The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersRussian Reaction Blog
Statue Exchange
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The US has a problem. It has too many statues of evil white men, such as the Confederate generals, the Founding Fathers, Columbus, and even the first governor of Russian Alaska, Alexander Baranov. You may not personally consider it a problem, but plenty of your compatriots do, and they’re usually more influential than you. Sucks to be you, sorry.

Russia also has a problem. It has ~20,000 statues and busts of Lenin, of which ~99% are mass produced kitsch, with zero historic or cultural value.

This suggests scope for a productive exchange.

In keeping with the Zeitgeist, Russia can export most of its Lenin statues to the US. Although one might expect Antifa and allies to be most excited about that, this is not something that even red-blooded, patriotic American conservatives should object to – after all, just as the October Revolution was the single most brilliant German intelligence operation in history, so it also ensured American economic and cultural hegemony during the second half of the 20th century. It would not be inappropriate to honor the unacknowledged author of this success.

Meanwhile, I am sure that Russia could find a new home for the Baranovs and Columbuses and Robert E. Lees and Jeffersons and even Hans Christian Hegs on its multitudes of newly vacated plinths. They will look a bit out of place, sure, but anything would be better than having to stare at the bald mug of a Russophobic psychopath whose political creation fell apart when its own elites sold it for American jeans and Big Macs.

 
Hide 236 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Please keep off topic posts to the current Open Thread.

    If you are new to my work, start here.

  2. Perhaps it was a joke; but it’s actually a good idea.

    New statues in Russia could stimulate discussion, and boost tourism. Lenin statues would trigger boomers. Fun!

  3. • Replies: @ivan
    @Ano4

    It took another "Russian" from the periphery - Stalin - of whom Lenin said - no greater chauvinist than an aborigine - to correct matters in favour of the Russians. If only the Russian aristocracy themselves had not been so dissolute and drunk with power, they could certainly have saved Russia from the Bolshies.

    And thanks for the link, it is of the genre, quite common nowadays, that if Jews do something bad it is out of the goodness of their hearts or due to circumstances beyond their control. Their enemies on the other had be they Germans or Catholics or Amaleks, on the other hand are both intrinsically evil and responsible for the creation of the evil circumstances that Jews find themselves in, and are therefore sadly perforce, compelled to deal with what may appear to be horrific means.

    Heads I win, tails you lose as the kids would say.

    Replies: @Ano4

  4. There are views that compare the current situation in the US with 1917 pre-revolutionary situation in Russia.

    The Russian Twilight Of Late Imperial America

    https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/russian-twilight-late-imperial-america-james-billington/

    I certainly belive that the new Soviet Union will be the US (and its satellites), although the new communism will not be the old communism, which was about making equality between rich and poor, but this time it will be about identity politics and experiments in racial equality and gender fluidity (about everything) instead.

    It is the West’s time to suffer from experiments, that’s for sure. Stay out of it and keep your country from infection.

    • Replies: @Europe Europa
    @Passer by

    I've seen it argued that Communism/marxism is really a social theory disguised as an economic one, and that the "equality between rich and poor" stuff is just the PR face of Communism to make it palatable to the average person, but in reality the economic and class theories are just a superficial part of Communism despite it being the main thing most people associate with Communism.

    In reality racial strife, gender strife, cultural war, pro-race mixing, pro-LGBT, etc, is much more the essence of what Communism/marxism is really all about and the sort of social and cultural upheaval it seeks to bring about. In some ways the sort of Communism/marxism becoming widespread in the Anglosphere now could be considered a purer form of it than what existed in the Soviet Union.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  5. Actually, Baranov was a hero America wish to have atm. Seriously, read his biography

  6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Andreyevich_Baranov#Retirement_and_death

    Hagemeister arrived at Sitka in November 1817 with an accountant, Kirill Khlebnikov (later Baranov’s first biographer), to audit the financial records of Russian America for any evidence of Baranov’s alleged wrongdoing. Hagemeister succeeded Baranov as Chief Manager and governor in January 1818. Khlebnikov was appointed Office Manager, receiving company capital totaling two and a half million rubles. Khlebnikov’s audit showed that the books balanced to the ruble, with all income and disbursements accounted for. There was no evidence of malfeasance by Baranov.[3] The audit showed that Baranov was personally almost insolvent because he had made it a practice to help others in financial distress with his own funds throughout his rule.

  7. There are a lot more statues than you have mentioned. Nearly every county courthouse in the former Confederate States has a statue of an anonymous young man with a slouch hat, bedroll, and Enfield rifled musket in tribute to the valor of those who fought against impossible odds for their homeland. As the best current approximation of a White nationalist country, Russia would be a most appropriate place for them to be displayed. If the U.S. ever regains its freedom, Russia can return them.

    As for the Lenin busts and statues, Portland will want one at each street intersection, or if there are enough one on each corner of each intersection.

    • Replies: @Blinky Bill
    @Bert

    https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcQIoK2RZ9og227vJ8PKmP7CJPacr_U4LEe8Gw&usqp.jpg

    The Battle Flag of New Russia.

    Replies: @Blinky Bill

  8. @Bert
    There are a lot more statues than you have mentioned. Nearly every county courthouse in the former Confederate States has a statue of an anonymous young man with a slouch hat, bedroll, and Enfield rifled musket in tribute to the valor of those who fought against impossible odds for their homeland. As the best current approximation of a White nationalist country, Russia would be a most appropriate place for them to be displayed. If the U.S. ever regains its freedom, Russia can return them.

    As for the Lenin busts and statues, Portland will want one at each street intersection, or if there are enough one on each corner of each intersection.

    Replies: @Blinky Bill


    The Battle Flag of New Russia.

    • Replies: @Blinky Bill
    @Blinky Bill

    https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcTkmKXnvGuwZ2pOrrH1RY1pp7yXumsVjxb9ig&usqp.jpg

    https://imgur.com/xwjGKm3.jpg

    Replies: @AP

  9. Swapping statues isn’t going far enough. Russia needs to swap a million or so of its loony leftists – those who romanticize Negroes or gay rights, those who think Globalism is great for all, those who think Jews are a victim race, etc. – for a horde of Middle American rednecks and hillbillies. That way, Russia could have a new Red Horde.

    • Replies: @AKAHorace
    @Jake


    Swapping statues isn’t going far enough. Russia needs to swap a million or so of its loony leftists – those who romanticize Negroes or gay rights, those who think Globalism is great for all, those who think Jews are a victim race, etc. – for a horde of Middle American rednecks and hillbillies. That way, Russia could have a new Red Horde.

     

    I thought that SJWs were hard to find in Russia, wouldn't that exhaust their resources of blue haired women ?

    Replies: @Jake

  10. @Blinky Bill
    @Bert

    https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcQIoK2RZ9og227vJ8PKmP7CJPacr_U4LEe8Gw&usqp.jpg

    The Battle Flag of New Russia.

    Replies: @Blinky Bill


    [MORE]

    • Agree: mal
    • LOL: Ano4, bruce county
    • Replies: @AP
    @Blinky Bill

    Where is Bliss? He would appreciate this discovery.

  11. @Passer by
    There are views that compare the current situation in the US with 1917 pre-revolutionary situation in Russia.

    The Russian Twilight Of Late Imperial America

    https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/russian-twilight-late-imperial-america-james-billington/

    I certainly belive that the new Soviet Union will be the US (and its satellites), although the new communism will not be the old communism, which was about making equality between rich and poor, but this time it will be about identity politics and experiments in racial equality and gender fluidity (about everything) instead.

    It is the West's time to suffer from experiments, that's for sure. Stay out of it and keep your country from infection.

    Replies: @Europe Europa

    I’ve seen it argued that Communism/marxism is really a social theory disguised as an economic one, and that the “equality between rich and poor” stuff is just the PR face of Communism to make it palatable to the average person, but in reality the economic and class theories are just a superficial part of Communism despite it being the main thing most people associate with Communism.

    In reality racial strife, gender strife, cultural war, pro-race mixing, pro-LGBT, etc, is much more the essence of what Communism/marxism is really all about and the sort of social and cultural upheaval it seeks to bring about. In some ways the sort of Communism/marxism becoming widespread in the Anglosphere now could be considered a purer form of it than what existed in the Soviet Union.

    • Troll: Swarthy Greek
    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Europe Europa


    but in reality the economic and class theories are just a superficial part of Communism despite it being the main thing most people associate with Communism.

    In reality racial strife, gender strife, cultural war, pro-race mixing, pro-LGBT, etc, is much more the essence of what Communism/marxism is really all about and the sort of social and cultural upheaval it seeks to bring about.
     
    An interesting theory. It's completely crazy and completely wrong of course but it does provide a fascinating glimpse into the deluded mindset of the far right.
  12. The only social theory of Communism is that a band of sociopaths who could not achieve anything in a competitive society takes control and then enjoys the life style of aristocrats and industrialists. It always was and always will be a scam that uses economic theory to dupe the foot soldiers needed as cannon fodder in the Revolution.

    • Agree: bruce county
  13. The only really fashionable communist in the U.S. is Che. That is, among violent revolutionaries.

    I doubt Lenin’s statues would last very long in states that have already turned, especially if they were given prominence. Perhaps, if he were part black, like Pushkin.

    • Replies: @Ano4
    @songbird

    Lenin had Jewish and Kryashen Tatar ancestry. Does that help him being ensconced in a discriminated minority position?

    Replies: @songbird, @AltanBakshi

    , @Europe Europa
    @songbird


    The only really fashionable communist in the U.S. is Che. That is, among violent revolutionaries.
     
    I suppose being "Hispanic" means he's not white, despite the fact he was of completely European descent.

    Americans seem to have a mental block to seeing Spanish (and Portuguese) speakers as white. I've seen many examples of completely European looking Spanish-speakers described as "non-white" or "people of color" by Americans, it happened to Antonio Banderas recently. Frankly someone could be Nordic looking but if they had a Spanish/Portuguese sounding name they'd be regarded as non-white by most Americans. Interestingly Italians seem to avoid the "people of color" label.

    Replies: @Blinky Bill, @Mr. XYZ, @songbird

  14. @songbird
    The only really fashionable communist in the U.S. is Che. That is, among violent revolutionaries.

    I doubt Lenin's statues would last very long in states that have already turned, especially if they were given prominence. Perhaps, if he were part black, like Pushkin.

    Replies: @Ano4, @Europe Europa

    Lenin had Jewish and Kryashen Tatar ancestry. Does that help him being ensconced in a discriminated minority position?

    • Replies: @songbird
    @Ano4

    The Tartars don't seem to have a lot of pull these days, and if he had any Muslim forebears, I doubt that would help, in his case.

    I don't know if one Jewish grandparent would be enough. Perhaps, if he had a Jewish name like Whoopi Goldberg. Otherwise, they'd probably think he was a skinhead.

    , @AltanBakshi
    @Ano4

    He also had quite lot Kalmyk blood through his father, actually I think he had much more Kalmyk blood than Tatar. And some Chuvash too.

    Replies: @Ano4

  15. the October Revolution was the single most brilliant German intelligence operation in history, so it also ensured American economic and cultural hegemony during the second half of the 20th century. It would not be inappropriate to honor the unacknowledged author of this success

    Lenin will be as much honored in the West as the progenitor of capitalism’s meteoric rise as he will be in Ukraine as the “father of Ukrainian statehood”. Why not just acknowledge him for what he truly was, the ruler of the largest state where Russia played the leading cultural and economic role in its history? But that’s too apparent, better off trying to concoct strange new angles.

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    @Mr. Hack

    Yes, it would have helped if I had noticed that Karlin had characterized this one under the category of "humor", but even still, his writing style is not droll enough here IMHO to recognize this naturally, I suspect that most of what he wrote here he believes in. :-)

    , @mal
    @Mr. Hack

    To be fair, Lenin didn't rule much - he was badly wounded less than a year after October Revolution and his health was very bad.

    The big dogs of the early Soviet period were Jugashvili/Stalin the Georgian, Dzerzhinsky the Polish dude (who organized Red Terror and created Soviet secret police), and Bronstein/Trotsky the Ukrainian jew, who wanted to lead Red Army on global conquest in the name of Communism. Those people were not Russian and they didn't care about Russian culture and economics even a bit except killing as many Russians as they could while pursuing their own agendas.

    Replies: @Mr. Hack, @inertial

    , @Korenchkin
    @Mr. Hack

    Lenin ruled a Civil War ravaged basket case, what you're describing is more fitting for Stalin

    Replies: @Mr. Hack

    , @Anatoly Karlin
    @Mr. Hack

    Where was I talking about capitalism?

    The US would not have been an economic and cultural hegemon during the 1945-~2020 era if there had been a Russia with twice the population, twice the GDP per capita, and four times the GDP of the USSR.

    In this sense, there are few who need to idolize Lenin more than American imperialists.

    Replies: @Mr. Hack, @Mr. XYZ, @Mr. XYZ

    , @Mr. XYZ
    @Mr. Hack

    Russia could have achieved much more greatness in the 20th century without Communism--and also with astronomically less bloodshed.

    For that matter, Ukraine could have acquired its independence in 1918 and permanently kept it had Germany won World War I. Such a scenario might have also resulted in the Bolsheviks being overthrown in Russia by the Germans after the end of World War I and replaced with a more pliant Russian regime.

    Replies: @mal

    , @AltanBakshi
    @Mr. Hack

    Although I think that independent Ukraine is less smart thing than independent Bavaria would be, which also would be pretty stupid. I must say that its very easy to judge things in hindsight. And Karlin is often at fault on that. There are so many factors and variables in history that no man can surely know what will happen in the end. Its easy to criticize after all has happened, for afterwards emotions have cooled and there is a clearer picture.

    Replies: @Mr. Hack

  16. @Mr. Hack

    the October Revolution was the single most brilliant German intelligence operation in history, so it also ensured American economic and cultural hegemony during the second half of the 20th century. It would not be inappropriate to honor the unacknowledged author of this success
     
    Lenin will be as much honored in the West as the progenitor of capitalism's meteoric rise as he will be in Ukraine as the "father of Ukrainian statehood". Why not just acknowledge him for what he truly was, the ruler of the largest state where Russia played the leading cultural and economic role in its history? But that's too apparent, better off trying to concoct strange new angles.

    Replies: @Mr. Hack, @mal, @Korenchkin, @Anatoly Karlin, @Mr. XYZ, @AltanBakshi

    Yes, it would have helped if I had noticed that Karlin had characterized this one under the category of “humor”, but even still, his writing style is not droll enough here IMHO to recognize this naturally, I suspect that most of what he wrote here he believes in. 🙂

  17. @Ano4
    @songbird

    Lenin had Jewish and Kryashen Tatar ancestry. Does that help him being ensconced in a discriminated minority position?

    Replies: @songbird, @AltanBakshi

    The Tartars don’t seem to have a lot of pull these days, and if he had any Muslim forebears, I doubt that would help, in his case.

    I don’t know if one Jewish grandparent would be enough. Perhaps, if he had a Jewish name like Whoopi Goldberg. Otherwise, they’d probably think he was a skinhead.

    • Agree: Ano4
  18. mal says:
    @Mr. Hack

    the October Revolution was the single most brilliant German intelligence operation in history, so it also ensured American economic and cultural hegemony during the second half of the 20th century. It would not be inappropriate to honor the unacknowledged author of this success
     
    Lenin will be as much honored in the West as the progenitor of capitalism's meteoric rise as he will be in Ukraine as the "father of Ukrainian statehood". Why not just acknowledge him for what he truly was, the ruler of the largest state where Russia played the leading cultural and economic role in its history? But that's too apparent, better off trying to concoct strange new angles.

    Replies: @Mr. Hack, @mal, @Korenchkin, @Anatoly Karlin, @Mr. XYZ, @AltanBakshi

    To be fair, Lenin didn’t rule much – he was badly wounded less than a year after October Revolution and his health was very bad.

    The big dogs of the early Soviet period were Jugashvili/Stalin the Georgian, Dzerzhinsky the Polish dude (who organized Red Terror and created Soviet secret police), and Bronstein/Trotsky the Ukrainian jew, who wanted to lead Red Army on global conquest in the name of Communism. Those people were not Russian and they didn’t care about Russian culture and economics even a bit except killing as many Russians as they could while pursuing their own agendas.

    • Agree: Ano4
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    @mal

    And yet he hobbled on and ruled from 1917 - 1924, and is duly acknowledged as the leader and guiding force of the incipient Soviet Union. The 20,000 statues that Karlin mentions were all created and erected in his honor, not to the others that you mention?

    Replies: @mal

    , @inertial
    @mal


    The big dogs of the early Soviet period were Jugashvili/Stalin the Georgian, Dzerzhinsky the Polish dude (who organized Red Terror and created Soviet secret police), and Bronstein/Trotsky the Ukrainian jew, who wanted to lead Red Army on global conquest in the name of Communism.
     
    And Kamenev, and Zinoviev, and Bukharin, and Rykov, and Chicherin, and Lunacharsky, and Kuibyshev, and Tsurupa, and Dybenko-Krylenko-Ovseenko, and Bubnov, and Krasin, and Skvortsov-Stepanov, and Podvoisky, and Krestinsky, and Frunze, and Petrovsky, and Shlyapnikov, and...

    One advantage of growing up during the time when all the streets and half the cities were named after Bolshevik leaders - you realized there were A LOT of them.
  19. @mal
    @Mr. Hack

    To be fair, Lenin didn't rule much - he was badly wounded less than a year after October Revolution and his health was very bad.

    The big dogs of the early Soviet period were Jugashvili/Stalin the Georgian, Dzerzhinsky the Polish dude (who organized Red Terror and created Soviet secret police), and Bronstein/Trotsky the Ukrainian jew, who wanted to lead Red Army on global conquest in the name of Communism. Those people were not Russian and they didn't care about Russian culture and economics even a bit except killing as many Russians as they could while pursuing their own agendas.

    Replies: @Mr. Hack, @inertial

    And yet he hobbled on and ruled from 1917 – 1924, and is duly acknowledged as the leader and guiding force of the incipient Soviet Union. The 20,000 statues that Karlin mentions were all created and erected in his honor, not to the others that you mention?

    • Replies: @mal
    @Mr. Hack

    More like inspiration and ideological foundation rather than an actual leader.

    Just because you see a lot of Jesus Christ statues and paintings around doesn't mean Jesus was an actual Christian Church leader, commanding people, collecting taxes and building temples etc. That came later and was done by different people.

    Same with Lenin. Except instead of Christianity, Soviet ideology was built upon ultramodern (for that time) Ango-German-Jewish ideals of scientific materialism, industrialization and technological progress. There was nothing Russian about it, Communist ideology is globalist by its very nature.

    Modern neoliberals and neoconservatives are simply rebranded Trotskyists. They run all the Western transnational corporations and governments today. In that sense, International Communism won the Cold War over the more mellow national socialism (not the German kind) of the late USSR.

    Anyway, I think you can still find some Dzerzhinsky and Jugashvili statues around. Bronstein the internationalist lost the power struggle to "socialism in one country" guy, so not a lot of him in Russia I think. This is also why Western elites hate Russia so much - didnt like Russia getting out of the global project.

    Replies: @Mr. Hack, @inertial

  20. @Mr. Hack

    the October Revolution was the single most brilliant German intelligence operation in history, so it also ensured American economic and cultural hegemony during the second half of the 20th century. It would not be inappropriate to honor the unacknowledged author of this success
     
    Lenin will be as much honored in the West as the progenitor of capitalism's meteoric rise as he will be in Ukraine as the "father of Ukrainian statehood". Why not just acknowledge him for what he truly was, the ruler of the largest state where Russia played the leading cultural and economic role in its history? But that's too apparent, better off trying to concoct strange new angles.

    Replies: @Mr. Hack, @mal, @Korenchkin, @Anatoly Karlin, @Mr. XYZ, @AltanBakshi

    Lenin ruled a Civil War ravaged basket case, what you’re describing is more fitting for Stalin

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    @Korenchkin

    Without a Lenin, there would have not been a Stalin.

    Replies: @Korenchkin

  21. mal says:
    @Mr. Hack
    @mal

    And yet he hobbled on and ruled from 1917 - 1924, and is duly acknowledged as the leader and guiding force of the incipient Soviet Union. The 20,000 statues that Karlin mentions were all created and erected in his honor, not to the others that you mention?

    Replies: @mal

    More like inspiration and ideological foundation rather than an actual leader.

    Just because you see a lot of Jesus Christ statues and paintings around doesn’t mean Jesus was an actual Christian Church leader, commanding people, collecting taxes and building temples etc. That came later and was done by different people.

    Same with Lenin. Except instead of Christianity, Soviet ideology was built upon ultramodern (for that time) Ango-German-Jewish ideals of scientific materialism, industrialization and technological progress. There was nothing Russian about it, Communist ideology is globalist by its very nature.

    Modern neoliberals and neoconservatives are simply rebranded Trotskyists. They run all the Western transnational corporations and governments today. In that sense, International Communism won the Cold War over the more mellow national socialism (not the German kind) of the late USSR.

    Anyway, I think you can still find some Dzerzhinsky and Jugashvili statues around. Bronstein the internationalist lost the power struggle to “socialism in one country” guy, so not a lot of him in Russia I think. This is also why Western elites hate Russia so much – didnt like Russia getting out of the global project.

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    @mal


    More like inspiration and ideological foundation rather than an actual leader.



    He started it and all of the rot followed, like a fast moving and malignant cancer that starts from just one bad cell. Lenin was the mutation that started it all.
     

     

     

    Replies: @mal

    , @inertial
    @mal


    Soviet ideology was built upon ultramodern (for that time) Ango-German-Jewish ideals of scientific materialism, industrialization and technological progress. There was nothing Russian about it, Communist ideology is globalist by its very nature.
     
    You are forgetting certain features of the Soviet ideology; precisely the features that made this ideology different from any other. Collectivism, utopianism, historical determinism, class-ism, hostility to property & market (aka anti-capitalism), and more. A case had been made that these things are Russian in origin. I mostly disagree with it but this is a stronger case than the one about "Ango-German-Jewish ideals."

    Bronstein the internationalist lost the power struggle to “socialism in one country” guy
     
    This distinction is BS. Both Trotsky and Stalin were highly practical, so Stalin was an internationalist and Trotsky was building socialism in one country - when it suited them. And tracing modern globalism to Trotsky is looney tunes.

    Replies: @mal

  22. @Korenchkin
    @Mr. Hack

    Lenin ruled a Civil War ravaged basket case, what you're describing is more fitting for Stalin

    Replies: @Mr. Hack

    Without a Lenin, there would have not been a Stalin.

