Slavic was the indigenous langage of what is now much of Greece.
In Ukraine there was a comedy show that featured a teacher claiming that Ukrainans built the pyramids and dug out the Black Sea. This was presented as real news on Rusisan nationalist websites and some Russian nationalists actually believe this is what it taught in Ukraine. It looks like in Serbia it is no joke, however.
No official historiography, sure & some normal historians like Radivoje Radić had ridiculed all this. But, you have to take into account that publishing success in contemporary Serbia is if a book is sold in 5-10,000 copies.
Numerous crazy pseudo-historical books (Serbs > Egyptians, Siberia, Mesopotamia, Romans, Greeks) had been during 1990s & 2000s sold in 200,000 copies or more.
And Macedonians have, among other things, adopted the fantasy that Alexander the Great was a co-ethnic of contemporary Macedonians or Macedonian Slavs.
Go figure…
The Ukraine is not, and as such has no rights to complain about Polish (or Russian) incursions.
Face it. You are part of a pathetic, fake, loser nationality which does not deserve to exist. You should be completely ashamed of your origins and try to hide them.
This is pretty impolite.
The Ukraine is not, and as such has no rights to complain about Polish (or Russian) incursions.
Face it. You are part of a pathetic, fake, loser nationality which does not deserve to exist. You should be completely ashamed of your origins and try to hide them.
You are a pathetic, fake, loser person who does not deserve to exist. You should be completely ashamed of yourself and try to hide yourself.
The incorporation of the Ukrainian People’s Republic into the Polish state was mired in problems from the very start. It was a bad move that only got worse. Acts of intimidation and attempts at assimilation culminated in the closing of Ukrainian language schools in the predominantly Ukrainian areas and the banning of the Ukrainian language within government organs. Beatings of Ukrainians was not uncommon. Watch the video that I’ve included. Of course, looking back at things now it’s easy to make judgement, but the times were tough including a severe economic downturn. What happened then is done, it’s time to let cooler heads prevail today and into the future.
However the pacification itself was a response to OUN terrorist activity that was deliberately undertaken in order to provoke a harsh Polish response against the Ukrainian population, to improve its own popularity (it had been a marginal organization until the late 30s).
The Ukraine is not, and as such has no rights to complain about Polish (or Russian) incursions.
Face it. You are part of a pathetic, fake, loser nationality which does not deserve to exist. You should be completely ashamed of your origins and try to hide them.
Of course Ukraine exists. It’s been represented on world maps for more than a century now. No amount of wishful thinking by psychopaths like you can erase this very fact. Get used to it and be sure to sign up for the psychological therapy outlined in comment #45!
That’s kind of the point of the internet.
But degenerates gotta do what they gotta do.
For you apparently, not for me (and a number of others here, I think I can safely say)
The transition was surely hard for many older Russians and their situation deserves some sympathy. But the petty complaints by Russian nationalists remind me, in a highly negative way, of the endless complaining and lobbying by professional "antiracists" and migrant community activists in Western Europe. Almost as if Russians were honorary "people of color" suffering from institutionalized racism.
How interesting.
Do you realize it is actually your discourse about Russians in the Baltics that is 100% certified social_justice.txt?
“White people in America/South Africa/etc. must shut up about their problems because
a) they actually don’t have any problems because white privilege;
b) the ones that they actually have are due to their own stupidity/arrogance/etc.;
c) and they DESERVE to have problems anyway because they are former colonialists and MUST suffer for that.
In any case, all they must do is suck it up and don’t complain, ever.”
Now, replace “White people” with “Russians”…
You could frame the question in costs vs benefits of learning a language given your geographical location, cultural links, ability etc. I think the benefits of learning mandarin probably outweigh the ( admittedly high ) costs, irrespective of who you are of where you live. For those in America, Spanish probably clears that threshold as well. French, German, Russian, Japanese etc. might be useful for small group of foreigners who have ties + high ability to pick up the language quickly.
English is the opposite, because so many learn it, and no-one will be impressed (unless you have some amazing vocabulary and grammar skills, or something like that).
Do you realize it is actually your discourse about Russians in the Baltics that is 100% certified social_justice.txt?
"White people in America/South Africa/etc. must shut up about their problems because
a) they actually don't have any problems because white privilege;
b) the ones that they actually have are due to their own stupidity/arrogance/etc.;
c) and they DESERVE to have problems anyway because they are former colonialists and MUST suffer for that.
In any case, all they must do is suck it up and don't complain, ever."
Now, replace "White people" with "Russians"...
Disagree. Their situation is not optimal, but it’s understandable why the natives wanted to distance themselves from a group which they never welcomed in the first place. I’m not aware of any repatriation programs being undertaken in the 90s and perhaps much more should have been done in that respect.
Damn. First you disagree, then you reiterate what amounts to "Whites deserve whatever is thrown at them because natives have fee-fees".
>>>not aware of any repatriation programs being undertaken in the 90s
There were none. The Russian government turned a complete blind eye to the plight of Russians in the newly independents states, and only remembered about them to further some immediate geopolitical agenda. Basically behaving the typical Soviet way.
That’s like saying the point of a blank wall is to have graffiti on it.
But degenerates gotta do what they gotta do.
People on the internet opposed to trolling, belligerence, etc. are in contravention of the spirit of the internet. The sort of people responsible for atrocities like Reddit, Facebook, and The Guardian's comment section.
Do you realize it is actually your discourse about Russians in the Baltics that is 100% certified social_justice.txt?
"White people in America/South Africa/etc. must shut up about their problems because
a) they actually don't have any problems because white privilege;
b) the ones that they actually have are due to their own stupidity/arrogance/etc.;
c) and they DESERVE to have problems anyway because they are former colonialists and MUST suffer for that.
In any case, all they must do is suck it up and don't complain, ever."
Now, replace "White people" with "Russians"...
I didn’t write any of that, clearly the Baltic states should try to find a modus vivendi with their Russian minorities that is acceptable to both sides. It just seems to me that Russian nationalists often think the Balts’ national interests should be completely irrelevant, and that’s a very one-sided perspective imo. Balts only have their own small states, whereas Russians still have the largest country on earth, that also needs to be taken into account.
https://s20.postimg.cc/equ6erlhp/stock-vector-hilarious-drunk-guy-with-mugs-of-beer-at-hands-on-a.jpg
One-sided perspective? Sure. What else did you expect?
...
...
...
..........................?
And as far as I know, Russians can become citizens in the Baltic states, they just have to pass some language/civics test...according to Wikipedia more than 50% of Russians in Latvia are citizens:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russians_in_Latvia#Current_situation
If you're too stupid or too lazy to learn the national language after decades of residence, you don't deserve citizenship anyway.I've never claimed to believe in EU values so such criticism doesn't affect me personally.
What an astonishing moron you are…
That’s kind of the point of the internet.
For you apparently, not for me (and a number of others here, I think I can safely say)
It is unfortunate that their useless languages were not wiped out like Prussian.
‘Naturlich’… village idiot…
That’s why the Baltic languages ‘belong to the Balto-Slavic branch of the Indo-European language family…’
You’re really on a roll there ‘lederhosen’…keep it up…
I haven’t read Shafarevich’s Russophobia, but most people I have talked to about it interpreted the “small people” as referring to the Jews. Is Khomogorov being coy, or is the common interpretation
of the “small people” inaccurate?
Correct. The Polish government engaged in a lot of repressive measures such as shutting down Ukrainian schools, firing Ukrainian professors from Lviv’s university, etc.
However the pacification itself was a response to OUN terrorist activity that was deliberately undertaken in order to provoke a harsh Polish response against the Ukrainian population, to improve its own popularity (it had been a marginal organization until the late 30s).
Captive Nations Committee (CNC) propaganda, as evidenced by the sentiment in Transnistria, South Ossetia and Abkhazia – entities where Russia is more preferred over the former Soviet republics claiming them.
Elsewhere, numerous Romanians and Hungarians, as well as a noticeable number of Poles, aren’t so gung ho in supporting nationalist influenced Kiev regime controlled Ukraine.
So much for the svidomite image of heroic Ukraine, as a bulwark against evil Russia.
He can be used as a punching bag example for anti-Russian leaning advocates – never minding the more objectively intelligent pro-Russian take, that’s not as easy to refute and is (let’s face it) downplayed for that very reason.
Obviously Dugin is such a phenomenon, and I would legitimate just from entertainment purposes - that he is entertaining people.
Kholmogorov I would not say is crazy (my impression is he is usually trying to be thoughtful), even if he advocates equally things like imperialism and religion.
But degenerates gotta do what they gotta do.
If the graffiti is good, sure.
People on the internet opposed to trolling, belligerence, etc. are in contravention of the spirit of the internet. The sort of people responsible for atrocities like Reddit, Facebook, and The Guardian’s comment section.
What’s the more intelligent pro-Russian take?
As long as Ukrainian citizenry is for an independent state, the opinions of Poles, Hungarians, Russians and any other sorry Central Asians is meaningless. Especially yours! It’s telling that you’re still caught up in the old cold war mentality of your sovok fellow travellers – the CNC has long since disolved, and you should take their cue you aging dinosaur.
The opinions that matter in this case are those in Moscow, Berlin, Paris, London, Washington, and Beijing.
What people in Kiev or Lemberg believe is irrelevant.
The CNC bias live on.
Why would the opinions of “Ukrainians” be relevant?
The opinions that matter in this case are those in Moscow, Berlin, Paris, London, Washington, and Beijing.
What people in Kiev or Lemberg believe is irrelevant.
This sort of argument had been effective in the late 80s. But now that the Russian national interests have been cheerfully ignored for the past 30 years, the Russians have zero sympathy for appeals to someone else’s interests.
One-sided perspective? Sure. What else did you expect?
One-sided perspective? Sure. What else did you expect?
Ok, that’s understandable. Seems misguided though to me to get worked up about small countries like the Baltic states. Be angry at the Americans and the Western Europeans, at least there are good reasons for that.
My post was writing about Kholmogorov, not Dugin.
Obviously Dugin is such a phenomenon, and I would legitimate just from entertainment purposes – that he is entertaining people.
Kholmogorov I would not say is crazy (my impression is he is usually trying to be thoughtful), even if he advocates equally things like imperialism and religion.
On a happier note, Georgy Sviridov had been mentioned. What a great composer. Snowstorm Romance is great but there is so much more.
Here is one of the best 3 min musical portraits of Russia: Troika. (Apparently this tune had been stolen by some computer game.)
And this is the best 3 min musical portrait of the USSR: Time Forward! It’s all there, both the horror and the exhilaration.
The opinions that matter in this case are those in Moscow, Berlin, Paris, London, Washington, and Beijing.
What people in Kiev or Lemberg believe is irrelevant.
They live there. Therefore how they choose to live is solely their own concern.
Did you sign up for the treatment yet? With your severe problem, necessitating an extra long stay, I’m sure that you could negotiate a discounted price?
The thing about Fatima is that even if it was some type of mass hallucination then it was a hallucination that would have not been possible had the clouds and rain not broken at exactly the time that Lucia had predicted in advance. And I doubt little Lucia was much of a meteorologist.
Furthermore, we supposedly have witnesses who weren't even at Fatima but rather up to ~40km away who also witnessed the same sun miracle.
And of course we also had hard core skeptics who were adamant that they saw the miracle.
on the other hand, we also have some reasons for skepticism:
1. Some people in the crowd, including devout believers, were adamant that they saw nothing
2. According to the pro Fatima book The Whole Truth About Fatima, about 1/3 of the crowd didn't see anything
3. According to newspaper reports immediately after the event, most did not see the sun falling towards the earth but rather something less apocalyptic
4. The Catholic Church itself didn't mention the sun miracle in it's 1930 report
5. Lucia seems a somewhat unreliable person, her own mother and priest not believing her
6. "Sun Miracles" in general are pretty lame and obvious optical illusions although what was reported at Fatima does seem different
I have no idea what to make of Fatima. I do think that even if Fatima wasn't some type of miracle it is the only modern report of a miracle that can not be dismissed or convincingly explained.
One can presumably attribute it to the power of autosuggestion: a large crowd had been attracted in the expectation of seeing another miracle, and they did.
There is an interesting book (in Portuguese) which explores the possibility that the apparitions of 1917 were in fact a “repetition” of an earlier Islamic (Shiite) tradition associated with the site. In this connection, many of the local place names are obviously or plausibly Islamic, starting of course with Fatima, which has a hillside known as “das Chitas” (presumably “of the Shiites”); the birthplace of the 3 seers was Aljustrel, and just a few miles away is the Freguesia (Parish) of São Mamede.
https://books.google.pt/books/about/Os_mouros_fatimidas_e_as_apari%C3%A7%C3%B5es_de.html?id=ktppkgAACAAJ&redir_esc=y
mass suggestion wouldn't explain why people 40km away saw it. Although it is possible that such accounts are the product of hysteria spreading and people misremembering after the fact. It's not like things were well documented in 1917 rural Portugal.
However the pacification itself was a response to OUN terrorist activity that was deliberately undertaken in order to provoke a harsh Polish response against the Ukrainian population, to improve its own popularity (it had been a marginal organization until the late 30s).
I’ve already voiced my sympathies for the Russian imperialists in comment #1: ‘Boo, hoo’
I can do likewise for the Polish imperialists too:
I’m not trying to be cynical or belittle the tragedy in Volyn, but any form of imperialism based on the glorification of one ethnicity over another often leads to such calamities. That’s why I’m a firm believer in the nation state concept, and have no misplaced sympathies for any sort of imperialism: Russian, Polish or even Austrian (yes, yes, I know, the good kind of imperialism). Austrian support for the Ukrainians within its borders was primarily a cynical tool to help control the aspirations of its more active ethnicities, including Hungarians and Poles.
The transition was surely hard for many older Russians and their situation deserves some sympathy. But the petty complaints by Russian nationalists remind me, in a highly negative way, of the endless complaining and lobbying by professional "antiracists" and migrant community activists in Western Europe. Almost as if Russians were honorary "people of color" suffering from institutionalized racism.
Sure people don’t like to hear complaints – this is human nature. And other things you can read about like ‘Just World Hypothesis’, which add to this natural tendency to hate whiners.
That doesn’t imply that, in reality, national minorities are fairly treated in Estonia or Latvia (even if we don’t enjoy hearing their complaints).
I’m happy to see both points of view, and to see the point of view of the Estonians and Latvians who obviously have their own reasoning.
But the kind of dismissal of this creation of a non-citizen class, with the banning not only of dual-citizenship solutions for them, but also of banning of Russian citizenship, and of Latvian citizenship only by passing impediments. And of situation of Russian-language schooling?
I believe it’s not difficult to say – with all emotional neutrality – that this is an unusual position to find yourself in, in which you are citizen of no-country, and now can’t send your children to public school in your language.
And it’s not as if the national minorities are doing any thing – any violence or hostile actions – to result in this conflict, (or the history) which really has nothing to do with them.
The Baltic states were forcefully annexed by the Soviet Union in 1940, there was significant terror, and after WW2 the Soviet Union deliberately used Russian settlement to keep them integrated in the Soviet system which most Balts never wanted to be a part of. Given this history, fears that Russian minorities could be a potential fifth column and be used to legitimate reabsorption of the Baltic states by Russia don't seem completely absurd to me, especially after the events in Ukraine since 2014 (whatever one thinks about them).
I'm not saying the Baltic states are 100% correct in everything they're doing, specific grievances of the Russian minorities would have to be judged on their merits.
That doesn't imply that, in reality, national minorities are fairly treated in Estonia or Latvia (even if we don't enjoy hearing their complaints).
I'm happy to see both points of view, and to see the point of view of the Estonians and Latvians who obviously have their own reasoning.
But the kind of dismissal of this creation of a non-citizen class, with the banning not only of dual-citizenship solutions for them, but also of banning of Russian citizenship, and of Latvian citizenship only by passing impediments. And of situation of Russian-language schooling?
I believe it's not difficult to say - with all emotional neutrality - that this is an unusual position to find yourself in, in which you are citizen of no-country, and now can't send your children to public school in your language.
And it's not as if the national minorities are doing any thing - any violence or hostile actions - to result in this conflict, (or the history) which really has nothing to do with them.
How many of the Russians in the Baltic states are completely stateless? Is it hard for them to acquire Russian citizenship (if, for whatever reason, they can’t or don’t want to become Latvian or Estonian citizens)?
Sure, but given the historical background I don’t think a certain bitterness and paranoia on the part of Latvians and Estonians is surprising.
The Baltic states were forcefully annexed by the Soviet Union in 1940, there was significant terror, and after WW2 the Soviet Union deliberately used Russian settlement to keep them integrated in the Soviet system which most Balts never wanted to be a part of. Given this history, fears that Russian minorities could be a potential fifth column and be used to legitimate reabsorption of the Baltic states by Russia don’t seem completely absurd to me, especially after the events in Ukraine since 2014 (whatever one thinks about them).
I’m not saying the Baltic states are 100% correct in everything they’re doing, specific grievances of the Russian minorities would have to be judged on their merits.
This is directly contrary to EU framework on preservation of linguistic diversity.
Here is the link directly - and you can see how Latvia is undermining basic commitments of the European community.https://ec.europa.eu/education/policy/multilingualism/linguistic-diversity_en
I have through the comments. And while I have worked along side Russians, laughed and fussed with them. I find it a hard case to make that unless I comprehend the complexities and intricacies of Russian history and culture I will lean toward a posture of military force as first response in dealing with them.
As it is, the geopolitical landscape isn’t all that predictable in my view. Given the tensions, as unfortunate as it may be, I am not all that excited about trusting Russians anymore than I am about trusting my own government.
I am interested in what this article and responses mean to me as a citizen of the US, despite the constant ravings of the disgruntled who claim I am a jew working deep in the bowels of Israel’s computer disinformation squad(s).
There is an interesting book (in Portuguese) which explores the possibility that the apparitions of 1917 were in fact a "repetition" of an earlier Islamic (Shiite) tradition associated with the site. In this connection, many of the local place names are obviously or plausibly Islamic, starting of course with Fatima, which has a hillside known as "das Chitas" (presumably "of the Shiites"); the birthplace of the 3 seers was Aljustrel, and just a few miles away is the Freguesia (Parish) of São Mamede.
https://books.google.pt/books/about/Os_mouros_fatimidas_e_as_apari%C3%A7%C3%B5es_de.html?id=ktppkgAACAAJ&redir_esc=y
so you don’t believe it? Are you Catholic or Orthodox?
mass suggestion wouldn’t explain why people 40km away saw it. Although it is possible that such accounts are the product of hysteria spreading and people misremembering after the fact. It’s not like things were well documented in 1917 rural Portugal.
The Baltic states were forcefully annexed by the Soviet Union in 1940, there was significant terror, and after WW2 the Soviet Union deliberately used Russian settlement to keep them integrated in the Soviet system which most Balts never wanted to be a part of. Given this history, fears that Russian minorities could be a potential fifth column and be used to legitimate reabsorption of the Baltic states by Russia don't seem completely absurd to me, especially after the events in Ukraine since 2014 (whatever one thinks about them).
I'm not saying the Baltic states are 100% correct in everything they're doing, specific grievances of the Russian minorities would have to be judged on their merits.
Well presumably you are seeing the protests in Latvia this month, after Latvia is proposing to force national minority public schools to change to the Latvian language from 2019-2020.
This is directly contrary to EU framework on preservation of linguistic diversity.
Here is the link directly – and you can see how Latvia is undermining basic commitments of the European community.
https://ec.europa.eu/education/policy/multilingualism/linguistic-diversity_en
At the same time, there is an undoubted injustice for the people who have to suffer this, and a textbook breaking of European commitments that the EU pretends to represent.
In other contexts, this could be described as a soft kind of ethnic (linguistic) cleansing. I would not go so far. But neither would you be very happy to be on receiving side of this kind of policy, which is occurring despite the liberal EU commitments to linguistic diversity.
This is directly contrary to EU framework on preservation of linguistic diversity.
Here is the link directly - and you can see how Latvia is undermining basic commitments of the European community.https://ec.europa.eu/education/policy/multilingualism/linguistic-diversity_en
I can understand to some extent the reasoning in Latvia – as they believe to force Latvian as the only language, is to promote mono-culture and cohesion.
At the same time, there is an undoubted injustice for the people who have to suffer this, and a textbook breaking of European commitments that the EU pretends to represent.
In other contexts, this could be described as a soft kind of ethnic (linguistic) cleansing. I would not go so far. But neither would you be very happy to be on receiving side of this kind of policy, which is occurring despite the liberal EU commitments to linguistic diversity.
This is directly contrary to EU framework on preservation of linguistic diversity.
Here is the link directly - and you can see how Latvia is undermining basic commitments of the European community.https://ec.europa.eu/education/policy/multilingualism/linguistic-diversity_en
You’re probably right, I don’t approve of such forced measures regarding Russian language education, the Latvians shouldn’t do that. Maybe the Russian community should take the issue to the European court of justice.
You can boast more if you learn unusual, exotic and small languages which not many people speak.
English is the opposite, because so many learn it, and no-one will be impressed (unless you have some amazing vocabulary and grammar skills, or something like that).
The one that doesn’t leave itself open to the kind of criticism we see at this thread, while making valid pro-Russian points.
Not trolling, could be genuinely interesting for some of the readers here.
I’m neither Sovok, Polish, Hungarian or Central Asian.
The CNC bias live on.
Yes, but could you give some examples or tell us who’s making such arguments?
Not trolling, could be genuinely interesting for some of the readers here.
Obviously Dugin is such a phenomenon, and I would legitimate just from entertainment purposes - that he is entertaining people.
Kholmogorov I would not say is crazy (my impression is he is usually trying to be thoughtful), even if he advocates equally things like imperialism and religion.