    • Replies: @Korenchkin
    @Mr. Hack

    Well supposedly Lenin did not want Stalin to become General Secretary, although I hear that's disputed now

    Replies: @Mr. Hack

  23. @Mr. Hack

    the October Revolution was the single most brilliant German intelligence operation in history, so it also ensured American economic and cultural hegemony during the second half of the 20th century. It would not be inappropriate to honor the unacknowledged author of this success
     
    Lenin will be as much honored in the West as the progenitor of capitalism's meteoric rise as he will be in Ukraine as the "father of Ukrainian statehood". Why not just acknowledge him for what he truly was, the ruler of the largest state where Russia played the leading cultural and economic role in its history? But that's too apparent, better off trying to concoct strange new angles.

    Replies: @Mr. Hack, @mal, @Korenchkin, @Anatoly Karlin, @Mr. XYZ, @AltanBakshi

    Where was I talking about capitalism?

    The US would not have been an economic and cultural hegemon during the 1945-~2020 era if there had been a Russia with twice the population, twice the GDP per capita, and four times the GDP of the USSR.

    In this sense, there are few who need to idolize Lenin more than American imperialists.

    • Agree: Ano4
    • LOL: Nodwink
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    @Anatoly Karlin


    The US would not have been an economic and cultural hegemon during the 1945-~2020 era if there had been a Russia with twice the population, twice the GDP per capita, and four times the GDP of the USSR.
     
    One could more accurately postulate that the US's great fortune was more closely indebted to its involvement in WWII, therefore using your own method of assigning outside forces and personalities to its rise of prominence, shouldn't the US start looking for statues of Hitler to dot its countryside? In either case, these are silly speculative exercises in playing "what if historical narratives".

    Replies: @mal, @Anatoly Karlin

    , @Mr. XYZ
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Twice the population might be stretching it a bit. 290+ million times 2 equals 580+ million. That seems a bit too high, no?

    Anyway, I'm certainly a US patriot and a huge fan of the US (for instance, having the US acquire an informal sphere of influence in Europe and East Asia over the last several decades), but I'm not a sadist. I don't want the US's rise to be based on the extremely massive shedding of Russian blood and on decades of misery for Russians.

    By the logic, maybe the US should likewise have a lot of Hitler statues? I mean, sure, a couple hundred thousand or so Americans were killed in the war against Nazi Germany, but Hitler inflicted astronomically more damage to the Soviet Union than he did to the US (or to the West in general, for that matter)--thus leaving the US and the West much less bloodied and much less damaged on the eve of the Cold War in comparison to the Soviet Union. (Hitler, of course, also allowed the Soviet Union to conquer western Ukraine, thus putting a lot more Ukrainian nationalists inside of the Soviet Union and paving the way for the Soviet Union's ultimate collapse.)

    , @Mr. XYZ
    @Anatoly Karlin

    BTW, do you believe that Russian liberals and Jews would have--in a scenario where Russia never actually became Communist--aggressively pushed to open Russia's doors far and wide to mass non-Slavic and perhaps even to mass non-white immigration just like Western liberals and Jews often do in real life?

  24. @mal
    @Mr. Hack

    More like inspiration and ideological foundation rather than an actual leader.

    Just because you see a lot of Jesus Christ statues and paintings around doesn't mean Jesus was an actual Christian Church leader, commanding people, collecting taxes and building temples etc. That came later and was done by different people.

    Same with Lenin. Except instead of Christianity, Soviet ideology was built upon ultramodern (for that time) Ango-German-Jewish ideals of scientific materialism, industrialization and technological progress. There was nothing Russian about it, Communist ideology is globalist by its very nature.

    Modern neoliberals and neoconservatives are simply rebranded Trotskyists. They run all the Western transnational corporations and governments today. In that sense, International Communism won the Cold War over the more mellow national socialism (not the German kind) of the late USSR.

    Anyway, I think you can still find some Dzerzhinsky and Jugashvili statues around. Bronstein the internationalist lost the power struggle to "socialism in one country" guy, so not a lot of him in Russia I think. This is also why Western elites hate Russia so much - didnt like Russia getting out of the global project.

    Replies: @Mr. Hack, @inertial

    More like inspiration and ideological foundation rather than an actual leader.

    He started it and all of the rot followed, like a fast moving and malignant cancer that starts from just one bad cell. Lenin was the mutation that started it all.

    • Replies: @mal
    @Mr. Hack

    Nah, Marx and Engels laid down the fundamental ideology. Lots of statues of them too, in USSR and modern China. They were not Russian.

    Lenin was merely the Russian prophet.

  25. In keeping with the Zeitgeist, Russia can export most of its Lenin statues to the US.

  26. @Mr. Hack
    @mal


    More like inspiration and ideological foundation rather than an actual leader.



    He started it and all of the rot followed, like a fast moving and malignant cancer that starts from just one bad cell. Lenin was the mutation that started it all.
     

     

     

    Replies: @mal

    Nah, Marx and Engels laid down the fundamental ideology. Lots of statues of them too, in USSR and modern China. They were not Russian.

    Lenin was merely the Russian prophet.

  27. @Anatoly Karlin
    @Mr. Hack

    Where was I talking about capitalism?

    The US would not have been an economic and cultural hegemon during the 1945-~2020 era if there had been a Russia with twice the population, twice the GDP per capita, and four times the GDP of the USSR.

    In this sense, there are few who need to idolize Lenin more than American imperialists.

    Replies: @Mr. Hack, @Mr. XYZ, @Mr. XYZ

    The US would not have been an economic and cultural hegemon during the 1945-~2020 era if there had been a Russia with twice the population, twice the GDP per capita, and four times the GDP of the USSR.

    One could more accurately postulate that the US’s great fortune was more closely indebted to its involvement in WWII, therefore using your own method of assigning outside forces and personalities to its rise of prominence, shouldn’t the US start looking for statues of Hitler to dot its countryside? In either case, these are silly speculative exercises in playing “what if historical narratives”.

    • Agree: Mr. XYZ
    • Replies: @mal
    @Mr. Hack

    Well, not sure about Hitler, but US does honor Werner von Braun, who has probably contributed the most to American prestige, cultural, and economic power.

    One small step for man, one giant leap for National Socialism (the German kind), as they say.

    , @Anatoly Karlin
    @Mr. Hack

    Where did I express my opposition to Hitler statues?

  28. @Mr. Hack
    @Anatoly Karlin


    The US would not have been an economic and cultural hegemon during the 1945-~2020 era if there had been a Russia with twice the population, twice the GDP per capita, and four times the GDP of the USSR.
     
    One could more accurately postulate that the US's great fortune was more closely indebted to its involvement in WWII, therefore using your own method of assigning outside forces and personalities to its rise of prominence, shouldn't the US start looking for statues of Hitler to dot its countryside? In either case, these are silly speculative exercises in playing "what if historical narratives".

    Replies: @mal, @Anatoly Karlin

    Well, not sure about Hitler, but US does honor Werner von Braun, who has probably contributed the most to American prestige, cultural, and economic power.

    One small step for man, one giant leap for National Socialism (the German kind), as they say.

  29. @Blinky Bill
    @Blinky Bill

    https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcTkmKXnvGuwZ2pOrrH1RY1pp7yXumsVjxb9ig&usqp.jpg

    https://imgur.com/xwjGKm3.jpg

    Replies: @AP

    Where is Bliss? He would appreciate this discovery.

    • LOL: Anatoly Karlin
  30. @Jake
    Swapping statues isn't going far enough. Russia needs to swap a million or so of its loony leftists - those who romanticize Negroes or gay rights, those who think Globalism is great for all, those who think Jews are a victim race, etc. - for a horde of Middle American rednecks and hillbillies. That way, Russia could have a new Red Horde.

    Replies: @AKAHorace

    Swapping statues isn’t going far enough. Russia needs to swap a million or so of its loony leftists – those who romanticize Negroes or gay rights, those who think Globalism is great for all, those who think Jews are a victim race, etc. – for a horde of Middle American rednecks and hillbillies. That way, Russia could have a new Red Horde.

    I thought that SJWs were hard to find in Russia, wouldn’t that exhaust their resources of blue haired women ?

    • Replies: @Jake
    @AKAHorace

    Exhausting them would be great for any country. They are natural destroyers of decent culture and stable families.

  31. One thing that I think everybody can agree on, is that the US and China will not be exchanging any statues in the near future:

    • Replies: @Blinky Bill
    @Mr. Hack

    “The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.”


    https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcSyV8jKFCnl5GUsblROpAm90fSiQbpuGyC2Yw&usqp.jpg

    Lei Yixin is a prominent Chinese sculptor. Yixin designed the Stone of Hope, the statue of Martin Luther King Jr. at the King Memorial near the United States National Mall.

    Replies: @Kent Nationalist, @Mr. Hack

  32. @Mr. Hack
    @Korenchkin

    Without a Lenin, there would have not been a Stalin.

    Replies: @Korenchkin

    Well supposedly Lenin did not want Stalin to become General Secretary, although I hear that’s disputed now

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    @Korenchkin

    Well, I've heard that Lenin began some of the methods that Stalin only perfected, that he was in effect a "Stalin Light"?...

    Replies: @Ano4

  33. Good idea. You can send some to Germany too, the young love commie statues there. In exchange you can get statues of Hit…, er, Bismarck?

  34. @Korenchkin
    @Mr. Hack

    Well supposedly Lenin did not want Stalin to become General Secretary, although I hear that's disputed now

    Replies: @Mr. Hack

    Well, I’ve heard that Lenin began some of the methods that Stalin only perfected, that he was in effect a “Stalin Light”?…

    • Replies: @Ano4
    @Mr. Hack

    Lenin was more Russophobic than Stalin. And he was just as sadistic. Lenin was a purely destructive force.

  35. Russia can export most of its Lenin statues to the US. Although one might expect Antifa and allies to be most excited about that,

    AK,

    Amusing idea, but you are badly overestimating the intelligence of the Fascist Stormtroopers of Antifa.

    The SJW Fascists tore down statues (pictures below MORE) in Madison, WI to : (1)
    — Abolition of Slavery
    — Womens’ Rights

    Antifa is the U.S. Version of the Taliban. Sorry if the comparison is a bit unfair, as the Taliban are far more rational than the Fascists of Antifa. Any Lenin statues sent this way would be at more risk than the Buddhas of Bamiyan.

    PEACE 😇
    _______

    (1) https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/board-approves-restoration-re-installation-of-capitol-square-statues-torn-down-by-demonstrators/article_d8b41a06-21b3-518c-8163-49d79da451e5.html

    [MORE]

  36. • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    @Ano4

    Detente? :-)

    Replies: @Ano4

  37. @Mr. Hack
    @Korenchkin

    Well, I've heard that Lenin began some of the methods that Stalin only perfected, that he was in effect a "Stalin Light"?...

    Replies: @Ano4

    Lenin was more Russophobic than Stalin. And he was just as sadistic. Lenin was a purely destructive force.

  38. @Mr. Hack
    One thing that I think everybody can agree on, is that the US and China will not be exchanging any statues in the near future:

    https://youtu.be/I9JdeaLltKY

    Replies: @Blinky Bill

    “The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.”


    Lei Yixin is a prominent Chinese sculptor. Yixin designed the Stone of Hope, the statue of Martin Luther King Jr. at the King Memorial near the United States National Mall.

    • Replies: @Kent Nationalist
    @Blinky Bill

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/MaoStatueinLijang.jpg

    His previous work. There must be some complicated and probably very amusing backstory to how he got picked. It seems like the sort of thing SS would write about.

    Replies: @Blinky Bill

    , @Mr. Hack
    @Blinky Bill

    About 20 years ago I had the good fortune of visiting the International Friendship Gardens in Thunderbay, Canada, where they displayed this interesting monument and pavilion dedicated, to I believe, Lao Tzu:

    https://rcp.ca/jpg/591-0067t.jpg

    Since then,the Chinese have augmented their collection there to include some luminaries of the Tai Chi martial arts movement:


    http://www.opinionatedbastard.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/1090349.jpg

  39. @Blinky Bill
    @Mr. Hack

    “The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.”


    https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcSyV8jKFCnl5GUsblROpAm90fSiQbpuGyC2Yw&usqp.jpg

    Lei Yixin is a prominent Chinese sculptor. Yixin designed the Stone of Hope, the statue of Martin Luther King Jr. at the King Memorial near the United States National Mall.

    Replies: @Kent Nationalist, @Mr. Hack

    His previous work. There must be some complicated and probably very amusing backstory to how he got picked. It seems like the sort of thing SS would write about.

    • Replies: @Blinky Bill
    @Kent Nationalist

    Bingo!

    https://twitter.com/Steve_Sailer/status/933184425243766785?s=20

  40. This one’s a serious post by me. So please no jokes.

    I’ve always found the this to be both moving and beautiful.

    [MORE]

    Tear Drop Memorial is a 10–story sculpture by Zurab Tsereteli that was given to the United States as an official gift from the Russian government as a memorial to the victims of the September 11 attacks in 2001, 26 of whom were Russian.

  41. @Kent Nationalist
    @Blinky Bill

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/MaoStatueinLijang.jpg

    His previous work. There must be some complicated and probably very amusing backstory to how he got picked. It seems like the sort of thing SS would write about.

    Replies: @Blinky Bill

    Bingo!

    • LOL: Kent Nationalist
  42. @Mr. Hack
    @Anatoly Karlin


    The US would not have been an economic and cultural hegemon during the 1945-~2020 era if there had been a Russia with twice the population, twice the GDP per capita, and four times the GDP of the USSR.
     
    One could more accurately postulate that the US's great fortune was more closely indebted to its involvement in WWII, therefore using your own method of assigning outside forces and personalities to its rise of prominence, shouldn't the US start looking for statues of Hitler to dot its countryside? In either case, these are silly speculative exercises in playing "what if historical narratives".

    Replies: @mal, @Anatoly Karlin

    Where did I express my opposition to Hitler statues?

    • LOL: Mr. Hack, Mr. XYZ
  43. @Blinky Bill
    @Mr. Hack

    “The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.”


    https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcSyV8jKFCnl5GUsblROpAm90fSiQbpuGyC2Yw&usqp.jpg

    Lei Yixin is a prominent Chinese sculptor. Yixin designed the Stone of Hope, the statue of Martin Luther King Jr. at the King Memorial near the United States National Mall.

    Replies: @Kent Nationalist, @Mr. Hack

    About 20 years ago I had the good fortune of visiting the International Friendship Gardens in Thunderbay, Canada, where they displayed this interesting monument and pavilion dedicated, to I believe, Lao Tzu:


    Since then,the Chinese have augmented their collection there to include some luminaries of the Tai Chi martial arts movement:

    • Thanks: Blinky Bill
  44. @Ano4
    https://c.radikal.ru/c32/2006/60/b6515d1a23f2.jpg

    Replies: @Mr. Hack

    Detente? 🙂

    • Replies: @Ano4
    @Mr. Hack

    Indeed. And given the political situation in the US I couldn't help myself thinking of even more explicit poses.

    Replies: @Mr. Hack

  45. @Mr. Hack
    @Ano4

    Detente? :-)

    Replies: @Ano4

    Indeed. And given the political situation in the US I couldn’t help myself thinking of even more explicit poses.

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    @Ano4

    But throughout it all, the Putin/Trump pose of closeness has not undergone any major revisions...

    https://envisioningtheamericandream.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/trump-putin-image-398.jpg

    Now, Trump will double down and blame China for all of the world's ills.

    Replies: @Ano4

  46. @Ano4
    @Mr. Hack

    Indeed. And given the political situation in the US I couldn't help myself thinking of even more explicit poses.

    Replies: @Mr. Hack

    But throughout it all, the Putin/Trump pose of closeness has not undergone any major revisions…

    Now, Trump will double down and blame China for all of the world’s ills.

    • Replies: @Ano4
    @Mr. Hack

    All this is merry and jolly, but:

    https://www.rferl.org/a/us-house-approves-more-sanctions-related-to-nord-stream-2/30738780.html

    Replies: @Mr. Hack

  47. @Mr. Hack
    @Ano4

    But throughout it all, the Putin/Trump pose of closeness has not undergone any major revisions...

    https://envisioningtheamericandream.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/trump-putin-image-398.jpg

    Now, Trump will double down and blame China for all of the world's ills.

    Replies: @Ano4

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    @Ano4

    Yes, it will be interesting to see how Pompeo does in Denmark this week. As a silly aside, I've recently located a place near where I live that sells actual Danish havarti - it's so much better than the ersatz variety made in California. :-)

    Replies: @Mr. Hack

  48. @Anatoly Karlin
    @Mr. Hack

    Where was I talking about capitalism?

    The US would not have been an economic and cultural hegemon during the 1945-~2020 era if there had been a Russia with twice the population, twice the GDP per capita, and four times the GDP of the USSR.

    In this sense, there are few who need to idolize Lenin more than American imperialists.

    Replies: @Mr. Hack, @Mr. XYZ, @Mr. XYZ

    Twice the population might be stretching it a bit. 290+ million times 2 equals 580+ million. That seems a bit too high, no?

    Anyway, I’m certainly a US patriot and a huge fan of the US (for instance, having the US acquire an informal sphere of influence in Europe and East Asia over the last several decades), but I’m not a sadist. I don’t want the US’s rise to be based on the extremely massive shedding of Russian blood and on decades of misery for Russians.

    By the logic, maybe the US should likewise have a lot of Hitler statues? I mean, sure, a couple hundred thousand or so Americans were killed in the war against Nazi Germany, but Hitler inflicted astronomically more damage to the Soviet Union than he did to the US (or to the West in general, for that matter)–thus leaving the US and the West much less bloodied and much less damaged on the eve of the Cold War in comparison to the Soviet Union. (Hitler, of course, also allowed the Soviet Union to conquer western Ukraine, thus putting a lot more Ukrainian nationalists inside of the Soviet Union and paving the way for the Soviet Union’s ultimate collapse.)

  49. @Mr. Hack

    the October Revolution was the single most brilliant German intelligence operation in history, so it also ensured American economic and cultural hegemony during the second half of the 20th century. It would not be inappropriate to honor the unacknowledged author of this success
     
    Lenin will be as much honored in the West as the progenitor of capitalism's meteoric rise as he will be in Ukraine as the "father of Ukrainian statehood". Why not just acknowledge him for what he truly was, the ruler of the largest state where Russia played the leading cultural and economic role in its history? But that's too apparent, better off trying to concoct strange new angles.

    Replies: @Mr. Hack, @mal, @Korenchkin, @Anatoly Karlin, @Mr. XYZ, @AltanBakshi

    Russia could have achieved much more greatness in the 20th century without Communism–and also with astronomically less bloodshed.

    For that matter, Ukraine could have acquired its independence in 1918 and permanently kept it had Germany won World War I. Such a scenario might have also resulted in the Bolsheviks being overthrown in Russia by the Germans after the end of World War I and replaced with a more pliant Russian regime.

    • Agree: Mr. Hack
    • Replies: @mal
    @Mr. XYZ

    Agreed about Russia, but there was no way for Germans to win WW1 in 1917-1918, and no way for Ukraine to be independent.

    Without communism, Kerensky government would be able to hold out a few months for Allies to crush Germany, but he would have been too weak to beat down Poland.

    Poland would declare independence and would then invade Baltic states, Belarus, Ukraine, and possibly Russia. This part of history wouldnt change. There would have been a showdown between Polish and Russian armies and the victor would occupy Ukraine.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @AP

  50. @Anatoly Karlin
    @Mr. Hack

    Where was I talking about capitalism?

    The US would not have been an economic and cultural hegemon during the 1945-~2020 era if there had been a Russia with twice the population, twice the GDP per capita, and four times the GDP of the USSR.

    In this sense, there are few who need to idolize Lenin more than American imperialists.

    Replies: @Mr. Hack, @Mr. XYZ, @Mr. XYZ

    BTW, do you believe that Russian liberals and Jews would have–in a scenario where Russia never actually became Communist–aggressively pushed to open Russia’s doors far and wide to mass non-Slavic and perhaps even to mass non-white immigration just like Western liberals and Jews often do in real life?

  51. @Mr. XYZ
    @Mr. Hack

    Russia could have achieved much more greatness in the 20th century without Communism--and also with astronomically less bloodshed.

    For that matter, Ukraine could have acquired its independence in 1918 and permanently kept it had Germany won World War I. Such a scenario might have also resulted in the Bolsheviks being overthrown in Russia by the Germans after the end of World War I and replaced with a more pliant Russian regime.

    Replies: @mal

    Agreed about Russia, but there was no way for Germans to win WW1 in 1917-1918, and no way for Ukraine to be independent.

    Without communism, Kerensky government would be able to hold out a few months for Allies to crush Germany, but he would have been too weak to beat down Poland.

    Poland would declare independence and would then invade Baltic states, Belarus, Ukraine, and possibly Russia. This part of history wouldnt change. There would have been a showdown between Polish and Russian armies and the victor would occupy Ukraine.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @mal

    The Germans could have won WWI had the US remained neutral. Also, Yes, Communists would be necessary for Russia's WWI defeat but Germany could subsequently overthrow them after they've outlived their usefulness to Germany.

    , @AP
    @mal


    Agreed about Russia, but there was no way for Germans to win WW1 in 1917-1918, and no way for Ukraine to be independent.
     
    As XYZ pointed out, there was a high likelihood of Germany winning World War I if the Americans did not enter.

    Without communism, Kerensky government would be able to hold out a few months for Allies to crush Germany
     
    Probably true with no communists at all. However, with Communist anti-war agitation, but no successful Revolution, there would still have been mass desertions and massive German incursions, and likely collapse (or at least, loss of much of the European part of the Russian Empire).

    Replies: @mal, @Mr. XYZ

  52. @mal
    @Mr. XYZ

    Agreed about Russia, but there was no way for Germans to win WW1 in 1917-1918, and no way for Ukraine to be independent.

    Without communism, Kerensky government would be able to hold out a few months for Allies to crush Germany, but he would have been too weak to beat down Poland.

    Poland would declare independence and would then invade Baltic states, Belarus, Ukraine, and possibly Russia. This part of history wouldnt change. There would have been a showdown between Polish and Russian armies and the victor would occupy Ukraine.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @AP

    The Germans could have won WWI had the US remained neutral. Also, Yes, Communists would be necessary for Russia’s WWI defeat but Germany could subsequently overthrow them after they’ve outlived their usefulness to Germany.