I’m aware that you were referring to K. I was noting how his loose take can get bashed by Russia bashers in a way that’s counter-productive (IMO) to confronting anti-Russian biases. This observation seems to relate to some of the replies at this thread.
mass suggestion wouldn't explain why people 40km away saw it. Although it is possible that such accounts are the product of hysteria spreading and people misremembering after the fact. It's not like things were well documented in 1917 rural Portugal.
Neither. I am open-minded, if Joshua can do it, then why not Mary? And keep in mind that Pope Pius XII, at the precise time he was infallibly deciding on the correctness of the Assumption also bore witness to phenomenon:
On the other hand, if it really happened one would expect everyone in the area to remember it, not a select few.
...
Hilariously enough, it turns out that The Saker wrote a post attacking Fatima as being part of a thousand year Papist conspiracy against the Russian people: https://thesaker.is/debunking-the-fatima-hoax/
I found that by accident while looking for more information on Fatima.
Not trolling, could be genuinely interesting for some of the readers here.
I’m not the one trolling here. Anti-Russian bias is a very real situation that’s regularly downplayed. Going thru this thread and the other one dealing with K, reveal the criticisms against him.
K=Kholmogorov? Ok, I'll have a look at the earlier thread.
so wait, you aren’t Catholic or Orthodox? Are you an evangelical? I thought that you worked for the Catholic Church?
Well I personally believe the entire Book of Joshua is extremely stylized and not meant to be taken at face value.
I think we’re kinda pushing it here.
…
Hilariously enough, it turns out that The Saker wrote a post attacking Fatima as being part of a thousand year Papist conspiracy against the Russian people: https://thesaker.is/debunking-the-fatima-hoax/
I found that by accident while looking for more information on Fatima.
I guess we can safely assume that Saker was not a member of the Blue Army of Our Lady of Fátima, nor was he a fan of the Consecration of Russia .
He’s trying to say that he’s not trolling. He isn’t accusing you of trolling. You need to practice your English.
...
Hilariously enough, it turns out that The Saker wrote a post attacking Fatima as being part of a thousand year Papist conspiracy against the Russian people: https://thesaker.is/debunking-the-fatima-hoax/
I found that by accident while looking for more information on Fatima.
No, I’m not evangelical, and I have indeed done a fair amount of work for an organisation affiliated with the Custody of the Holy Land, and on occasion for various other Catholic charitable organisations.
I guess we can safely assume that Saker was not a member of the Blue Army of Our Lady of Fátima, nor was he a fan of the Consecration of Russia .
I didn’t accuse you of trolling, I wanted to say that I’m not trolling, but asking a genuine question.
K=Kholmogorov? Ok, I’ll have a look at the earlier thread.
But even this one has some criticism (if I correctly offhand recall without checkking from top to bottom again), which wouldn't fly with a more careful pro-Russian advocacy.
The CNC bias live on.
I never accused you of being “Polish, Hungarian or Central Asian’? You’ve brought up the topic of the preferences of other ethnicities, not I:
Calling reiner Tor!
What kind of a reply is this? You only accept points of view that are ‘pro-Russian’, as if there’s nothing to criticize within Russia? You’ve finally reached the bottom of the pit of inarticulation. Keep it up Mickey, we’re just about due for another one of your famous ‘Averkoisms’ 🙂
"Pro-Russian" can include bigoted views - something evident with other types of pro-national advocacy. I clearly don't go along with such.
Quite so, the Latvians and Estonians should have been repatriated to Germany.
Or to hell.
https://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fpbs.twimg.com%2Fmedia%2FCuQ73iPWgAEMtEf.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fhistoryfacts247%2Fstatus%2F784818074251919361&docid=pHRqHBP8FM7IWM&tbnid=AEX0HaVNe3YrYM%3A&vet=1&w=1200&h=672&source=sh%2Fx%2Fim
That was 1480, dwindling population of Golden Horde led by King Ahmed faced Russian Ivan , the Grand Duke whose population was exploding .
Rest is history . Golden Horde from China is moving again . Diaspora from Stan and Caucasus are moving looking for resources , following the footsteps of the Ivan’s hungry army
Bit much of a resentful victimhood narrative in this article. I don't get how one can complain that Russians' "national habitat" has shrunk when Russia is still the largest country on earth.That sounds a bit like a description of AK tbh. How does one reconcile enthusiasm for transhumanism and other futurist ideas with all this talk of Orthodox Christianity as the basis for national identity?
One question: what does the part about the "genetic deficiency" of Russians which is supposedly claimed in some Russian media refer to?
Don’t project your Jewish whininess on Russians. Similar to the ridiculous pretense of the Jews on “superior morality,” which made Israel’s banality of evil all the more visible, the supposed universality of the EU slogan “liberté, égalité, fraternité” exposed the hypocrisy of Brussels’ bureaucrats supporting the open discrimination against Russians living in the Baltic states.
As a result, “Baltic states pay the price for Russophobic policies:” http://www.pravdareport.com/business/finance/15-09-2016/135633-baltic-0/
“Being deprived of European allowances, the Baltic states will have a deficit of the state balance of payment worth 20-25% of the budget. Taking into account reduction of the Russian transit and closure of market for their own goods in Russia, the case is about a default which will surpass the well-known Great Depression in the US many times:” http://www.pravdareport.com/business/finance/15-09-2016/135633-baltic-0/
More: “It should be noted that [in Latvia] the infrastructure was built in the USSR. ‘Russian occupiers’ saved the backward republics, developed their ports, transit infrastructure, and often to the detriment of its own ports.”
—You see, Russians do not whine — they made proper commercial decisions re the ungrateful midgets: “Russia’s decision was a political one and it’s an absolutely justified response to those indecencies against Russians and their President, which are constantly being heard from the Baltic presidents and PMs.”
— This is what the US cowardly Congress is still not able to do — to cut off the ungrateful midget state in the Middle East from the US taxpayers money.
See more at http://www.pravdareport.com/business/finance/15-09-2016/135633-baltic-0/
As such there is no reason whatsoever to regret or oppose historical Russian imperialism.
On the contrary, its revival would be quite welcome as it would free up parking spaces in New York City by getting rid of a dozen or so alleged countries currently represented in the United Nations.
Where have I heard this before?
Oh yeah, just replace ‘Russian’ with ‘Israeli’.
You sound just like them.
Can you seriously tell me that the Palestinian losers are relevant?
Nothing especially wrong with my English troll. Do you speak for him? He wasn’t clear enough IMO.
K=Kholmogorov? Ok, I'll have a look at the earlier thread.
Okay.
But even this one has some criticism (if I correctly offhand recall without checkking from top to bottom again), which wouldn’t fly with a more careful pro-Russian advocacy.
What your said:
My reply:
What you said:
My reply:
Not true. You’re quite poor at accurately assessing views which you don’t agree with and don’t like.
“Pro-Russian” can include bigoted views – something evident with other types of pro-national advocacy. I clearly don’t go along with such.
"Pro-Russian" can include bigoted views - something evident with other types of pro-national advocacy. I clearly don't go along with such.
And you’re quite unbelievable in your own portrayal of yourself as some sort of beacon of objectivity. You think that by throwing around the epithet ‘bigoted’ to others, you somehow cloak your own biased opinions as superior – but you’re not fooling anybody here.
And I replied:
So?…
Given the fact that the '6M Jew, 5M others, & gas chambers' have been shown to be easily debunked frauds / scams, your "crypto-Nazi" childishness does not hold water.
The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are scientifically impossible frauds.
see the 'holocaust' scam debunked here:
http://codoh.com
No name calling, level playing field debate here: http://forum.codoh.com
Do you know what Hitler has in common with Lucia of Fatima?
They both suck cocks in hell.
You inaccurately suggested that I back any pro-Russian view. In turn, I corrected you.
(or perhaps, your statement really is just another 'Averkoism', impossible to understand and fraught with structural peculiarities?)...
>>>why the natives wanted to distance themselves from a group which they never welcomed in the first place
Damn. First you disagree, then you reiterate what amounts to “Whites deserve whatever is thrown at them because natives have fee-fees”.
>>>not aware of any repatriation programs being undertaken in the 90s
There were none. The Russian government turned a complete blind eye to the plight of Russians in the newly independents states, and only remembered about them to further some immediate geopolitical agenda. Basically behaving the typical Soviet way.
But that doesn’t square at all with your preposterous statement:
which implies that anybody critical of Kholomogorov or his opinions is somehow less ‘objectively intelligent’ than somebody that isn’t critical of him. Ridiculous!
(or perhaps, your statement really is just another ‘Averkoism’, impossible to understand and fraught with structural peculiarities?)…
The author could have just as easily been Ivan Illyin, because Illyin couldn’t have said it better himself.
For you in The West subscribing to this Self-Righteous Mythological Nonsense, you are a Demonic Construction that must be eliminated, in case you don’t know. As part of that process, The Illyinists will pretend to be your friend in your fight with The Western Establishment just as The Imams & Mullahs pretended to be friends with The Left in their Common Struggle to depose The Shah. Today, there effectively is no Left (yes, once upon a time there was a significant Marxist/Communist presence in Iran) left (haha) in Iran. The Religious Theocracy has all but eliminated The Left in Iran, something even The Shah, ruthless as he was, could not accomplish.
Ponder that. If you were to succeed in your struggle against The Western Establishment with substantial aid from the Illyinists, you will be no more within a few short years of accomplishing your goal.
A Struggle not done effectively and for the right reasons is not only doomed to fail but it will also destroy you and your aspirations in the process.
Choose your Bedfellows carefully.
>Ivan Illyin
Who?
For you in The West subscribing to this Self-Righteous Mythological Nonsense, you are a Demonic Construction that must be eliminated, in case you don't know. As part of that process, The Illyinists will pretend to be your friend in your fight with The Western Establishment just as The Imams & Mullahs pretended to be friends with The Left in their Common Struggle to depose The Shah. Today, there effectively is no Left (yes, once upon a time there was a significant Marxist/Communist presence in Iran) left (haha) in Iran. The Religious Theocracy has all but eliminated The Left in Iran, something even The Shah, ruthless as he was, could not accomplish.
Ponder that. If you were to succeed in your struggle against The Western Establishment with substantial aid from the Illyinists, you will be no more within a few short years of accomplishing your goal.
A Struggle not done effectively and for the right reasons is not only doomed to fail but it will also destroy you and your aspirations in the process.
Choose your Bedfellows carefully.
What are you talking about?
>Ivan Illyin
Who?
Basic advice that Western dissidents shouldn't get too enthusiastic about Russia is probably sound...but given our pressing issues, this can only be a minor concern.
For you in The West subscribing to this Self-Righteous Mythological Nonsense, you are a Demonic Construction that must be eliminated, in case you don't know. As part of that process, The Illyinists will pretend to be your friend in your fight with The Western Establishment just as The Imams & Mullahs pretended to be friends with The Left in their Common Struggle to depose The Shah. Today, there effectively is no Left (yes, once upon a time there was a significant Marxist/Communist presence in Iran) left (haha) in Iran. The Religious Theocracy has all but eliminated The Left in Iran, something even The Shah, ruthless as he was, could not accomplish.
Ponder that. If you were to succeed in your struggle against The Western Establishment with substantial aid from the Illyinists, you will be no more within a few short years of accomplishing your goal.
A Struggle not done effectively and for the right reasons is not only doomed to fail but it will also destroy you and your aspirations in the process.
Choose your Bedfellows carefully.
I’m lost
He probably can't bang 8s or even 6s.
>Ivan Illyin
Who?
Some conservative/nationalist Russian philosopher of strong anti-Western bent from the early 20th century. Putin is supposedly a fan of him and quotes him occasionally.
Basic advice that Western dissidents shouldn’t get too enthusiastic about Russia is probably sound…but given our pressing issues, this can only be a minor concern.
Secondly, his "strong anti-Western bent" is just a recognition of the reality of Western hostility against Russia.Translation of Against Russia (1948) - https://irrussianality.wordpress.com/2015/01/07/against-russia/https://irrussianality.wordpress.com/2014/12/22/putins-philosopher/About the real-existing Russia, sure.
But not about Ilyin and his writing.
If alive today, Ilyin would undoubtedly oppose modern day neocons and neolibs, who shouldn't be confused with the West at large.
Check his blog. He’s almost certainly mentally ill.
He probably can’t bang 8s or even 6s.
Basic advice that Western dissidents shouldn't get too enthusiastic about Russia is probably sound...but given our pressing issues, this can only be a minor concern.
First of, his name is Ivan Ilyin.
Secondly, his “strong anti-Western bent” is just a recognition of the reality of Western hostility against Russia.
Translation of Against Russia (1948) – https://irrussianality.wordpress.com/2015/01/07/against-russia/
https://irrussianality.wordpress.com/2014/12/22/putins-philosopher/
About the real-existing Russia, sure.
But not about Ilyin and his writing.
From the quotes you cited above it still seems like an extremely one-sided, maybe even paranoid interpretation of history. By selective choice of materials you could write much the same about many other countries (certainly about Germany).
Western hostility to Russia is often real and a problem (certainly true today), but it's not the whole story.
Tucker Carlson isn't alone. A good number of mainstream Americans and other Westerners (who aren't so reared on establishment elite prejudices) are willing to consider such an approach.
Secondly, his "strong anti-Western bent" is just a recognition of the reality of Western hostility against Russia.Translation of Against Russia (1948) - https://irrussianality.wordpress.com/2015/01/07/against-russia/https://irrussianality.wordpress.com/2014/12/22/putins-philosopher/About the real-existing Russia, sure.
But not about Ilyin and his writing.
Ok, you seem to know a lot more about him than me (are you actually Russian yourself?).
From the quotes you cited above it still seems like an extremely one-sided, maybe even paranoid interpretation of history. By selective choice of materials you could write much the same about many other countries (certainly about Germany).
Western hostility to Russia is often real and a problem (certainly true today), but it’s not the whole story.
I'm reminded of Sam Kiley, who is now CNN's man in Moscow.
Sam Kiley has a noticeably Anglo-centric, anti-Russian bias, which is quite collapsible.
Within a 24 hour period last week, Kiley said that Russia's:
- reaching out to the US was an attempt to drive division between Washington and London
- emphasis on international law in Syria is hypocritical, because of Moscow's "annexation" (reunification) with Crimea.
Actually, the Trump administration has expressed a willingness to seek better ties with the Kremlin. How sincere that statement is and whether such will happen is another story. There's a basis for improved US-Russian ties, which has NOTHING to do with trying to screw the UK.
In reply to Kiley, it can be counter-claimed that Theresa May, Boris Johnson and some others in the UK, seek to thwart attempts at improved Russia-West ties.
As for Crimea, Kiley doesn't note the hypocrisy in bashing Russia over that area, when compared to how the likes of Christiane Amanpour and himself (relative to Crimea) don't mention the severing of Kosovo from Serbia and the comparative lack of a fuss made over Turkey's position in northern Cyprus.
I sense what Amanpour and Kiley might say in reply and in turn have a valid counter-reply to their likely follow-up - the type of discourse typically lacking in the "free press".
This morning Kiley and the US based CNN host Natalie Allen (a hack) clearly favored the idea that the Syrian government did launch a chemical attack, with Russia and the Syrian government casting doubt thru misinformation. Never mind the numerous non-Russian Western sources noting otherwise.
In short, it's inaccurate to cast the likes of Kiley and Allen as the West. Their clout relates to this piece:
https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/theatre-syrien/
To be sure, he had cynical views about Western policies towards Russia - does anyone here even disagree? - which was however enough to transform him into "Putin's Fascist Philosopher" in the American MSM.
From the quotes you cited above it still seems like an extremely one-sided, maybe even paranoid interpretation of history. By selective choice of materials you could write much the same about many other countries (certainly about Germany).
Western hostility to Russia is often real and a problem (certainly true today), but it's not the whole story.
German with Russian background.
From the quotes you cited above it still seems like an extremely one-sided, maybe even paranoid interpretation of history. By selective choice of materials you could write much the same about many other countries (certainly about Germany).
Western hostility to Russia is often real and a problem (certainly true today), but it's not the whole story.
Previous to my comment, he knew nothing about Ivan Ilyin (sorry I screwed up his name earlier and accidentally typed an extra “l”). How do we know? Because he said “Who?”. Now he’s an Expert. He’s a Quick Learner, I’ll give him that.
Secondly, his "strong anti-Western bent" is just a recognition of the reality of Western hostility against Russia.Translation of Against Russia (1948) - https://irrussianality.wordpress.com/2015/01/07/against-russia/https://irrussianality.wordpress.com/2014/12/22/putins-philosopher/About the real-existing Russia, sure.
But not about Ilyin and his writing.
Second off, it’s off, not “of“. Two can play that childish game.
I do not intend to make my English flawless.
Schreiben First, Bedenken Second
For elaboration, see this comment from another thread.
https://www.unz.com/plang/the-neocons-are-selling-koolaid-again/#comment-2299601
Names are holy, your language is not.
I do not intend to make my English flawless.
Schreiben First, Bedenken Second
Names derive from language so your Arrogant Statement implies that Cyrillic is Holy by virtue of your assertion that names derived from it are Holy. The second half of your statement cements your Superiority Complex.
Let me know if my "Demonic Constructions" are making you and Mother Russia sick, and if so I'll ease up a bit so you can recover your Former Glory.
I do not intend to make my English flawless.
Schreiben First, Bedenken Second
lol, nice one…thanks for making me laugh!
(or perhaps, your statement really is just another 'Averkoism', impossible to understand and fraught with structural peculiarities?)...
You once again fail to accurately comprehend what was clearly presented and followed up on.
Basic advice that Western dissidents shouldn't get too enthusiastic about Russia is probably sound...but given our pressing issues, this can only be a minor concern.
I wouldn’t characterize Ilyin as anti-Western. He lived in the West, which he preferred over the USSR. There’re conservative Western monarchists.
If alive today, Ilyin would undoubtedly oppose modern day neocons and neolibs, who shouldn’t be confused with the West at large.
Secondly, his "strong anti-Western bent" is just a recognition of the reality of Western hostility against Russia.Translation of Against Russia (1948) - https://irrussianality.wordpress.com/2015/01/07/against-russia/https://irrussianality.wordpress.com/2014/12/22/putins-philosopher/About the real-existing Russia, sure.
But not about Ilyin and his writing.
Despite all of the hypocritically arrogant and ignorant biases predominate against Russia in the West, a good number of mainstream Russians still seek good Russia-West relations, on the premise that the West en masse will get more objective.
Tucker Carlson isn’t alone. A good number of mainstream Americans and other Westerners (who aren’t so reared on establishment elite prejudices) are willing to consider such an approach.
I do not intend to make my English flawless.
Schreiben First, Bedenken Second
Obviously, by virtue of this comment, you are yourself very much an Ilyinist whether you’re witting to it or not. Ilyin describes you perfectly.
Names derive from language so your Arrogant Statement implies that Cyrillic is Holy by virtue of your assertion that names derived from it are Holy. The second half of your statement cements your Superiority Complex.
Let me know if my “Demonic Constructions” are making you and Mother Russia sick, and if so I’ll ease up a bit so you can recover your Former Glory.
From the quotes you cited above it still seems like an extremely one-sided, maybe even paranoid interpretation of history. By selective choice of materials you could write much the same about many other countries (certainly about Germany).
Western hostility to Russia is often real and a problem (certainly true today), but it's not the whole story.
What’s the other part of the story? That Russia is partly to blame?
I’m reminded of Sam Kiley, who is now CNN’s man in Moscow.
Sam Kiley has a noticeably Anglo-centric, anti-Russian bias, which is quite collapsible.
Within a 24 hour period last week, Kiley said that Russia’s:
– reaching out to the US was an attempt to drive division between Washington and London
– emphasis on international law in Syria is hypocritical, because of Moscow’s “annexation” (reunification) with Crimea.
Actually, the Trump administration has expressed a willingness to seek better ties with the Kremlin. How sincere that statement is and whether such will happen is another story. There’s a basis for improved US-Russian ties, which has NOTHING to do with trying to screw the UK.
In reply to Kiley, it can be counter-claimed that Theresa May, Boris Johnson and some others in the UK, seek to thwart attempts at improved Russia-West ties.
As for Crimea, Kiley doesn’t note the hypocrisy in bashing Russia over that area, when compared to how the likes of Christiane Amanpour and himself (relative to Crimea) don’t mention the severing of Kosovo from Serbia and the comparative lack of a fuss made over Turkey’s position in northern Cyprus.
I sense what Amanpour and Kiley might say in reply and in turn have a valid counter-reply to their likely follow-up – the type of discourse typically lacking in the “free press”.
This morning Kiley and the US based CNN host Natalie Allen (a hack) clearly favored the idea that the Syrian government did launch a chemical attack, with Russia and the Syrian government casting doubt thru misinformation. Never mind the numerous non-Russian Western sources noting otherwise.
In short, it’s inaccurate to cast the likes of Kiley and Allen as the West. Their clout relates to this piece:
https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/theatre-syrien/
I also find some of Ilyin's statements in the quote above extremely one-sided...like "dragging Russia into destructive wars at inconvenient times", as if Russia had had no agency of her own and was just subject to Western machinations. Well, one of the most destructive wars (not least for old Russia) was WW1, and imo Russian elites were far from innocent in bringing about that catastrophe.
However, these are mostly historical issues now. Regarding the last 30 years, I'd actually agree that the overwhelming blame for the deterioration of Russian-Western relations lies with the Western powers, primarily the triumphalist Americans with their exceptionalist delusions, and secondarily their European satraps who are unable to present an alternative model for constructive relations with Russia.
Tucker Carlson isn't alone. A good number of mainstream Americans and other Westerners (who aren't so reared on establishment elite prejudices) are willing to consider such an approach.
By virtue of providing Billing for Tucker Carlson, you have discredited yourself as someone who is objective.
Yeah, sure, if you say so. This statement reads to me as follows.
On Russia and some other issues, Tucker Carlson has been far more objective than what's evident at CNN and MSNBC, as well as much of Fox News.
I'm reminded of Sam Kiley, who is now CNN's man in Moscow.
Sam Kiley has a noticeably Anglo-centric, anti-Russian bias, which is quite collapsible.
Within a 24 hour period last week, Kiley said that Russia's:
- reaching out to the US was an attempt to drive division between Washington and London
- emphasis on international law in Syria is hypocritical, because of Moscow's "annexation" (reunification) with Crimea.
Actually, the Trump administration has expressed a willingness to seek better ties with the Kremlin. How sincere that statement is and whether such will happen is another story. There's a basis for improved US-Russian ties, which has NOTHING to do with trying to screw the UK.
In reply to Kiley, it can be counter-claimed that Theresa May, Boris Johnson and some others in the UK, seek to thwart attempts at improved Russia-West ties.
As for Crimea, Kiley doesn't note the hypocrisy in bashing Russia over that area, when compared to how the likes of Christiane Amanpour and himself (relative to Crimea) don't mention the severing of Kosovo from Serbia and the comparative lack of a fuss made over Turkey's position in northern Cyprus.
I sense what Amanpour and Kiley might say in reply and in turn have a valid counter-reply to their likely follow-up - the type of discourse typically lacking in the "free press".
This morning Kiley and the US based CNN host Natalie Allen (a hack) clearly favored the idea that the Syrian government did launch a chemical attack, with Russia and the Syrian government casting doubt thru misinformation. Never mind the numerous non-Russian Western sources noting otherwise.
In short, it's inaccurate to cast the likes of Kiley and Allen as the West. Their clout relates to this piece:
https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/theatre-syrien/
I was referring primarily to history. National-minded Poles had good reason to resent Tsarist Russia (and Germany) in the 19th/early 20th century. Western liberals in the 19th century had good reason to dislike Russia, because its role as the gendarme of European reaction was quite real at times.
I also find some of Ilyin’s statements in the quote above extremely one-sided…like “dragging Russia into destructive wars at inconvenient times”, as if Russia had had no agency of her own and was just subject to Western machinations. Well, one of the most destructive wars (not least for old Russia) was WW1, and imo Russian elites were far from innocent in bringing about that catastrophe.
However, these are mostly historical issues now. Regarding the last 30 years, I’d actually agree that the overwhelming blame for the deterioration of Russian-Western relations lies with the Western powers, primarily the triumphalist Americans with their exceptionalist delusions, and secondarily their European satraps who are unable to present an alternative model for constructive relations with Russia.
Western liberals shouldn't be confused with the West at large.
Ilyin doesn't seem like he'd strongly disagree that
- WW I was unnecessary
- with the Russian government not prosecuting that war in an effective manner.
WW I essentially strengthened the Nazi and Communist movements which he didn't support.
I’m understandably not alone in negatively assessing your input here.
On Russia and some other issues, Tucker Carlson has been far more objective than what’s evident at CNN and MSNBC, as well as much of Fox News.
If you need him as Authority to support your argument, you've already lost your argument. If you don't need him as Authority to support your argument and lend weight to it, then don't give him Billing.
Who in The West do you really think you're appealing to with this Poor Pious Russia Bullshit?
I'll tell you who.
People Like This
FYI, I can find Russian Writers who speak as equally abysmally of Russia as this author speaks glowingly of it. Russia, like any other Country, is The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, but IT OWNS THAT and no author gets to place the blame for Russia's shortcomings, and it has many, on anyone or anything else but Russia itself.
The author of the New York Review of Books article I linked to mentions how Putin's recruiting of Ilyin to legitimate his Potemkin Kleptocratic Government is rather ironic when you consider Ilyin's opinion of The Soviet Union and The Communists. But Putin's shrewd and since no one is left in Russia to challenge Putin on his Bullshit, he's able to shamelessly contain Ilyin & Stalin & The Soviets under his Deranged Propaganda Umbrella where Russia, not America, is that Shiing City on the Hill.
Breaking News!!
There is no Shining City on the Hill.
I also find some of Ilyin's statements in the quote above extremely one-sided...like "dragging Russia into destructive wars at inconvenient times", as if Russia had had no agency of her own and was just subject to Western machinations. Well, one of the most destructive wars (not least for old Russia) was WW1, and imo Russian elites were far from innocent in bringing about that catastrophe.
However, these are mostly historical issues now. Regarding the last 30 years, I'd actually agree that the overwhelming blame for the deterioration of Russian-Western relations lies with the Western powers, primarily the triumphalist Americans with their exceptionalist delusions, and secondarily their European satraps who are unable to present an alternative model for constructive relations with Russia.
Russians had good reason to fear Poland, given its imperialist activity in the mid 1500s thru early part of the 1600s and how close to 100,000 Poles joined Napoleon in his attack on Russia – an especially high number back then.
Western liberals shouldn’t be confused with the West at large.
Ilyin doesn’t seem like he’d strongly disagree that
– WW I was unnecessary
– with the Russian government not prosecuting that war in an effective manner.
WW I essentially strengthened the Nazi and Communist movements which he didn’t support.
I obviously can't claim to know and understand Ilyin's thought and all its details, but in some ways it seems a bit like a mirror image of Western Russophobes to me...the West as an eternally unchanging monolith, relentless in aggressive hostility against Holy Russia. Viewing conflict between Russia and the West in such civilizational, almost metaphysical terms (the religious imprint on Ilyin's thought seems very strong) is pretty dangerous imo.
Western liberals shouldn't be confused with the West at large.
Ilyin doesn't seem like he'd strongly disagree that
- WW I was unnecessary
- with the Russian government not prosecuting that war in an effective manner.
WW I essentially strengthened the Nazi and Communist movements which he didn't support.
Well yes, but Poles would probably say this was a reaction to Russia having been a driving force behind the dismemberment of the Polish Commonwealth.
I obviously can’t claim to know and understand Ilyin’s thought and all its details, but in some ways it seems a bit like a mirror image of Western Russophobes to me…the West as an eternally unchanging monolith, relentless in aggressive hostility against Holy Russia. Viewing conflict between Russia and the West in such civilizational, almost metaphysical terms (the religious imprint on Ilyin’s thought seems very strong) is pretty dangerous imo.
An example is how a good number in the West seem to think think that the history of Poland and Russia is analogous to Ireland and Britain. Ireland never came close to threatening Britain in the way Poland has threatened Russia.
As Communism was collapsing, there was a sincere popular pro-Western orientation in Russia. That changed on account of the kind of Western robber baron types that left a bad impression in Russia, as well as hypocritically biased actions which included the bombing of Yugoslavia and preachy neocon-neolib manner on how Russia should behave in Chechnya and in its "near abroad" (former Soviet republics). Downplayed in that condescension, is the fault-lines of the Gamsakkurdias, Saakashvilis, Yushchenkos, Dudayevs and Maskhadovs.
Once again noting that the West shouldn't be strictly viewed as neocon to neolib to flat out anti-Russian leaning preferences.
I obviously can't claim to know and understand Ilyin's thought and all its details, but in some ways it seems a bit like a mirror image of Western Russophobes to me...the West as an eternally unchanging monolith, relentless in aggressive hostility against Holy Russia. Viewing conflict between Russia and the West in such civilizational, almost metaphysical terms (the religious imprint on Ilyin's thought seems very strong) is pretty dangerous imo.
Once again, Ilyin lived in the West. I don’t believe he was anti-Western. One can like the opposite sex, while not seeking to become that sex. Ilyin opposed the anti-Russian influences evident in the West.
An example is how a good number in the West seem to think think that the history of Poland and Russia is analogous to Ireland and Britain. Ireland never came close to threatening Britain in the way Poland has threatened Russia.
As Communism was collapsing, there was a sincere popular pro-Western orientation in Russia. That changed on account of the kind of Western robber baron types that left a bad impression in Russia, as well as hypocritically biased actions which included the bombing of Yugoslavia and preachy neocon-neolib manner on how Russia should behave in Chechnya and in its “near abroad” (former Soviet republics). Downplayed in that condescension, is the fault-lines of the Gamsakkurdias, Saakashvilis, Yushchenkos, Dudayevs and Maskhadovs.
Once again noting that the West shouldn’t be strictly viewed as neocon to neolib to flat out anti-Russian leaning preferences.
I just took issue with some of Ilyin's statements that seemed too black-and-white to me. But since I haven't really read any of his works, I'm obviously not really qualified to judge his thought in all its intricacies.
An example is how a good number in the West seem to think think that the history of Poland and Russia is analogous to Ireland and Britain. Ireland never came close to threatening Britain in the way Poland has threatened Russia.
As Communism was collapsing, there was a sincere popular pro-Western orientation in Russia. That changed on account of the kind of Western robber baron types that left a bad impression in Russia, as well as hypocritically biased actions which included the bombing of Yugoslavia and preachy neocon-neolib manner on how Russia should behave in Chechnya and in its "near abroad" (former Soviet republics). Downplayed in that condescension, is the fault-lines of the Gamsakkurdias, Saakashvilis, Yushchenkos, Dudayevs and Maskhadovs.
Once again noting that the West shouldn't be strictly viewed as neocon to neolib to flat out anti-Russian leaning preferences.
Yes, that view seems pretty accurate to me, as I wrote I attribute the major part of the blame for the present state of Russian-Western relations to Western policy-makers.
I just took issue with some of Ilyin’s statements that seemed too black-and-white to me. But since I haven’t really read any of his works, I’m obviously not really qualified to judge his thought in all its intricacies.
In so far as Putin quoting him, that seems to be related to Putin's own belief that he is following in the course of Ilyin's "Third Way" for Russia that combines respect for national tradition with caution towards liberal democracy, while denouncing despotism and total centralization of power.
Personally, I think Ilyin would hate what Russia has become. He would accuse Putin of putting on a big show of being a responsible leader with very little action to back it up. Someone who puts up the front of being an enlightened ruler who defends the conscience of law, but has only a hazy understanding of what that law means.
By the way, the author’s claims about Ukraine are totally false and Russians make up only about 1/3 of Transnistria’s population.
And, of course, I’d still love to know what a mere translator feels the need to conceal their identity.
‘Europe’ is waiting for the ‘inevitable collapse’ of Russia (not of Russian so-called ‘Empire’) since Batu-Khan. It must be recognized that Europe had a formidable patience and it will exercise it for a long time to come.
Nitpicking about genetic DNA, memorized quarrels over textbooks in Lithuania or Tartarstan, ignorant small minded oprobriums against Mr. Dugin, mask but do not manage a conceal a fundamental inadequacy and smallness of intellect.
And Solzhenitsyn, an great man, epic chronicler of Soviet tragedies, and a fool limited by his fatal, forgivable, and fortunately not life long provincialism in outlook. He was right, and wrong. He did great harm to his people and his motherland. And he would have readily owned up to this bit of repentance himself, because in the end, he was a man with a noble soul. The article’ lavish quoting of Solzhenitsyn’s totally unrealistic and dreamy proposal without adding a somber footnote was also lamentable.
One may scratch his head till blood comes out, but he won’t be able to understand what ‘great harm’ did Solzhenitsyn do to his people and motherland? The disparaging of Solzhenitsyn is a purely ‘Western’ affair. They hate him.
I just took issue with some of Ilyin's statements that seemed too black-and-white to me. But since I haven't really read any of his works, I'm obviously not really qualified to judge his thought in all its intricacies.
You should really read up on him, Ilyin was one of the great conservative philosophers of the 20th century. As others had mentioned, he was no Eurasianist but rather someone who tried to balance what he felt was the best of the European legal tradition with the potential and challenges of modernity.
In so far as Putin quoting him, that seems to be related to Putin’s own belief that he is following in the course of Ilyin’s “Third Way” for Russia that combines respect for national tradition with caution towards liberal democracy, while denouncing despotism and total centralization of power.
Personally, I think Ilyin would hate what Russia has become. He would accuse Putin of putting on a big show of being a responsible leader with very little action to back it up. Someone who puts up the front of being an enlightened ruler who defends the conscience of law, but has only a hazy understanding of what that law means.
Another great 19th century conservative Russian thinker:
https://orientalreview.org/2015/06/21/pobedonostsev-personalist-populist-perennialist-patriot-peacenik/
It’s parodied in the movie Afonya (1975). Soviet home decor, Old Russian style: a samovar, a Zhostovo tray, a Gzhel vase, some folk figurines, “log” panels on the walls… combined with proudly exhibited foreign alcohol and canned food.
Russians certainly have many legitimate grievances and are right not to trust the West in its present configuration. I have my doubts though whether Mr Kholmogorov's ideological myth-making can play any positive role.
Oy Vey!
As do many, if not most, if not all sovoks.
Basic advice that Western dissidents shouldn't get too enthusiastic about Russia is probably sound...but given our pressing issues, this can only be a minor concern.
A view which also completely fails to correlate with what Ilyin actually wrote.
In so far as Putin quoting him, that seems to be related to Putin's own belief that he is following in the course of Ilyin's "Third Way" for Russia that combines respect for national tradition with caution towards liberal democracy, while denouncing despotism and total centralization of power.
Personally, I think Ilyin would hate what Russia has become. He would accuse Putin of putting on a big show of being a responsible leader with very little action to back it up. Someone who puts up the front of being an enlightened ruler who defends the conscience of law, but has only a hazy understanding of what that law means.
Ilyin might sympathize with Putin on the belief that the latter has limits in terms of what can be reasonably done.
Another great 19th century conservative Russian thinker:
https://orientalreview.org/2015/06/21/pobedonostsev-personalist-populist-perennialist-patriot-peacenik/
From the quotes you cited above it still seems like an extremely one-sided, maybe even paranoid interpretation of history. By selective choice of materials you could write much the same about many other countries (certainly about Germany).
Western hostility to Russia is often real and a problem (certainly true today), but it's not the whole story.
He was against Soviet expansionist and repeatedly condemned its occupation of Eastern Europe.
To be sure, he had cynical views about Western policies towards Russia – does anyone here even disagree? – which was however enough to transform him into “Putin’s Fascist Philosopher” in the American MSM.
Have you written about Ilyin in detail before? Is some of his work available in translation, and if so, what should one read to understand his thought?
I have no doubt that what Western msm and people like Timothy Snyder write about him is hysterical nonsense, but if possible I'd like to see for myself.
I have read almost all of Ilyin’s postwar articles and can state confidently that you’re full of shi- American MSM op-eds. (From the same people who also think that Dugin is Putin’s favorite “philosopher”).
This will be the end of the EU .
Historic and poweful european countries like France , Italy , England , Spain . feel marginalized by Brussels ( by Germany ? ) , in benefit of the toxics . England already voted out of the EU , and the anger towards this EU is growing in Italy , France and Spain .
The EU should have stablished just trade agreements with the toxics , and with Russia too , which is the most important , historic , and reliable country of eastern europe . But the Americans blind with hegemonism and russophobia would not tolerate it , what will lead to the end of the EU , and of Nato , or worse to an atomic war that will finnish with what remains of the white race .
agreed, you just make a mistake of causality – the toxicity spreads from your lands to ours. All the EU money brought only problems to our lands: discord, corruption and misallocation of capital. Now you only drag us down ideologically with your dying senility and decadence. I am all for exiting this travesty. We are the engine of your growth, we are the future, you don’t deserve us.
This Holefield fellow is a nutjob.
https://catcherinthelie.wordpress.com/2018/02/07/russian-trolls-chumps/
I suggest not feeding the troll.
To be sure, he had cynical views about Western policies towards Russia - does anyone here even disagree? - which was however enough to transform him into "Putin's Fascist Philosopher" in the American MSM.
Depends on the context, I don’t quite see how Tsarist Russia was a victim of Western machinations.
Have you written about Ilyin in detail before? Is some of his work available in translation, and if so, what should one read to understand his thought?
I have no doubt that what Western msm and people like Timothy Snyder write about him is hysterical nonsense, but if possible I’d like to see for myself.
In so far as Putin quoting him, that seems to be related to Putin's own belief that he is following in the course of Ilyin's "Third Way" for Russia that combines respect for national tradition with caution towards liberal democracy, while denouncing despotism and total centralization of power.
Personally, I think Ilyin would hate what Russia has become. He would accuse Putin of putting on a big show of being a responsible leader with very little action to back it up. Someone who puts up the front of being an enlightened ruler who defends the conscience of law, but has only a hazy understanding of what that law means.
Do you have recommendations what I should read by/about him?
Ivan Ilyin, Putin’s Philosopher of Russian Fascism
An Excerpt from that link.This is instructive in many ways, not just one. It should put to rest the notion that there is any "Virtue" in The Rule of Law or the trope bandied about, A Nation of Laws. Ilyin admired Italian & German Fascism as much for their "Virtue" as for their adherence to The Rule of Law. They both were, respectively, A Nation of Laws and they operated according to The Rule of Law, and yet both Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy were Sadistic Totalitarian Butchering Regimes and according to their vaunted Law, it was perfectly legal. The belief that they were "Virtuous" gave them a Blank Check to create Laws that enabled & perpetuated Crimes Against Humanity persecuting any & all who refused to believe in, and succumb to, their Bloody Virtue, or who were otherwise ill-fitting (i.e. the Disabled & the Jews).
On Russia and some other issues, Tucker Carlson has been far more objective than what's evident at CNN and MSNBC, as well as much of Fox News.
Tucker Carlson is a Sanctimonious Arch Conservative Prick. What he and his ilk may give with one hand they take back double with the other.
If you need him as Authority to support your argument, you’ve already lost your argument. If you don’t need him as Authority to support your argument and lend weight to it, then don’t give him Billing.
Who in The West do you really think you’re appealing to with this Poor Pious Russia Bullshit?
I’ll tell you who.
People Like This
FYI, I can find Russian Writers who speak as equally abysmally of Russia as this author speaks glowingly of it. Russia, like any other Country, is The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, but IT OWNS THAT and no author gets to place the blame for Russia’s shortcomings, and it has many, on anyone or anything else but Russia itself.
The author of the New York Review of Books article I linked to mentions how Putin’s recruiting of Ilyin to legitimate his Potemkin Kleptocratic Government is rather ironic when you consider Ilyin’s opinion of The Soviet Union and The Communists. But Putin’s shrewd and since no one is left in Russia to challenge Putin on his Bullshit, he’s able to shamelessly contain Ilyin & Stalin & The Soviets under his Deranged Propaganda Umbrella where Russia, not America, is that Shiing City on the Hill.
Breaking News!!
There is no Shining City on the Hill.
And for the love of Christ stop with your random capitalization and italics.
Start with this, but BEWARE, I think, GASP!!, the author might be Jewish. Unfortunately, even though you’re a German Reader, it’s in English. A minor inconvenience, I’m sure. Not ideal by any means, but easily overcome with a modicum of effort.
Ivan Ilyin, Putin’s Philosopher of Russian Fascism
An Excerpt from that link.
This is instructive in many ways, not just one. It should put to rest the notion that there is any “Virtue” in The Rule of Law or the trope bandied about, A Nation of Laws. Ilyin admired Italian & German Fascism as much for their “Virtue” as for their adherence to The Rule of Law. They both were, respectively, A Nation of Laws and they operated according to The Rule of Law, and yet both Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy were Sadistic Totalitarian Butchering Regimes and according to their vaunted Law, it was perfectly legal. The belief that they were “Virtuous” gave them a Blank Check to create Laws that enabled & perpetuated Crimes Against Humanity persecuting any & all who refused to believe in, and succumb to, their Bloody Virtue, or who were otherwise ill-fitting (i.e. the Disabled & the Jews).
In any case, I'm not interested in hysterical hit pieces accusing Ilyin of "fascism", I want to know if some representative sample of his work is available in English, German or French, so I can judge for myself.
Ivan Ilyin, Putin’s Philosopher of Russian Fascism
An Excerpt from that link.This is instructive in many ways, not just one. It should put to rest the notion that there is any "Virtue" in The Rule of Law or the trope bandied about, A Nation of Laws. Ilyin admired Italian & German Fascism as much for their "Virtue" as for their adherence to The Rule of Law. They both were, respectively, A Nation of Laws and they operated according to The Rule of Law, and yet both Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy were Sadistic Totalitarian Butchering Regimes and according to their vaunted Law, it was perfectly legal. The belief that they were "Virtuous" gave them a Blank Check to create Laws that enabled & perpetuated Crimes Against Humanity persecuting any & all who refused to believe in, and succumb to, their Bloody Virtue, or who were otherwise ill-fitting (i.e. the Disabled & the Jews).
Timothy Snyder isn’t Jewish, but iirc of gentile North European (Dutch?) ancestry. I do get the impression though that he caters strongly to the interests and prejudices of American Jews (read his Bloodlands book…not impressed, and the very last chapter strongly irritated me).
In any case, I’m not interested in hysterical hit pieces accusing Ilyin of “fascism”, I want to know if some representative sample of his work is available in English, German or French, so I can judge for myself.
https://irrussianality.wordpress.com/
I haven't yet written anything systemic about Ilyin on this blog, but if you're interested in the topic, I'd recommend Robinson's archive on this topic: https://irrussianality.wordpress.com/tag/ivan-ilyin/
Russian conservatism is one of his core specialties and he has a book coming out soon on this topic.