  53. Elon Musk wants nickel badly, so if those Lenins are made from it, he will take them.

    Well, I’d just like to re-emphasize, any mining companies out there, please mine more nickel. Okay. Wherever you are in the world, please mine more nickel and don’t wait for nickel to go back to some long — some high point that you experienced some five years ago, whatever. Go for efficiency, obviously environmentally friendly nickel mining at high volume. Tesla will give you a giant contract for a long period of time, if you mine nickel efficiently and in an environmentally sensitive way. So hopefully this message goes out to all mining companies. Please get nickel.

    https://electrek-co.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/electrek.co/2020/07/23/tesla-tsla-elon-musk-nickel-people/amp/?amp_js_v=a3&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQFKAGwASA%3D#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Felectrek.co%2F2020%2F07%2F23%2Ftesla-tsla-elon-musk-nickel-people%2F

    Norilsk Nickel, are you listening? Stop spilling diesel fuel everywhere and go get some. With Tesla’s stock flying high, they are not short of cash.

    Russia will have an awesome future in the electric car world. Oil will go away, nickel will replace it.

    That spill though is Exhibit A why asteroid mining will be huge in the future. Today, the fine for such spill was $2.1 billion. In a few short decades, it will be $2.1 trillion for a spill of similar magnitude. People will be taking environmental pollution far more seriously than today. It will be cheaper not to worry about it in space.

  54. @Europe Europa
    @Passer by

    I've seen it argued that Communism/marxism is really a social theory disguised as an economic one, and that the "equality between rich and poor" stuff is just the PR face of Communism to make it palatable to the average person, but in reality the economic and class theories are just a superficial part of Communism despite it being the main thing most people associate with Communism.

    In reality racial strife, gender strife, cultural war, pro-race mixing, pro-LGBT, etc, is much more the essence of what Communism/marxism is really all about and the sort of social and cultural upheaval it seeks to bring about. In some ways the sort of Communism/marxism becoming widespread in the Anglosphere now could be considered a purer form of it than what existed in the Soviet Union.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    but in reality the economic and class theories are just a superficial part of Communism despite it being the main thing most people associate with Communism.

    In reality racial strife, gender strife, cultural war, pro-race mixing, pro-LGBT, etc, is much more the essence of what Communism/marxism is really all about and the sort of social and cultural upheaval it seeks to bring about.

    An interesting theory. It’s completely crazy and completely wrong of course but it does provide a fascinating glimpse into the deluded mindset of the far right.

    • Agree: inertial
  55. @AKAHorace
    @Jake


    Swapping statues isn’t going far enough. Russia needs to swap a million or so of its loony leftists – those who romanticize Negroes or gay rights, those who think Globalism is great for all, those who think Jews are a victim race, etc. – for a horde of Middle American rednecks and hillbillies. That way, Russia could have a new Red Horde.

     

    I thought that SJWs were hard to find in Russia, wouldn't that exhaust their resources of blue haired women ?

    Replies: @Jake

    Exhausting them would be great for any country. They are natural destroyers of decent culture and stable families.

  56. @Ano4
    I think USA needs more statues of Trotsky...

    https://www.timesofisrael.com/trotskys-day-out-how-a-visit-to-nyc-influenced-the-bolshevik-revolution/

    Replies: @ivan

    It took another “Russian” from the periphery – Stalin – of whom Lenin said – no greater chauvinist than an aborigine – to correct matters in favour of the Russians. If only the Russian aristocracy themselves had not been so dissolute and drunk with power, they could certainly have saved Russia from the Bolshies.

    And thanks for the link, it is of the genre, quite common nowadays, that if Jews do something bad it is out of the goodness of their hearts or due to circumstances beyond their control. Their enemies on the other had be they Germans or Catholics or Amaleks, on the other hand are both intrinsically evil and responsible for the creation of the evil circumstances that Jews find themselves in, and are therefore sadly perforce, compelled to deal with what may appear to be horrific means.

    Heads I win, tails you lose as the kids would say.

    • Replies: @Ano4
    @ivan

    Just like current Russian elites, a great part of the Russian Aristocracy of old had no clue about how Russian people fared and what they wanted. Today, the Rublyovka types, Moscow Golden Mile people and Garden Ring inner Muscovite crowd believe they got it all under control.

    Just like the Tsar in 1905 probably thought that all is well before the first Revolution started. A dozen years later he and his family got shot in a basement. And his Empire was in tatters.

    The Deep People (to use a term often used nowadays) in Russia are hard for the elites to grasp and quite easy to despise. The differences of course between the Empire's times and the Federation days is that (1) Russians have been through a social collapse twice in a century (2) today's Elite has a moral compulsion to shred into pieces anyone standing against it.

    So maybe this time all will end well despite the fall in the price of the major exports and the cut in the federal budget (10% so far). But maybe things will spiral out of control again. In Russia everything is possible, the best and the worst and everything in between. And perhaps that's what is interesting about it. Maybe they will even replace all these Lenin statues with the statues of Stalin...

    Replies: @Ivan

  57. AP says:
    @mal
    @Mr. XYZ

    Agreed about Russia, but there was no way for Germans to win WW1 in 1917-1918, and no way for Ukraine to be independent.

    Without communism, Kerensky government would be able to hold out a few months for Allies to crush Germany, but he would have been too weak to beat down Poland.

    Poland would declare independence and would then invade Baltic states, Belarus, Ukraine, and possibly Russia. This part of history wouldnt change. There would have been a showdown between Polish and Russian armies and the victor would occupy Ukraine.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @AP

    Agreed about Russia, but there was no way for Germans to win WW1 in 1917-1918, and no way for Ukraine to be independent.

    As XYZ pointed out, there was a high likelihood of Germany winning World War I if the Americans did not enter.

    Without communism, Kerensky government would be able to hold out a few months for Allies to crush Germany

    Probably true with no communists at all. However, with Communist anti-war agitation, but no successful Revolution, there would still have been mass desertions and massive German incursions, and likely collapse (or at least, loss of much of the European part of the Russian Empire).

    • Replies: @mal
    @AP

    The "What if" I was playing at assumed all the same history as real world minus Russian communism. That means Americans enter and Germans have their successful revolution that takes German Empire down. Russian liberal revolution still happens, just not communist one, so Kerensky manages to survive while Americans, French, and English shred the Germans.

    Communism caused Russian morale to collapse, but actual fighting capacity was still there - Russian Civil War killed 6-10 million people, compared to WW1's 2 million. Russian soldiers were deserting to kill each other rather than German enemies. Without communism, soldiers wouldn't be brainwashed, and military cohesion against the Germans could be maintained. So there wouldn't necessarily be a front collapse. And even if there was, it would only matter for a few months until German revolution. Then Germans would collapse.

    But even if Germans would be contained, I doubt there would be much appetite for fighting aggressive Poland. Polish would gain independence and maybe even conquer some lands like Baltics and West Ukraine.

    Replies: @AP

    , @Mr. XYZ
    @AP


    Probably true with no communists at all. However, with Communist anti-war agitation, but no successful Revolution, there would still have been mass desertions and massive German incursions, and likely collapse (or at least, loss of much of the European part of the Russian Empire).
     
    Really, with hindsight, maybe giving the Bolsheviks the Rosa Luxemburg treatment and simply summarily shooting them all would have been a superior move on the Russian Provisional Government's part. Seriously. Would have saved Russia a lot of subsequent suffering.
  58. mal says:
    @AP
    @mal


    Agreed about Russia, but there was no way for Germans to win WW1 in 1917-1918, and no way for Ukraine to be independent.
     
    As XYZ pointed out, there was a high likelihood of Germany winning World War I if the Americans did not enter.

    Without communism, Kerensky government would be able to hold out a few months for Allies to crush Germany
     
    Probably true with no communists at all. However, with Communist anti-war agitation, but no successful Revolution, there would still have been mass desertions and massive German incursions, and likely collapse (or at least, loss of much of the European part of the Russian Empire).

    Replies: @mal, @Mr. XYZ

    The “What if” I was playing at assumed all the same history as real world minus Russian communism. That means Americans enter and Germans have their successful revolution that takes German Empire down. Russian liberal revolution still happens, just not communist one, so Kerensky manages to survive while Americans, French, and English shred the Germans.

    Communism caused Russian morale to collapse, but actual fighting capacity was still there – Russian Civil War killed 6-10 million people, compared to WW1’s 2 million. Russian soldiers were deserting to kill each other rather than German enemies. Without communism, soldiers wouldn’t be brainwashed, and military cohesion against the Germans could be maintained. So there wouldn’t necessarily be a front collapse. And even if there was, it would only matter for a few months until German revolution. Then Germans would collapse.

    But even if Germans would be contained, I doubt there would be much appetite for fighting aggressive Poland. Polish would gain independence and maybe even conquer some lands like Baltics and West Ukraine.

    • Replies: @AP
    @mal


    The “What if” I was playing at assumed all the same history as real world minus Russian communism.
     
    If no Communism at all, then you are correct. The Army would easily hold on.

    Communism caused Russian morale to collapse, but actual fighting capacity was still there – Russian Civil War killed 6-10 million people, compared to WW1’s 2 million.
     
    You are incorrect. Communism caused morale to collapse and for people to just desert and go home. The mass participation in the Civil War occurred after a gap of at least a year. During the early stages there were few people actually fighting, such that small groups such as Latvian Riflemen or Czechoslovak POWs could affect the entire balance of power.

    But even if Germans would be contained, I doubt there would be much appetite for fighting aggressive Poland. Polish would gain independence and maybe even conquer some lands like Baltics and West Ukraine.
     
    Poland conquered West Ukraine with massive assistance from the West, provided for the purpose of fighting Bolshevism which would not have occurred had there been no Bolsheviks. Without Bolshevism, Poland would have had to conquer West Ukraine on its own. Certainly possible, maybe even likely, but not guaranteed:

    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE-%D1%83%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B9%D0%BD%D0%B0

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @mal

  59. @AP
    @mal


    Agreed about Russia, but there was no way for Germans to win WW1 in 1917-1918, and no way for Ukraine to be independent.
     
    As XYZ pointed out, there was a high likelihood of Germany winning World War I if the Americans did not enter.

    Without communism, Kerensky government would be able to hold out a few months for Allies to crush Germany
     
    Probably true with no communists at all. However, with Communist anti-war agitation, but no successful Revolution, there would still have been mass desertions and massive German incursions, and likely collapse (or at least, loss of much of the European part of the Russian Empire).

    Replies: @mal, @Mr. XYZ

    Probably true with no communists at all. However, with Communist anti-war agitation, but no successful Revolution, there would still have been mass desertions and massive German incursions, and likely collapse (or at least, loss of much of the European part of the Russian Empire).

    Really, with hindsight, maybe giving the Bolsheviks the Rosa Luxemburg treatment and simply summarily shooting them all would have been a superior move on the Russian Provisional Government’s part. Seriously. Would have saved Russia a lot of subsequent suffering.

  60. @ivan
    @Ano4

    It took another "Russian" from the periphery - Stalin - of whom Lenin said - no greater chauvinist than an aborigine - to correct matters in favour of the Russians. If only the Russian aristocracy themselves had not been so dissolute and drunk with power, they could certainly have saved Russia from the Bolshies.

    And thanks for the link, it is of the genre, quite common nowadays, that if Jews do something bad it is out of the goodness of their hearts or due to circumstances beyond their control. Their enemies on the other had be they Germans or Catholics or Amaleks, on the other hand are both intrinsically evil and responsible for the creation of the evil circumstances that Jews find themselves in, and are therefore sadly perforce, compelled to deal with what may appear to be horrific means.

    Heads I win, tails you lose as the kids would say.

    Replies: @Ano4

    Just like current Russian elites, a great part of the Russian Aristocracy of old had no clue about how Russian people fared and what they wanted. Today, the Rublyovka types, Moscow Golden Mile people and Garden Ring inner Muscovite crowd believe they got it all under control.

    Just like the Tsar in 1905 probably thought that all is well before the first Revolution started. A dozen years later he and his family got shot in a basement. And his Empire was in tatters.

    The Deep People (to use a term often used nowadays) in Russia are hard for the elites to grasp and quite easy to despise. The differences of course between the Empire’s times and the Federation days is that (1) Russians have been through a social collapse twice in a century (2) today’s Elite has a moral compulsion to shred into pieces anyone standing against it.

    So maybe this time all will end well despite the fall in the price of the major exports and the cut in the federal budget (10% so far). But maybe things will spiral out of control again. In Russia everything is possible, the best and the worst and everything in between. And perhaps that’s what is interesting about it. Maybe they will even replace all these Lenin statues with the statues of Stalin…

    • Replies: @Ivan
    @Ano4

    I have not been to either Russia or Europe but they strike me as a long suffering and forgiving people. I mean those who identify as Russians be they the Orthodox, atheists, Muslims, Jews or Buddhists, even if they can't stand the Catholics. I do wish that they find peace and prosperity just as anyone else.

    Replies: @Ano4

  61. AP says:
    @mal
    @AP

    The "What if" I was playing at assumed all the same history as real world minus Russian communism. That means Americans enter and Germans have their successful revolution that takes German Empire down. Russian liberal revolution still happens, just not communist one, so Kerensky manages to survive while Americans, French, and English shred the Germans.

    Communism caused Russian morale to collapse, but actual fighting capacity was still there - Russian Civil War killed 6-10 million people, compared to WW1's 2 million. Russian soldiers were deserting to kill each other rather than German enemies. Without communism, soldiers wouldn't be brainwashed, and military cohesion against the Germans could be maintained. So there wouldn't necessarily be a front collapse. And even if there was, it would only matter for a few months until German revolution. Then Germans would collapse.

    But even if Germans would be contained, I doubt there would be much appetite for fighting aggressive Poland. Polish would gain independence and maybe even conquer some lands like Baltics and West Ukraine.

    Replies: @AP

    The “What if” I was playing at assumed all the same history as real world minus Russian communism.

    If no Communism at all, then you are correct. The Army would easily hold on.

    Communism caused Russian morale to collapse, but actual fighting capacity was still there – Russian Civil War killed 6-10 million people, compared to WW1’s 2 million.

    You are incorrect. Communism caused morale to collapse and for people to just desert and go home. The mass participation in the Civil War occurred after a gap of at least a year. During the early stages there were few people actually fighting, such that small groups such as Latvian Riflemen or Czechoslovak POWs could affect the entire balance of power.

    But even if Germans would be contained, I doubt there would be much appetite for fighting aggressive Poland. Polish would gain independence and maybe even conquer some lands like Baltics and West Ukraine.

    Poland conquered West Ukraine with massive assistance from the West, provided for the purpose of fighting Bolshevism which would not have occurred had there been no Bolsheviks. Without Bolshevism, Poland would have had to conquer West Ukraine on its own. Certainly possible, maybe even likely, but not guaranteed:

    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE-%D1%83%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B9%D0%BD%D0%B0

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @AP


    Poland conquered West Ukraine with massive assistance from the West, provided for the purpose of fighting Bolshevism which would not have occurred had there been no Bolsheviks. Without Bolshevism, Poland would have had to conquer West Ukraine on its own. Certainly possible, maybe even likely, but not guaranteed:
     
    In such a scenario, would the Western Ukrainians have actually preferred Russian rule to Polish rule?

    Replies: @AP

    , @mal
    @AP

    Well, I wouldn't exactly call Czech Legions small - they had two full strength divisions, 40-50,000 and they were armed, and controlled the main central railroad.

    By fighting capacity I mean guns, bullets, cannons etc. Russian Army had two problems in 1918 - morale and logistics. They couldn't get their guns and ammo where they were needed fast enough. So yea, a year to organize mass participation in civil war doesn't sound unreasonable when your logistics are broken.

  62. @AP
    @mal


    The “What if” I was playing at assumed all the same history as real world minus Russian communism.
     
    If no Communism at all, then you are correct. The Army would easily hold on.

    Communism caused Russian morale to collapse, but actual fighting capacity was still there – Russian Civil War killed 6-10 million people, compared to WW1’s 2 million.
     
    You are incorrect. Communism caused morale to collapse and for people to just desert and go home. The mass participation in the Civil War occurred after a gap of at least a year. During the early stages there were few people actually fighting, such that small groups such as Latvian Riflemen or Czechoslovak POWs could affect the entire balance of power.

    But even if Germans would be contained, I doubt there would be much appetite for fighting aggressive Poland. Polish would gain independence and maybe even conquer some lands like Baltics and West Ukraine.
     
    Poland conquered West Ukraine with massive assistance from the West, provided for the purpose of fighting Bolshevism which would not have occurred had there been no Bolsheviks. Without Bolshevism, Poland would have had to conquer West Ukraine on its own. Certainly possible, maybe even likely, but not guaranteed:

    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE-%D1%83%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B9%D0%BD%D0%B0

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @mal

    Poland conquered West Ukraine with massive assistance from the West, provided for the purpose of fighting Bolshevism which would not have occurred had there been no Bolsheviks. Without Bolshevism, Poland would have had to conquer West Ukraine on its own. Certainly possible, maybe even likely, but not guaranteed:

    In such a scenario, would the Western Ukrainians have actually preferred Russian rule to Polish rule?

    • Replies: @AP
    @Mr. XYZ

    We are talking about history being the same but with no Bolshevism. That means Kerensky's government remains in charge. Kerensky's government recognized autonomy for Ukraine (comparable to Scotland within modern Britain, Ukraine would have its own parliament and PM but no army, though there were negotiations about creating a separate all-Ukrainian local army, that Scotland does not have) with local Ukrainian schools and so on. This Ukraine consisted of Kiev, Podolia, Volyn, Chernihiv and Poltava governates but they were negotiating about additional territories to the south. Galicia would have been added to them. Under such a scenario "Russian" rule would have been preferable to Polish rule for Galicians.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

  63. Exchange Russia’s fifth column for whites in South Africa.

  64. @Ano4
    @songbird

    Lenin had Jewish and Kryashen Tatar ancestry. Does that help him being ensconced in a discriminated minority position?

    Replies: @songbird, @AltanBakshi

    He also had quite lot Kalmyk blood through his father, actually I think he had much more Kalmyk blood than Tatar. And some Chuvash too.

    • Replies: @Ano4
    @AltanBakshi

    In fact when I was young, I thought that Ulyanov the father was of Kalmyk descent. A few years ago I read somewhere that the earliest record of their family was a female serf named Ulyana from whom supposedly the whole family derived their name. This is rather uncommon because usually it is the father's name that is used in Russian (and probably other Slavic languages) family names. Which yields all these Ivanov, Petrov, Sidorov etc.

    That might suggest that the sons of Ulyana had an "unknown " father, or simply were the (landlord) baryn's bastards. Which might also explain how Lenin's ancestors became free men well before the emancipation of the serfs.Their baryn offspring knew that they were "family " and freed them when the possibility to ensure them a better future occurred.

    To my knowledge, the Kalmyk have not been put into servage being considered Cossacks instead. The Chuvash according to my limited knowledge were mainly state serfs, although they possibly might have been transferred or sold into private bondage. So the Chuvash lineage is more probable. Although the Chuvash remained pagan well up to the beginning of the XIX century, while Ulyana was an Orthodox Christian name.

    Kryashen or Othodox Christian Tatars were the most assimilated Turkic people of the Volga region. They were already Christian in the XVIII century and might have been Christian well before. They were sold and transferred as serfs just like their Slav Russian neighbors and were in general treated exactly as Russians were. They easily assimilated into the Volga Russian population. They were relatively numerous in the Astrakhan gubernia. My bet would be that Ulyana was a Kryashen serf, although it is impossible to prove this.

    Lenin's awareness of his serf origins and of being descended from a bastard that his Russian aristocratic ancestor did not recognize and accept into his own family, might have explained a lot of things. Add to that his Protestant mother's Jewish and either Baltic German and/or Swedish ancestry leading to her alleged Russophobia, pushing her to educate her children as being critical of everything Orthodox Russian and you understand why the Ulyanov brothers turned the way they did.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

  65. @Mr. Hack

    the October Revolution was the single most brilliant German intelligence operation in history, so it also ensured American economic and cultural hegemony during the second half of the 20th century. It would not be inappropriate to honor the unacknowledged author of this success
     
    Lenin will be as much honored in the West as the progenitor of capitalism's meteoric rise as he will be in Ukraine as the "father of Ukrainian statehood". Why not just acknowledge him for what he truly was, the ruler of the largest state where Russia played the leading cultural and economic role in its history? But that's too apparent, better off trying to concoct strange new angles.

    Replies: @Mr. Hack, @mal, @Korenchkin, @Anatoly Karlin, @Mr. XYZ, @AltanBakshi

    Although I think that independent Ukraine is less smart thing than independent Bavaria would be, which also would be pretty stupid. I must say that its very easy to judge things in hindsight. And Karlin is often at fault on that. There are so many factors and variables in history that no man can surely know what will happen in the end. Its easy to criticize after all has happened, for afterwards emotions have cooled and there is a clearer picture.

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    @AltanBakshi

    I'm not quite sure why you've decided to disapprove of the idea of Ukrainian statehood all of a sudden, without even mentioning why?

  66. Like Mao Zedong, from the viewpoint of 70’s and 80’s he surely was total catastrophe for China and nationalist alternatives would have been better, but from the viewpoint of present they probably would have been too corrupted and decentralized and many frontier regions of China would have been lost if Chiang Kai-Shek would have kept the power. Crucially there wouldnt been foundations for industrialization of China. Likewise from the point of view of 50’s or 60’s Lenin was best that had happened to Russia, Communism was resurgent everywhere in the world led by the mighty Soviet Union that had the strongest army in the history of the mankind. Western universities were full of scholars and academicians who believed in principles of scientific socialism and in the inevitable victory of the Soviet Union in those times. And we could continue and continue this, with every country and make new revisions decade after decade. Is this fruitful?

    Yes now Russia seems weak and under siege, but we cant know how thing will be in in generation or two, if we look the history of past hundred years, we can say that deck has been shuffled quite many times? More important is to develop holistic view of history and be proud of Soviet achievements. Many of my relatives suffered because of Stalin and revolution, but then there was also much of beauty and good. Lenin may be a cynic charlatan who enchanted the masses, but does that lessen the greatness of victory against the hordes of Hitler? Does that take honor away from Sputnik, Gagarin, MIR-Space station, from global struggle against western imperialism? From liberation of Vietnam, or help that Soviet Union showed to many young and weak nations like India and China? After all Lenin maybe a scoundrel but he couldnt poison the hearts of Russian people, after all Soviet Union and Russians quickly returned to conservative morals and love of their fatherland, and even kept their respect towards Church and family.

    This view of history that you Anatoly Karlin propagate has similarities with Ukrainian nationalists, they too view that Soviet Union was failed experiment, led by evil Commies. Although your case is much better it still will in the end produce just social strife and not social healing or cohesion. For even if you would hate your father, your father is still your father, no matter what. Sorry for bad English….