There is a current political context of his work. Just like Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" of 1993 neatly foreshadowed and prepared the shift of interest of American Empire form the conflict with USSR to to engagement with Islam, Snyder book by stressing Soviet crimes and culpability in Holocaust and explaining conditioning to which Belorussians and Ukrainians were subjected shifted the attention of the American Empire to the conquest of Russia's eastern provinces. Thanks to Snyder "the murderous" Ukrainians can be understood and somewhat justified and thus from being just the Holocaust perpetrators they became also freedom fighters against Russian imperialism and thus can be sought as potential allies in the American Empire's projects. It is possibly this was the main objective of his work. Some writings of Anne Applebaum about the same geographical area served similar purpose, i.e., to warm up the image of Poles, Lithuanias, Belorussians and Ukrainians. It is possible that Applebaum and Snyder sit in the same think tanks or at least are paid from the same sources.
Academia always served the Empire. It is where from comes the подготовка, the preliminary "media artillery" barrage before the main attack.
In any case, I'm not interested in hysterical hit pieces accusing Ilyin of "fascism", I want to know if some representative sample of his work is available in English, German or French, so I can judge for myself.
If you don’t get a good answer here, you might try asking this question over at Paul Robinson’s blog:
https://irrussianality.wordpress.com/
In any case, I'm not interested in hysterical hit pieces accusing Ilyin of "fascism", I want to know if some representative sample of his work is available in English, German or French, so I can judge for myself.
IIRC some Jewish critics were upset with him because they felt that his focus on Polish and Ukrainian suffering diluted the “unique” suffering of the Jewish people during those times.
He had similar tendencies in earlier chapters imo (e.g. the striking overrepresentation of Jews among NKVD personnel until 1937/38 only gets mentioned in the context of the Great Terror when they fell victim to a system they had earlier been part of; iirc he also had the usual line about Stalin supporting Great Russian chauvinism).
And quite apart from that, it's just a totally unoriginal book, little more than a tedious catalogue of atrocities.
In any case, I'm not interested in hysterical hit pieces accusing Ilyin of "fascism", I want to know if some representative sample of his work is available in English, German or French, so I can judge for myself.
Paul Robinson addressed that article pretty thoroughly: https://irrussianality.wordpress.com/2016/05/12/bandwagon-of-errors/
I haven’t yet written anything systemic about Ilyin on this blog, but if you’re interested in the topic, I’d recommend Robinson’s archive on this topic: https://irrussianality.wordpress.com/tag/ivan-ilyin/
Russian conservatism is one of his core specialties and he has a book coming out soon on this topic.
I wonder about the books Iljin published in German, I suppose they'll be difficult to track down, but maybe I'll try.
Who are "the American owners of Belarus"?????
Belarus will eventually accede to Russia, but Ukraine not so much. It's rather like (todays) Poland in that respect, which is unlikely to reintegrate the Deutschland anytime soon. Maybe it will split in two, only time can tell.
I don’t think so. What Belarussians want, for obvious reasons, is to avoid the “Ukrainian path”. They are very afraid to be subject of a Maidan-like experiment.
The West cannot be trusted. Former Soviet Satellite States that want to remain independent are going to have to be miraculously clever in walking The Independence Tightrope.
Maybe Paul Robinson can address this. It’s Ivan Ilyin in his own words.
Putinism: Rusia and Its Future with the West
I love this excerpt.
How clever. He’s correct. It can just as easily be read as follows.
Remember, The Rule of Law is very important to Ilyin. It’s a Central Tenet of his Philosophy. So long as its legal, it’s virtuous.
This excerpt also tickles me.
Once again, very clever on his part. He’s also correct once again. It should and could read as follows.
Like a lot of people on the European political right in the inter-war period, Ilyin initially engaged in a certain amount of wishful thinking concerning fascism, which caused him at first to underestimate its dangers. He also had some sympathy with 1930s authoritarianism, nationalism, and especially anti-communism. But Ilyin was also a firm opponent of totalitarianism. Eventually, the Nazis fired him from his job teaching in Berlin because he refused to include anti-Semitic propaganda in his lectures. He continued lecturing around Germany in defiance of the authorities until in 1938 he fled the country.
Let's be clear - Ilyin is not a modern Western liberal democrat. There are lots of passages in his work calling for 'dictatorship' etc. If that's all of his work you read, you'll no doubt think the guy is a fascist or something close to it. But, there's also a lot in his work which gives a very different impression. Take, for instance, his attitude to law. For Ilyin, law is not something to be obeyed just because it is law and somebody in authority has dictated it. Formal, 'positive' law, he wrote, should try as much as is possible to reflect natural law, which he defined in terms of the right of every individual to live a worthy, dignified, and autonomous life, independent of external coercion. Formal law exists only for this end. Moreover, the state exists only for this end - ie the sole purpose of the state is securing individuals' rights according to natural law. This is a very liberal point of view, and explains why many Russian conservative philosophers nowadays describe Ilyin as a 'liberal'.
So which is the real Ilyin? The authoritarian or the liberal? The answer is a complex, often paradoxical, mixture of the two. Ilyin supports authoritarianism over democracy precisely because in his time democracies had a nasty habit of collapsing and turning into totalitarian regimes (whether communist or fascist). This is because of the underdeveloped 'legal consciousness' of the people. Democracy could be stable in countries where legal consciousness was well developed, e.g. Britain, But elsewhere, and particularly Russia, it couldn't. Democracy therefore often did a worse job of protecting people's natural rights than authoritarianism. But the latter is only justified to the extent that it promotes natural rights and ultimately the authoritarian state should develop the people's legal consciousness to the extent that authoritarian rule is no longer necessary.
This all fits quite well into the Russian liberal-conservative tradition, which believes in autocracy (defined in terms of centralizing power into the hands of a single person) but also believes that autocracy is an inherently limited form of government, justified by its ability to protect peoples' freedoms. Of course, to modern Western liberal democrats these elements are contradictory. But without passing judgement on it, that is what it is.
Paul
They’re smart to be wary. The West hangs its Vassals out to dry. Look at Trump and Puerto Rico, and Puerto Rico is a Protectorate.
The West cannot be trusted. Former Soviet Satellite States that want to remain independent are going to have to be miraculously clever in walking The Independence Tightrope.
That’s pretty funny, one of the things I found so bizarre about the last chapter of his book was his treatment of characters like Jakub Berman in post-war Poland. The focus was almost entirely on how these people had to live in fear of Stalin’s alleged antisemitism…not on the fact that they were pretty repellent characters themselves who were instrumental in the creation of a communist dictatorship.
He had similar tendencies in earlier chapters imo (e.g. the striking overrepresentation of Jews among NKVD personnel until 1937/38 only gets mentioned in the context of the Great Terror when they fell victim to a system they had earlier been part of; iirc he also had the usual line about Stalin supporting Great Russian chauvinism).
And quite apart from that, it’s just a totally unoriginal book, little more than a tedious catalogue of atrocities.
I haven't yet written anything systemic about Ilyin on this blog, but if you're interested in the topic, I'd recommend Robinson's archive on this topic: https://irrussianality.wordpress.com/tag/ivan-ilyin/
Russian conservatism is one of his core specialties and he has a book coming out soon on this topic.
Thanks, I’ll have a look at it.
I wonder about the books Iljin published in German, I suppose they’ll be difficult to track down, but maybe I’ll try.
So, rumor grapevine concerning the 24 hour American IRS outage has the following:
1: Russian SVR was deeply dismayed by Roselkomnadzors clown car antics regarding Telegram, and believed that Russian cyber deterrence was threatened by this public show of incompetence.
2: IRS was taken down for 24 hours to have some lulz/bragging rights/making someone look more stupid that Roselkomnadzor. One cannot accuse the SVR of setting only modest goals for itself. 2/3 so far.
3: IRS takedown was also because some SVR affiliated rich guys are pretty displeased with the state of US double taxation. You see, normal rich people have tax optimizers, certain Oligarchs have the SVR.
4: Replaceing IRS website with a Roselkomnadzor notice “Website taken down for financial scamming” was considered, but not utilized due either a lack of humor or to the prophecies of Kek not being sufficiently advanced.
In any case, I'm not interested in hysterical hit pieces accusing Ilyin of "fascism", I want to know if some representative sample of his work is available in English, German or French, so I can judge for myself.
I always assumed that he was. But I found him refreshing that he managed to change parts of Holocaust narrative and put it in wider context of butchery that was going on in the East were many actors were involved and that he does not neglect the role of the USSR. I have recently spent several hours watching through his lectures and realized that his take is more evolved version of my own take to which I arrived after realizing many years ago that Jews actually were not murdered in Germany as Germany remained to some extent a “country of law” (Rechtsstaat) and countries that were German allies could protect Jews better than countries that were occupied by Germany like Poland and places that were lawless like Ukraine and Belarus. His narrative met some resistance within the canonical Jewish Holocaustians but I think it eventually got accepted though his narrative is not ready yet to be utilized in the pop-history of Hollywood and newspaper headlines in Holocaustian indoctrination because it is too complex. However there are issues that he does not touch like the number of the dead. He also separates himself from Hannah Arendt take on Jewish culpability in Judenrats etc. On the positive side he tries to have a more balanced view on Auschwitz and the fact that it was chiefly a huge prison/labor camps complex and it began to play a role in extermination of Jews much later when the the final solution in East was pretty much completed.
There is a current political context of his work. Just like Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations” of 1993 neatly foreshadowed and prepared the shift of interest of American Empire form the conflict with USSR to to engagement with Islam, Snyder book by stressing Soviet crimes and culpability in Holocaust and explaining conditioning to which Belorussians and Ukrainians were subjected shifted the attention of the American Empire to the conquest of Russia’s eastern provinces. Thanks to Snyder “the murderous” Ukrainians can be understood and somewhat justified and thus from being just the Holocaust perpetrators they became also freedom fighters against Russian imperialism and thus can be sought as potential allies in the American Empire’s projects. It is possibly this was the main objective of his work. Some writings of Anne Applebaum about the same geographical area served similar purpose, i.e., to warm up the image of Poles, Lithuanias, Belorussians and Ukrainians. It is possible that Applebaum and Snyder sit in the same think tanks or at least are paid from the same sources.
Academia always served the Empire. It is where from comes the подготовка, the preliminary “media artillery” barrage before the main attack.
This is a good illustration that the narrative is created by power and truth is treated instrumentally. The truth is a rhetorical devices (after Paul Feyerabend). Those who can claim they poses it win. But only in rare case the truth altered the balance of power as it usually power alters the truth, so the winner can also claim the high moral ground.
He also shied away from dealing in detail with the interaction between Soviet and Nazi crimes in the areas annexed by the Soviets in 1940 (Baltic states and what was then Eastern Poland). From what I've read the Soviets presented themselves as fighters against antisemitism in those areas in 1940/41 and there was noticeable support by Jews for the Soviet occupiers (though other Jews became victims of the Soviets and were deported, that's also true). When the Germans came in 1941, they tried to use that to enlist the local population as participants into their race war. But I guess it's too controversial for someone like Snyder (who clearly wants to be an establishment historian) to deal with that...easier that just to pretend that the Soviet Union by 1940 was just a vehicle for Great Russian chauvinism and Stalin an antisemite.
There is a current political context of his work. Just like Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" of 1993 neatly foreshadowed and prepared the shift of interest of American Empire form the conflict with USSR to to engagement with Islam, Snyder book by stressing Soviet crimes and culpability in Holocaust and explaining conditioning to which Belorussians and Ukrainians were subjected shifted the attention of the American Empire to the conquest of Russia's eastern provinces. Thanks to Snyder "the murderous" Ukrainians can be understood and somewhat justified and thus from being just the Holocaust perpetrators they became also freedom fighters against Russian imperialism and thus can be sought as potential allies in the American Empire's projects. It is possibly this was the main objective of his work. Some writings of Anne Applebaum about the same geographical area served similar purpose, i.e., to warm up the image of Poles, Lithuanias, Belorussians and Ukrainians. It is possible that Applebaum and Snyder sit in the same think tanks or at least are paid from the same sources.
Academia always served the Empire. It is where from comes the подготовка, the preliminary "media artillery" barrage before the main attack.
During the war in Yugoslavia the West sided with Croats who until then had pretty bad reputation as being one of the most murderous actors of the WWII and it was the Serbs who were considered the heroes of the WWII fighting for the right cause. Many people, also in Israel, were confused at that time as they instinctively wanted to support the good Serbs and it turned out that Serbs were not good anymore and the bad guys became the good guys. Similar dissonance people suffer in the case of Ukrainians as they are being transformed into good guys and their enthusiastic participation in Holocaust and genocidal massacres of Poles (also Czechs) in Volhynia is supposed to be forgotten.
This is a good illustration that the narrative is created by power and truth is treated instrumentally. The truth is a rhetorical devices (after Paul Feyerabend). Those who can claim they poses it win. But only in rare case the truth altered the balance of power as it usually power alters the truth, so the winner can also claim the high moral ground.
There is a current political context of his work. Just like Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" of 1993 neatly foreshadowed and prepared the shift of interest of American Empire form the conflict with USSR to to engagement with Islam, Snyder book by stressing Soviet crimes and culpability in Holocaust and explaining conditioning to which Belorussians and Ukrainians were subjected shifted the attention of the American Empire to the conquest of Russia's eastern provinces. Thanks to Snyder "the murderous" Ukrainians can be understood and somewhat justified and thus from being just the Holocaust perpetrators they became also freedom fighters against Russian imperialism and thus can be sought as potential allies in the American Empire's projects. It is possibly this was the main objective of his work. Some writings of Anne Applebaum about the same geographical area served similar purpose, i.e., to warm up the image of Poles, Lithuanias, Belorussians and Ukrainians. It is possible that Applebaum and Snyder sit in the same think tanks or at least are paid from the same sources.
Academia always served the Empire. It is where from comes the подготовка, the preliminary "media artillery" barrage before the main attack.
I didn’t find him refreshing at all, his book is very conventional (it’s also explicitly and vehemently anti-German in its treatment of the expulsions of Germans in the last chapter…I find it ironic you didn’t notice this, given how you constantly accuse me of being a “cuck”). It’s just an endless catalogue of atrocities, no original research. I also found his saccharine statement early in the book that he wants to focus on the victims, not on the killers pretty pathetic…that’s just another manifestation of the modern Western cult of the victim. What’s the point in writing about mass killings when you don’t tell us about the perpetrators and their motives?
He also shied away from dealing in detail with the interaction between Soviet and Nazi crimes in the areas annexed by the Soviets in 1940 (Baltic states and what was then Eastern Poland). From what I’ve read the Soviets presented themselves as fighters against antisemitism in those areas in 1940/41 and there was noticeable support by Jews for the Soviet occupiers (though other Jews became victims of the Soviets and were deported, that’s also true). When the Germans came in 1941, they tried to use that to enlist the local population as participants into their race war. But I guess it’s too controversial for someone like Snyder (who clearly wants to be an establishment historian) to deal with that…easier that just to pretend that the Soviet Union by 1940 was just a vehicle for Great Russian chauvinism and Stalin an antisemite.
In Jedwabne which I think Poland still is controversial as many people do buy the now accepted story the so called pogrom began with having Jews marching with the bust of Lenin form the monument that was erected during Soviet occupation. I think that bust Lenin was found during the exhumation that unfortunately was prematurely terminated under the pressure of Jewish religious groups.
Probably you are right and I should take a second look at him and read his books first. My mistake came from me being still hopeful.
I wonder about the books Iljin published in German, I suppose they'll be difficult to track down, but maybe I'll try.
Try the German national library: http://d-nb.info/gnd/118970054
https://www.amazon.de/Wesen-Eigenart-russischen-Kultur-Betrachtungen/dp/393712974X (apparently published in German already in the 1940s)
https://www.amazon.de/%C3%9Cber-gewaltsamen-Widerstand-gegen-B%C3%B6se/dp/3963210052/ref=pd_sim_14_1?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=0KNEV58FDG119KMQB9YB
(seems to be a new translation)
My central university library only has some tract by him from the 1920s about private property and communism...but I might try to get hold of that book about Russian culture.
Two of his books actually seem to have been republished in recent years:
https://www.amazon.de/Wesen-Eigenart-russischen-Kultur-Betrachtungen/dp/393712974X (apparently published in German already in the 1940s)
(seems to be a new translation)
My central university library only has some tract by him from the 1920s about private property and communism…but I might try to get hold of that book about Russian culture.
So you are an academic (or perhaps a perpetual student)? Must be pretty lonely for you!
https://www.amazon.de/Wesen-Eigenart-russischen-Kultur-Betrachtungen/dp/393712974X (apparently published in German already in the 1940s)
https://www.amazon.de/%C3%9Cber-gewaltsamen-Widerstand-gegen-B%C3%B6se/dp/3963210052/ref=pd_sim_14_1?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=0KNEV58FDG119KMQB9YB
(seems to be a new translation)
My central university library only has some tract by him from the 1920s about private property and communism...but I might try to get hold of that book about Russian culture.
My central university library
So you are an academic (or perhaps a perpetual student)? Must be pretty lonely for you!
So you are an academic (or perhaps a perpetual student)? Must be pretty lonely for you!
Semi-failed academic in precarious employment.
Why? Because of my “extreme” views? Well, I usually avoid talking about politics unless I have some idea where the other person stands.
https://souloftheeast.org/tag/ivan-ilyin/
This was how I was introduced to his philosophy several years ago after coming across his wikipedia article. It was good to see the archive is still up for other people to discover.
In particular, you should start with 'On Forms of Sovereignty' (1948), which cuts to the heart of how Ilyin perceived the international order and Russia's place in it.
https://souloftheeast.org/2015/04/24/ivan-ilyin-on-forms-of-sovereignty/
He also shied away from dealing in detail with the interaction between Soviet and Nazi crimes in the areas annexed by the Soviets in 1940 (Baltic states and what was then Eastern Poland). From what I've read the Soviets presented themselves as fighters against antisemitism in those areas in 1940/41 and there was noticeable support by Jews for the Soviet occupiers (though other Jews became victims of the Soviets and were deported, that's also true). When the Germans came in 1941, they tried to use that to enlist the local population as participants into their race war. But I guess it's too controversial for someone like Snyder (who clearly wants to be an establishment historian) to deal with that...easier that just to pretend that the Soviet Union by 1940 was just a vehicle for Great Russian chauvinism and Stalin an antisemite.
I did not read the books. I am familiar only with many reviews and his talks.
In his talks he addressed the issue of Jewish collaboration with Soviets which he minimized and claimed that non Jewish collaboration was even larger and he was saying that people believed in Jewish collaboration and that may explain (not justify) their action.
In Jedwabne which I think Poland still is controversial as many people do buy the now accepted story the so called pogrom began with having Jews marching with the bust of Lenin form the monument that was erected during Soviet occupation. I think that bust Lenin was found during the exhumation that unfortunately was prematurely terminated under the pressure of Jewish religious groups.
Probably you are right and I should take a second look at him and read his books first. My mistake came from me being still hopeful.
But I have my doubts whether it's the whole story.
Some years ago I read a study about wartime Latvia (Björn Felder, Lettland im Zweiten Weltkrieg). It contained some facts which seemed very explosive to me (e.g. membership of the Latvian Communist party in 1940/41 was mostly Russians and Jews, with only the top level being ethnic Latvians...and even more strikingly: The Soviets made a big show of how they wanted to fight antisemitism, which the author demonstrated by reference to numerous leaflets, newspapers etc.)...and which are in stark contrast to what you generally read about Stalin's Soviet Union in the early 1940s (which supposedly was all about thinly veiled Russian nationalism by then and already well on the way to its later "antisemitism").
Not that this could be in any way a justification for the mass murders the Germans and some local collaborators later committed. But it did indicate to me that establishment historians like Snyder don't go out of their way to look at issues that might potentially be controversial.
In Jedwabne which I think Poland still is controversial as many people do buy the now accepted story the so called pogrom began with having Jews marching with the bust of Lenin form the monument that was erected during Soviet occupation. I think that bust Lenin was found during the exhumation that unfortunately was prematurely terminated under the pressure of Jewish religious groups.
Probably you are right and I should take a second look at him and read his books first. My mistake came from me being still hopeful.
Yeah, that’s the standard line, and it’s of course true that many Jewish businesses were closed down by the Soviets, bourgeois Jews deported to the Gulag etc.
But I have my doubts whether it’s the whole story.
Some years ago I read a study about wartime Latvia (Björn Felder, Lettland im Zweiten Weltkrieg). It contained some facts which seemed very explosive to me (e.g. membership of the Latvian Communist party in 1940/41 was mostly Russians and Jews, with only the top level being ethnic Latvians…and even more strikingly: The Soviets made a big show of how they wanted to fight antisemitism, which the author demonstrated by reference to numerous leaflets, newspapers etc.)…and which are in stark contrast to what you generally read about Stalin’s Soviet Union in the early 1940s (which supposedly was all about thinly veiled Russian nationalism by then and already well on the way to its later “antisemitism”).
Not that this could be in any way a justification for the mass murders the Germans and some local collaborators later committed. But it did indicate to me that establishment historians like Snyder don’t go out of their way to look at issues that might potentially be controversial.
In Jedwabne which I think Poland still is controversial as many people do buy the now accepted story the so called pogrom began with having Jews marching with the bust of Lenin form the monument that was erected during Soviet occupation. I think that bust Lenin was found during the exhumation that unfortunately was prematurely terminated under the pressure of Jewish religious groups.
Probably you are right and I should take a second look at him and read his books first. My mistake came from me being still hopeful.
Now I remember, years ago I bought Bloodlands but then I lent it to an acquaintance before reading it and completely forgot about it. Since then I moved to another country and the still another so I will have to buy it again if I want to read it.
But I have my doubts whether it's the whole story.