    Oh almost forgot to add, Gorbachev and surviving leadership from the 1989-1991, should be taken to the court and sentenced of treason.

    • Replies: @AltanBakshi
    @AltanBakshi

    Also before someones says that its easy to criticize Gorbachev from hindsight, yes it is, but that is not my reason. It would be an excellent reminder for those people who come after Putin that this is what happens in Russia to weak rulers. After all rulers have greatest responsibility, they enjoy the very best that nation has to offer, so its rightful to judge them for naivety or weakness, unlike rest of the people in mundane jobs. But in the case of Gorbachev there is something fishy. Like did he have any knowledge about Russian history? For his mistakes are quite elementary, its not like Russia had not had similar problems before, economic backwardness compared to rivals or big scandals like Chernobyl. In the 19th Century these problems were even worse and losing war against Japan 1905 even bigger scandal. Did he watch or consume too much western popular culture and got demoralized because of that or something? He should be made of an example and punished still when there is time. Many Russian boomers sense of justice would be fulfilled.

    Replies: @AP

    , @Anatoly Karlin
    @AltanBakshi

    Sorry, but this is mostly either:

    (1) Attacking straw men about men of your own creation (I did not support collapsing the USSR, nor do I dismiss the USSR, albeit quite paltry, achievements);

    (2) Are not even so much achievements as either things that would have come about anyway (e.g. primary schooling rate was at 80% by the outbreak of WW1, mass literacy was inevitable - all Soviets did was delay it slightly, due to civil war chaos), typically also at much lower cost as AP notes; or were of dubious benefit to the people who are supposed to benefit from their own state, i.e. Russians (Soviet help to "anti-imperialism" forces was perhaps good for the "colonial oppressed"... but it certainly wasn't so for Russians from whom those resources were extracted, and who would never see those loans to Angola, Cuba, and the like returned).

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

  67. @AltanBakshi
    Like Mao Zedong, from the viewpoint of 70's and 80's he surely was total catastrophe for China and nationalist alternatives would have been better, but from the viewpoint of present they probably would have been too corrupted and decentralized and many frontier regions of China would have been lost if Chiang Kai-Shek would have kept the power. Crucially there wouldnt been foundations for industrialization of China. Likewise from the point of view of 50's or 60's Lenin was best that had happened to Russia, Communism was resurgent everywhere in the world led by the mighty Soviet Union that had the strongest army in the history of the mankind. Western universities were full of scholars and academicians who believed in principles of scientific socialism and in the inevitable victory of the Soviet Union in those times. And we could continue and continue this, with every country and make new revisions decade after decade. Is this fruitful?

    Yes now Russia seems weak and under siege, but we cant know how thing will be in in generation or two, if we look the history of past hundred years, we can say that deck has been shuffled quite many times? More important is to develop holistic view of history and be proud of Soviet achievements. Many of my relatives suffered because of Stalin and revolution, but then there was also much of beauty and good. Lenin may be a cynic charlatan who enchanted the masses, but does that lessen the greatness of victory against the hordes of Hitler? Does that take honor away from Sputnik, Gagarin, MIR-Space station, from global struggle against western imperialism? From liberation of Vietnam, or help that Soviet Union showed to many young and weak nations like India and China? After all Lenin maybe a scoundrel but he couldnt poison the hearts of Russian people, after all Soviet Union and Russians quickly returned to conservative morals and love of their fatherland, and even kept their respect towards Church and family.

    This view of history that you Anatoly Karlin propagate has similarities with Ukrainian nationalists, they too view that Soviet Union was failed experiment, led by evil Commies. Although your case is much better it still will in the end produce just social strife and not social healing or cohesion. For even if you would hate your father, your father is still your father, no matter what. Sorry for bad English....

    Oh almost forgot to add, Gorbachev and surviving leadership from the 1989-1991, should be taken to the court and sentenced of treason.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi, @Anatoly Karlin

    Also before someones says that its easy to criticize Gorbachev from hindsight, yes it is, but that is not my reason. It would be an excellent reminder for those people who come after Putin that this is what happens in Russia to weak rulers. After all rulers have greatest responsibility, they enjoy the very best that nation has to offer, so its rightful to judge them for naivety or weakness, unlike rest of the people in mundane jobs. But in the case of Gorbachev there is something fishy. Like did he have any knowledge about Russian history? For his mistakes are quite elementary, its not like Russia had not had similar problems before, economic backwardness compared to rivals or big scandals like Chernobyl. In the 19th Century these problems were even worse and losing war against Japan 1905 even bigger scandal. Did he watch or consume too much western popular culture and got demoralized because of that or something? He should be made of an example and punished still when there is time. Many Russian boomers sense of justice would be fulfilled.

    • Replies: @AP
    @AltanBakshi


    In the 19th Century these problems were even worse and losing war against Japan 1905 even bigger scandal.
     
    Performance in World War I indicates huge improvement since 1905.

    But in the case of Gorbachev there is something fishy. Like did he have any knowledge about Russian history....Did he watch or consume too much western popular culture and got demoralized because of that or something? He should be made of an example and punished still when there is time. Many Russian boomers sense of justice would be fulfilled.
     
    One of my close in-laws worked with and knew Gorby very well in the 1980s. Gorby was not a traitor, in the sense that he did not seek to destroy or undermine the USSR, nor did he work for outside powers to do so. Nor was Gorby really a fool. He was a very cunning guy who rose to the top of the USSR from humble origins (his inability to speak proper Russian masked his intelligence and led to to others underestimating him). Nor was Gorby the cuddly decent humanitarian that Westerners sometimes think he is. He had no problem ditching his reformist allies and surrounding himself with hardliners when he decided it was necessary for him to do so (the ones who later overthrew him) and zero qualms about sending tanks and troops to kill people in Lithuania. He miscalculated and would have happily done so sooner and killed many more people if it would have saved his government. So he was not a good person. His great personal flaw was narcissism. He really wanted to be a beloved historical figure, a Soviet JFK, or perhaps a transformative figure like Peter the Great, who would have turned the USSR into a "Social Democracy," an enormous Superpower Sweden and been forever remembered for doing so. He wasn't motivated so much by love of the Soviet people but by extreme vanity and wish to be a historical figure. Being a product of the USSR, several generations removed from capitalism, he of course completely ignorant of how it worked. There probably really wasn't anyone in the USSR in the 1980s capable of competently managing or shepherding such a transition. There were only nascent criminals that would take advantage of the collapse for their own benefit (neither Gorby nor most of his inner circle did so). The Chinese approach hadn't come to fruition yet so there really was no model about how to get out of the Communist dead-end.

    So who is to blame for the 1990s debacle? The Soviet system overall that demoralized society and made it rotten and corrupt on almost every level. Such a debacle does not arise from nowhere in only a couple of years. The rot was there, everywhere, just beneath the surface, ready to emerge. The film Маленькая Вера came out in 1988. To the extent that individuals can be blamed it was not failed Gorby, Yakovlev and 1980s would-be reformers, but what came after, Yeltsin and those around him.

    Overall, the transition was probably the only way that it could have happened. Russia has turned out much better than did Ukraine or Belarus.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi, @Mr. XYZ

  68. @AltanBakshi
    @Ano4

    He also had quite lot Kalmyk blood through his father, actually I think he had much more Kalmyk blood than Tatar. And some Chuvash too.

    Replies: @Ano4

    In fact when I was young, I thought that Ulyanov the father was of Kalmyk descent. A few years ago I read somewhere that the earliest record of their family was a female serf named Ulyana from whom supposedly the whole family derived their name. This is rather uncommon because usually it is the father’s name that is used in Russian (and probably other Slavic languages) family names. Which yields all these Ivanov, Petrov, Sidorov etc.

    [MORE]

    That might suggest that the sons of Ulyana had an “unknown ” father, or simply were the (landlord) baryn’s bastards. Which might also explain how Lenin’s ancestors became free men well before the emancipation of the serfs.Their baryn offspring knew that they were “family ” and freed them when the possibility to ensure them a better future occurred.

    To my knowledge, the Kalmyk have not been put into servage being considered Cossacks instead. The Chuvash according to my limited knowledge were mainly state serfs, although they possibly might have been transferred or sold into private bondage. So the Chuvash lineage is more probable. Although the Chuvash remained pagan well up to the beginning of the XIX century, while Ulyana was an Orthodox Christian name.

    Kryashen or Othodox Christian Tatars were the most assimilated Turkic people of the Volga region. They were already Christian in the XVIII century and might have been Christian well before. They were sold and transferred as serfs just like their Slav Russian neighbors and were in general treated exactly as Russians were. They easily assimilated into the Volga Russian population. They were relatively numerous in the Astrakhan gubernia. My bet would be that Ulyana was a Kryashen serf, although it is impossible to prove this.

    Lenin’s awareness of his serf origins and of being descended from a bastard that his Russian aristocratic ancestor did not recognize and accept into his own family, might have explained a lot of things. Add to that his Protestant mother’s Jewish and either Baltic German and/or Swedish ancestry leading to her alleged Russophobia, pushing her to educate her children as being critical of everything Orthodox Russian and you understand why the Ulyanov brothers turned the way they did.

    • Thanks: AltanBakshi
    • Replies: @AltanBakshi
    @Ano4

    You clearly know more about this than me, but his father had quite strong asiatic look and Chuvash and Volga Tatars dont look as asiatic in my knowledge. Russian Wikipedia says that Ilya Ulyanov's father Nikolai was possibly Mordvin descent, it also wrotes that some writer Marietta Shaginyan wrote that Lenin had Kalmyk heritage from her mothers side, but never heard of Shaginyan. Dont know how trustworthy source she is. But isnt there a possibility that some Kalmyks were enserfed or made serfs as punishment for joining Razin's or Pugachev's rebellion?

    But shame that man who was as much of product of Russian empire as Lenin became such traitor.

    Replies: @Ano4

  69. OT, but from another perspective aren’t Asians bigger problem for whites than Blacks and Hispanics, I mean they are not that smart, to put it mildly, even if they do cause a lot of crime, and they do not compete for jobs with middle class and upper class Americans, aside from affirmative action, I mean if Asians were not present in America life for middle class and upper middle class white American proffesionals would be easier in that getting into top level universities and high schools would be easier for them, and getting a top level job or a professional job would be less competitive as well, and expensive housing caused by rich Chinese causes as much problems for working class whites and middle and upper middle class whites as section 8 housing by blacks. Plus middle income and professional class whites can insulate themselves from blacks and hispanics, but they can not insulate themselves from Asians taking away white collar jobs and premiere college spots from their children.

  70. Plus Asian focus too much on studying and not enough stuff on things like physical sports, to the detriment of the school curicula, I mean if you look at classical Greek and Roman education physical sports was always very important, and nearly as important, or as important as hitting the books. And classical Greek and Roman education also had a very heavy weighing and what is today regarded is useless liberal arts subjects.

  71. AP says:
    @Mr. XYZ
    @AP


    Poland conquered West Ukraine with massive assistance from the West, provided for the purpose of fighting Bolshevism which would not have occurred had there been no Bolsheviks. Without Bolshevism, Poland would have had to conquer West Ukraine on its own. Certainly possible, maybe even likely, but not guaranteed:
     
    In such a scenario, would the Western Ukrainians have actually preferred Russian rule to Polish rule?

    Replies: @AP

    We are talking about history being the same but with no Bolshevism. That means Kerensky’s government remains in charge. Kerensky’s government recognized autonomy for Ukraine (comparable to Scotland within modern Britain, Ukraine would have its own parliament and PM but no army, though there were negotiations about creating a separate all-Ukrainian local army, that Scotland does not have) with local Ukrainian schools and so on. This Ukraine consisted of Kiev, Podolia, Volyn, Chernihiv and Poltava governates but they were negotiating about additional territories to the south. Galicia would have been added to them. Under such a scenario “Russian” rule would have been preferable to Polish rule for Galicians.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @AP

    Makes sense. :) Anyway, was Novorossiya going to be continued to be directly governed from Moscow?

  72. American Citizen 2.0 says:

    They just took down the statue of Columbus in Chicago last night with no public input. As an American of Germanic Descent, I am conflicted. On the one hand, my ancestors were largely correct about Italians being violent, oversexed, perverts who worship a foreign Pope, all of which should have excluded them from being allowed to move here in the first place. On the other hand, I am not a fan of the proposed replacement of the statue being an image of a very obese black woman on public transportation making her way to the city office to collect welfare benefits. Seems like both statues are a little offensive although both celebrate the idea of “discovery”.

    So, I wholeheartedly agree that here in Chicago we should take one of your unused Lenin statues in Russia. Please mail it to the Office Of the Mayor, Chicago IL as soon as you get the chance.

    Thanks!

  73. AP says:
    @AltanBakshi
    @AltanBakshi

    Also before someones says that its easy to criticize Gorbachev from hindsight, yes it is, but that is not my reason. It would be an excellent reminder for those people who come after Putin that this is what happens in Russia to weak rulers. After all rulers have greatest responsibility, they enjoy the very best that nation has to offer, so its rightful to judge them for naivety or weakness, unlike rest of the people in mundane jobs. But in the case of Gorbachev there is something fishy. Like did he have any knowledge about Russian history? For his mistakes are quite elementary, its not like Russia had not had similar problems before, economic backwardness compared to rivals or big scandals like Chernobyl. In the 19th Century these problems were even worse and losing war against Japan 1905 even bigger scandal. Did he watch or consume too much western popular culture and got demoralized because of that or something? He should be made of an example and punished still when there is time. Many Russian boomers sense of justice would be fulfilled.

    Replies: @AP

    In the 19th Century these problems were even worse and losing war against Japan 1905 even bigger scandal.

    Performance in World War I indicates huge improvement since 1905.

    But in the case of Gorbachev there is something fishy. Like did he have any knowledge about Russian history….Did he watch or consume too much western popular culture and got demoralized because of that or something? He should be made of an example and punished still when there is time. Many Russian boomers sense of justice would be fulfilled.

    One of my close in-laws worked with and knew Gorby very well in the 1980s. Gorby was not a traitor, in the sense that he did not seek to destroy or undermine the USSR, nor did he work for outside powers to do so. Nor was Gorby really a fool. He was a very cunning guy who rose to the top of the USSR from humble origins (his inability to speak proper Russian masked his intelligence and led to to others underestimating him). Nor was Gorby the cuddly decent humanitarian that Westerners sometimes think he is. He had no problem ditching his reformist allies and surrounding himself with hardliners when he decided it was necessary for him to do so (the ones who later overthrew him) and zero qualms about sending tanks and troops to kill people in Lithuania. He miscalculated and would have happily done so sooner and killed many more people if it would have saved his government. So he was not a good person. His great personal flaw was narcissism. He really wanted to be a beloved historical figure, a Soviet JFK, or perhaps a transformative figure like Peter the Great, who would have turned the USSR into a “Social Democracy,” an enormous Superpower Sweden and been forever remembered for doing so. He wasn’t motivated so much by love of the Soviet people but by extreme vanity and wish to be a historical figure. Being a product of the USSR, several generations removed from capitalism, he of course completely ignorant of how it worked. There probably really wasn’t anyone in the USSR in the 1980s capable of competently managing or shepherding such a transition. There were only nascent criminals that would take advantage of the collapse for their own benefit (neither Gorby nor most of his inner circle did so). The Chinese approach hadn’t come to fruition yet so there really was no model about how to get out of the Communist dead-end.

    So who is to blame for the 1990s debacle? The Soviet system overall that demoralized society and made it rotten and corrupt on almost every level. Such a debacle does not arise from nowhere in only a couple of years. The rot was there, everywhere, just beneath the surface, ready to emerge. The film Маленькая Вера came out in 1988. To the extent that individuals can be blamed it was not failed Gorby, Yakovlev and 1980s would-be reformers, but what came after, Yeltsin and those around him.

    Overall, the transition was probably the only way that it could have happened. Russia has turned out much better than did Ukraine or Belarus.

    • Replies: @AltanBakshi
    @AP

    Thank you for your very interesting comments but why China had people who were capable of managing the transition, for their economy was even more communist? Is it because of stronger ethnic cohesion? Also CCP never gave up their monopoly of power and they only concentrated on gradual reformation of economy. Unlike Gorby who allowed free discussion in society, also there were no mass slaughters of democracy activists like in China. Tiananmen in 1989 is just the most well known of them, there were big demonstrations all over China that were put down. Like in Chengdu in 1989. But Chinese leadership showed resolve and integrity, which spineless Gorby didnt have.

    Replies: @Blinky Bill, @Ano4, @AP

    , @Mr. XYZ
    @AP


    There probably really wasn’t anyone in the USSR in the 1980s capable of competently managing or shepherding such a transition.
     
    Yuri Andropov had he lived longer?
  74. @Ano4
    @AltanBakshi

    In fact when I was young, I thought that Ulyanov the father was of Kalmyk descent. A few years ago I read somewhere that the earliest record of their family was a female serf named Ulyana from whom supposedly the whole family derived their name. This is rather uncommon because usually it is the father's name that is used in Russian (and probably other Slavic languages) family names. Which yields all these Ivanov, Petrov, Sidorov etc.

    That might suggest that the sons of Ulyana had an "unknown " father, or simply were the (landlord) baryn's bastards. Which might also explain how Lenin's ancestors became free men well before the emancipation of the serfs.Their baryn offspring knew that they were "family " and freed them when the possibility to ensure them a better future occurred.

    To my knowledge, the Kalmyk have not been put into servage being considered Cossacks instead. The Chuvash according to my limited knowledge were mainly state serfs, although they possibly might have been transferred or sold into private bondage. So the Chuvash lineage is more probable. Although the Chuvash remained pagan well up to the beginning of the XIX century, while Ulyana was an Orthodox Christian name.

    Kryashen or Othodox Christian Tatars were the most assimilated Turkic people of the Volga region. They were already Christian in the XVIII century and might have been Christian well before. They were sold and transferred as serfs just like their Slav Russian neighbors and were in general treated exactly as Russians were. They easily assimilated into the Volga Russian population. They were relatively numerous in the Astrakhan gubernia. My bet would be that Ulyana was a Kryashen serf, although it is impossible to prove this.

    Lenin's awareness of his serf origins and of being descended from a bastard that his Russian aristocratic ancestor did not recognize and accept into his own family, might have explained a lot of things. Add to that his Protestant mother's Jewish and either Baltic German and/or Swedish ancestry leading to her alleged Russophobia, pushing her to educate her children as being critical of everything Orthodox Russian and you understand why the Ulyanov brothers turned the way they did.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

    You clearly know more about this than me, but his father had quite strong asiatic look and Chuvash and Volga Tatars dont look as asiatic in my knowledge. Russian Wikipedia says that Ilya Ulyanov’s father Nikolai was possibly Mordvin descent, it also wrotes that some writer Marietta Shaginyan wrote that Lenin had Kalmyk heritage from her mothers side, but never heard of Shaginyan. Dont know how trustworthy source she is. But isnt there a possibility that some Kalmyks were enserfed or made serfs as punishment for joining Razin’s or Pugachev’s rebellion?

    But shame that man who was as much of product of Russian empire as Lenin became such traitor.

    • Agree: Blinky Bill
    • Replies: @Ano4
    @AltanBakshi


    writer Marietta Shaginyan
     
    She specialized in writing stories about the Ulyanov family and the life of Lenin. We all had to read some of her stories when we were in early school.

    a possibility that some Kalmyks were enserfed or made serfs as punishment for joining Razin’s or Pugachev’s rebellion?
     
    This has not occurred to me, but it is indeed quite possible.

    But shame that man who was as much of product of Russian empire as Lenin became such traitor.
     
    It is indeed quite strange that so many brilliant young people among the nobility and intelligentsia have turned against the Tsardom already by the end of the XIX century. The same youth completely rejected Orthodox Christianity, which they saw as backward, corrupt and impotent to improve the morality of the Russian society.

    Lenin was not an isolated case, after all the nihilists political youth movement was born in Russia of mainly Velikoross educated young people.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_nihilist_movement

    There is something about Russians that leads some of them towards over performing in both Good and Evil.

    Replies: @AP

  75. @AP
    @AltanBakshi


    In the 19th Century these problems were even worse and losing war against Japan 1905 even bigger scandal.
     
    Performance in World War I indicates huge improvement since 1905.

    But in the case of Gorbachev there is something fishy. Like did he have any knowledge about Russian history....Did he watch or consume too much western popular culture and got demoralized because of that or something? He should be made of an example and punished still when there is time. Many Russian boomers sense of justice would be fulfilled.
     
    One of my close in-laws worked with and knew Gorby very well in the 1980s. Gorby was not a traitor, in the sense that he did not seek to destroy or undermine the USSR, nor did he work for outside powers to do so. Nor was Gorby really a fool. He was a very cunning guy who rose to the top of the USSR from humble origins (his inability to speak proper Russian masked his intelligence and led to to others underestimating him). Nor was Gorby the cuddly decent humanitarian that Westerners sometimes think he is. He had no problem ditching his reformist allies and surrounding himself with hardliners when he decided it was necessary for him to do so (the ones who later overthrew him) and zero qualms about sending tanks and troops to kill people in Lithuania. He miscalculated and would have happily done so sooner and killed many more people if it would have saved his government. So he was not a good person. His great personal flaw was narcissism. He really wanted to be a beloved historical figure, a Soviet JFK, or perhaps a transformative figure like Peter the Great, who would have turned the USSR into a "Social Democracy," an enormous Superpower Sweden and been forever remembered for doing so. He wasn't motivated so much by love of the Soviet people but by extreme vanity and wish to be a historical figure. Being a product of the USSR, several generations removed from capitalism, he of course completely ignorant of how it worked. There probably really wasn't anyone in the USSR in the 1980s capable of competently managing or shepherding such a transition. There were only nascent criminals that would take advantage of the collapse for their own benefit (neither Gorby nor most of his inner circle did so). The Chinese approach hadn't come to fruition yet so there really was no model about how to get out of the Communist dead-end.

    So who is to blame for the 1990s debacle? The Soviet system overall that demoralized society and made it rotten and corrupt on almost every level. Such a debacle does not arise from nowhere in only a couple of years. The rot was there, everywhere, just beneath the surface, ready to emerge. The film Маленькая Вера came out in 1988. To the extent that individuals can be blamed it was not failed Gorby, Yakovlev and 1980s would-be reformers, but what came after, Yeltsin and those around him.