Some years ago I read a study about wartime Latvia (Björn Felder, Lettland im Zweiten Weltkrieg). It contained some facts which seemed very explosive to me (e.g. membership of the Latvian Communist party in 1940/41 was mostly Russians and Jews, with only the top level being ethnic Latvians...and even more strikingly: The Soviets made a big show of how they wanted to fight antisemitism, which the author demonstrated by reference to numerous leaflets, newspapers etc.)...and which are in stark contrast to what you generally read about Stalin's Soviet Union in the early 1940s (which supposedly was all about thinly veiled Russian nationalism by then and already well on the way to its later "antisemitism").
Not that this could be in any way a justification for the mass murders the Germans and some local collaborators later committed. But it did indicate to me that establishment historians like Snyder don't go out of their way to look at issues that might potentially be controversial.
https://www.scribd.com/document/72092745/Collaboration-Of-Polish-Jews-With-Nkvd-and-Soviets
The West cannot be trusted. Former Soviet Satellite States that want to remain independent are going to have to be miraculously clever in walking The Independence Tightrope.
Well, Batka was able to efficiently control “Maidanist viruses” within Belarus. In addition, people seem allergic to take liberal Sirens sings at face value. I think Belarus skillfully managed its post-soviet period and avoided the disease suffered by its two bigger brothers. In the post-soviet space, Kazakhstan and Belarus are the best performers.
If you need him as Authority to support your argument, you've already lost your argument. If you don't need him as Authority to support your argument and lend weight to it, then don't give him Billing.
Who in The West do you really think you're appealing to with this Poor Pious Russia Bullshit?
I'll tell you who.
People Like This
FYI, I can find Russian Writers who speak as equally abysmally of Russia as this author speaks glowingly of it. Russia, like any other Country, is The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, but IT OWNS THAT and no author gets to place the blame for Russia's shortcomings, and it has many, on anyone or anything else but Russia itself.
The author of the New York Review of Books article I linked to mentions how Putin's recruiting of Ilyin to legitimate his Potemkin Kleptocratic Government is rather ironic when you consider Ilyin's opinion of The Soviet Union and The Communists. But Putin's shrewd and since no one is left in Russia to challenge Putin on his Bullshit, he's able to shamelessly contain Ilyin & Stalin & The Soviets under his Deranged Propaganda Umbrella where Russia, not America, is that Shiing City on the Hill.
Breaking News!!
There is no Shining City on the Hill.
Who among US mass media cable TV hosts is more objective on Russia? He makes some cogent point, in addition to having on some quality guests.
You’ve failed to convince differently. FYI, I don’t exclusively rely on establishment sources – JRL court appointed Russia friendlys included.
Putinism: Rusia and Its Future with the WestI love this excerpt.How clever. He's correct. It can just as easily be read as follows.Remember, The Rule of Law is very important to Ilyin. It's a Central Tenet of his Philosophy. So long as its legal, it's virtuous.
This excerpt also tickles me.Once again, very clever on his part. He's also correct once again. It should and could read as follows.
Because I was asked, here goes:
Like a lot of people on the European political right in the inter-war period, Ilyin initially engaged in a certain amount of wishful thinking concerning fascism, which caused him at first to underestimate its dangers. He also had some sympathy with 1930s authoritarianism, nationalism, and especially anti-communism. But Ilyin was also a firm opponent of totalitarianism. Eventually, the Nazis fired him from his job teaching in Berlin because he refused to include anti-Semitic propaganda in his lectures. He continued lecturing around Germany in defiance of the authorities until in 1938 he fled the country.
Let’s be clear – Ilyin is not a modern Western liberal democrat. There are lots of passages in his work calling for ‘dictatorship’ etc. If that’s all of his work you read, you’ll no doubt think the guy is a fascist or something close to it. But, there’s also a lot in his work which gives a very different impression. Take, for instance, his attitude to law. For Ilyin, law is not something to be obeyed just because it is law and somebody in authority has dictated it. Formal, ‘positive’ law, he wrote, should try as much as is possible to reflect natural law, which he defined in terms of the right of every individual to live a worthy, dignified, and autonomous life, independent of external coercion. Formal law exists only for this end. Moreover, the state exists only for this end – ie the sole purpose of the state is securing individuals’ rights according to natural law. This is a very liberal point of view, and explains why many Russian conservative philosophers nowadays describe Ilyin as a ‘liberal’.
So which is the real Ilyin? The authoritarian or the liberal? The answer is a complex, often paradoxical, mixture of the two. Ilyin supports authoritarianism over democracy precisely because in his time democracies had a nasty habit of collapsing and turning into totalitarian regimes (whether communist or fascist). This is because of the underdeveloped ‘legal consciousness’ of the people. Democracy could be stable in countries where legal consciousness was well developed, e.g. Britain, But elsewhere, and particularly Russia, it couldn’t. Democracy therefore often did a worse job of protecting people’s natural rights than authoritarianism. But the latter is only justified to the extent that it promotes natural rights and ultimately the authoritarian state should develop the people’s legal consciousness to the extent that authoritarian rule is no longer necessary.
This all fits quite well into the Russian liberal-conservative tradition, which believes in autocracy (defined in terms of centralizing power into the hands of a single person) but also believes that autocracy is an inherently limited form of government, justified by its ability to protect peoples’ freedoms. Of course, to modern Western liberal democrats these elements are contradictory. But without passing judgement on it, that is what it is.
Paul
Have you written about Ilyin in detail before? Is some of his work available in translation, and if so, what should one read to understand his thought?
I have no doubt that what Western msm and people like Timothy Snyder write about him is hysterical nonsense, but if possible I'd like to see for myself.
Crimean War, Congress of Berlin and Russo-Japanese War serve as examples.
Like a lot of people on the European political right in the inter-war period, Ilyin initially engaged in a certain amount of wishful thinking concerning fascism, which caused him at first to underestimate its dangers. He also had some sympathy with 1930s authoritarianism, nationalism, and especially anti-communism. But Ilyin was also a firm opponent of totalitarianism. Eventually, the Nazis fired him from his job teaching in Berlin because he refused to include anti-Semitic propaganda in his lectures. He continued lecturing around Germany in defiance of the authorities until in 1938 he fled the country.
Let's be clear - Ilyin is not a modern Western liberal democrat. There are lots of passages in his work calling for 'dictatorship' etc. If that's all of his work you read, you'll no doubt think the guy is a fascist or something close to it. But, there's also a lot in his work which gives a very different impression. Take, for instance, his attitude to law. For Ilyin, law is not something to be obeyed just because it is law and somebody in authority has dictated it. Formal, 'positive' law, he wrote, should try as much as is possible to reflect natural law, which he defined in terms of the right of every individual to live a worthy, dignified, and autonomous life, independent of external coercion. Formal law exists only for this end. Moreover, the state exists only for this end - ie the sole purpose of the state is securing individuals' rights according to natural law. This is a very liberal point of view, and explains why many Russian conservative philosophers nowadays describe Ilyin as a 'liberal'.
So which is the real Ilyin? The authoritarian or the liberal? The answer is a complex, often paradoxical, mixture of the two. Ilyin supports authoritarianism over democracy precisely because in his time democracies had a nasty habit of collapsing and turning into totalitarian regimes (whether communist or fascist). This is because of the underdeveloped 'legal consciousness' of the people. Democracy could be stable in countries where legal consciousness was well developed, e.g. Britain, But elsewhere, and particularly Russia, it couldn't. Democracy therefore often did a worse job of protecting people's natural rights than authoritarianism. But the latter is only justified to the extent that it promotes natural rights and ultimately the authoritarian state should develop the people's legal consciousness to the extent that authoritarian rule is no longer necessary.
This all fits quite well into the Russian liberal-conservative tradition, which believes in autocracy (defined in terms of centralizing power into the hands of a single person) but also believes that autocracy is an inherently limited form of government, justified by its ability to protect peoples' freedoms. Of course, to modern Western liberal democrats these elements are contradictory. But without passing judgement on it, that is what it is.
Paul
Doesn’t negate the idea of having competent personnel around that single person, with the aforementioned group being very much involved in impacting the decision making process.
“Modern Western liberal democrats“, have some contradictions of their own.
Like a lot of people on the European political right in the inter-war period, Ilyin initially engaged in a certain amount of wishful thinking concerning fascism, which caused him at first to underestimate its dangers. He also had some sympathy with 1930s authoritarianism, nationalism, and especially anti-communism. But Ilyin was also a firm opponent of totalitarianism. Eventually, the Nazis fired him from his job teaching in Berlin because he refused to include anti-Semitic propaganda in his lectures. He continued lecturing around Germany in defiance of the authorities until in 1938 he fled the country.
Let's be clear - Ilyin is not a modern Western liberal democrat. There are lots of passages in his work calling for 'dictatorship' etc. If that's all of his work you read, you'll no doubt think the guy is a fascist or something close to it. But, there's also a lot in his work which gives a very different impression. Take, for instance, his attitude to law. For Ilyin, law is not something to be obeyed just because it is law and somebody in authority has dictated it. Formal, 'positive' law, he wrote, should try as much as is possible to reflect natural law, which he defined in terms of the right of every individual to live a worthy, dignified, and autonomous life, independent of external coercion. Formal law exists only for this end. Moreover, the state exists only for this end - ie the sole purpose of the state is securing individuals' rights according to natural law. This is a very liberal point of view, and explains why many Russian conservative philosophers nowadays describe Ilyin as a 'liberal'.
So which is the real Ilyin? The authoritarian or the liberal? The answer is a complex, often paradoxical, mixture of the two. Ilyin supports authoritarianism over democracy precisely because in his time democracies had a nasty habit of collapsing and turning into totalitarian regimes (whether communist or fascist). This is because of the underdeveloped 'legal consciousness' of the people. Democracy could be stable in countries where legal consciousness was well developed, e.g. Britain, But elsewhere, and particularly Russia, it couldn't. Democracy therefore often did a worse job of protecting people's natural rights than authoritarianism. But the latter is only justified to the extent that it promotes natural rights and ultimately the authoritarian state should develop the people's legal consciousness to the extent that authoritarian rule is no longer necessary.
This all fits quite well into the Russian liberal-conservative tradition, which believes in autocracy (defined in terms of centralizing power into the hands of a single person) but also believes that autocracy is an inherently limited form of government, justified by its ability to protect peoples' freedoms. Of course, to modern Western liberal democrats these elements are contradictory. But without passing judgement on it, that is what it is.
Paul
That’s an excellent response. Thanks. I will chew on it for a day or two. There’s much to consider and ponder.
I wish I could have replied a few hours ago, but if you want to read some of Ilyin’s essays in English, go to this website.
https://souloftheeast.org/tag/ivan-ilyin/
This was how I was introduced to his philosophy several years ago after coming across his wikipedia article. It was good to see the archive is still up for other people to discover.
In particular, you should start with ‘On Forms of Sovereignty’ (1948), which cuts to the heart of how Ilyin perceived the international order and Russia’s place in it.
https://souloftheeast.org/2015/04/24/ivan-ilyin-on-forms-of-sovereignty/
And yet, I suspect, the author would not view Ukraine's artificial inclusion and forced integration into Russia's political system so realistically.
Have read the "On forms of sovereignty" article. Actually sounds pretty sensible imo, hard to object unless one is a mindless democracy fanatic (reminds me somewhat of our own times, where the attempt to introduce democracy in a country like Egypt merely led to the empowerment of intolerant demagogues, and then to military dictatorship again...democratic forms are useless unless the population is sufficiently educated and civic-minded).
I should have been more sceptical of the image of Ilyin spread by Western msm...as usual it's apparently gross misrepresentation.
https://souloftheeast.org/tag/ivan-ilyin/
This was how I was introduced to his philosophy several years ago after coming across his wikipedia article. It was good to see the archive is still up for other people to discover.
In particular, you should start with 'On Forms of Sovereignty' (1948), which cuts to the heart of how Ilyin perceived the international order and Russia's place in it.
https://souloftheeast.org/2015/04/24/ivan-ilyin-on-forms-of-sovereignty/
Very nice.
And yet, I suspect, the author would not view Ukraine’s artificial inclusion and forced integration into Russia’s political system so realistically.
1) They exist, they are related to but are somewhat different from Russians on points of language and culture.
2) They are still similar enough through shared origins and common religion (Orthodoxy) that they should stay united with Russia against other civilizational blocs.
3) The people of the 'Russian World' (of which Ukrainians are a part of) should be ruled under a common government, as they gain more from it by contributing to each other both on a personal and communal level.
4) This government should respect the unique identity of these varied ethnicities in the 'Russian World' while protecting them under a strong umbrella of common laws to resolve disputes between communities.
5) This government would preferably be a monarchy, which has the best chance of being immune to mono-ethnic passions and transcend them.
6) An independent Ukraine would be an abomination and threat to Russia since it would be used to undermine the common values of the Russian World.
Notice Putin and the Russian government generally try to follow points 1 through 4 in their domestic policies towards ethnic minorities (a clear sign of Ilyin's influence), but ignore points 5 and 6 at their convenience and comfort. Modern Russian political identity is very much a Frankenstein's monster of various conflicting ideas stitched together in a shambling mass. Ilyin sort of predicted this would be one of the results of Communism collapsing:
"There will pass years of national remembrance; settling in; solace; coming to reason; becoming informed. There will come a restoration of an elementary sense of justice; a return to the principles of honor and honesty; personal responsibility and loyalty; a feeling of one’s own dignity; to incorruptibility and independent thought – before the Russian people will be a condition to carry out sensible and not ruinous political elections. And until that time it can be led only by a national, patriotic, hardly totalitarian, but authoritarian – cultivating and reviving – dictatorship."
‘On Forms of Sovereignty’ (1948)
I think his major weakness as a philosopher was how much he underestimated both the allure and corrupting power of international capital and how common markets can be used a tool of entrapment and subjugation more subtle, encompassing and harder to throw off then any police-state tyranny.
Like a lot of people on the European political right in the inter-war period, Ilyin initially engaged in a certain amount of wishful thinking concerning fascism, which caused him at first to underestimate its dangers. He also had some sympathy with 1930s authoritarianism, nationalism, and especially anti-communism. But Ilyin was also a firm opponent of totalitarianism. Eventually, the Nazis fired him from his job teaching in Berlin because he refused to include anti-Semitic propaganda in his lectures. He continued lecturing around Germany in defiance of the authorities until in 1938 he fled the country.
Let's be clear - Ilyin is not a modern Western liberal democrat. There are lots of passages in his work calling for 'dictatorship' etc. If that's all of his work you read, you'll no doubt think the guy is a fascist or something close to it. But, there's also a lot in his work which gives a very different impression. Take, for instance, his attitude to law. For Ilyin, law is not something to be obeyed just because it is law and somebody in authority has dictated it. Formal, 'positive' law, he wrote, should try as much as is possible to reflect natural law, which he defined in terms of the right of every individual to live a worthy, dignified, and autonomous life, independent of external coercion. Formal law exists only for this end. Moreover, the state exists only for this end - ie the sole purpose of the state is securing individuals' rights according to natural law. This is a very liberal point of view, and explains why many Russian conservative philosophers nowadays describe Ilyin as a 'liberal'.
So which is the real Ilyin? The authoritarian or the liberal? The answer is a complex, often paradoxical, mixture of the two. Ilyin supports authoritarianism over democracy precisely because in his time democracies had a nasty habit of collapsing and turning into totalitarian regimes (whether communist or fascist). This is because of the underdeveloped 'legal consciousness' of the people. Democracy could be stable in countries where legal consciousness was well developed, e.g. Britain, But elsewhere, and particularly Russia, it couldn't. Democracy therefore often did a worse job of protecting people's natural rights than authoritarianism. But the latter is only justified to the extent that it promotes natural rights and ultimately the authoritarian state should develop the people's legal consciousness to the extent that authoritarian rule is no longer necessary.
This all fits quite well into the Russian liberal-conservative tradition, which believes in autocracy (defined in terms of centralizing power into the hands of a single person) but also believes that autocracy is an inherently limited form of government, justified by its ability to protect peoples' freedoms. Of course, to modern Western liberal democrats these elements are contradictory. But without passing judgement on it, that is what it is.
Paul
Well said.
Speaking of Law, two dimensions of it are paramount for Law to be worth its Salt. The first dimension is what Paul mentioned about Ilyin, that being what constitutes the Law. How it’s derived. Are the Laws in and of themselves equitable? Do they promote Egalitarianism? What System do they preserve & protect & perpetuate? The second dimension is the administration of the Law. It’s of paramount importance that the Law be administered fairly & equitably. If you have to pay dearly to navigate the Law, as you do in America and most countries, then the Law is not administered fairly & equitably, and therefore, Justice is compromised and the Society enabled by the Law is imbalanced, favoring one group over another, and that one group, as the history of Civilization has shown, tends to be The Moneyed Class, and in this sense, the Law has tended to keep those not in the Moneyed Class in their place. The Law in that sense has served as a form of incarceration, creating false Barriers to Entry for those who don’t have Means.
Stop capitalizing and italicizing words all the time, and learn how to use paragraphs.
https://souloftheeast.org/tag/ivan-ilyin/
This was how I was introduced to his philosophy several years ago after coming across his wikipedia article. It was good to see the archive is still up for other people to discover.
In particular, you should start with 'On Forms of Sovereignty' (1948), which cuts to the heart of how Ilyin perceived the international order and Russia's place in it.
https://souloftheeast.org/2015/04/24/ivan-ilyin-on-forms-of-sovereignty/
Thanks, that’s great.
Have read the “On forms of sovereignty” article. Actually sounds pretty sensible imo, hard to object unless one is a mindless democracy fanatic (reminds me somewhat of our own times, where the attempt to introduce democracy in a country like Egypt merely led to the empowerment of intolerant demagogues, and then to military dictatorship again…democratic forms are useless unless the population is sufficiently educated and civic-minded).
I should have been more sceptical of the image of Ilyin spread by Western msm…as usual it’s apparently gross misrepresentation.
Wow, the guy seems to be even madder than I had imagined.
His dalliance with ‘Islamic eschatology’ coming apparently through a personage who plays the prophets of doom (Sheik Imran Hosein) is baffling, to say the least. The Sheik, who has a no less baffling audience on other ‘Russian’ and ‘Orthodox’ sites, advocates an alliance between Muslims and Russian Orthodox, who allegedly are designated in the Koran (which he interprets in a personal way) as ‘the closest in affection’ to Muslims, against the Western-Zionist Dajjal! He tries to conceal the rabid anti-Christian thrust of all so-called prophecies, which inform the ‘ideology’ of the jihadis in Syria. In those ‘prophecies’ Jesus comes to ‘smash the crosses, kill the pigs, abolish the jizya (by making everyone a Muslim) and finally to submit to the Mahdi!
Dugin is not a Christian. His philosophy was influenced by the ‘Sufi’ esoterism of Rene Guenon, the famous apostate.
First World War and Revolution come to mind.
Max Hastings has stated that had WW I begun in 1916, Rusia's fate might very well have been much better. By 1917, the situation with Russian armaments had greatly improved, as the morale had significantly declined due to the conduct of the war's toll.
The Russian "Revolution", saw a blend of different foreign influences favoring the Bolshes.
Related:
http://www.eurasiareview.com/08042016-fuzzy-history-how-poland-saved-the-world-from-russia-analysis/
And yet, I suspect, the author would not view Ukraine's artificial inclusion and forced integration into Russia's political system so realistically.
Ilyin’s view on Ukrainians seemed to be thus.
1) They exist, they are related to but are somewhat different from Russians on points of language and culture.
2) They are still similar enough through shared origins and common religion (Orthodoxy) that they should stay united with Russia against other civilizational blocs.
3) The people of the ‘Russian World’ (of which Ukrainians are a part of) should be ruled under a common government, as they gain more from it by contributing to each other both on a personal and communal level.
4) This government should respect the unique identity of these varied ethnicities in the ‘Russian World’ while protecting them under a strong umbrella of common laws to resolve disputes between communities.
5) This government would preferably be a monarchy, which has the best chance of being immune to mono-ethnic passions and transcend them.
6) An independent Ukraine would be an abomination and threat to Russia since it would be used to undermine the common values of the Russian World.
Notice Putin and the Russian government generally try to follow points 1 through 4 in their domestic policies towards ethnic minorities (a clear sign of Ilyin’s influence), but ignore points 5 and 6 at their convenience and comfort. Modern Russian political identity is very much a Frankenstein’s monster of various conflicting ideas stitched together in a shambling mass. Ilyin sort of predicted this would be one of the results of Communism collapsing:
“There will pass years of national remembrance; settling in; solace; coming to reason; becoming informed. There will come a restoration of an elementary sense of justice; a return to the principles of honor and honesty; personal responsibility and loyalty; a feeling of one’s own dignity; to incorruptibility and independent thought – before the Russian people will be a condition to carry out sensible and not ruinous political elections. And until that time it can be led only by a national, patriotic, hardly totalitarian, but authoritarian – cultivating and reviving – dictatorship.”
‘On Forms of Sovereignty’ (1948)
I think his major weakness as a philosopher was how much he underestimated both the allure and corrupting power of international capital and how common markets can be used a tool of entrapment and subjugation more subtle, encompassing and harder to throw off then any police-state tyranny.
https://www.eurasiareview.com/22052011-pavlo-skoropadsky-and-the-course-of-russian-ukrainian-relations-analysis/
To this day, I'm pleased to encounter numerous ethnic Ukrainians of varying ages who don't buy into the anti-Russian bunk. Much unlike the person mentioned in this piece:
https://irrussianality.wordpress.com/2018/04/23/foreign-minister/
In line with Alexandra Chalupa getting paid over $400K by the DNC, to find material against Trump/Trump campaign, via coordinating with the Kiev regime.