    Overall, the transition was probably the only way that it could have happened. Russia has turned out much better than did Ukraine or Belarus.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi, @Mr. XYZ

    Thank you for your very interesting comments but why China had people who were capable of managing the transition, for their economy was even more communist? Is it because of stronger ethnic cohesion? Also CCP never gave up their monopoly of power and they only concentrated on gradual reformation of economy. Unlike Gorby who allowed free discussion in society, also there were no mass slaughters of democracy activists like in China. Tiananmen in 1989 is just the most well known of them, there were big demonstrations all over China that were put down. Like in Chengdu in 1989. But Chinese leadership showed resolve and integrity, which spineless Gorby didnt have.

    • Replies: @Blinky Bill
    @AltanBakshi

    “My father thinks Gorbachev is an idiot.”

    Deng Zhifang, Deng Xiaoping's son, 1990.

    Replies: @songbird

    , @Ano4
    @AltanBakshi

    The Chinese have an older civilization that has mainly kept to its roots despite the numerous invasions and foreign influences. Perhaps that is why they appear more balanced.



    Russia has been severely traumatized as a civilisation several times: during the gradual Christianization (which took several centuries), under the Golden Horde rule, during the Time of Troubles and the ensuing Raskol, during Peter the Great reforms and finally under Communism and the Perestroika.

    When I look at the Russian double headed eagle, I often think that it is a schizoid bird, having half his consciousness riveted to the Western Europe and the other half to Asia, two cultural environments that have been quite alien to each other except very recently.

    But maybe it's just me being schizoid and the other Russians are quite balanced and feel alright about their history and the place of Russia in the world.

    Replies: @Kent Nationalist, @AltanBakshi

    , @AP
    @AltanBakshi

    I don't know enough about China to make a comparison, so take what I have to say with a grain of salt. My speculations:

    1. Chinese leadership fewer generations removed from the bloody revolutionaries, so they were more ruthless themselves and the people understood that

    2. Chinese society less corrupt to the core than was Soviet society, perhaps because there were fewer generations during which people got corrupted.

    3. China had models of authoritarian market systems, such as Singapore (run by ethnic Chinese), South Korea, even Japan to an extent (run by one party for decades, economy organized by large industrial conglomerates linked to government). USSR, in contrast, looked to Europe which was inherently democratic so modernization was seen as being inherently linked to democratization. Gorby reformers wanted to turn the USSR into a huge social democratic welfare state like 1980s Sweden.

    :::::::::::::::::

    That having been said, China isn't the only place that did a good job transitioning from idiotic Communism. So too did Poland, Czechia and Slovakia, and Romania. One could ask not only why Russia didn't accomplish what China did but why it didn't do what Eastern Europe did.

  76. @AltanBakshi
    @AP

    Thank you for your very interesting comments but why China had people who were capable of managing the transition, for their economy was even more communist? Is it because of stronger ethnic cohesion? Also CCP never gave up their monopoly of power and they only concentrated on gradual reformation of economy. Unlike Gorby who allowed free discussion in society, also there were no mass slaughters of democracy activists like in China. Tiananmen in 1989 is just the most well known of them, there were big demonstrations all over China that were put down. Like in Chengdu in 1989. But Chinese leadership showed resolve and integrity, which spineless Gorby didnt have.

    Replies: @Blinky Bill, @Ano4, @AP

    “My father thinks Gorbachev is an idiot.”

    Deng Zhifang, Deng Xiaoping’s son, 1990.

    • Agree: Ano4, AltanBakshi
    • Replies: @songbird
    @Blinky Bill

    In fairness to Gorbi, he never had one of his sons tossed out of a third story window by Red Guards.

    Replies: @Blinky Bill

  77. @AltanBakshi
    @Ano4

    You clearly know more about this than me, but his father had quite strong asiatic look and Chuvash and Volga Tatars dont look as asiatic in my knowledge. Russian Wikipedia says that Ilya Ulyanov's father Nikolai was possibly Mordvin descent, it also wrotes that some writer Marietta Shaginyan wrote that Lenin had Kalmyk heritage from her mothers side, but never heard of Shaginyan. Dont know how trustworthy source she is. But isnt there a possibility that some Kalmyks were enserfed or made serfs as punishment for joining Razin's or Pugachev's rebellion?

    But shame that man who was as much of product of Russian empire as Lenin became such traitor.

    Replies: @Ano4

    writer Marietta Shaginyan

    She specialized in writing stories about the Ulyanov family and the life of Lenin. We all had to read some of her stories when we were in early school.

    a possibility that some Kalmyks were enserfed or made serfs as punishment for joining Razin’s or Pugachev’s rebellion?

    This has not occurred to me, but it is indeed quite possible.

    But shame that man who was as much of product of Russian empire as Lenin became such traitor.

    It is indeed quite strange that so many brilliant young people among the nobility and intelligentsia have turned against the Tsardom already by the end of the XIX century. The same youth completely rejected Orthodox Christianity, which they saw as backward, corrupt and impotent to improve the morality of the Russian society.

    Lenin was not an isolated case, after all the nihilists political youth movement was born in Russia of mainly Velikoross educated young people.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_nihilist_movement

    There is something about Russians that leads some of them towards over performing in both Good and Evil.

    • Replies: @AP
    @Ano4


    It is indeed quite strange that so many brilliant young people among the nobility and intelligentsia have turned against the Tsardom already by the end of the XIX century. The same youth completely rejected Orthodox Christianity, which they saw as backward, corrupt and impotent to improve the morality of the Russian society.
     
    And many did not. During World War I, the Russian elite which owned a lot of assets abroad sold most of them and brought the money back to Russia in order to help their nation's war effort. This expression of genuine patriotism of course meant that due to the Revolution they lost everything and those who escaped to the West were poor.

    Contrast this to the elite produced by the Soviet system, who when given the chance after they liquidated their state, poured Russia's wealth out of the country.
  78. mal says:
    @AP
    @mal


    The “What if” I was playing at assumed all the same history as real world minus Russian communism.
     
    If no Communism at all, then you are correct. The Army would easily hold on.

    Communism caused Russian morale to collapse, but actual fighting capacity was still there – Russian Civil War killed 6-10 million people, compared to WW1’s 2 million.
     
    You are incorrect. Communism caused morale to collapse and for people to just desert and go home. The mass participation in the Civil War occurred after a gap of at least a year. During the early stages there were few people actually fighting, such that small groups such as Latvian Riflemen or Czechoslovak POWs could affect the entire balance of power.

    But even if Germans would be contained, I doubt there would be much appetite for fighting aggressive Poland. Polish would gain independence and maybe even conquer some lands like Baltics and West Ukraine.
     
    Poland conquered West Ukraine with massive assistance from the West, provided for the purpose of fighting Bolshevism which would not have occurred had there been no Bolsheviks. Without Bolshevism, Poland would have had to conquer West Ukraine on its own. Certainly possible, maybe even likely, but not guaranteed:

    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE-%D1%83%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B9%D0%BD%D0%B0

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @mal

    Well, I wouldn’t exactly call Czech Legions small – they had two full strength divisions, 40-50,000 and they were armed, and controlled the main central railroad.

    By fighting capacity I mean guns, bullets, cannons etc. Russian Army had two problems in 1918 – morale and logistics. They couldn’t get their guns and ammo where they were needed fast enough. So yea, a year to organize mass participation in civil war doesn’t sound unreasonable when your logistics are broken.

  79. @mal
    @Mr. Hack

    To be fair, Lenin didn't rule much - he was badly wounded less than a year after October Revolution and his health was very bad.

    The big dogs of the early Soviet period were Jugashvili/Stalin the Georgian, Dzerzhinsky the Polish dude (who organized Red Terror and created Soviet secret police), and Bronstein/Trotsky the Ukrainian jew, who wanted to lead Red Army on global conquest in the name of Communism. Those people were not Russian and they didn't care about Russian culture and economics even a bit except killing as many Russians as they could while pursuing their own agendas.

    Replies: @Mr. Hack, @inertial

    The big dogs of the early Soviet period were Jugashvili/Stalin the Georgian, Dzerzhinsky the Polish dude (who organized Red Terror and created Soviet secret police), and Bronstein/Trotsky the Ukrainian jew, who wanted to lead Red Army on global conquest in the name of Communism.

    And Kamenev, and Zinoviev, and Bukharin, and Rykov, and Chicherin, and Lunacharsky, and Kuibyshev, and Tsurupa, and Dybenko-Krylenko-Ovseenko, and Bubnov, and Krasin, and Skvortsov-Stepanov, and Podvoisky, and Krestinsky, and Frunze, and Petrovsky, and Shlyapnikov, and…

    One advantage of growing up during the time when all the streets and half the cities were named after Bolshevik leaders – you realized there were A LOT of them.

    • Agree: Ano4, mal, AltanBakshi
    • LOL: Blinky Bill
  80. Blast from the past.

    September 6, 1987 New York Times

    [MORE]

    THE Russians went to Beijing this summer to see for themselves the changes wrought by China’s leader Deng Xiaoping. Among other things, the delegation of Soviet party officials toured a revitalized petrochemical plant and visited a village where peasants believe that getting rich is glorious.

    If it was not what Karl Marx had in mind, Georgi Razumovsky, who led the group, still approved. ”Despite all the differences in conditions between the U.S.S.R. and the People’s Republic of China, the methods of our progress in the course of socialist construction are very similar,” Mr. Razumovsky said at a Soviet Embassy reception in Beijing. ”There is wide scope for cooperation and exchange between our two socialist countries.”

    His us-too remarks suggested how far Moscow has swung since its old castigations of China’s ideological apostasy. In any case, the Soviet leaders are motivated by self-interest rather than simple admiration. They have watched China’s experiment with private enterprise attract the attention of other developing countries. And they would be humiliated if China overtook the Soviet Union in its standard of living. However, Mikhail S. Gorbachev, who became Soviet leader in March 1985, has yet to show signs of venturing as far as Mr. Deng has since China’s watershed 1978 party plenary session. AGRICULTURE

    China has been most successful at liberating agriculture from ideological and bureaucratic constraints. Mr. Deng dismantled Mao Zedong’s legacy, the 55,000 communes. China’s 800 million peasants now till the land as sharecroppers, on contracts running up to 15 years, and their children may inherit their fields, which remain publicly owned in theory. As a result, agricultural output has doubled in less than a decade, while rural incomes have risen even faster.

    Mr. Gorbachev’s plans for agriculture seem timid by comparison. He has encouraged Soviet peasants to expand their private plots, which account for well under 4 percent of the Soviet Union’s farm acreage but produce up to half of its potatoes and a third of its meat and dairy products.

    But he has not moved to phase out the state and collective farms, though they may now sell up to 30 percent of their harvest to urban markets and cooperatives rather than to the state.

    By starting with agriculture, Mr. Deng won the loyalty of the 800 million peasants who make up four-fifths of China’s population. Their support amounts to an insurance policy against the rollback of his reforms, which also made more foodstuffs available.

    Mr. Gorbachev, by focusing on urban change first, has shown no such immediate results to the people of the Soviet Union. INDUSTRY

    A Soviet draft plan approved in June envisioned ”a radical reorganization of economic management” that would make factory managers more independent and also responsible for profits and losses.

    China has gone further in substituting market forces for bureaucratic control. The Government has pared back central planning, emphasized light industry over heavy industry, actively encouraged competition and withdrawn subsidies from unprofitable enterprises.

    But China’s industrial changes have had limited success, in part because factory workers have less incentive than peasants to work harder. The peasant immediately earns more from his increased harvest, but it takes longer for production incentives to show up in a worker’s wages. The decentralization in decision-making also spawned corruption and excessive spending by managers for both capital goods and luxury goods, from desk calculators to Japanese sedans. As spending outstripped productivity, the economy overheated.

    Mr. Gorbachev promised in June that ”the release of workers in conditions of the socialist economy will not bring about unemployment.” China has put some workers on renewable contracts and has fired some who were lazy or incompetent. But the ”iron rice bowl,” as Chinese call lifetime employment, persists because it is hard for a socialist society committed to full employment to discharge workers without finding them other jobs. PRIVATE ENTERPRISE

    Since May, Soviet citizens have been permitted to operate small restaurants, tailor shops, taxis and other private businesses that previously were illegal. The liberalization recognizes the moonlighting that has gone on for years because of the inadequacies of the state-run economy. But Mr. Gorbachev’s changes have been less radical than the New Economic Policy in the early 1920’s, when Lenin brought back small-scale capitalism to keep the young Soviet state alive.

    China has gone much further in promoting private enterprise, which was denounced as the ”tail of capitalism” under Mao. More than 80 percent of China’s new restaurants, repair shops and service outlets set up since the Cultural Revolution ended in 1976 are privately owned. CONSUMER GOODS

    Although China is poorer than the Soviet Union, it has paid more attention to consumer goods. Some Chinese factories that turned out military hardware have been retooled to produce more durable goods such as washing machines and motorcycles.

    Mr. Gorbachev, complaining that some Soviet products are ”hopelessly obsolete,” instituted tougher standards by assigning quality-control inspectors to 1,500 factories. As a result, the output of some consumer goods dropped. A Soviet official reported that 30 percent of the products failed to meet the new standards.

    China has increased consumer goods partly by encouraging rural sideline enterprises – small factories and workshops – that absorb underemployment among peasants. The Soviet Union has yet to tap the nonagricultural resources of its collective farms. FOREIGN INVESTMENT

    To attract foreign technology and earn hard currency, the Soviet Union has offered Western investors up to 49 percent ownership of joint ventures. China has courted commerce more aggressively, opening up four special economic zones along China’s coast with cheap labor and land. But continuing bureaucratic obstruction and price gouging discouraged some Western businessmen from investing in China, where foreign investment dropped 48 percent last year. PRICE REFORM

    In June, Mr. Gorbachev told the Central Committee that ”a radical reform of the pricing system is a most important part of the economic overhaul.” This is because food, rent, clothing and other daily necessities are kept artificially cheap. Removing the subsidies is risky because Soviet citizens consider such bargains a Communist birthright. China moved to pare down its extensive price subsidies, only to pull back for fear of triggering inflation and public unrest. Recently, the Chinese press disclosed that the living standards of a fifth of China’s 200 million city dwellers dropped because of price increases that were often unapproved.

    The Soviet Union and China have drifted into ideologically uncharted waters. The Chinese may find it easier to navigate, because every time they jettison a chunk of the old Soviet model they reinforce their claim to be building socialism with Chinese features. ”When used to promote the development of China’s socialist economy, bankruptcy, leasing, shareholding and these sorts of things are no longer capitalist,” Wu Disheng, the mayor of the northeastern city of Shenyang, explained recently. For the Russians, backtracking on Communist orthodoxy amounts to an admission that their original claims to infallibility were wrong.

    • Thanks: AltanBakshi
  81. @AltanBakshi
    @AP

    Thank you for your very interesting comments but why China had people who were capable of managing the transition, for their economy was even more communist? Is it because of stronger ethnic cohesion? Also CCP never gave up their monopoly of power and they only concentrated on gradual reformation of economy. Unlike Gorby who allowed free discussion in society, also there were no mass slaughters of democracy activists like in China. Tiananmen in 1989 is just the most well known of them, there were big demonstrations all over China that were put down. Like in Chengdu in 1989. But Chinese leadership showed resolve and integrity, which spineless Gorby didnt have.

    Replies: @Blinky Bill, @Ano4, @AP

    The Chinese have an older civilization that has mainly kept to its roots despite the numerous invasions and foreign influences. Perhaps that is why they appear more balanced.

    [MORE]

    Russia has been severely traumatized as a civilisation several times: during the gradual Christianization (which took several centuries), under the Golden Horde rule, during the Time of Troubles and the ensuing Raskol, during Peter the Great reforms and finally under Communism and the Perestroika.

    When I look at the Russian double headed eagle, I often think that it is a schizoid bird, having half his consciousness riveted to the Western Europe and the other half to Asia, two cultural environments that have been quite alien to each other except very recently.

    But maybe it’s just me being schizoid and the other Russians are quite balanced and feel alright about their history and the place of Russia in the world.

    • Replies: @Kent Nationalist
    @Ano4


    The Chinese have an older civilization that has mainly kept to its roots despite the numerous invasions and foreign influences.
     
    1949 isn't very old.
    , @AltanBakshi
    @Ano4

    I dont agree with you for most Asian major civilizations have suffered immensely and gone through huge traumas during the last couple centuries. Lets take China as example and have a short look into its more or less recent history. In 1644 the Manchus conquered the Northern China and forced Chinese to accept their customs and way of clothing under threat of execution, huge massacres were committed in 1645 all over the Northern China because of that, the highest ruling nobility was for centuries mostly non-Han people in China, but they shared much of the culture. Then there were the Opium Wars, where foreign powers led by Britain forced Qing empire not to put an end to narcotics trade. Foreigners were given extraterritorial rights and they couldnt even be sentenced in Qing courts. Wars between Qing and Japan, between Qing and France, Boxer revolt, all those were lost. You must also remember that there was a millenial cycle and continuity between dynasties in Chinese history. It seemed that all the Confucian, Daoist and Buddhist wisdom couldnt be a match against the knowledge and science of the West. There were huge famines, religiously inspired apocalyptic cults that started huge civil wars in China that were the bloodiest conflicts of the 19th Century. It could be said that revolt of the Heavenly Taipings had as many or more casualties than the whole First world war had. Then there was the chaotic time of Republican China, that was constant warring between different cliques and warlords, and if that was not enough Japanese started invasion of China in 1937, although they already had taken Manchuria in 1931. After the immense war with the Japanese there was a huge civil war between Communists and Nationalists, after that the Korean war, and after that the Great Leap Forwards and after that Cultural revolution, without forgetting small wars with India and Vietnam. Russia had some very hard years, but they had many more years of peace than China had. Then you write about Mongol invasion, yes it was probably hard for Russians, but still Russians kept their native administration, when Chinese were under the direct rule of the Mongols, who even imported huge number of foreigners to help, mainly Muslim Persians and Turks, to China, for administration.

    Replies: @Ano4

  82. @Blinky Bill
    @AltanBakshi

    “My father thinks Gorbachev is an idiot.”

    Deng Zhifang, Deng Xiaoping's son, 1990.

    Replies: @songbird

    In fairness to Gorbi, he never had one of his sons tossed out of a third story window by Red Guards.

    • Replies: @Blinky Bill
    @songbird

    'The reward of suffering is experience.'

    Harry S. Truman

    Perhaps Russia and China have both gained much during 20th century.

    Replies: @Ano4

  83. @AltanBakshi
    @Mr. Hack

    Although I think that independent Ukraine is less smart thing than independent Bavaria would be, which also would be pretty stupid. I must say that its very easy to judge things in hindsight. And Karlin is often at fault on that. There are so many factors and variables in history that no man can surely know what will happen in the end. Its easy to criticize after all has happened, for afterwards emotions have cooled and there is a clearer picture.

    Replies: @Mr. Hack

    I’m not quite sure why you’ve decided to disapprove of the idea of Ukrainian statehood all of a sudden, without even mentioning why?

  84. @Ano4
    @AltanBakshi

    The Chinese have an older civilization that has mainly kept to its roots despite the numerous invasions and foreign influences. Perhaps that is why they appear more balanced.



    Russia has been severely traumatized as a civilisation several times: during the gradual Christianization (which took several centuries), under the Golden Horde rule, during the Time of Troubles and the ensuing Raskol, during Peter the Great reforms and finally under Communism and the Perestroika.

    When I look at the Russian double headed eagle, I often think that it is a schizoid bird, having half his consciousness riveted to the Western Europe and the other half to Asia, two cultural environments that have been quite alien to each other except very recently.

    But maybe it's just me being schizoid and the other Russians are quite balanced and feel alright about their history and the place of Russia in the world.

    Replies: @Kent Nationalist, @AltanBakshi

    The Chinese have an older civilization that has mainly kept to its roots despite the numerous invasions and foreign influences.

    1949 isn’t very old.

    • LOL: AaronB
  85. @Ano4
    @Mr. Hack

    All this is merry and jolly, but:

    https://www.rferl.org/a/us-house-approves-more-sanctions-related-to-nord-stream-2/30738780.html

    Replies: @Mr. Hack

    Yes, it will be interesting to see how Pompeo does in Denmark this week. As a silly aside, I’ve recently located a place near where I live that sells actual Danish havarti – it’s so much better than the ersatz variety made in California. 🙂

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    @Mr. Hack

    Lot's of posturing but in the end I think that Germany will prevail:

    https://youtu.be/sy4q8B7KDYw

  86. @songbird
    @Blinky Bill

    In fairness to Gorbi, he never had one of his sons tossed out of a third story window by Red Guards.

    Replies: @Blinky Bill

    ‘The reward of suffering is experience.’

    Harry S. Truman

    Perhaps Russia and China have both gained much during 20th century.

    • Agree: songbird
    • Replies: @Ano4
    @Blinky Bill

    In Zen/Ch'an we believe that suffering, if humbly accepted and truly understood, is conducive to Enlightenment. In that sense the whole Universe is a big Enlightenment machine...

    Replies: @Blinky Bill, @AaronB, @AltanBakshi

  87. @Blinky Bill
    @songbird

    'The reward of suffering is experience.'

    Harry S. Truman

    Perhaps Russia and China have both gained much during 20th century.

    Replies: @Ano4

    In Zen/Ch’an we believe that suffering, if humbly accepted and truly understood, is conducive to Enlightenment. In that sense the whole Universe is a big Enlightenment machine…

    • Thanks: Blinky Bill
    • Replies: @Blinky Bill
    @Ano4

    You just reminded me of this. Thank you for your insights.

    https://twitter.com/ArtyomLukin/status/1283666026455011329?s=20
    https://twitter.com/ArtyomLukin/status/1283667035164114944?s=20
    https://twitter.com/ArtyomLukin/status/1283668858612731904?s=20

    If you use twitter he's worth following. I believe AK does.

    Replies: @Ano4

    , @AaronB
    @Ano4

    Lol, Zen/Chan does not trade in conventional religious cliches.

    You are clueless.

    Replies: @Ano4, @AltanBakshi

    , @AltanBakshi
    @Ano4

    Again our Zen master of unknown lineage of ordination and Dharma transmission lectures about the noble truths of our faith? If you want to explain something about the Dharma then you need to do it in more revealing manner. So what we Buddhists just accept the suffering? When the whole point of our religion is to eliminate it. To eliminate our suffering, to eliminate everyone's suffering, to get completely rid of it, in any form, in any state. Yes we must accept that as long as were are beings lost in Samsara, that we suffer, but we should not accept the suffering itself, for this sounds of some kind of fatalism? Buddha himself said that fatalistic philosophies are wrong views in other words they are heretical. You are correct that understanding of suffering is crux of our religion, although you should have emphasized it more. But remember that all Buddhists schools believe that our mind has been already forever lost in uncontrollable cycle of rebirth, so has universe been a "big enlightenment machine" for you yet?