Theoretically, the idea's modernity would not necessarily have made it unfeasible. Little Russians tried to make it work. But actions taken by the" common government" killed it.Unfortunately (5) proved incapable of implementing (4). There was a strong Little Russian movement in Ukraine. Its adherents were Rus nationalists who developed and standardized the Little Russian language. They viewed Little Russians as equal to Great Russians as different children of one Rus. The Center, spooked by Polish uprisings, and goaded by Westernizing liberals, adopted a policy of centralization and a forced attempt to impose the Great Russian language, culture, and identity upon the locals. Little Russian was mostly banned, its adherents demoted or sent off to provincial Great Russia. The backlash was predictable. Ukraine replaced Little Russia.
Little Russia/Ukraine and Great Russia/Russia simply had two different and ultimately incompatible political cultures. This might not necessarily have been a barrier for some sort of union, but the large discrepancy in populations provided an easy temptation for the larger nation to completely dominate the smaller one (a factor that was absent in Austria-Hungary and in Poland-Lithuania) and to absorb and culturally destroy it. So the only option was to try to escape.There is no "common world" involving Ukraine and Russia (unless you mean a much wider "common world" that includes all Slavs, or all Europeans). Might as well say that an independent Poland is an abomination and threat to Slavia because it is used to undermine the common values of the Slavic World, an independent Sweden is an abomination to Germania, etc.
This lack of common world explains the constant friction when Ukraine has been a part of Russia - frequent rebellions, "betrayals", etc. Russian nationalists incapable of acknowledging that it's simply a different people, have to resort to conspiracy theories to explain why this group of "Russians" keeps resisting (German, Polish, Bolshevik, American plots or course).
To the extent that Ukraine belongs in a common world with someone - it is a common world with Poland, with whom Ukraine was united for a longer period of time, and with whom it was united during its critical developmental phase, than it was under Moscow. And indeed this is reflected in phenomena such as electoral patterns, that in the 21st century follow old 17th century borders.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/Polish-Lithuanian_Commonwealth_%281619%29.png
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-TmGACgT-YWA/Vr8RN6reBsI/AAAAAAAAC_8/TMRtX81iGtA/s1600/Ukraine%2Belections.jpg
Presidents of the RF are basically elected emperors.
Just like the presidents of the Fifth French republic are basically elected kings.
Empty word that spell the death knell of the Ukrainian nation, by first eliminating any vestiges of Ukrainian statehood. These measures have been tried before always to the advantage of the ‘elder brother’ and to the detriment of Ukraine. This is just an attempt to prent Russian imperialism in a more palatable printed form.
More of the same sort of nonsense, where the ‘common values of the Russian world’ would be dictated through the prism of Great Russian chauvinism, to the detriment of Ukrainian cultural and political sovereignty and aspirations. The ‘common values of the Russian world’ and any deviation from Russian orthodoxy in these matters is clearly visible in the authoritarian hand of Russian nationalism at work in the Crimea and Donbas.
You're a fucking loser dude.
What is “Batka”?
Early on in WW I, Russia was very much urged by its Western allies to attack into Germany to limit the German advance on France. With retrospection especially in mind, the Russians weren’t yet ready to successfully launch such an advance.
Max Hastings has stated that had WW I begun in 1916, Rusia’s fate might very well have been much better. By 1917, the situation with Russian armaments had greatly improved, as the morale had significantly declined due to the conduct of the war’s toll.
The Russian “Revolution”, saw a blend of different foreign influences favoring the Bolshes.
Related:
http://www.eurasiareview.com/08042016-fuzzy-history-how-poland-saved-the-world-from-russia-analysis/
1) They exist, they are related to but are somewhat different from Russians on points of language and culture.
2) They are still similar enough through shared origins and common religion (Orthodoxy) that they should stay united with Russia against other civilizational blocs.
3) The people of the 'Russian World' (of which Ukrainians are a part of) should be ruled under a common government, as they gain more from it by contributing to each other both on a personal and communal level.
4) This government should respect the unique identity of these varied ethnicities in the 'Russian World' while protecting them under a strong umbrella of common laws to resolve disputes between communities.
5) This government would preferably be a monarchy, which has the best chance of being immune to mono-ethnic passions and transcend them.
6) An independent Ukraine would be an abomination and threat to Russia since it would be used to undermine the common values of the Russian World.
Notice Putin and the Russian government generally try to follow points 1 through 4 in their domestic policies towards ethnic minorities (a clear sign of Ilyin's influence), but ignore points 5 and 6 at their convenience and comfort. Modern Russian political identity is very much a Frankenstein's monster of various conflicting ideas stitched together in a shambling mass. Ilyin sort of predicted this would be one of the results of Communism collapsing:
"There will pass years of national remembrance; settling in; solace; coming to reason; becoming informed. There will come a restoration of an elementary sense of justice; a return to the principles of honor and honesty; personal responsibility and loyalty; a feeling of one’s own dignity; to incorruptibility and independent thought – before the Russian people will be a condition to carry out sensible and not ruinous political elections. And until that time it can be led only by a national, patriotic, hardly totalitarian, but authoritarian – cultivating and reviving – dictatorship."
‘On Forms of Sovereignty’ (1948)
I think his major weakness as a philosopher was how much he underestimated both the allure and corrupting power of international capital and how common markets can be used a tool of entrapment and subjugation more subtle, encompassing and harder to throw off then any police-state tyranny.
Numerous Chinese have told me that the Han and Mandarin languages significantly differ. There was a chance for a continued Russo-Ukrainian togetherness which partly relates to this piece:
https://www.eurasiareview.com/22052011-pavlo-skoropadsky-and-the-course-of-russian-ukrainian-relations-analysis/
To this day, I’m pleased to encounter numerous ethnic Ukrainians of varying ages who don’t buy into the anti-Russian bunk. Much unlike the person mentioned in this piece:
https://irrussianality.wordpress.com/2018/04/23/foreign-minister/
In line with Alexandra Chalupa getting paid over $400K by the DNC, to find material against Trump/Trump campaign, via coordinating with the Kiev regime.
1) They exist, they are related to but are somewhat different from Russians on points of language and culture.
2) They are still similar enough through shared origins and common religion (Orthodoxy) that they should stay united with Russia against other civilizational blocs.
3) The people of the 'Russian World' (of which Ukrainians are a part of) should be ruled under a common government, as they gain more from it by contributing to each other both on a personal and communal level.
4) This government should respect the unique identity of these varied ethnicities in the 'Russian World' while protecting them under a strong umbrella of common laws to resolve disputes between communities.
5) This government would preferably be a monarchy, which has the best chance of being immune to mono-ethnic passions and transcend them.
6) An independent Ukraine would be an abomination and threat to Russia since it would be used to undermine the common values of the Russian World.
Notice Putin and the Russian government generally try to follow points 1 through 4 in their domestic policies towards ethnic minorities (a clear sign of Ilyin's influence), but ignore points 5 and 6 at their convenience and comfort. Modern Russian political identity is very much a Frankenstein's monster of various conflicting ideas stitched together in a shambling mass. Ilyin sort of predicted this would be one of the results of Communism collapsing:
"There will pass years of national remembrance; settling in; solace; coming to reason; becoming informed. There will come a restoration of an elementary sense of justice; a return to the principles of honor and honesty; personal responsibility and loyalty; a feeling of one’s own dignity; to incorruptibility and independent thought – before the Russian people will be a condition to carry out sensible and not ruinous political elections. And until that time it can be led only by a national, patriotic, hardly totalitarian, but authoritarian – cultivating and reviving – dictatorship."
‘On Forms of Sovereignty’ (1948)
I think his major weakness as a philosopher was how much he underestimated both the allure and corrupting power of international capital and how common markets can be used a tool of entrapment and subjugation more subtle, encompassing and harder to throw off then any police-state tyranny.
Those are sensible views and align nicely with my own, except the monarchy stuff.
Ukraine is nationalistic and racially homogeneous because of, not despite, Russia. Compare Ukraine, Belarus, all Baltic countries, Hungary, Czech Republic, Poland, Slovakia etc. on one side, and France, Germany, Sweden, Netherlands, England, Belgium and other Western European countries (& the Anglosphere post-WW2) on the other.
The former were shielded from the Trotskyite onslaugh that is responsible for the decline of the West thanks to “Soviet” (Russian) influence, whose mentality and corresponding policy toward its less powerful allies was nothing like the Jewish “culture of critique” that today predominates in the Western world, having attained a life of its own and being able to flourish even without the Jewish element responsible for this transition.
This culture of critique (to borrow Kevin MacDonald’s term) spread from the “FUKUS” ( France, UK, US, the nations where international Jewry is the strongest, see the Syria policy) toward their subordinate allies following the Yalta Conference, where the post-WW2 order was agreed upon, but it only gained momentum after the 60s.
Also, compare the demographics of major cities of the former vs the latter. Again, there’s no comparison: the West will take a toll as far as human capital is concerned (it’s already happening), and this will stunt its development. The demographics of major cities, especially among under the age of 7, is a complete disaster. In the United States, it will take 2 decades for the new demographic reality to catch up and be felt (i.e., whites will be a clear minority among children and young adults), but it will happen. From there, it’s only downhill, especially as the random chances of two white persons marrying each other will fall to below 50%. This convergence of a majority “minority” among the age bracket that matters and the decreasing chances of two whites randomly marrying each other will cripple the number of white couples and, consequently, of white newborns. Seeing a relatively high number of whites today, many of them above the age of 40, gives a false sense of demographic security, which is dangerous. Eastern Europe, or more precisely the Baltic-Slavic nations, have a real shot at replacing the putative “West” if it maintains a large population, a nationalistic path, and expand the Visegrad or a similar structure to include other nations in the region, INCLUDING Russia.
All immigration, except East Asian (which I don’t welcome), is dysgenic. Mestizos are awful, Negroes are worse, low-IQ and neurotic Arabs have little talent among them.
Russia, if it’s to prevail, should become more openly nationalistic, get a military officer to defect from the UK or the US, and explain his motives for doing so, which is to say, white people are demonized in the media, government policy and the education system. Replace the anti-Jewish cartoons in Nazi Germany with the treatment toward white people today, and the similarities (e.g. the white privilege industry) are uncanny, it’s an injustice that they are ‘used’ to this state of affairs. Whites are facing demographic dispossession and replacement despite never being consulted on whether they support their own decline, and the very existence of their race, or opposition to its democide which is a prerequisite for its posterity, is considered immoral and evil. All of this is deliberately leading whites to a completely avoidable demise, and Russia should step up and say it will consider “adopting counter-genocide measures” and offer asylum to other white people. There must be an opening, because down the road the people will know who have their back.
The Ukrainian nation does not exist. Even if it did, why would you want to be Ukrainian instead of Russian?
You’re a fucking loser dude.
Scandinavia is pretty useless nowadays too. You are part German, correct? Why are you not a German?
https://youtu.be/Hvds2AIiWLA
Your writing is appalling.
Stop capitalizing and italicizing words all the time, and learn how to use paragraphs.
If you need him as Authority to support your argument, you've already lost your argument. If you don't need him as Authority to support your argument and lend weight to it, then don't give him Billing.
Who in The West do you really think you're appealing to with this Poor Pious Russia Bullshit?
I'll tell you who.
People Like This
FYI, I can find Russian Writers who speak as equally abysmally of Russia as this author speaks glowingly of it. Russia, like any other Country, is The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, but IT OWNS THAT and no author gets to place the blame for Russia's shortcomings, and it has many, on anyone or anything else but Russia itself.
The author of the New York Review of Books article I linked to mentions how Putin's recruiting of Ilyin to legitimate his Potemkin Kleptocratic Government is rather ironic when you consider Ilyin's opinion of The Soviet Union and The Communists. But Putin's shrewd and since no one is left in Russia to challenge Putin on his Bullshit, he's able to shamelessly contain Ilyin & Stalin & The Soviets under his Deranged Propaganda Umbrella where Russia, not America, is that Shiing City on the Hill.
Breaking News!!
There is no Shining City on the Hill.
What the hell are you even doing here if you don’t like Tucker Carlson?
And for the love of Christ stop with your random capitalization and italics.
Max Hastings has stated that had WW I begun in 1916, Rusia's fate might very well have been much better. By 1917, the situation with Russian armaments had greatly improved, as the morale had significantly declined due to the conduct of the war's toll.
The Russian "Revolution", saw a blend of different foreign influences favoring the Bolshes.
Related:
http://www.eurasiareview.com/08042016-fuzzy-history-how-poland-saved-the-world-from-russia-analysis/
It is right that Russians were not prepared for war, proof that they were not seeking it. As it is known Tsar Nicholas II initiated the Hague Conferences for the limitation of armaments. It was the stubborn refuse of Germany in the first place that pushed Russia to start the program of rearming and modernizing the army in 1912 which had to conclude in 1916. Germans hastened the war because they were conscious that the Russia would become invincible by 1917. They massively miscalculated. People are still not convince that they lost the war in Russia! The revolution they fomented in Russia turned against themselves.
Nickname for Lukashenko.
You're a fucking loser dude.
Why would you want to be someone other than what you are?
Scandinavia is pretty useless nowadays too. You are part German, correct? Why are you not a German?
But Scandinavia is at least worth something, whereas the Ukraine is at least completely worthless except as part of Russia.
https://catcherinthelie.wordpress.com/2018/02/07/russian-trolls-chumps/
I suggest not feeding the troll.
He is indeed nuts, but I suggest that trolls should always be fed.
Scandinavia is pretty useless nowadays too. You are part German, correct? Why are you not a German?
An argument worth making.
But Scandinavia is at least worth something, whereas the Ukraine is at least completely worthless except as part of Russia.
Of course, I'd expect nothing less from Trumpanzee.
Memo to President Trump: It’s Not “The Ukraine” Anymore
You're a fucking loser dude.
It’s who we are. Why do you choose to be an idiot instead of somebody who’s intelligent? It’s who you are!
You're Russian. Little Russian.
You guys are no different than Canada, Austria, New Zealand, etc.
A totally phony country.
1) They exist, they are related to but are somewhat different from Russians on points of language and culture.
2) They are still similar enough through shared origins and common religion (Orthodoxy) that they should stay united with Russia against other civilizational blocs.
3) The people of the 'Russian World' (of which Ukrainians are a part of) should be ruled under a common government, as they gain more from it by contributing to each other both on a personal and communal level.
4) This government should respect the unique identity of these varied ethnicities in the 'Russian World' while protecting them under a strong umbrella of common laws to resolve disputes between communities.
5) This government would preferably be a monarchy, which has the best chance of being immune to mono-ethnic passions and transcend them.
6) An independent Ukraine would be an abomination and threat to Russia since it would be used to undermine the common values of the Russian World.
Notice Putin and the Russian government generally try to follow points 1 through 4 in their domestic policies towards ethnic minorities (a clear sign of Ilyin's influence), but ignore points 5 and 6 at their convenience and comfort. Modern Russian political identity is very much a Frankenstein's monster of various conflicting ideas stitched together in a shambling mass. Ilyin sort of predicted this would be one of the results of Communism collapsing:
"There will pass years of national remembrance; settling in; solace; coming to reason; becoming informed. There will come a restoration of an elementary sense of justice; a return to the principles of honor and honesty; personal responsibility and loyalty; a feeling of one’s own dignity; to incorruptibility and independent thought – before the Russian people will be a condition to carry out sensible and not ruinous political elections. And until that time it can be led only by a national, patriotic, hardly totalitarian, but authoritarian – cultivating and reviving – dictatorship."
‘On Forms of Sovereignty’ (1948)
I think his major weakness as a philosopher was how much he underestimated both the allure and corrupting power of international capital and how common markets can be used a tool of entrapment and subjugation more subtle, encompassing and harder to throw off then any police-state tyranny.
Ilyin strikes me as a brilliant and essentially decent man. Unfortunately there aren’t many English-language works on Amazon (I can read Russian, but doing so is too slow and cumbersome for me to enjoy it for long periods of time). Like the vast majority of Russians, he of course does not escape the blind spot regarding Ukraine.
Correct, but he underestimates the extent of these differences. He thinks of Ukraine as a Russian “Bavaria” when instead it is more of a “Netherlands.” This underestimates of the extent of cultural differences (historical experiences, language, weltanschauung I suppose) and leads to unrealistic prescriptions and the unrealistic idea of a common “Russian world.”
Russian nationalists overestimate these ties. Rus was a loose trade-focused entity run by Vikings, that quickly split up as the Vikings became Slavicised. It wasn’t some sort of modern or pre-modern nation-state. Orthodoxy was the most significant cultural product of this “state” but even here there were differences. For example, Ukraine’s Orthodox Academy, where generations of local Ukrainian elites studied, followed a Jesuit model of education in Latin and Polish. A different world from the scene in Muscovy.
“Russian world” was a modern, not historical, creation but Ilyin assumes it was an ancient one. I suspect he isn’t aware of the costs of this association to the Ukrainian people.
Theoretically, the idea’s modernity would not necessarily have made it unfeasible. Little Russians tried to make it work. But actions taken by the” common government” killed it.
Unfortunately (5) proved incapable of implementing (4). There was a strong Little Russian movement in Ukraine. Its adherents were Rus nationalists who developed and standardized the Little Russian language. They viewed Little Russians as equal to Great Russians as different children of one Rus. The Center, spooked by Polish uprisings, and goaded by Westernizing liberals, adopted a policy of centralization and a forced attempt to impose the Great Russian language, culture, and identity upon the locals. Little Russian was mostly banned, its adherents demoted or sent off to provincial Great Russia. The backlash was predictable. Ukraine replaced Little Russia.
Little Russia/Ukraine and Great Russia/Russia simply had two different and ultimately incompatible political cultures. This might not necessarily have been a barrier for some sort of union, but the large discrepancy in populations provided an easy temptation for the larger nation to completely dominate the smaller one (a factor that was absent in Austria-Hungary and in Poland-Lithuania) and to absorb and culturally destroy it. So the only option was to try to escape.
There is no “common world” involving Ukraine and Russia (unless you mean a much wider “common world” that includes all Slavs, or all Europeans). Might as well say that an independent Poland is an abomination and threat to Slavia because it is used to undermine the common values of the Slavic World, an independent Sweden is an abomination to Germania, etc.
This lack of common world explains the constant friction when Ukraine has been a part of Russia – frequent rebellions, “betrayals”, etc. Russian nationalists incapable of acknowledging that it’s simply a different people, have to resort to conspiracy theories to explain why this group of “Russians” keeps resisting (German, Polish, Bolshevik, American plots or course).
To the extent that Ukraine belongs in a common world with someone – it is a common world with Poland, with whom Ukraine was united for a longer period of time, and with whom it was united during its critical developmental phase, than it was under Moscow. And indeed this is reflected in phenomena such as electoral patterns, that in the 21st century follow old 17th century borders.
Belarussian national myths (partisans blowing up Wehrmacht trains and the like) can hardly be called "gay" either.
And as AK recently noted, the US is the gayest country of all, where more than 12% of the population claim to be homos.
Japan is an unrepentant war criminal, incest and homosexuality with child have long tradition in Japan. Though Japanese is “Yellow,” but they do not consider themselves yellow Asian, and they are happily being called by the White as an honorary White despite an unnormal one.
“Gay” is abnormal in the view of the world, therefore calling Japanese “gay” perfectly makes sense and appropriate in accordance to Japanese weird characteristics. .
But Scandinavia is at least worth something, whereas the Ukraine is at least completely worthless except as part of Russia.
Scandinavia is currently preoccupied with bizarre projects to eliminate genders and has a Pakistani as a national culture minister. I would say that makes it, on balance, worse than whatever you think Ukraine minus Russia is.
But yes, to be fair, you make another very reasonable point. However subsuming Scandinavia into Germany (which, ignoring WW2, it has never been part of nor do the countries of Scandinavia speak dialects of German) does not solve for that problem.
And historically the Ukraine offers nothing. I can't name a single cultural work in the so-called Ukrainian "language".
Mr. Hack is a loser and a fag from a gay fake country and for some baffling reason would rather have a loser identity than be Russian.
Btw, while I agree with your above comment, there are things that the Nordics are doing today that are actually cool such as the Nynorsk mat concept - New Nordic food, marketing of traditional cuisine to facilitate better diets. And maybe data centers and such. But, yea, Scandinavians are overrated (one time when I was in Norway I paid an equivalent of 20 euro for a "fish" soup with two little bits of fish in it and I still have to figure out how Acne can sell a shapeless, black rag that they call a shirt for $250 in a studio boutique in Södermalm - now that's an art, I agree).
Btw, I wanted to ask you - have you ever been inside the Lviv opera building?
Ukraine ......the country de facto ruled by the USA
Ukraine.......the country with its Finance managed by the Lithuanians,Poles and Gruzians
Ukraine.......the country with its Health &Education managed by the bat-shit crazy Canadians and Gruzians
Ukraine.......the country with it's Military/Intelligence ran and trained by the Gruzians and Americans ( with Gruzians and Chechens openly doing alot of the 'heavy lifting" on the battlefield)
Ukraine.....the shithole, failed country lead by a man who writes love letters to the FSB and has a son married to a Russian (Yes, the President of the fake country of "Ukraine", who owes his wealth due to Russian investment and the Russian market, has a Russian grandson)
Ukraine .....the country with it's national "church" , the Kiev Patriarchate, created in, yep you've guessed it....eastern USA!
Ukraine.......the country in it's pitiful state of existence now,all courtesy of a CIA coup that backed a "protest" organised by an ...Afghan, attracting sheep from areas of "Ukraine" that were gifts from the Gruzian, Stalin, taken Hungary,Romania and Poland!
It may help if a sack of faeces moron like yourself actually used your brain....but it's obvious that is a POS freak like you loses your anonymity on here...then you will 100% kill yourself due to embarassment. Cretin
Theoretically, the idea's modernity would not necessarily have made it unfeasible. Little Russians tried to make it work. But actions taken by the" common government" killed it.Unfortunately (5) proved incapable of implementing (4). There was a strong Little Russian movement in Ukraine. Its adherents were Rus nationalists who developed and standardized the Little Russian language. They viewed Little Russians as equal to Great Russians as different children of one Rus. The Center, spooked by Polish uprisings, and goaded by Westernizing liberals, adopted a policy of centralization and a forced attempt to impose the Great Russian language, culture, and identity upon the locals. Little Russian was mostly banned, its adherents demoted or sent off to provincial Great Russia. The backlash was predictable. Ukraine replaced Little Russia.
Little Russia/Ukraine and Great Russia/Russia simply had two different and ultimately incompatible political cultures. This might not necessarily have been a barrier for some sort of union, but the large discrepancy in populations provided an easy temptation for the larger nation to completely dominate the smaller one (a factor that was absent in Austria-Hungary and in Poland-Lithuania) and to absorb and culturally destroy it. So the only option was to try to escape.There is no "common world" involving Ukraine and Russia (unless you mean a much wider "common world" that includes all Slavs, or all Europeans). Might as well say that an independent Poland is an abomination and threat to Slavia because it is used to undermine the common values of the Slavic World, an independent Sweden is an abomination to Germania, etc.
This lack of common world explains the constant friction when Ukraine has been a part of Russia - frequent rebellions, "betrayals", etc. Russian nationalists incapable of acknowledging that it's simply a different people, have to resort to conspiracy theories to explain why this group of "Russians" keeps resisting (German, Polish, Bolshevik, American plots or course).
To the extent that Ukraine belongs in a common world with someone - it is a common world with Poland, with whom Ukraine was united for a longer period of time, and with whom it was united during its critical developmental phase, than it was under Moscow. And indeed this is reflected in phenomena such as electoral patterns, that in the 21st century follow old 17th century borders.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/Polish-Lithuanian_Commonwealth_%281619%29.png
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-TmGACgT-YWA/Vr8RN6reBsI/AAAAAAAAC_8/TMRtX81iGtA/s1600/Ukraine%2Belections.jpg
The map at the bottom is obviously dated. It would be interesting to see a newer one that represents realities today. Some of the areas close to the center are probably red now, most of the others, purple, with the exception of Crimea. It looks lik the Ukrainian project is spreading east and south at a fast clip, thanks to Putin’s little dirty war in Ukraine.
Theoretically, the idea's modernity would not necessarily have made it unfeasible. Little Russians tried to make it work. But actions taken by the" common government" killed it.Unfortunately (5) proved incapable of implementing (4). There was a strong Little Russian movement in Ukraine. Its adherents were Rus nationalists who developed and standardized the Little Russian language. They viewed Little Russians as equal to Great Russians as different children of one Rus. The Center, spooked by Polish uprisings, and goaded by Westernizing liberals, adopted a policy of centralization and a forced attempt to impose the Great Russian language, culture, and identity upon the locals. Little Russian was mostly banned, its adherents demoted or sent off to provincial Great Russia. The backlash was predictable. Ukraine replaced Little Russia.
Little Russia/Ukraine and Great Russia/Russia simply had two different and ultimately incompatible political cultures. This might not necessarily have been a barrier for some sort of union, but the large discrepancy in populations provided an easy temptation for the larger nation to completely dominate the smaller one (a factor that was absent in Austria-Hungary and in Poland-Lithuania) and to absorb and culturally destroy it. So the only option was to try to escape.There is no "common world" involving Ukraine and Russia (unless you mean a much wider "common world" that includes all Slavs, or all Europeans). Might as well say that an independent Poland is an abomination and threat to Slavia because it is used to undermine the common values of the Slavic World, an independent Sweden is an abomination to Germania, etc.
This lack of common world explains the constant friction when Ukraine has been a part of Russia - frequent rebellions, "betrayals", etc. Russian nationalists incapable of acknowledging that it's simply a different people, have to resort to conspiracy theories to explain why this group of "Russians" keeps resisting (German, Polish, Bolshevik, American plots or course).
To the extent that Ukraine belongs in a common world with someone - it is a common world with Poland, with whom Ukraine was united for a longer period of time, and with whom it was united during its critical developmental phase, than it was under Moscow. And indeed this is reflected in phenomena such as electoral patterns, that in the 21st century follow old 17th century borders.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/Polish-Lithuanian_Commonwealth_%281619%29.png
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-TmGACgT-YWA/Vr8RN6reBsI/AAAAAAAAC_8/TMRtX81iGtA/s1600/Ukraine%2Belections.jpg
Although it’s true that a large swath of Ukraine was united with Poland longer than it was with Russia, this of course didn’t leave a great positive experience where today Ukrainians feel any real sense of wanting to unite with Poland, Commonwealth style. This was already attempted at a time when it made a lot more sense (Treaty of Hadiach), and didn’t really even get off the ground. Ukraine is in the final throes of shedding its subservient status to its neighbor to the north, having already done so to its neighbor to the West in the 20th century.
https://youtu.be/Hvds2AIiWLA
It is not who you are and you will never convince me otherwise.
You’re Russian. Little Russian.
You guys are no different than Canada, Austria, New Zealand, etc.
A totally phony country.
The Ukraine presently suffers from a Western cargo cult. Give it another few years and you’ll see the same thing there.
But yes, to be fair, you make another very reasonable point. However subsuming Scandinavia into Germany (which, ignoring WW2, it has never been part of nor do the countries of Scandinavia speak dialects of German) does not solve for that problem.
And historically the Ukraine offers nothing. I can’t name a single cultural work in the so-called Ukrainian “language”.
Mr. Hack is a loser and a fag from a gay fake country and for some baffling reason would rather have a loser identity than be Russian.
In the future, should the West prevail, homo marriage and parades, pro-immigration discourse, Russophobia, black worship will be all common features. The place is infested with Trotskyite NGOs that spread the same ideology that infected post-WW2 Western Europe and the Anglosphere (way worse than communism), and many media outlets receive foreign funding.
Poroshenko, for all his downsides, is a self-made man that IMO, won't get Ukraine into a war because if Russia decides to go all in, he's toast, his business is toast, so he will maintain the conflict frozen. He has a business empire and is worth more than a billion, what the West offers him will never come close to his net worth.
Uniting with Poland would be a major improvement over persisting with your gay, fake identity.
Poles have a real history and heritage. They even have some cultural achievements such as the book Quo Vadis.
What do you have? Nothing.
Perhaps a division of the Ukraine between Russia and Poland, as suggested by Zhironovsky, is the ideal outcome.
Being divided by two powers might accelerate the destruction of this malicious, fake conception as an actual nation that’s taking root in the Ukraine.
You're Russian. Little Russian.
You guys are no different than Canada, Austria, New Zealand, etc.
A totally phony country.
Take the cure outlined in comment #45, and then we’ll talk…
Much like your bizarre obsession with your fake nationality.
Your continued obsession with psychiatry, and even pride in this quackery, is bizarre.
Much like your bizarre obsession with your fake nationality.
Oh yeah, just replace 'Russian' with 'Israeli'.
You sound just like them.
So what?
Can you seriously tell me that the Palestinian losers are relevant?
Much like your bizarre obsession with your fake nationality.
Maybe true, but my obsessions pale into insignificance when compared with your advanced stage of Ukrainophobia – please reconsider taking the cure outlined in comment #45, it may be your last chance at assuming a more normal manner of thinking and communicating.
And no one is scared of Ukraine. Why would anyone be scared of a banana republic fake state with no identity?
except if used as a subset of russophobia, Stalinophobia, sovietphobia,Sberbank/VTBphobia and so on
Stop acting proud of your obsession with quackery and endlessly referencing it. Just forget it ever happened and don’t bring it up again.
And no one is scared of Ukraine. Why would anyone be scared of a banana republic fake state with no identity?
Yellow Snow by I.C.P.P.
Theoretically, the idea's modernity would not necessarily have made it unfeasible. Little Russians tried to make it work. But actions taken by the" common government" killed it.Unfortunately (5) proved incapable of implementing (4). There was a strong Little Russian movement in Ukraine. Its adherents were Rus nationalists who developed and standardized the Little Russian language. They viewed Little Russians as equal to Great Russians as different children of one Rus. The Center, spooked by Polish uprisings, and goaded by Westernizing liberals, adopted a policy of centralization and a forced attempt to impose the Great Russian language, culture, and identity upon the locals. Little Russian was mostly banned, its adherents demoted or sent off to provincial Great Russia. The backlash was predictable. Ukraine replaced Little Russia.
Little Russia/Ukraine and Great Russia/Russia simply had two different and ultimately incompatible political cultures. This might not necessarily have been a barrier for some sort of union, but the large discrepancy in populations provided an easy temptation for the larger nation to completely dominate the smaller one (a factor that was absent in Austria-Hungary and in Poland-Lithuania) and to absorb and culturally destroy it. So the only option was to try to escape.There is no "common world" involving Ukraine and Russia (unless you mean a much wider "common world" that includes all Slavs, or all Europeans). Might as well say that an independent Poland is an abomination and threat to Slavia because it is used to undermine the common values of the Slavic World, an independent Sweden is an abomination to Germania, etc.
This lack of common world explains the constant friction when Ukraine has been a part of Russia - frequent rebellions, "betrayals", etc. Russian nationalists incapable of acknowledging that it's simply a different people, have to resort to conspiracy theories to explain why this group of "Russians" keeps resisting (German, Polish, Bolshevik, American plots or course).
To the extent that Ukraine belongs in a common world with someone - it is a common world with Poland, with whom Ukraine was united for a longer period of time, and with whom it was united during its critical developmental phase, than it was under Moscow. And indeed this is reflected in phenomena such as electoral patterns, that in the 21st century follow old 17th century borders.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/Polish-Lithuanian_Commonwealth_%281619%29.png
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-TmGACgT-YWA/Vr8RN6reBsI/AAAAAAAAC_8/TMRtX81iGtA/s1600/Ukraine%2Belections.jpg
I don’t really know much about the details of Ukrainian (or Polish, or Russian) history, but I have to ask out of curiosity: How do you reconcile that view with the Ukrainian uprising against the Polish commonwealth in the 17th century, and the rather bitter conflicts between Polish and Ukrainian nationalists in the 20th century? There seems to be quite a bitter history here as well (note: this doesn’t mean I find the claims of Russian nationalists regarding Ukraine convincing…I mostly don’t).
The uprising was largely if not mostly a story of Ukrainian peasants and lesser nobles fighting against Ukrainian magnates (oligarchs, in essence) who had been amassing more wealth and power. The peasants and lesser nobles were actually appealing to the Polish king for help. The main "Polish" enemy of the uprising was not a Pole, but a Rurikid prince who, although a Catholic convert, had continued lavishly funding Orthodox monasteries and schools, and who had kept Ukraine safe from Tatar raids.
That having been said, Poland during the Counter-reformation implemented anti-Orthodox measures that pissed off many but not all Ukrainians, which was an underlying factor in the civil war (many of the Ukrainian magnates were becoming Roman Catholics).A turf war between two similar peoples over the same territory, done mid 20th century style.
1) They exist, they are related to but are somewhat different from Russians on points of language and culture.
2) They are still similar enough through shared origins and common religion (Orthodoxy) that they should stay united with Russia against other civilizational blocs.
3) The people of the 'Russian World' (of which Ukrainians are a part of) should be ruled under a common government, as they gain more from it by contributing to each other both on a personal and communal level.
4) This government should respect the unique identity of these varied ethnicities in the 'Russian World' while protecting them under a strong umbrella of common laws to resolve disputes between communities.
5) This government would preferably be a monarchy, which has the best chance of being immune to mono-ethnic passions and transcend them.
6) An independent Ukraine would be an abomination and threat to Russia since it would be used to undermine the common values of the Russian World.
Notice Putin and the Russian government generally try to follow points 1 through 4 in their domestic policies towards ethnic minorities (a clear sign of Ilyin's influence), but ignore points 5 and 6 at their convenience and comfort. Modern Russian political identity is very much a Frankenstein's monster of various conflicting ideas stitched together in a shambling mass. Ilyin sort of predicted this would be one of the results of Communism collapsing:
"There will pass years of national remembrance; settling in; solace; coming to reason; becoming informed. There will come a restoration of an elementary sense of justice; a return to the principles of honor and honesty; personal responsibility and loyalty; a feeling of one’s own dignity; to incorruptibility and independent thought – before the Russian people will be a condition to carry out sensible and not ruinous political elections. And until that time it can be led only by a national, patriotic, hardly totalitarian, but authoritarian – cultivating and reviving – dictatorship."
‘On Forms of Sovereignty’ (1948)
I think his major weakness as a philosopher was how much he underestimated both the allure and corrupting power of international capital and how common markets can be used a tool of entrapment and subjugation more subtle, encompassing and harder to throw off then any police-state tyranny.
They do not really ignore point 5.
Presidents of the RF are basically elected emperors.
Just like the presidents of the Fifth French republic are basically elected kings.
And no one is scared of Ukraine. Why would anyone be scared of a banana republic fake state with no identity?
I can see that by the tone of your comment that your predospisition has slightly mellowed. No one has suggested that you become ‘scared of Ukraine’? If these paranoid fantasies of your persist, take a look at the video clip again, it seems to have a remedial effect on your continued psychosis. 🙂
But yes, to be fair, you make another very reasonable point. However subsuming Scandinavia into Germany (which, ignoring WW2, it has never been part of nor do the countries of Scandinavia speak dialects of German) does not solve for that problem.
And historically the Ukraine offers nothing. I can't name a single cultural work in the so-called Ukrainian "language".
Mr. Hack is a loser and a fag from a gay fake country and for some baffling reason would rather have a loser identity than be Russian.
It should be noted that the lands of the Danish crown (German-speaking court, large German-speaking population in the south) were semi-German, hence…
https://www.quora.com/Why-does-Germany-want-to-control-Denmark/answer/Peter-Valdemar-Mørch-1
You're Russian. Little Russian.
You guys are no different than Canada, Austria, New Zealand, etc.
A totally phony country.
Ukrainian differs from Russian as Dutch differs from German, and more than Swedish differs from Norwegian. So already your analogy is false.
If not for communism it would be gone by now, which would leave "Ukrainian" nationalism about as relevant as Cornish nationalism today.
Unfortunately we have to suffer the likes of Mr. Hack instead, who would no doubt make a great Canadian patriot as well.
This conflict was essentially a civil war among Ukrainians, more than a “national uprisings” as is portrayed by many Ukrainian nationalists.
The uprising was largely if not mostly a story of Ukrainian peasants and lesser nobles fighting against Ukrainian magnates (oligarchs, in essence) who had been amassing more wealth and power. The peasants and lesser nobles were actually appealing to the Polish king for help. The main “Polish” enemy of the uprising was not a Pole, but a Rurikid prince who, although a Catholic convert, had continued lavishly funding Orthodox monasteries and schools, and who had kept Ukraine safe from Tatar raids.
That having been said, Poland during the Counter-reformation implemented anti-Orthodox measures that pissed off many but not all Ukrainians, which was an underlying factor in the civil war (many of the Ukrainian magnates were becoming Roman Catholics).
A turf war between two similar peoples over the same territory, done mid 20th century style.
The uprising was largely if not mostly a story of Ukrainian peasants and lesser nobles fighting against Ukrainian magnates (oligarchs, in essence) who had been amassing more wealth and power. The peasants and lesser nobles were actually appealing to the Polish king for help. The main "Polish" enemy of the uprising was not a Pole, but a Rurikid prince who, although a Catholic convert, had continued lavishly funding Orthodox monasteries and schools, and who had kept Ukraine safe from Tatar raids.
That having been said, Poland during the Counter-reformation implemented anti-Orthodox measures that pissed off many but not all Ukrainians, which was an underlying factor in the civil war (many of the Ukrainian magnates were becoming Roman Catholics).A turf war between two similar peoples over the same territory, done mid 20th century style.
Thanks, that’s informative.
But yes, to be fair, you make another very reasonable point. However subsuming Scandinavia into Germany (which, ignoring WW2, it has never been part of nor do the countries of Scandinavia speak dialects of German) does not solve for that problem.
And historically the Ukraine offers nothing. I can't name a single cultural work in the so-called Ukrainian "language".
Mr. Hack is a loser and a fag from a gay fake country and for some baffling reason would rather have a loser identity than be Russian.
This might be true of Chinese liberals but Ukraine is simply a Western (in the manner of Poland) country. It’s natural, nothing cargo cultish about it.
Mostly peasant people didn’t produce a lot of high culture known outside the borders. So? It is true of Finns, Balts, Slovaks also. OTOH even many Russians acknowledge that Ukrainian folk songs are very beautiful. Carol of the Bells, composed by the Ukrainian Mykola Leontovych and based on a Ukrainian folk carol, is quite beloved in the West.
Theoretically, the idea's modernity would not necessarily have made it unfeasible. Little Russians tried to make it work. But actions taken by the" common government" killed it.Unfortunately (5) proved incapable of implementing (4). There was a strong Little Russian movement in Ukraine. Its adherents were Rus nationalists who developed and standardized the Little Russian language. They viewed Little Russians as equal to Great Russians as different children of one Rus. The Center, spooked by Polish uprisings, and goaded by Westernizing liberals, adopted a policy of centralization and a forced attempt to impose the Great Russian language, culture, and identity upon the locals. Little Russian was mostly banned, its adherents demoted or sent off to provincial Great Russia. The backlash was predictable. Ukraine replaced Little Russia.
Little Russia/Ukraine and Great Russia/Russia simply had two different and ultimately incompatible political cultures. This might not necessarily have been a barrier for some sort of union, but the large discrepancy in populations provided an easy temptation for the larger nation to completely dominate the smaller one (a factor that was absent in Austria-Hungary and in Poland-Lithuania) and to absorb and culturally destroy it. So the only option was to try to escape.There is no "common world" involving Ukraine and Russia (unless you mean a much wider "common world" that includes all Slavs, or all Europeans). Might as well say that an independent Poland is an abomination and threat to Slavia because it is used to undermine the common values of the Slavic World, an independent Sweden is an abomination to Germania, etc.
This lack of common world explains the constant friction when Ukraine has been a part of Russia - frequent rebellions, "betrayals", etc. Russian nationalists incapable of acknowledging that it's simply a different people, have to resort to conspiracy theories to explain why this group of "Russians" keeps resisting (German, Polish, Bolshevik, American plots or course).
To the extent that Ukraine belongs in a common world with someone - it is a common world with Poland, with whom Ukraine was united for a longer period of time, and with whom it was united during its critical developmental phase, than it was under Moscow. And indeed this is reflected in phenomena such as electoral patterns, that in the 21st century follow old 17th century borders.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/Polish-Lithuanian_Commonwealth_%281619%29.png
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-TmGACgT-YWA/Vr8RN6reBsI/AAAAAAAAC_8/TMRtX81iGtA/s1600/Ukraine%2Belections.jpg
Ukrainian nationalists have quite a way of rewriting and distorting the past. Numerous examples including England, Scotland and Wales making up Britain and the differences between the Han and Mandarin languages spoken in China, serve as examples that the former Rus territories of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus have a sound basis to be together for much of history.
In terms of religion, Ukrainian Orthodox Christians have more in common with Russian Orthodox Christians than with Polish Catholics. The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC) was initially encouraged/coerced upon by the occupying Poles, as a basis to drive a wedge between the ancestors of modern day Russians and Ukrainians. The UGCC remains a minority among Ukrainian Christians.
For clear reasons, Poland doesn’t identify with Rus in the manner of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. In the 19th century and thereafter, the Netherlands and Germany don’t have a shared literary figure in the manner that Russians and Ukrainians have relative to Gogol.
In overall terms, Ukraine wasn’t with Poland for a longer period than with Russia – one of several myths that you repeatedly peddle.
Bogolyubsky, Nevsky and other Russia based leaders had at the time of their existence legit ties to Kiev.
Otherwise, you have the Polish-Muscovy wars where Ukrainians were allied with Poland. Some Ukrainian Cossack officer even had the reputation of impaling Muscovites.Only if you believe the nonsense of the loose Scandinavian state of Rus, which split up in 1132, being Russia (Rus was as much Russia as Charlemagne's Frankish Empire was France, or ancient Rome Romania).
To review times spent with whom, for readers:
Timeline:
Kiev City and eastern Ukraine: Lithuania, Poland 1362 – 1648 (about 300 years); independent 1648-1654 (6 years); autonomous (own military, legal system, locally elected ruler) but under the Russian tsar until 1709 (55 years); diminished autonomy until 1764 (55 years); integrated part of Russian Empire until 1917 (153 years); Ukrainian SSR 1918- 1991 (73 years); independent Ukraine 1991-present (27 years). Total: Russia 336 years, Poland 300 years, not-Russia 333 years and counting
The “Right Bank” – everything west of the river Dnipro, including most of Kiev province but not Kiev City: part of Lithuania and Poland 1362-1793 (429 years); integrated part of Russia until 1917 (124 years); Ukrainian SSR 1919-1991 (72 years); independent Ukraine 1991-present (25 years). Total: Russia 196 years, Poland 449 years, not-Russia 456 years and counting
Volynia – same as “Right Bank” but unlike the rest of the Right Bank was part of Poland from 1919-1939, missing the first 20 years of Soviet rule. Total: Russia 176 years, Poland 449 years, not-Russia 476 years and counting
Galicia – part of Poland 1349-1772 (423 years); part of Austria 1772-1918 (146 years); part of Poland 1919-1939 (20 years), part of Ukrainian SSR 1939-1991 (52 years); independent Ukraine 1991-present (25 years). Total: Russia 52 years, Poland 443 years, not-Russia 616 years and counting
As a matter of fact Isidore of Thessalonica was a Greek hierarch sent to Moscow, where the seat of the Metropolia of "Kiev and All Rus" was for a few hundred years, in 1437 in order to promote Unia and convince the Russians to participate in the Ferrara-Florence Council. He returned to Moscow as a cardinal of the Roman Church and legate of the Pope for Russia and proclaimed the Unia. Russian Prince Vasili II, the Bishops and the people rejected it straight away and arrested him. He did not represent the "Kiev" Metropolia but the Byzantine Emperor and the Pope. The so-called 'Western' orientation of 'Ukraine' was simply the Polish imposition. What the 'people' wanted was the Treaty of Pereyaslav of 1654.