    But maybe I understood you in a wrong way, what then you meant by acceptance of suffering?

    Replies: @AltanBakshi, @Ano4

  88. @Mr. Hack
    @Ano4

    Yes, it will be interesting to see how Pompeo does in Denmark this week. As a silly aside, I've recently located a place near where I live that sells actual Danish havarti - it's so much better than the ersatz variety made in California. :-)

    Replies: @Mr. Hack

    Lot’s of posturing but in the end I think that Germany will prevail:

  89. @Ano4
    @Blinky Bill

    In Zen/Ch'an we believe that suffering, if humbly accepted and truly understood, is conducive to Enlightenment. In that sense the whole Universe is a big Enlightenment machine...

    Replies: @Blinky Bill, @AaronB, @AltanBakshi

    You just reminded me of this. Thank you for your insights.

    [MORE]

    If you use twitter he’s worth following. I believe AK does.

    • Replies: @Ano4
    @Blinky Bill

    Well yeah. Well live in truly amazing times.

    😂

  90. @Blinky Bill
    @Ano4

    You just reminded me of this. Thank you for your insights.

    https://twitter.com/ArtyomLukin/status/1283666026455011329?s=20
    https://twitter.com/ArtyomLukin/status/1283667035164114944?s=20
    https://twitter.com/ArtyomLukin/status/1283668858612731904?s=20

    If you use twitter he's worth following. I believe AK does.

    Replies: @Ano4

    Well yeah. Well live in truly amazing times.

    😂

  91. @songbird
    The only really fashionable communist in the U.S. is Che. That is, among violent revolutionaries.

    I doubt Lenin's statues would last very long in states that have already turned, especially if they were given prominence. Perhaps, if he were part black, like Pushkin.

    Replies: @Ano4, @Europe Europa

    The only really fashionable communist in the U.S. is Che. That is, among violent revolutionaries.

    I suppose being “Hispanic” means he’s not white, despite the fact he was of completely European descent.

    Americans seem to have a mental block to seeing Spanish (and Portuguese) speakers as white. I’ve seen many examples of completely European looking Spanish-speakers described as “non-white” or “people of color” by Americans, it happened to Antonio Banderas recently. Frankly someone could be Nordic looking but if they had a Spanish/Portuguese sounding name they’d be regarded as non-white by most Americans. Interestingly Italians seem to avoid the “people of color” label.

    • Replies: @Blinky Bill
    @Europe Europa

    Conquistador American's as Steve Sailer calls them.

    Jorge Gilberto Ramos Ávalos

    https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcSs9hXfmGPPRaBmACBLpGzeXxjHm0ktSOU4tg&usqp.jpg

    , @Mr. XYZ
    @Europe Europa

    White Hispanics are NOT people of color. Period.

    , @songbird
    @Europe Europa

    I'd guess Guevara had a bit of Amerind in him. Looking over his ancestry, I see "Spanish-Mexican" and "Spanish-Argentinean", among other categories. I take that as meaning that some of his ancestry was hundreds of years old, in those places, which I think means that he probably had a bit of admixture.

  92. @Europe Europa
    @songbird


    The only really fashionable communist in the U.S. is Che. That is, among violent revolutionaries.
     
    I suppose being "Hispanic" means he's not white, despite the fact he was of completely European descent.

    Americans seem to have a mental block to seeing Spanish (and Portuguese) speakers as white. I've seen many examples of completely European looking Spanish-speakers described as "non-white" or "people of color" by Americans, it happened to Antonio Banderas recently. Frankly someone could be Nordic looking but if they had a Spanish/Portuguese sounding name they'd be regarded as non-white by most Americans. Interestingly Italians seem to avoid the "people of color" label.

    Replies: @Blinky Bill, @Mr. XYZ, @songbird

    Conquistador American’s as Steve Sailer calls them.

    Jorge Gilberto Ramos Ávalos

    [MORE]

  93. @AP
    @Mr. XYZ

    We are talking about history being the same but with no Bolshevism. That means Kerensky's government remains in charge. Kerensky's government recognized autonomy for Ukraine (comparable to Scotland within modern Britain, Ukraine would have its own parliament and PM but no army, though there were negotiations about creating a separate all-Ukrainian local army, that Scotland does not have) with local Ukrainian schools and so on. This Ukraine consisted of Kiev, Podolia, Volyn, Chernihiv and Poltava governates but they were negotiating about additional territories to the south. Galicia would have been added to them. Under such a scenario "Russian" rule would have been preferable to Polish rule for Galicians.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    Makes sense. 🙂 Anyway, was Novorossiya going to be continued to be directly governed from Moscow?

  94. @Europe Europa
    @songbird


    The only really fashionable communist in the U.S. is Che. That is, among violent revolutionaries.
     
    I suppose being "Hispanic" means he's not white, despite the fact he was of completely European descent.

    Americans seem to have a mental block to seeing Spanish (and Portuguese) speakers as white. I've seen many examples of completely European looking Spanish-speakers described as "non-white" or "people of color" by Americans, it happened to Antonio Banderas recently. Frankly someone could be Nordic looking but if they had a Spanish/Portuguese sounding name they'd be regarded as non-white by most Americans. Interestingly Italians seem to avoid the "people of color" label.

    Replies: @Blinky Bill, @Mr. XYZ, @songbird

    White Hispanics are NOT people of color. Period.

  95. @Ano4
    @Blinky Bill

    In Zen/Ch'an we believe that suffering, if humbly accepted and truly understood, is conducive to Enlightenment. In that sense the whole Universe is a big Enlightenment machine...

    Replies: @Blinky Bill, @AaronB, @AltanBakshi

    Lol, Zen/Chan does not trade in conventional religious cliches.

    You are clueless.

    • Replies: @Ano4
    @AaronB

    Good to see you back, I was starting to getting worried about you not commenting.

    You should learn a few things about Zen/Ch'an.

    First, read the wikipedia level easy stuff:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Scroll_of_the_Treatise_on_the_Two_Entrances_and_Four_Practices

    It will do you much good.

    Be well and take care!

    🙂

    Replies: @AaronB

    , @AltanBakshi
    @AaronB

    More than you Mr. "Cosmic Joke"

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

  96. Apparently London is the third most surveyed city in the world, and the only non-Chinese city in the top 10 most surveyed. I find it ironic how Britain is portraying itself as some bastion of free speech and civil rights compared to China, and yet Britain is the Western country that most resembles China in its enthusiastic uptake of mass surveillance.

    They were trialing facial recognition tech in London before the pandemic, and I would say that the British government’s reluctance to make mask wearing obligatory in public is because of the facial recognition agenda. As of today the government have finally made it law to wear a mask while in a shop, but it seems very unlikely that they will make wearing a mask at all times in public mandatory.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    @Europe Europa

    Aside from masks, what has surprised me about returning to visit expensive department store in English city, is how coronavirus removed tourists and students from the city, and it looks like 90% of the shoppers are anglosaxon/Northern European faces. Maybe only 5% are Chinese. And 5% Indian people.

    Normally there would be far more Indians and Chinese people in such shops - but probably they are actually tourists and students, and they have mostly been removed by coronavirus restrictions. Indians and Chinese both are especially common with the university students and tourists.

    -

    It's a bit like in Spain, as a tourist I have imagined the whole country has been "totally conquered" by millions of Africans. But this is likely exaggerated impression, because you notice a lot of Africans are living near the railway station. And as tourists travelling in Spain, we spend unnatural amount of time in railway stations.

    Replies: @Europe Europa

  97. @Europe Europa
    @songbird


    The only really fashionable communist in the U.S. is Che. That is, among violent revolutionaries.
     
    I suppose being "Hispanic" means he's not white, despite the fact he was of completely European descent.

    Americans seem to have a mental block to seeing Spanish (and Portuguese) speakers as white. I've seen many examples of completely European looking Spanish-speakers described as "non-white" or "people of color" by Americans, it happened to Antonio Banderas recently. Frankly someone could be Nordic looking but if they had a Spanish/Portuguese sounding name they'd be regarded as non-white by most Americans. Interestingly Italians seem to avoid the "people of color" label.

    Replies: @Blinky Bill, @Mr. XYZ, @songbird

    I’d guess Guevara had a bit of Amerind in him. Looking over his ancestry, I see “Spanish-Mexican” and “Spanish-Argentinean”, among other categories. I take that as meaning that some of his ancestry was hundreds of years old, in those places, which I think means that he probably had a bit of admixture.

  98. @mal
    @Mr. Hack

    More like inspiration and ideological foundation rather than an actual leader.

    Just because you see a lot of Jesus Christ statues and paintings around doesn't mean Jesus was an actual Christian Church leader, commanding people, collecting taxes and building temples etc. That came later and was done by different people.

    Same with Lenin. Except instead of Christianity, Soviet ideology was built upon ultramodern (for that time) Ango-German-Jewish ideals of scientific materialism, industrialization and technological progress. There was nothing Russian about it, Communist ideology is globalist by its very nature.

    Modern neoliberals and neoconservatives are simply rebranded Trotskyists. They run all the Western transnational corporations and governments today. In that sense, International Communism won the Cold War over the more mellow national socialism (not the German kind) of the late USSR.

    Anyway, I think you can still find some Dzerzhinsky and Jugashvili statues around. Bronstein the internationalist lost the power struggle to "socialism in one country" guy, so not a lot of him in Russia I think. This is also why Western elites hate Russia so much - didnt like Russia getting out of the global project.

    Replies: @Mr. Hack, @inertial

    Soviet ideology was built upon ultramodern (for that time) Ango-German-Jewish ideals of scientific materialism, industrialization and technological progress. There was nothing Russian about it, Communist ideology is globalist by its very nature.

    You are forgetting certain features of the Soviet ideology; precisely the features that made this ideology different from any other. Collectivism, utopianism, historical determinism, class-ism, hostility to property & market (aka anti-capitalism), and more. A case had been made that these things are Russian in origin. I mostly disagree with it but this is a stronger case than the one about “Ango-German-Jewish ideals.”

    Bronstein the internationalist lost the power struggle to “socialism in one country” guy

    This distinction is BS. Both Trotsky and Stalin were highly practical, so Stalin was an internationalist and Trotsky was building socialism in one country – when it suited them. And tracing modern globalism to Trotsky is looney tunes.

    • Replies: @mal
    @inertial


    You are forgetting certain features of the Soviet ideology; precisely the features that made this ideology different from any other. Collectivism, utopianism, historical determinism, class-ism, hostility to property & market (aka anti-capitalism), and more. A case had been made that these things are Russian in origin. I mostly disagree with it but this is a stronger case than the one about “Ango-German-Jewish ideals.”
     
    There's nothing Russian about the things you mention. They originate from Western (primarily German) Christian millenarian/apocalyptic cult movements in late middle ages. It is a straight up Anglo-German-Jewish tradition.

    This distinction is BS. Both Trotsky and Stalin were highly practical, so Stalin was an internationalist and Trotsky was building socialism in one country – when it suited them. And tracing modern globalism to Trotsky is looney tunes.
     
    If you look at the origins of neoconservatives, the likes of Irving Kristol etc, they started out as Trotskyists. Even more importantly though, modern global political economy in the developed countries (including US) is heavily Marxist. Unlike capitalism that requires private savings to form capital to direct production, we generate capital via credit issue, and this credit issue is rated and benchmarked against government debt, and that government debt in turn is backed by labor taxes (to the tune of 80% of government tax receipts) aka labor surplus value.

    The only difference between Marxism and neoliberalism/neoconservatism is one calls for dictatorship of the proletariat and the other calls for dictatorship of the financial oligarchy ('investment community'). But the goals and mechanisms are identical - destruction of private savings and capital, state backed credit generation to create capital instead (mostly financial capital for neolibs), and backing of the credit superstructure with extracted labor surplus value. Like I said before, capitalism doesn't exist. International Communism won.

    Replies: @inertial

  99. @Europe Europa
    Apparently London is the third most surveyed city in the world, and the only non-Chinese city in the top 10 most surveyed. I find it ironic how Britain is portraying itself as some bastion of free speech and civil rights compared to China, and yet Britain is the Western country that most resembles China in its enthusiastic uptake of mass surveillance.

    They were trialing facial recognition tech in London before the pandemic, and I would say that the British government's reluctance to make mask wearing obligatory in public is because of the facial recognition agenda. As of today the government have finally made it law to wear a mask while in a shop, but it seems very unlikely that they will make wearing a mask at all times in public mandatory.

    Replies: @Dmitry

    Aside from masks, what has surprised me about returning to visit expensive department store in English city, is how coronavirus removed tourists and students from the city, and it looks like 90% of the shoppers are anglosaxon/Northern European faces. Maybe only 5% are Chinese. And 5% Indian people.

    Normally there would be far more Indians and Chinese people in such shops – but probably they are actually tourists and students, and they have mostly been removed by coronavirus restrictions. Indians and Chinese both are especially common with the university students and tourists.

    It’s a bit like in Spain, as a tourist I have imagined the whole country has been “totally conquered” by millions of Africans. But this is likely exaggerated impression, because you notice a lot of Africans are living near the railway station. And as tourists travelling in Spain, we spend unnatural amount of time in railway stations.

    • Replies: @Europe Europa
    @Dmitry


    Aside from masks, what has surprised me about returning to visit expensive department store in English city, is how coronavirus removed tourists and students from the city, and it looks like 90% of the shoppers are anglosaxon/Northern European faces. Maybe only 5% are Chinese. And 5% Indian people.
     
    Immigrants generally seem more worried about the virus than native British people do. Most of the people I've seen wearing masks up until now have been immigrants, mainly Indian, Chinese and some blacks.

    I suspect a lot of non-whites are staying away from public areas as much as possible, while concerns about the virus don't seem to have affected native British peoples' habits to any great extent.

    Replies: @Dmitry

  100. @Dmitry
    @Europe Europa

    Aside from masks, what has surprised me about returning to visit expensive department store in English city, is how coronavirus removed tourists and students from the city, and it looks like 90% of the shoppers are anglosaxon/Northern European faces. Maybe only 5% are Chinese. And 5% Indian people.

    Normally there would be far more Indians and Chinese people in such shops - but probably they are actually tourists and students, and they have mostly been removed by coronavirus restrictions. Indians and Chinese both are especially common with the university students and tourists.

    -

    It's a bit like in Spain, as a tourist I have imagined the whole country has been "totally conquered" by millions of Africans. But this is likely exaggerated impression, because you notice a lot of Africans are living near the railway station. And as tourists travelling in Spain, we spend unnatural amount of time in railway stations.

    Replies: @Europe Europa

    Aside from masks, what has surprised me about returning to visit expensive department store in English city, is how coronavirus removed tourists and students from the city, and it looks like 90% of the shoppers are anglosaxon/Northern European faces. Maybe only 5% are Chinese. And 5% Indian people.

    Immigrants generally seem more worried about the virus than native British people do. Most of the people I’ve seen wearing masks up until now have been immigrants, mainly Indian, Chinese and some blacks.

    I suspect a lot of non-whites are staying away from public areas as much as possible, while concerns about the virus don’t seem to have affected native British peoples’ habits to any great extent.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    @Europe Europa


    more worried about the virus than native British
     
    I thought it had been something like this, but now I realize that was wrong, and I still don't understand the local culture.

    English people have been just following very precisely what the official advice of government is.
    Everyone is suddenly wearing a mask now in shops - after government changed its advice.

    In terms of following the advice of the government, English are behaving like one of the world's most civilized population. Unfortunately, the problem had been quality of advice of the government in terms of masks.


    -

    Have you seen "Bridge on the River Kwai"? Something about English are following so strictly official advice and rules, reminds me of this kind of dialogue of the English commander at 14:00 (and many other parts in the film)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0i2oeoGkEc

    Although clearly inaccurate in the film, are constant claims that Japanese have terrible civil engineering and bridge building abilities, while British in the film are implied as if they supernaturally rigorous engineers and world's best at building high quality bridges. Strangely, today, in Japan, I've never seen more impressive bridges than all other countries, while in civil engineering in England is not something tourists will see with amazement.

  101. @AaronB
    @Ano4

    Lol, Zen/Chan does not trade in conventional religious cliches.

    You are clueless.

    Replies: @Ano4, @AltanBakshi

    Good to see you back, I was starting to getting worried about you not commenting.

    You should learn a few things about Zen/Ch’an.

    First, read the wikipedia level easy stuff:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Scroll_of_the_Treatise_on_the_Two_Entrances_and_Four_Practices

    It will do you much good.

    Be well and take care!

    🙂

    • Replies: @AaronB
    @Ano4

    Ahh, thanks. I have been trying to limit my comments lately.

    I read your link. I've read other stuff from Bodhidharma. He's great, but I would recommend you check out Huang Po. It may give you a different perspective on Zen.

    I could not find anything in your link that promotes the idea that suffering, properly understood, leads to enlightenment. Zen enlightenment is not intellectual - it would be more in the spirit of Zen to say that you should cease trying to "make sense" of suffering.

    Your idea is found in all conventional religions, and Zen is a fresh break with conventional religion, so I found it in the wrong spirit.

    In any event, there are two Zen's, if not more. Some versions of Zen will say that one shouldn't even strive for enlightenment. I suspect Huang Po would be a very different kind of Zen than you're used to. Which is more logically consistent, is up to each of us to decide.

    Anyways, you're certainly entitled to your version of Zen, and it really isn't an occasion for argument - people like the ideas they like. If you're a striver, you'll interpret that into Zen.

    If you're an proud egotist like the Bakshi guy, your Buddhism will be about ego lol.

    There is a religion for all of us :)

    Replies: @Ano4, @AltanBakshi

  102. mal says:
    @inertial
    @mal


    Soviet ideology was built upon ultramodern (for that time) Ango-German-Jewish ideals of scientific materialism, industrialization and technological progress. There was nothing Russian about it, Communist ideology is globalist by its very nature.
     
    You are forgetting certain features of the Soviet ideology; precisely the features that made this ideology different from any other. Collectivism, utopianism, historical determinism, class-ism, hostility to property & market (aka anti-capitalism), and more. A case had been made that these things are Russian in origin. I mostly disagree with it but this is a stronger case than the one about "Ango-German-Jewish ideals."

    Bronstein the internationalist lost the power struggle to “socialism in one country” guy
     
    This distinction is BS. Both Trotsky and Stalin were highly practical, so Stalin was an internationalist and Trotsky was building socialism in one country - when it suited them. And tracing modern globalism to Trotsky is looney tunes.

    Replies: @mal

    You are forgetting certain features of the Soviet ideology; precisely the features that made this ideology different from any other. Collectivism, utopianism, historical determinism, class-ism, hostility to property & market (aka anti-capitalism), and more. A case had been made that these things are Russian in origin. I mostly disagree with it but this is a stronger case than the one about “Ango-German-Jewish ideals.”

    There’s nothing Russian about the things you mention. They originate from Western (primarily German) Christian millenarian/apocalyptic cult movements in late middle ages. It is a straight up Anglo-German-Jewish tradition.

    This distinction is BS. Both Trotsky and Stalin were highly practical, so Stalin was an internationalist and Trotsky was building socialism in one country – when it suited them. And tracing modern globalism to Trotsky is looney tunes.

    If you look at the origins of neoconservatives, the likes of Irving Kristol etc, they started out as Trotskyists. Even more importantly though, modern global political economy in the developed countries (including US) is heavily Marxist. Unlike capitalism that requires private savings to form capital to direct production, we generate capital via credit issue, and this credit issue is rated and benchmarked against government debt, and that government debt in turn is backed by labor taxes (to the tune of 80% of government tax receipts) aka labor surplus value.

    The only difference between Marxism and neoliberalism/neoconservatism is one calls for dictatorship of the proletariat and the other calls for dictatorship of the financial oligarchy (‘investment community’). But the goals and mechanisms are identical – destruction of private savings and capital, state backed credit generation to create capital instead (mostly financial capital for neolibs), and backing of the credit superstructure with extracted labor surplus value. Like I said before, capitalism doesn’t exist. International Communism won.

    • Replies: @inertial
    @mal

    Meh. I read unz.com, so I've seen this theory a million times. It's a prime example of the following very popular syllogism:

    1. I don't like X.
    2. I don't like Y.
    3. Therefore, X=Y.

    Replies: @mal

  103. Something I find interesting about Russian nationalism is how they combine right wing, conservative ethno-nationalism with celebrating Russia’s WW2 legacy.

    It’s the opposite in Britain, most British ethno-nationalists despise Britain’s WW2 legacy and are more sympathetic to Nazi Germany. Many of them would regard Churchill and people like Bomber Harris as war criminals. WW2 celebration here is more the preserve of apolitical normies who would be opposed to ethno-nationalism and would say things like “we defeated fascism/racism”, most British people who would consider themselves “nationalists” take a dim view of Britain’s role in WW2.

    • Replies: @Kent Nationalist
    @Europe Europa

    From what AK has written, I think in Russia Stalinolatry is more common among apolitical boomers and older, while genuine nationalists have more criticisms.

    Replies: @Dmitry

    , @AltanBakshi
    @Europe Europa

    Hitler was genuinely ready to make a power sharing agreement with Britain, unlike with Russians, who he saw as slaves. After all British soldiers were treated in totally different manner than Soviets, and Hitler tried to make a peace with Britain after conquering the France. For Russians the war was an existential struggle from the very beginning. But for Britain it was just continuation of old English policy to have balance of power on continent.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi, @AltanBakshi

  104. @Ano4
    @Blinky Bill

    In Zen/Ch'an we believe that suffering, if humbly accepted and truly understood, is conducive to Enlightenment. In that sense the whole Universe is a big Enlightenment machine...

    Replies: @Blinky Bill, @AaronB, @AltanBakshi

    Again our Zen master of unknown lineage of ordination and Dharma transmission lectures about the noble truths of our faith? If you want to explain something about the Dharma then you need to do it in more revealing manner. So what we Buddhists just accept the suffering? When the whole point of our religion is to eliminate it. To eliminate our suffering, to eliminate everyone’s suffering, to get completely rid of it, in any form, in any state. Yes we must accept that as long as were are beings lost in Samsara, that we suffer, but we should not accept the suffering itself, for this sounds of some kind of fatalism? Buddha himself said that fatalistic philosophies are wrong views in other words they are heretical. You are correct that understanding of suffering is crux of our religion, although you should have emphasized it more. But remember that all Buddhists schools believe that our mind has been already forever lost in uncontrollable cycle of rebirth, so has universe been a “big enlightenment machine” for you yet?

    But maybe I understood you in a wrong way, what then you meant by acceptance of suffering?