Some of your analogies are false as evidenced by what they overlook. Multilingual states exist with languages just as great if not greater than the differences between Russian and Ukrainian.
The uprising was largely if not mostly a story of Ukrainian peasants and lesser nobles fighting against Ukrainian magnates (oligarchs, in essence) who had been amassing more wealth and power. The peasants and lesser nobles were actually appealing to the Polish king for help. The main "Polish" enemy of the uprising was not a Pole, but a Rurikid prince who, although a Catholic convert, had continued lavishly funding Orthodox monasteries and schools, and who had kept Ukraine safe from Tatar raids.
That having been said, Poland during the Counter-reformation implemented anti-Orthodox measures that pissed off many but not all Ukrainians, which was an underlying factor in the civil war (many of the Ukrainian magnates were becoming Roman Catholics).A turf war between two similar peoples over the same territory, done mid 20th century style.
In line with your own biases that relate to having previously identified yourself as someone of Polish and Ukrainian backgrounds, who favors close Polish-Ukrainian ties.
It’s historically well accepted that Mazepa and Vyhovsky lost because the majority of the people on the land that they were from (much of the territory of modern day Ukraine) didn’t go along with their going against the territory/leadership of what now constitutes modern day Russia.
Like it or not, more people in the former Ukrainian SSR favor Ukraine being closer to Russia than with Poland. Substitute the EU for Poland and that division changes % wise.
The linguistic differences between Russian and “Ukrainian” are irrelevant as the “Ukrainian” dialect has no acceptable reason to exist.
If not for communism it would be gone by now, which would leave “Ukrainian” nationalism about as relevant as Cornish nationalism today.
Unfortunately we have to suffer the likes of Mr. Hack instead, who would no doubt make a great Canadian patriot as well.
As I already explained, I am not interested in dialogue with you. But your post makes a good prop to elaborate some points:
The Union was done at the initiative of Orthodox bishops in what is now Ukraine and Belarus. All 9 supported it initially, but then 4 backed out. Support was widespread but not universal and led to a civil conflict within Ukrainian society. It was popular among nobles and prominent churchmen, less so among peasants, Cossacks and some nobles.
Wedge was already there. Speaking of Church unions, the Union of Florence in 1438 was supposed to unify the Orthodox and Catholic Churches. Churchmen and elites in what is now Ukraine agreed to it (Kiev metropolitan Isodore was a prominent supporter, as was prince of Kiev Olelko) , those in Muscovy were bitterly opposed. So here is another example of Ukraine’s westward orientation, in opposition to that of Moscow.
Otherwise, you have the Polish-Muscovy wars where Ukrainians were allied with Poland. Some Ukrainian Cossack officer even had the reputation of impaling Muscovites.
Only if you believe the nonsense of the loose Scandinavian state of Rus, which split up in 1132, being Russia (Rus was as much Russia as Charlemagne’s Frankish Empire was France, or ancient Rome Romania).
To review times spent with whom, for readers:
Timeline:
Kiev City and eastern Ukraine: Lithuania, Poland 1362 – 1648 (about 300 years); independent 1648-1654 (6 years); autonomous (own military, legal system, locally elected ruler) but under the Russian tsar until 1709 (55 years); diminished autonomy until 1764 (55 years); integrated part of Russian Empire until 1917 (153 years); Ukrainian SSR 1918- 1991 (73 years); independent Ukraine 1991-present (27 years). Total: Russia 336 years, Poland 300 years, not-Russia 333 years and counting
The “Right Bank” – everything west of the river Dnipro, including most of Kiev province but not Kiev City: part of Lithuania and Poland 1362-1793 (429 years); integrated part of Russia until 1917 (124 years); Ukrainian SSR 1919-1991 (72 years); independent Ukraine 1991-present (25 years). Total: Russia 196 years, Poland 449 years, not-Russia 456 years and counting
Volynia – same as “Right Bank” but unlike the rest of the Right Bank was part of Poland from 1919-1939, missing the first 20 years of Soviet rule. Total: Russia 176 years, Poland 449 years, not-Russia 476 years and counting
Galicia – part of Poland 1349-1772 (423 years); part of Austria 1772-1918 (146 years); part of Poland 1919-1939 (20 years), part of Ukrainian SSR 1939-1991 (52 years); independent Ukraine 1991-present (25 years). Total: Russia 52 years, Poland 443 years, not-Russia 616 years and counting
If not for communism it would be gone by now, which would leave "Ukrainian" nationalism about as relevant as Cornish nationalism today.
Unfortunately we have to suffer the likes of Mr. Hack instead, who would no doubt make a great Canadian patriot as well.
If Ukrainian is a “dialect” than Dutch is a dialect and the Swedish, Norwegian, and Danish are not even dialects.
Nonsense, communism made Ukraine more Russian-speaking than it was before. According to the Russian census only 6% of Kiev province’s population was Russian speaking in 1897, in so-called New Russia it was about 20%. The area of Ukraine with the least communism is the most Ukrainian-speaking.
One could make the argument that it's a dialect of German since it's basically Low German anyway.
What sets the Netherlands apart from Germany is that it has a history to be proud of.
Meanwhile the "Ukraine" has no history of any kind.
If the Russian Empire had persisted then the Ukraine would today be 100% Russian-speaking, just as Occitania is today 100% French-speaking and the Mezzogiorno is 100% Italian-speaking. Primary school enrollment reached 80% by the end of the Empire and the language of instruction was Russian.
And unlike with the Piedmontese conquest of the Kingdom of Two Sicilies, absolutely nothing is lost with the extermination of the alleged Ukrainian identity since there is no history or culture there to begin with.
All I ever get from Ukraine apologists comes down to two arguments:
1) We want to be Ukrainian (irrelevant, no one has the right to be wrong)
2) Akshually, the Ukraine was also dominated by Poland
The state's existence is a disgusting blot on the map of Europe and it must be forever destroyed.
But Scandinavia is at least worth something, whereas the Ukraine is at least completely worthless except as part of Russia.
It’s Ukraine, you moron, not “the Ukraine.”
Of course, I’d expect nothing less from Trumpanzee.
Memo to President Trump: It’s Not “The Ukraine” Anymore
Dutch is a West Germanic language. The Scandinavian languages are North Germanic.
One could make the argument that it’s a dialect of German since it’s basically Low German anyway.
What sets the Netherlands apart from Germany is that it has a history to be proud of.
Meanwhile the “Ukraine” has no history of any kind.
If the Russian Empire had persisted then the Ukraine would today be 100% Russian-speaking, just as Occitania is today 100% French-speaking and the Mezzogiorno is 100% Italian-speaking. Primary school enrollment reached 80% by the end of the Empire and the language of instruction was Russian.
And unlike with the Piedmontese conquest of the Kingdom of Two Sicilies, absolutely nothing is lost with the extermination of the alleged Ukrainian identity since there is no history or culture there to begin with.
All I ever get from Ukraine apologists comes down to two arguments:
1) We want to be Ukrainian (irrelevant, no one has the right to be wrong)
2) Akshually, the Ukraine was also dominated by Poland
The state’s existence is a disgusting blot on the map of Europe and it must be forever destroyed.
From wiki:
Following a trip to Ukraine, Herder wrote a prediction in his diary (Journal meiner Reise im Jahre 1769) that Slavic nations would one day be the real power in Europe, as the western Europeans would reject Christianity and rot away, while the eastern European nations would stick to their religion and their idealism, and would this way become the power in Europe. More specifically, he praised Ukraine's "beautiful skies, blithe temperament, musical talent, bountiful soil, etc. [...] someday will awaken there a cultured nation whose influence will spread [...] throughout the world." One of his related predictions was that the Hungarian nation would disappear and become assimilated by surrounding Slavic peoples; this prophecy caused considerable uproar in Hungary and is widely cited to this day.
:::::::::::::
Prophetic, no? About Slavs vs. Westerners. He didn't predict Ukrainians getting genocided by Sovoks and Nazis.
Ukraine by contrast has proven in a fair contest, the vast majority of them, normal people, politicians, bankers, politicians,academics ..... prefer speaking and writing in Russian....that's why the authorities there are so afraid of doing what any civilised country would do in the same circumstances..and make Russian a joint official language
What's also true is that nobody confuses a dutch name with a german name, this is in stark contrast to the fact that the typical "Ukrainian" surnames,if you go anywhere in America or the west ...then they will unwittingly use a "Ukrainian" name to describe an everyday Russian ( in the same style English and Americans use Joe Bloggs/John Doe and John Smith) ...this is because they know it's obvious that Ukraine is obviously part of Russia and not a separate entity or identity.Then you have the plethora of "Ukrainians" abroad who in the last 26 years have always said they are Russian, or are perfectly relaxed about people calling them Russian
Hilariously , more glaring evidence of the fakery and freakshow existence of the artificial state of Ukraine are these 2 recent interviews of the hapless ex-President of "Ukraine"...Viktor Yushchenko
https://news.sky.com/story/ex-ukraine-leader-do-not-rule-out-military-action-against-russia-11306185
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-europe-43611547/viktor-yushchenko-ukraine-s-ex-president-on-being-poisoned
The ex President of Ukraine speaking the "fictitious "Ukrainian" "Language" using want any sane person would say is, literally 95+% russian words in a 100% Russian style...with the remaning 5% , basically words (nouns not verbs) that replace that infiltrated ones from the Russian nobility's love of France 300 years ago. Even more ..he is speaking in the style of a typical Russian man....and this is one of their Presidents we are talking about!
It seems to have been regarded as a realistic prospect in the mid-19th century.
And no one is scared of Ukraine. Why would anyone be scared of a banana republic fake state with no identity?
A perfect description of Russia. Thank you. Why is The Donald so scared of Putin & Russia then, I wonder?
Yellow Snow by I.C.P.P.
But to argue it has no identity is absurd in the extreme.
Of course, I'd expect nothing less from Trumpanzee.
Memo to President Trump: It’s Not “The Ukraine” Anymore
No, it is the Ukraine. Remember, the Ukraine is a geographical expression, as there is no such thing as a Ukrainian culture or nationality. There exists a parvenu state which pretends to call itself Ukraine.
I do not accept the legitimacy of this state nor should anyone else with integrity.
From your embarrassing article:
Good. The so-called “Ukrainian” state must be immediately abolished and never again revived.
Any other parvenu states we can dissolve and partition while we're at it?
Yellow Snow by I.C.P.P.
Russia may well indeed be a banana republic as evidenced by embarrassing fiascos such as Rusnano and Skolkovo.
But to argue it has no identity is absurd in the extreme.
One could make the argument that it's a dialect of German since it's basically Low German anyway.
What sets the Netherlands apart from Germany is that it has a history to be proud of.
Meanwhile the "Ukraine" has no history of any kind.
If the Russian Empire had persisted then the Ukraine would today be 100% Russian-speaking, just as Occitania is today 100% French-speaking and the Mezzogiorno is 100% Italian-speaking. Primary school enrollment reached 80% by the end of the Empire and the language of instruction was Russian.
And unlike with the Piedmontese conquest of the Kingdom of Two Sicilies, absolutely nothing is lost with the extermination of the alleged Ukrainian identity since there is no history or culture there to begin with.
All I ever get from Ukraine apologists comes down to two arguments:
1) We want to be Ukrainian (irrelevant, no one has the right to be wrong)
2) Akshually, the Ukraine was also dominated by Poland
The state's existence is a disgusting blot on the map of Europe and it must be forever destroyed.
Finn, you’ve been playing EU IV and Civ for too long lately. It’s not good for you. Put down the KB+mouse and take some deep breaths.
One could make the argument that it's a dialect of German since it's basically Low German anyway.
What sets the Netherlands apart from Germany is that it has a history to be proud of.
Meanwhile the "Ukraine" has no history of any kind.
If the Russian Empire had persisted then the Ukraine would today be 100% Russian-speaking, just as Occitania is today 100% French-speaking and the Mezzogiorno is 100% Italian-speaking. Primary school enrollment reached 80% by the end of the Empire and the language of instruction was Russian.
And unlike with the Piedmontese conquest of the Kingdom of Two Sicilies, absolutely nothing is lost with the extermination of the alleged Ukrainian identity since there is no history or culture there to begin with.
All I ever get from Ukraine apologists comes down to two arguments:
1) We want to be Ukrainian (irrelevant, no one has the right to be wrong)
2) Akshually, the Ukraine was also dominated by Poland
The state's existence is a disgusting blot on the map of Europe and it must be forever destroyed.
‘Akshually’ you continue to demonstrate your extreme lack of any erudition and severe form of Ukrainaphobia. You know where the cure is already – take it!
But yes, to be fair, you make another very reasonable point. However subsuming Scandinavia into Germany (which, ignoring WW2, it has never been part of nor do the countries of Scandinavia speak dialects of German) does not solve for that problem.
And historically the Ukraine offers nothing. I can't name a single cultural work in the so-called Ukrainian "language".
Mr. Hack is a loser and a fag from a gay fake country and for some baffling reason would rather have a loser identity than be Russian.
That’s what I have been saying from the day the Maidan protests started. Nationalists were the muscle behind the coup, but the vast majority of people taking Nuland’s cookies couldn’t give a shit and were pro-Western, very susceptible to poz propaganda, which is why purely nationalist protests don’t attract many people.
In the future, should the West prevail, homo marriage and parades, pro-immigration discourse, Russophobia, black worship will be all common features. The place is infested with Trotskyite NGOs that spread the same ideology that infected post-WW2 Western Europe and the Anglosphere (way worse than communism), and many media outlets receive foreign funding.
Poroshenko, for all his downsides, is a self-made man that IMO, won’t get Ukraine into a war because if Russia decides to go all in, he’s toast, his business is toast, so he will maintain the conflict frozen. He has a business empire and is worth more than a billion, what the West offers him will never come close to his net worth.
Got it. Thanks for clarifying. Why not give the Western half to include Kiev to Poland and the Eastern half to Russia?
Any other parvenu states we can dissolve and partition while we’re at it?
• Canada
• Austria
• New Zealand
• Belarus
• Moldova
• Taiwan
• Belgium
• Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, and Bhutan (alternative: breakup India)
But to argue it has no identity is absurd in the extreme.
I will agree it had an identity, but now, not so much. This is why Putin’s gone out of his way to construct one for the 21st Century, but the problem is, you don’t construct an identity unless you do so to deceive. The identity of a nation or empire derives naturally and organically. It’s not forced. It’s not sown from old, threadbare cloth scraps.
And you're right, Putin is currently looking for a new form of empire. And the Russians now call their own country "polukrovka" - half blood (meant in a cultural, not ethnic sense, although that's partly true as well).
I listened to some of Egor Kholmogorov interviews, and he's actually a pretty delicate guy, if you take away the imperialist part, underneath it you'll find very beautiful, organic ethno-nationalism.
But you can't have your cake and eat it too - oops, Ramzan calling!
Trio Marenych is among my very favorite folk groups in any language. Thorfinnson needs to roll a fatty and relax.
In contrast to myself, where I always try to cultivate city-states and preserve them, my wife always immediately attacks every single city-state on sight in order to “clean up clutter.” It apparently annoys her that they exist.
I am okay with city-states and legitimist dynastic states. Kingdom of Prussia--not fake. Republic of Austria--fake.
With respect to city-states the history of the Italian maritime city-state republics (though Venice actually had a hinterland) is fascinating, as is of course the classical Greek city-states.
Other non-national states irritate me.
Its evident that you don’t know any Russians, but that’s understandable since no one wants to be your friend.
Any other parvenu states we can dissolve and partition while we're at it?
Zhironovsky proposed this and it’s a perfectly sensible idea. Would also help mollify understandable Polish fears about Russian imperialism.
Yes.
• Canada
• Austria
• New Zealand
• Belarus
• Moldova
• Taiwan
• Belgium
• Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, and Bhutan (alternative: breakup India)
Looks like you married well. 😉
I am okay with city-states and legitimist dynastic states. Kingdom of Prussia–not fake. Republic of Austria–fake.
With respect to city-states the history of the Italian maritime city-state republics (though Venice actually had a hinterland) is fascinating, as is of course the classical Greek city-states.
Other non-national states irritate me.
No. Ukraine is not a geographical expression. It is a spiritual and social expression. Ukraine means “homeland, country, land”. The ancestral land, the Homeland of my people, too. The historical name of Ukraine comes from a medieval episode when a knyaz was killed and “the whole country / land sighed for him”.
To the rest of the world it is a geographical expression, which is why it is preceded by a definite article.
Don’t flatter him, dear Pan. He’s not Nordic or anything, he lacks ethnic identity. Besides, I’ve never met a Scandinavian who acts like an infantile monkey, jumping up and down in such excitement and irritability (good – nerve cells don’t regenerate!). In fact, this behavior epitomizes the kind of American that most Swedes despise so much (loud, entitled, shallow, intolerant).
Btw, while I agree with your above comment, there are things that the Nordics are doing today that are actually cool such as the Nynorsk mat concept – New Nordic food, marketing of traditional cuisine to facilitate better diets. And maybe data centers and such. But, yea, Scandinavians are overrated (one time when I was in Norway I paid an equivalent of 20 euro for a “fish” soup with two little bits of fish in it and I still have to figure out how Acne can sell a shapeless, black rag that they call a shirt for $250 in a studio boutique in Södermalm – now that’s an art, I agree).
Btw, I wanted to ask you – have you ever been inside the Lviv opera building?
The first is illustrative of Norway's very high wages.
The second of successful branding, design, and marketing.Lvov.
Alternatively, Lemberg or Lwow.
Who cares what it means in the “Ukrainian” dialect?
To the rest of the world it is a geographical expression, which is why it is preceded by a definite article.
Btw, while I agree with your above comment, there are things that the Nordics are doing today that are actually cool such as the Nynorsk mat concept - New Nordic food, marketing of traditional cuisine to facilitate better diets. And maybe data centers and such. But, yea, Scandinavians are overrated (one time when I was in Norway I paid an equivalent of 20 euro for a "fish" soup with two little bits of fish in it and I still have to figure out how Acne can sell a shapeless, black rag that they call a shirt for $250 in a studio boutique in Södermalm - now that's an art, I agree).
Btw, I wanted to ask you - have you ever been inside the Lviv opera building?
Research the name Thorfinnsson and you might see why I act like an American.
These stories both epitomize Nordic success.
The first is illustrative of Norway’s very high wages.
The second of successful branding, design, and marketing.
Lvov.
Alternatively, Lemberg or Lwow.
Frequently, Anatoly’s posts end full of bitter discussions about Ukraine’s past and future. Maybe the time for new a blog arrived. Something like “Ukraine reaction blog” by AP. That’s in order to avoid messing subjects.
Agreed. This is crucial. I can’t really blame the Anglos here as they’ve never had access to the Russian empire but the senseless, delusional Spencerite yapping about Eurasia…. these guys just live in their heads. They talk about hypothetical Eurasian empires, but they don’t understand how the Soviet Union worked. Of course, both the Russian empire and the Soviet Union were forced – but conquest is only the first stage. The second stage is cultivation. Cultivation involves not only administrative suppression of dissent, but also collaboration. You can’t kill everyone. You have to offer something (Germanic word “offer” – sacrifice, “victim” in German). Kadyrov got his elite horse collection (Russians call that prodazhnaya shkura, sellout). We, Balts, got Olympic gold medals (for many years the USSR basketball team consisted 20% of Balts and Georgians, similar in other sports, such as hockey – for Tretyak there was Balderis, etc.) And Ukrainians here are very special people – today when I read and listen to their interviews, I smile and nod – now I fully understand how they could build and maintain that country. Quality people. I heard that every third soldier in the Red army was from Ukraine. Officers, sergeants – the skeleton of the army! Of course, those weren’t even the best because the best were already under the ground and this is all after all the slave labor that they used to build up places such as Norilsk (somebody mentioned infrastructure above – what about all the infra that the Ukrainian and Baltic men built in the Russian north that’s still in use today, digging out palladium – wanna talk about that? I don’t, btw).
And you’re right, Putin is currently looking for a new form of empire. And the Russians now call their own country “polukrovka” – half blood (meant in a cultural, not ethnic sense, although that’s partly true as well).
I listened to some of Egor Kholmogorov interviews, and he’s actually a pretty delicate guy, if you take away the imperialist part, underneath it you’ll find very beautiful, organic ethno-nationalism.
But you can’t have your cake and eat it too – oops, Ramzan calling!
Otherwise, you have the Polish-Muscovy wars where Ukrainians were allied with Poland. Some Ukrainian Cossack officer even had the reputation of impaling Muscovites.Only if you believe the nonsense of the loose Scandinavian state of Rus, which split up in 1132, being Russia (Rus was as much Russia as Charlemagne's Frankish Empire was France, or ancient Rome Romania).
To review times spent with whom, for readers:
Timeline:
Kiev City and eastern Ukraine: Lithuania, Poland 1362 – 1648 (about 300 years); independent 1648-1654 (6 years); autonomous (own military, legal system, locally elected ruler) but under the Russian tsar until 1709 (55 years); diminished autonomy until 1764 (55 years); integrated part of Russian Empire until 1917 (1