    • Replies: @AltanBakshi
    @AltanBakshi

    Ano4 now after your last post I understand what you meant by accepting one's suffering, still your link says that one should practice Six Paramitas. I just got wrong impression from your short and previous comment. I had time to delete my previous comment, but nah better that it stays as a sign of my impulsiveness.

    Replies: @Ano4

    , @Ano4
    @AltanBakshi

    I was citing the Teachings of Bodhidhama as translated by Red Pine. It is viewed as the earliest scripture of Ch'an.

    To enter by practice refers to four all inclusive practices: suffering injustice, adapting to conditions, seeking nothing and practicing the Dharma.

    First, suffering injustice. When those who search for the Path encounter adversity, they should think to themselves, "In countless ages gone by, I've turned from the essential to the trivial and wandered through all manner of existence, often angry without cause and guilty of numberless transgressions. Now, though I do no wrong, I'm punished by my past. Neither gods nor men can forsee when an evil deed will bear its fruit. I accept it with an open heart and without complaint of injustice." The sutras say "When you meet with adversity don't be upset, because it makes sense. " With such understanding you're in harmony with reason. And by suffering injustice you enter the Path.

    Should I go on or you will buy the book and read it for yourself?

    There are still other passages dealing with this subject, but typing on a cell phone is not fun. And my corrector always plays tricks on me...

    😄

    https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Zen_Teaching_of_Bodhidharma.html?hl=fr&id=QsMblTeao1YC

  105. @AaronB
    @Ano4

    Lol, Zen/Chan does not trade in conventional religious cliches.

    You are clueless.

    Replies: @Ano4, @AltanBakshi

    More than you Mr. “Cosmic Joke”

    • Replies: @AltanBakshi
    @AltanBakshi

    I meant that he knows more than you Mr. "Cosmic Joke."

  106. @AltanBakshi
    @Ano4

    Again our Zen master of unknown lineage of ordination and Dharma transmission lectures about the noble truths of our faith? If you want to explain something about the Dharma then you need to do it in more revealing manner. So what we Buddhists just accept the suffering? When the whole point of our religion is to eliminate it. To eliminate our suffering, to eliminate everyone's suffering, to get completely rid of it, in any form, in any state. Yes we must accept that as long as were are beings lost in Samsara, that we suffer, but we should not accept the suffering itself, for this sounds of some kind of fatalism? Buddha himself said that fatalistic philosophies are wrong views in other words they are heretical. You are correct that understanding of suffering is crux of our religion, although you should have emphasized it more. But remember that all Buddhists schools believe that our mind has been already forever lost in uncontrollable cycle of rebirth, so has universe been a "big enlightenment machine" for you yet?

    But maybe I understood you in a wrong way, what then you meant by acceptance of suffering?

    Replies: @AltanBakshi, @Ano4

    Ano4 now after your last post I understand what you meant by accepting one’s suffering, still your link says that one should practice Six Paramitas. I just got wrong impression from your short and previous comment. I had time to delete my previous comment, but nah better that it stays as a sign of my impulsiveness.

    • Replies: @Ano4
    @AltanBakshi

    No problem at all. I'm quite impulsive myself.

    Be well.

  107. We should exchange more than just statues. Our Christians and political dissidents for your LGBTQ and Pussy Rioteers.

  108. @AltanBakshi
    @Ano4

    Again our Zen master of unknown lineage of ordination and Dharma transmission lectures about the noble truths of our faith? If you want to explain something about the Dharma then you need to do it in more revealing manner. So what we Buddhists just accept the suffering? When the whole point of our religion is to eliminate it. To eliminate our suffering, to eliminate everyone's suffering, to get completely rid of it, in any form, in any state. Yes we must accept that as long as were are beings lost in Samsara, that we suffer, but we should not accept the suffering itself, for this sounds of some kind of fatalism? Buddha himself said that fatalistic philosophies are wrong views in other words they are heretical. You are correct that understanding of suffering is crux of our religion, although you should have emphasized it more. But remember that all Buddhists schools believe that our mind has been already forever lost in uncontrollable cycle of rebirth, so has universe been a "big enlightenment machine" for you yet?

    But maybe I understood you in a wrong way, what then you meant by acceptance of suffering?

    Replies: @AltanBakshi, @Ano4

    I was citing the Teachings of Bodhidhama as translated by Red Pine. It is viewed as the earliest scripture of Ch’an.

    To enter by practice refers to four all inclusive practices: suffering injustice, adapting to conditions, seeking nothing and practicing the Dharma.

    First, suffering injustice. When those who search for the Path encounter adversity, they should think to themselves, “In countless ages gone by, I’ve turned from the essential to the trivial and wandered through all manner of existence, often angry without cause and guilty of numberless transgressions. Now, though I do no wrong, I’m punished by my past. Neither gods nor men can forsee when an evil deed will bear its fruit. I accept it with an open heart and without complaint of injustice.” The sutras say “When you meet with adversity don’t be upset, because it makes sense. ” With such understanding you’re in harmony with reason. And by suffering injustice you enter the Path.

    Should I go on or you will buy the book and read it for yourself?

    There are still other passages dealing with this subject, but typing on a cell phone is not fun. And my corrector always plays tricks on me…

    😄

    https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Zen_Teaching_of_Bodhidharma.html?hl=fr&id=QsMblTeao1YC

    • Thanks: AltanBakshi
  109. @AltanBakshi
    @AltanBakshi

    Ano4 now after your last post I understand what you meant by accepting one's suffering, still your link says that one should practice Six Paramitas. I just got wrong impression from your short and previous comment. I had time to delete my previous comment, but nah better that it stays as a sign of my impulsiveness.

    Replies: @Ano4

    No problem at all. I’m quite impulsive myself.

    Be well.

  110. @Europe Europa
    @Dmitry


    Aside from masks, what has surprised me about returning to visit expensive department store in English city, is how coronavirus removed tourists and students from the city, and it looks like 90% of the shoppers are anglosaxon/Northern European faces. Maybe only 5% are Chinese. And 5% Indian people.
     
    Immigrants generally seem more worried about the virus than native British people do. Most of the people I've seen wearing masks up until now have been immigrants, mainly Indian, Chinese and some blacks.

    I suspect a lot of non-whites are staying away from public areas as much as possible, while concerns about the virus don't seem to have affected native British peoples' habits to any great extent.

    Replies: @Dmitry

    more worried about the virus than native British

    I thought it had been something like this, but now I realize that was wrong, and I still don’t understand the local culture.

    English people have been just following very precisely what the official advice of government is.
    Everyone is suddenly wearing a mask now in shops – after government changed its advice.

    In terms of following the advice of the government, English are behaving like one of the world’s most civilized population. Unfortunately, the problem had been quality of advice of the government in terms of masks.

    Have you seen “Bridge on the River Kwai”? Something about English are following so strictly official advice and rules, reminds me of this kind of dialogue of the English commander at 14:00 (and many other parts in the film)

    Although clearly inaccurate in the film, are constant claims that Japanese have terrible civil engineering and bridge building abilities, while British in the film are implied as if they supernaturally rigorous engineers and world’s best at building high quality bridges. Strangely, today, in Japan, I’ve never seen more impressive bridges than all other countries, while in civil engineering in England is not something tourists will see with amazement.

  111. @Europe Europa
    Something I find interesting about Russian nationalism is how they combine right wing, conservative ethno-nationalism with celebrating Russia's WW2 legacy.

    It's the opposite in Britain, most British ethno-nationalists despise Britain's WW2 legacy and are more sympathetic to Nazi Germany. Many of them would regard Churchill and people like Bomber Harris as war criminals. WW2 celebration here is more the preserve of apolitical normies who would be opposed to ethno-nationalism and would say things like "we defeated fascism/racism", most British people who would consider themselves "nationalists" take a dim view of Britain's role in WW2.

    Replies: @Kent Nationalist, @AltanBakshi

    From what AK has written, I think in Russia Stalinolatry is more common among apolitical boomers and older, while genuine nationalists have more criticisms.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    @Kent Nationalist

    "Genuine nationalists", or extreme nationalists, in the sense which it used to have a few years ago - as attacking of brown immigrants and even beliefs of "white supremacy" - is one of the most suppressed groups in Russia by the government and security services, although not without justification: hardcore hooligan groups used to cause murders, and also traumatized a lot of kids who experienced the 2000s internet with their videos.

    Nowadays, there is some kind of soft nationalism being allowed as activists, and which usually combines with politically acceptable imperialist intentions. I don't know anything about such people and they seem quite marginal. From very little I know, such soft nationalist groups, is usually a nerdy people, who would not hurt a kitten, and will not practice their kickboxing skills on immigrants' faces. Imperialist beliefs are usually product of reading history books.


    Stalinolatry is more common among apolitical boomers and older
     
    Views on Stalin are just mixed as you should expect from such a figure.

    How do you assess a leader who is personally evil, has caused many deaths of innocent people whose descendants campaigning for their memory today, who built a cult of personality, and who has been incompetent in some areas (for example in the beginning of the war), but competent in many others (including even things like architecture, if we want to look beyond the history's fastest industrialization and victor of largest ever military campaign). A leader who caught the motherland with a plough, and left with nuclear weapons, and the world's best space program. A most unpleasant recent leader, but also one of the most successful leaders of world history - with the latter qualified by the fact the empire collapsed within less than 40 years of his death.

    You can find such a mix of opinion of Lincoln in America, Cromwell in England, Napoleon in France, Mao in China.

    In Stalin it is perhaps more difficult issue to assess, due to things like, among others: persecution of his memory by Khrushchev; extent of brutal internal political persecutions; influence of foreign propaganda (a lot of unbalanced anti-Stalin propaganda was naively consumed by liberal intelligensia in the 1990ies); and temporary nature of his great achievements, with collapse of power within decades after his death.

    Replies: @AP

  112. @AltanBakshi
    @AaronB

    More than you Mr. "Cosmic Joke"

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

    I meant that he knows more than you Mr. “Cosmic Joke.”

  113. @Europe Europa
    Something I find interesting about Russian nationalism is how they combine right wing, conservative ethno-nationalism with celebrating Russia's WW2 legacy.

    It's the opposite in Britain, most British ethno-nationalists despise Britain's WW2 legacy and are more sympathetic to Nazi Germany. Many of them would regard Churchill and people like Bomber Harris as war criminals. WW2 celebration here is more the preserve of apolitical normies who would be opposed to ethno-nationalism and would say things like "we defeated fascism/racism", most British people who would consider themselves "nationalists" take a dim view of Britain's role in WW2.

    Replies: @Kent Nationalist, @AltanBakshi

    Hitler was genuinely ready to make a power sharing agreement with Britain, unlike with Russians, who he saw as slaves. After all British soldiers were treated in totally different manner than Soviets, and Hitler tried to make a peace with Britain after conquering the France. For Russians the war was an existential struggle from the very beginning. But for Britain it was just continuation of old English policy to have balance of power on continent.

    • Replies: @AltanBakshi
    @AltanBakshi

    I meant that British soldiers were treated totally different as PoW's than Soviet soldiers were.

    , @AltanBakshi
    @AltanBakshi

    I meant that British soldiers were treated totally different as PoW's than Soviet soldiers were.

  114. @Ano4
    @AltanBakshi

    The Chinese have an older civilization that has mainly kept to its roots despite the numerous invasions and foreign influences. Perhaps that is why they appear more balanced.



    Russia has been severely traumatized as a civilisation several times: during the gradual Christianization (which took several centuries), under the Golden Horde rule, during the Time of Troubles and the ensuing Raskol, during Peter the Great reforms and finally under Communism and the Perestroika.

    When I look at the Russian double headed eagle, I often think that it is a schizoid bird, having half his consciousness riveted to the Western Europe and the other half to Asia, two cultural environments that have been quite alien to each other except very recently.

    But maybe it's just me being schizoid and the other Russians are quite balanced and feel alright about their history and the place of Russia in the world.

    Replies: @Kent Nationalist, @AltanBakshi

    I dont agree with you for most Asian major civilizations have suffered immensely and gone through huge traumas during the last couple centuries. Lets take China as example and have a short look into its more or less recent history. In 1644 the Manchus conquered the Northern China and forced Chinese to accept their customs and way of clothing under threat of execution, huge massacres were committed in 1645 all over the Northern China because of that, the highest ruling nobility was for centuries mostly non-Han people in China, but they shared much of the culture. Then there were the Opium Wars, where foreign powers led by Britain forced Qing empire not to put an end to narcotics trade. Foreigners were given extraterritorial rights and they couldnt even be sentenced in Qing courts. Wars between Qing and Japan, between Qing and France, Boxer revolt, all those were lost. You must also remember that there was a millenial cycle and continuity between dynasties in Chinese history. It seemed that all the Confucian, Daoist and Buddhist wisdom couldnt be a match against the knowledge and science of the West. There were huge famines, religiously inspired apocalyptic cults that started huge civil wars in China that were the bloodiest conflicts of the 19th Century. It could be said that revolt of the Heavenly Taipings had as many or more casualties than the whole First world war had. Then there was the chaotic time of Republican China, that was constant warring between different cliques and warlords, and if that was not enough Japanese started invasion of China in 1937, although they already had taken Manchuria in 1931. After the immense war with the Japanese there was a huge civil war between Communists and Nationalists, after that the Korean war, and after that the Great Leap Forwards and after that Cultural revolution, without forgetting small wars with India and Vietnam. Russia had some very hard years, but they had many more years of peace than China had. Then you write about Mongol invasion, yes it was probably hard for Russians, but still Russians kept their native administration, when Chinese were under the direct rule of the Mongols, who even imported huge number of foreigners to help, mainly Muslim Persians and Turks, to China, for administration.

    • Replies: @Ano4
    @AltanBakshi

    You might be right.

    What I was referring to is that Russia had its cultural code changed so often that it might have gotten a little bit unbalanced as a civilization.

    As a consequence, it lacks a unifying idea and a clear path forward.

    But as I said at the end of my message, maybe its just me imagining things.

  115. @Kent Nationalist
    @Europe Europa

    From what AK has written, I think in Russia Stalinolatry is more common among apolitical boomers and older, while genuine nationalists have more criticisms.

    Replies: @Dmitry

    “Genuine nationalists”, or extreme nationalists, in the sense which it used to have a few years ago – as attacking of brown immigrants and even beliefs of “white supremacy” – is one of the most suppressed groups in Russia by the government and security services, although not without justification: hardcore hooligan groups used to cause murders, and also traumatized a lot of kids who experienced the 2000s internet with their videos.

    Nowadays, there is some kind of soft nationalism being allowed as activists, and which usually combines with politically acceptable imperialist intentions. I don’t know anything about such people and they seem quite marginal. From very little I know, such soft nationalist groups, is usually a nerdy people, who would not hurt a kitten, and will not practice their kickboxing skills on immigrants’ faces. Imperialist beliefs are usually product of reading history books.

    Stalinolatry is more common among apolitical boomers and older

    Views on Stalin are just mixed as you should expect from such a figure.

    How do you assess a leader who is personally evil, has caused many deaths of innocent people whose descendants campaigning for their memory today, who built a cult of personality, and who has been incompetent in some areas (for example in the beginning of the war), but competent in many others (including even things like architecture, if we want to look beyond the history’s fastest industrialization and victor of largest ever military campaign). A leader who caught the motherland with a plough, and left with nuclear weapons, and the world’s best space program. A most unpleasant recent leader, but also one of the most successful leaders of world history – with the latter qualified by the fact the empire collapsed within less than 40 years of his death.

    You can find such a mix of opinion of Lincoln in America, Cromwell in England, Napoleon in France, Mao in China.

    In Stalin it is perhaps more difficult issue to assess, due to things like, among others: persecution of his memory by Khrushchev; extent of brutal internal political persecutions; influence of foreign propaganda (a lot of unbalanced anti-Stalin propaganda was naively consumed by liberal intelligensia in the 1990ies); and temporary nature of his great achievements, with collapse of power within decades after his death.

    • Agree: AltanBakshi, Ano4
    • Replies: @AP
    @Dmitry

    A lot of the allegedly positive things about Stalin are just copes. People don't want to think that their immense suffering was for nothing, a waste, so they pretend it was for the sake of something special when the sad reality it was for nothing. Most of what Stalin accomplished would have been done without him, and without the enormous cost in suffering. It is like an abused person who make sense of their terrible childhood by thinking that it made them "strong" or whatever, when plenty of people have such traits without having been abused.


    How do you assess a leader who is personally evil, has caused many deaths of innocent people whose descendants campaigning for their memory today, who built a cult of personality, and who has been incompetent in some areas (for example in the beginning of the war), but competent in many others (including even things like architecture, if we want to look beyond the history’s fastest industrialization and victor of largest ever military campaign).
     
    Actually Korea in 1920-1939 had a higher rate of industrialization than did the USSR in the same time period:

    https://eh.net/eha/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Williamson.pdf

    (page 33)

    Somehow a huge % of Koreans weren't killed in order to accomplish this.

    And while Soviet industrialization rate surpassed that of the Tsars, the latter's rate was still very high. Between 1870 and 1913 Russia's manufacturing output growth rate was greater than that of any country in Western Europe and the USA.

    A leader who caught the motherland with a plough, and left with nuclear weapons,
     
    Russia was rapidly industrializing before Bolsheviks. Most of the civilized world managed to go from plows to nuclear technology without killing millions of its people and having its population living in relative poverty.

    What's next - give credit to Communists for electrification, antibiotics, or mass literacy (which all came to be in every civilized country, Communism wasn't necessary)

    and the world’s best space program. A most unpleasant recent leader, but also one of the most successful leaders of world history – with the latter qualified by the fact the empire collapsed within less than 40 years of his death.
     
    " one of the most successful leaders of world history" - nearly lost a war to a much smaller country, allowing that country to kill 27 million of his citizens; owned vast Eurasia but was forced to be in a close second place to the American upstart; made a system so brittle it utterly collapsed as you said after only 40 years

    Replies: @AltanBakshi, @Anatoly Karlin

  116. @AltanBakshi
    @Ano4

    I dont agree with you for most Asian major civilizations have suffered immensely and gone through huge traumas during the last couple centuries. Lets take China as example and have a short look into its more or less recent history. In 1644 the Manchus conquered the Northern China and forced Chinese to accept their customs and way of clothing under threat of execution, huge massacres were committed in 1645 all over the Northern China because of that, the highest ruling nobility was for centuries mostly non-Han people in China, but they shared much of the culture. Then there were the Opium Wars, where foreign powers led by Britain forced Qing empire not to put an end to narcotics trade. Foreigners were given extraterritorial rights and they couldnt even be sentenced in Qing courts. Wars between Qing and Japan, between Qing and France, Boxer revolt, all those were lost. You must also remember that there was a millenial cycle and continuity between dynasties in Chinese history. It seemed that all the Confucian, Daoist and Buddhist wisdom couldnt be a match against the knowledge and science of the West. There were huge famines, religiously inspired apocalyptic cults that started huge civil wars in China that were the bloodiest conflicts of the 19th Century. It could be said that revolt of the Heavenly Taipings had as many or more casualties than the whole First world war had. Then there was the chaotic time of Republican China, that was constant warring between different cliques and warlords, and if that was not enough Japanese started invasion of China in 1937, although they already had taken Manchuria in 1931. After the immense war with the Japanese there was a huge civil war between Communists and Nationalists, after that the Korean war, and after that the Great Leap Forwards and after that Cultural revolution, without forgetting small wars with India and Vietnam. Russia had some very hard years, but they had many more years of peace than China had. Then you write about Mongol invasion, yes it was probably hard for Russians, but still Russians kept their native administration, when Chinese were under the direct rule of the Mongols, who even imported huge number of foreigners to help, mainly Muslim Persians and Turks, to China, for administration.

    Replies: @Ano4

    You might be right.

    What I was referring to is that Russia had its cultural code changed so often that it might have gotten a little bit unbalanced as a civilization.

    As a consequence, it lacks a unifying idea and a clear path forward.

    But as I said at the end of my message, maybe its just me imagining things.

  117. @Ano4
    @AaronB

    Good to see you back, I was starting to getting worried about you not commenting.

    You should learn a few things about Zen/Ch'an.

    First, read the wikipedia level easy stuff:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Scroll_of_the_Treatise_on_the_Two_Entrances_and_Four_Practices

    It will do you much good.

    Be well and take care!

    🙂

    Replies: @AaronB

    Ahh, thanks. I have been trying to limit my comments lately.

    I read your link. I’ve read other stuff from Bodhidharma. He’s great, but I would recommend you check out Huang Po. It may give you a different perspective on Zen.

    I could not find anything in your link that promotes the idea that suffering, properly understood, leads to enlightenment. Zen enlightenment is not intellectual – it would be more in the spirit of Zen to say that you should cease trying to “make sense” of suffering.

    Your idea is found in all conventional religions, and Zen is a fresh break with conventional religion, so I found it in the wrong spirit.

    In any event, there are two Zen’s, if not more. Some versions of Zen will say that one shouldn’t even strive for enlightenment. I suspect Huang Po would be a very different kind of Zen than you’re used to. Which is more logically consistent, is up to each of us to decide.

    Anyways, you’re certainly entitled to your version of Zen, and it really isn’t an occasion for argument – people like the ideas they like. If you’re a striver, you’ll interpret that into Zen.

    If you’re an proud egotist like the Bakshi guy, your Buddhism will be about ego lol.

    There is a religion for all of us 🙂

    • Replies: @Ano4
    @AaronB


    If you’re an proud egotist
     
    I have the feeling that you know what you're talking about.

    😄

    Replies: @AaronB

    , @AltanBakshi
    @AaronB

    Better to be an egotist than psychopath fraud! All practitioners of Zen have taken refugee in the Triple Gem, all masters of Zen have lineage of Dharma transmission. All students of Zen believe in Luminous mind or what we in Tibetan traditions call the Clear light nature of the mind. All Buddhist traditions believe that Enlightenment/Nirvana is beyond all concepts, therefore there is no tradition which claims that enlightenment is an intellectual thing, but many traditions believe that you can point to the right direction by intellectual means. For Buddha Shakyamuni himselfs says in Lalitavistara sutra,

    "Profound, peaceful, elaboration-free, clear light, and non-composite;
    Such is the nectar-like Dharma I have discovered.
    Finding no one who can fathom this teaching,
    In silence I will retire into the woods."

    Stop with your divisive speech, for the very basis of your views on Dharma are build on a rotten foundation, so in that kind of situation how there can be any understanding? Thats why I am constantly reminding you of the basics. Nirvana is same for all schools, but if you would have even an elementary understanding of Dharma you would know that its quite common in Mahayana traditions for teacher to discourage the striving towards Enlightenment, after all we make a huge difference between desire to achieve personal liberation from Samsara and having a desire to liberate all beings from Samsara, in Mahayana view we can never be truly liberated if we believe that we have separate self that is not dependent on others, which can be liberated. This is clearly a wrong view. And in Mahayana our highest aim is not even Nirvana, which westerners call Enlightenment, our highest aim is achieving the state of fully awakened Buddha, Samyaksambuddhahood. For a true Boddhisattva renounces even Nirvana for the welfare of all Beings!

  118. @AaronB
    @Ano4

    Ahh, thanks. I have been trying to limit my comments lately.

    I read your link. I've read other stuff from Bodhidharma. He's great, but I would recommend you check out Huang Po. It may give you a different perspective on Zen.

    I could not find anything in your link that promotes the idea that suffering, properly understood, leads to enlightenment. Zen enlightenment is not intellectual - it would be more in the spirit of Zen to say that you should cease trying to "make sense" of suffering.

    Your idea is found in all conventional religions, and Zen is a fresh break with conventional religion, so I found it in the wrong spirit.

    In any event, there are two Zen's, if not more. Some versions of Zen will say that one shouldn't even strive for enlightenment. I suspect Huang Po would be a very different kind of Zen than you're used to. Which is more logically consistent, is up to each of us to decide.

    Anyways, you're certainly entitled to your version of Zen, and it really isn't an occasion for argument - people like the ideas they like. If you're a striver, you'll interpret that into Zen.

    If you're an proud egotist like the Bakshi guy, your Buddhism will be about ego lol.

    There is a religion for all of us :)

    Replies: @Ano4, @AltanBakshi

    If you’re an proud egotist

    I have the feeling that you know what you’re talking about.

    😄

    • Replies: @AaronB
    @Ano4

    Of course :) I hope you didn't think I meant ego was wrong. In my own way, I am quite egoistic.

    One should be just as egotistical as one is - trying to decrease it will increase it. Your true glory is in your imperfections.

    As the Zen people say "go in any direction, but above all, don't wobble".

  119. @Ano4
    @AaronB


    If you’re an proud egotist
     
    I have the feeling that you know what you're talking about.

    😄

    Replies: @AaronB

    Of course 🙂 I hope you didn’t think I meant ego was wrong. In my own way, I am quite egoistic.

    One should be just as egotistical as one is – trying to decrease it will increase it. Your true glory is in your imperfections.

    As the Zen people say “go in any direction, but above all, don’t wobble”.

    • Troll: AltanBakshi
  120. @mal
    @inertial


    You are forgetting certain features of the Soviet ideology; precisely the features that made this ideology different from any other. Collectivism, utopianism, historical determinism, class-ism, hostility to property & market (aka anti-capitalism), and more. A case had been made that these things are Russian in origin. I mostly disagree with it but this is a stronger case than the one about “Ango-German-Jewish ideals.”
     
    There's nothing Russian about the things you mention. They originate from Western (primarily German) Christian millenarian/apocalyptic cult movements in late middle ages. It is a straight up Anglo-German-Jewish tradition.

    This distinction is BS. Both Trotsky and Stalin were highly practical, so Stalin was an internationalist and Trotsky was building socialism in one country – when it suited them. And tracing modern globalism to Trotsky is looney tunes.
     
    If you look at the origins of neoconservatives, the likes of Irving Kristol etc, they started out as Trotskyists. Even more importantly though, modern global political economy in the developed countries (including US) is heavily Marxist. Unlike capitalism that requires private savings to form capital to direct production, we generate capital via credit issue, and this credit issue is rated and benchmarked against government debt, and that government debt in turn is backed by labor taxes (to the tune of 80% of government tax receipts) aka labor surplus value.

    The only difference between Marxism and neoliberalism/neoconservatism is one calls for dictatorship of the proletariat and the other calls for dictatorship of the financial oligarchy ('investment community'). But the goals and mechanisms are identical - destruction of private savings and capital, state backed credit generation to create capital instead (mostly financial capital for neolibs), and backing of the credit superstructure with extracted labor surplus value. Like I said before, capitalism doesn't exist. International Communism won.

    Replies: @inertial

    Meh. I read unz.com, so I’ve seen this theory a million times. It’s a prime example of the following very popular syllogism:

    1. I don’t like X.
    2. I don’t like Y.
    3. Therefore, X=Y.

    • Replies: @mal
    @inertial

    Well, it is a lot more grounded in reality compared to assigning Marxism as a Russian national trait as pop culture does. So keep reading unz :)

  121. AP says:
    @AltanBakshi
    @AP

    Thank you for your very interesting comments but why China had people who were capable of managing the transition, for their economy was even more communist? Is it because of stronger ethnic cohesion? Also CCP never gave up their monopoly of power and they only concentrated on gradual reformation of economy. Unlike Gorby who allowed free discussion in society, also there were no mass slaughters of democracy activists like in China. Tiananmen in 1989 is just the most well known of them, there were big demonstrations all over China that were put down. Like in Chengdu in 1989. But Chinese leadership showed resolve and integrity, which spineless Gorby didnt have.

    Replies: @Blinky Bill, @Ano4, @AP

    I don’t know enough about China to make a comparison, so take what I have to say with a grain of salt. My speculations:

    1. Chinese leadership fewer generations removed from the bloody revolutionaries, so they were more ruthless themselves and the people understood that

    2. Chinese society less corrupt to the core than was Soviet society, perhaps because there were fewer generations during which people got corrupted.

    3. China had models of authoritarian market systems, such as Singapore (run by ethnic Chinese), South Korea, even Japan to an extent (run by one party for decades, economy organized by large industrial conglomerates linked to government). USSR, in contrast, looked to Europe which was inherently democratic so modernization was seen as being inherently linked to democratization. Gorby reformers wanted to turn the USSR into a huge social democratic welfare state like 1980s Sweden.

    :::::::::::::::::

    That having been said, China isn’t the only place that did a good job transitioning from idiotic Communism. So too did Poland, Czechia and Slovakia, and Romania. One could ask not only why Russia didn’t accomplish what China did but why it didn’t do what Eastern Europe did.

  122. AP says:
    @Ano4
    @AltanBakshi


    writer Marietta Shaginyan
     
    She specialized in writing stories about the Ulyanov family and the life of Lenin. We all had to read some of her stories when we were in early school.

    a possibility that some Kalmyks were enserfed or made serfs as punishment for joining Razin’s or Pugachev’s rebellion?
     
    This has not occurred to me, but it is indeed quite possible.

    But shame that man who was as much of product of Russian empire as Lenin became such traitor.
     
    It is indeed quite strange that so many brilliant young people among the nobility and intelligentsia have turned against the Tsardom already by the end of the XIX century. The same youth completely rejected Orthodox Christianity, which they saw as backward, corrupt and impotent to improve the morality of the Russian society.

    Lenin was not an isolated case, after all the nihilists political youth movement was born in Russia of mainly Velikoross educated young people.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_nihilist_movement

    There is something about Russians that leads some of them towards over performing in both Good and Evil.

    Replies: @AP

    It is indeed quite strange that so many brilliant young people among the nobility and intelligentsia have turned against the Tsardom already by the end of the XIX century. The same youth completely rejected Orthodox Christianity, which they saw as backward, corrupt and impotent to improve the morality of the Russian society.

    And many did not. During World War I, the Russian elite which owned a lot of assets abroad sold most of them and brought the money back to Russia in order to help their nation’s war effort. This expression of genuine patriotism of course meant that due to the Revolution they lost everything and those who escaped to the West were poor.

    Contrast this to the elite produced by the Soviet system, who when given the chance after they liquidated their state, poured Russia’s wealth out of the country.

    • Agree: Ano4, Anatoly Karlin
  123. AP says:
    @Dmitry
    @Kent Nationalist

    "Genuine nationalists", or extreme nationalists, in the sense which it used to have a few years ago - as attacking of brown immigrants and even beliefs of "white supremacy" - is one of the most suppressed groups in Russia by the government and security services, although not without justification: hardcore hooligan groups used to cause murders, and also traumatized a lot of kids who experienced the 2000s internet with their videos.

    Nowadays, there is some kind of soft nationalism being allowed as activists, and which usually combines with politically acceptable imperialist intentions. I don't know anything about such people and they seem quite marginal. From very little I know, such soft nationalist groups, is usually a nerdy people, who would not hurt a kitten, and will not practice their kickboxing skills on immigrants' faces. Imperialist beliefs are usually product of reading history books.


    Stalinolatry is more common among apolitical boomers and older
     
    Views on Stalin are just mixed as you should expect from such a figure.

    How do you assess a leader who is personally evil, has caused many deaths of innocent people whose descendants campaigning for their memory today, who built a cult of personality, and who has been incompetent in some areas (for example in the beginning of the war), but competent in many others (including even things like architecture, if we want to look beyond the history's fastest industrialization and victor of largest ever military campaign). A leader who caught the motherland with a plough, and left with nuclear weapons, and the world's best space program. A most unpleasant recent leader, but also one of the most successful leaders of world history - with the latter qualified by the fact the empire collapsed within less than 40 years of his death.

    You can find such a mix of opinion of Lincoln in America, Cromwell in England, Napoleon in France, Mao in China.

    In Stalin it is perhaps more difficult issue to assess, due to things like, among others: persecution of his memory by Khrushchev; extent of brutal internal political persecutions; influence of foreign propaganda (a lot of unbalanced anti-Stalin propaganda was naively consumed by liberal intelligensia in the 1990ies); and temporary nature of his great achievements, with collapse of power within decades after his death.

    Replies: @AP

    A lot of the allegedly positive things about Stalin are just copes. People don’t want to think that their immense suffering was for nothing, a waste, so they pretend it was for the sake of something special when the sad reality it was for nothing. Most of what Stalin accomplished would have been done without him, and without the enormous cost in suffering. It is like an abused person who make sense of their terrible childhood by thinking that it made them “strong” or whatever, when plenty of people have such traits without having been abused.

    How do you assess a leader who is personally evil, has caused many deaths of innocent people whose descendants campaigning for their memory today, who built a cult of personality, and who has been incompetent in some areas (for example in the beginning of the war), but competent in many others (including even things like architecture, if we want to look beyond the history’s fastest industrialization and victor of largest ever military campaign).

    Actually Korea in 1920-1939 had a higher rate of industrialization than did the USSR in the same time period:

    https://eh.net/eha/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Williamson.pdf

    (page 33)

    Somehow a huge % of Koreans weren’t killed in order to accomplish this.

    And while Soviet industrialization rate surpassed that of the Tsars, the latter’s rate was still very high. Between 1870 and 1913 Russia’s manufacturing output growth rate was greater than that of any country in Western Europe and the USA.

    A leader who caught the motherland with a plough, and left with nuclear weapons,

    Russia was rapidly industrializing before Bolsheviks. Most of the civilized world managed to go from plows to nuclear technology without killing millions of its people and having its population living in relative poverty.

    What’s next – give credit to Communists for electrification, antibiotics, or mass literacy (which all came to be in every civilized country, Communism wasn’t necessary)

    and the world’s best space program. A most unpleasant recent leader, but also one of the most successful leaders of world history – with the latter qualified by the fact the empire collapsed within less than 40 years of his death.

    ” one of the most successful leaders of world history” – nearly lost a war to a much smaller country, allowing that country to kill 27 million of his citizens; owned vast Eurasia but was forced to be in a close second place to the American upstart; made a system so brittle it utterly collapsed as you said after only 40 years

    • Replies: @AltanBakshi
    @AP

    You may be right, but if Russia's government had officially your position on this topic, I think it would demoralize people and all the old wounds would be opened again. The history of heroic sacrifices would be replaced by a huge gaping wound, if BLM and Liberals in America can have that effect on society based on mostly imagined grievances, what that effect would be in Russia where the grievances are not imagined? China's history is full of endless and irrational suffering and still government there has behaved in wise manner and build a grand narrative that all that has led to united China. Yes it would be harder in nowadays Russia, but no matter if we hate or love Lenin, Stalin and the Communists, they are still part of Russia's history and had a huge effect on what we and our loved ones are now. Its not productive to dream of bright future of old Russia, who knows what then would happened, history never plays how humans imagine. Reality is that in good or bad those things that happened and we should accept them and move on, maybe even learn from them.

    Sometimes I wonder about Iconoclasm in Byzantine Empire, was that driven by same kind impulses? Monks were forced to break their vows, Churches and Monasteries were destroyed, secularized or even sometimed turned to stables. Relics too were destroyed. Of course Iconoclasm was totally different from Bolshevism and product of different historical circumstances. But clearly Communism was the Iconoclasm of Russian civilization, and both started after losing of war or wars.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi, @AP

    , @Anatoly Karlin
    @AP


    What’s next – give credit to Communists for electrification, antibiotics, or mass literacy (which all came to be in every civilized country, Communism wasn’t necessary)
     
    Well, that's what the sovok hardcore literally do.

    For them, it's as if not for the Bolsheviks, Russia would have permanently frozen in the state (they imagine) it was at in 1917.
  124. @AaronB
    @Ano4

    Ahh, thanks. I have been trying to limit my comments lately.

    I read your link. I've read other stuff from Bodhidharma. He's great, but I would recommend you check out Huang Po. It may give you a different perspective on Zen.

    I could not find anything in your link that promotes the idea that suffering, properly understood, leads to enlightenment. Zen enlightenment is not intellectual - it would be more in the spirit of Zen to say that you should cease trying to "make sense" of suffering.

    Your idea is found in all conventional religions, and Zen is a fresh break with conventional religion, so I found it in the wrong spirit.

    In any event, there are two Zen's, if not more. Some versions of Zen will say that one shouldn't even strive for enlightenment. I suspect Huang Po would be a very different kind of Zen than you're used to. Which is more logically consistent, is up to each of us to decide.

    Anyways, you're certainly entitled to your version of Zen, and it really isn't an occasion for argument - people like the ideas they like. If you're a striver, you'll interpret that into Zen.

    If you're an proud egotist like the Bakshi guy, your Buddhism will be about ego lol.

    There is a religion for all of us :)

    Replies: @Ano4, @AltanBakshi

    Better to be an egotist than psychopath fraud! All practitioners of Zen have taken refugee in the Triple Gem, all masters of Zen have lineage of Dharma transmission. All students of Zen believe in Luminous mind or what we in Tibetan traditions call the Clear light nature of the mind. All Buddhist traditions believe that Enlightenment/Nirvana is beyond all concepts, therefore there is no tradition which claims that enlightenment is an intellectual thing, but many traditions believe that you can point to the right direction by intellectual means. For Buddha Shakyamuni himselfs says in Lalitavistara sutra,

    “Profound, peaceful, elaboration-free, clear light, and non-composite;
    Such is the nectar-like Dharma I have discovered.
    Finding no one who can fathom this teaching,
    In silence I will retire into the woods.”

    Stop with your divisive speech, for the very basis of your views on Dharma are build on a rotten foundation, so in that kind of situation how there can be any understanding? Thats why I am constantly reminding you of the basics. Nirvana is same for all schools, but if you would have even an elementary understanding of Dharma you would know that its quite common in Mahayana traditions for teacher to discourage the striving towards Enlightenment, after all we make a huge difference between desire to achieve personal liberation from Samsara and having a desire to liberate all beings from Samsara, in Mahayana view we can never be truly liberated if we believe that we have separate self that is not dependent on others, which can be liberated. This is clearly a wrong view. And in Mahayana our highest aim is not even Nirvana, which westerners call Enlightenment, our highest aim is achieving the state of fully awakened Buddha, Samyaksambuddhahood. For a true Boddhisattva renounces even Nirvana for the welfare of all Beings!

  125. @inertial
    @mal

    Meh. I read unz.com, so I've seen this theory a million times. It's a prime example of the following very popular syllogism:

    1. I don't like X.
    2. I don't like Y.
    3. Therefore, X=Y.

    Replies: @mal

    Well, it is a lot more grounded in reality compared to assigning Marxism as a Russian national trait as pop culture does. So keep reading unz 🙂

  126. @AP
    @Dmitry

    A lot of the allegedly positive things about Stalin are just copes. People don't want to think that their immense suffering was for nothing, a waste, so they pretend it was for the sake of something special when the sad reality it was for nothing. Most of what Stalin accomplished would have been done without him, and without the enormous cost in suffering. It is like an abused person who make sense of their terrible childhood by thinking that it made them "strong" or whatever, when plenty of people have such traits without having been abused.


    How do you assess a leader who is personally evil, has caused many deaths of innocent people whose descendants campaigning for their memory today, who built a cult of personality, and who has been incompetent in some areas (for example in the beginning of the war), but competent in many others (including even things like architecture, if we want to look beyond the history’s fastest industrialization and victor of largest ever military campaign).
     
    Actually Korea in 1920-1939 had a higher rate of industrialization than did the USSR in the same time period:

    https://eh.net/eha/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Williamson.pdf

    (page 33)

    Somehow a huge % of Koreans weren't killed in order to accomplish this.

    And while Soviet industrialization rate surpassed that of the Tsars, the latter's rate was still very high. Between 1870 and 1913 Russia's manufacturing output growth rate was greater than that of any country in Western Europe and the USA.

    A leader who caught the motherland with a plough, and left with nuclear weapons,
     
    Russia was rapidly industrializing before Bolsheviks. Most of the civilized world managed to go from plows to nuclear technology without killing millions of its people and having its population living in relative poverty.

    What's next - give credit to Communists for electrification, antibiotics, or mass literacy (which all came to be in every civilized country, Communism wasn't necessary)

    and the world’s best space program. A most unpleasant recent leader, but also one of the most successful leaders of world history – with the latter qualified by the fact the empire collapsed within less than 40 years of his death.
     
    " one of the most successful leaders of world history" - nearly lost a war to a much smaller country, allowing that country to kill 27 million of his citizens; owned vast Eurasia but was forced to be in a close second place to the American upstart; made a system so brittle it utterly collapsed as you said after only 40 years

    Replies: @AltanBakshi, @Anatoly Karlin

    You may be right, but if Russia’s government had officially your position on this topic, I think it would demoralize people and all the old wounds would be opened again. The history of heroic sacrifices would be replaced by a huge gaping wound, if BLM and Liberals in America can have that effect on society based on mostly imagined grievances, what that effect would be in Russia where the grievances are not imagined? China’s history is full of endless and irrational suffering and still government there has behaved in wise manner and build a grand narrative that all that has led to united China. Yes it would be harder in nowadays Russia, but no matter if we hate or love Lenin, Stalin and the Communists, they are still part of Russia’s history and had a huge effect on what we and our loved ones are now. Its not productive to dream of bright future of old Russia, who knows what then would happened, history never plays how humans imagine. Reality is that in good or bad those things that happened and we should accept them and move on, maybe even learn from them.

    Sometimes I wonder about Iconoclasm in Byzantine Empire, was that driven by same kind impulses? Monks were forced to break their vows, Churches and Monasteries were destroyed, secularized or even sometimed turned to stables. Relics too were destroyed. Of course Iconoclasm was totally different from Bolshevism and product of different historical circumstances. But clearly Communism was the Iconoclasm of Russian civilization, and both started after losing of war or wars.

    • Replies: @AltanBakshi
    @AltanBakshi

    To dream of alternative future of old Imperial Russia, would been better choice of words. Its as conducive as to speculate about German empire that didnt lost one of the world wars. Yes Russia's situation is not ideal, but at least it has kept its independence unlike Germany, Japan and even United Kingdom. It still stands on its own legs, it could have been worse, like being divided by Imperial Germany and made a vassal state, or being subjugated by Nazis, or even worse if Soviet Union would had a Nuclear War with the USA. So there is much good in the current situation, and who knows what there will be in generation or two? Maybe there will be no more USA left or not as a hegemonic power in Europe and then Russia is free again to continue its historical mission....

    Replies: @AP, @Anatoly Karlin

    , @AP
    @AltanBakshi


    You may be right, but if Russia’s government had officially your position on this topic, I think it would demoralize people and all the old wounds would be opened again
     
    The way to approach this would be to emphasize the Russian people's greatness in withstanding and surviving the evil foreign-imposed Communist yoke and celebrating the process of rebuilding itself after they had finally overthrown it. Russia was subjected to and took upon itself the worst evil of the 20th century and survived, and is now starting to renew itself and prosper.

    Such an approach would also inoculate Russia against any BLM-type claims against it.

    Sometimes I wonder about Iconoclasm in Byzantine Empire, was that driven by same kind impulses? Monks were forced to break their vows, Churches and Monasteries were destroyed, secularized or even sometimed turned to stables. Relics too were destroyed. Of course Iconoclasm was totally different from Bolshevism and product of different historical circumstances. But clearly Communism was the Iconoclasm of Russian civilization, and both started after losing of war or wars.
     
    A brilliant observation! And Iconoclasm was foreign-inspired, linked to triumphant Islam, just as Bolshevism was a Western disease adopted in Russia. Bolshevism should be treated the same way in Russia, as Iconoclasm has been by the Orthodox world.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

  127. Dear AaronB this is for you. These are the basic points of Buddhism which are agreed by all authentic Buddhist schools(Zen included), They were composed for World Buddhist Sangha Council by venerable Walpola Rahula. I very much recommend his good book on Buddhist basics for everyone on this site who wants have an excellent introduction to the Buddhadharma. Books name is “What the Buddha Taught.”

    Basic points unifying Theravāda and Mahāyāna

    # The Buddha is our only Master (teacher and guide)

    1. We take refuge in the Buddha, the Dharma and the Saṅgha (the Three Jewels)
    2.We do not believe that this world is created and ruled by a God.
    3. We consider that the purpose of life is to develop compassion for all living beings without discrimination and to work for their good, happiness, and peace; and to develop wisdom (prajñā) leading to the realization of Ultimate Truth
    4. We accept the Four Noble Truths, namely duḥkha, the arising of duḥkha, the cessation of duḥkha, and the path leading to the cessation of duḥkha; and the law of cause and effect (pratītyasamutpāda)
    5. All conditioned things (saṃskāra) are impermanent (anitya) and duḥkha, and that all conditioned and unconditioned things (dharma) are without self (anātma) (see trilaksana).
    6. We accept the thirty-seven qualities conducive to enlightenment (bodhipakṣadharma) as different aspects of the Path taught by the Buddha leading to Enlightenment.
    7. There are three ways of attaining bodhi or Enlightenment: namely as a disciple (śrāvaka), as a pratyekabuddha and as a samyaksambuddha (perfectly and fully enlightened Buddha). We accept it as the highest, noblest, and most heroic to follow the career of a Bodhisattva and to become a samyaksambuddha in order to save others.
    8. We admit that in different countries there are differences regarding Buddhist beliefs and practices. These external forms and expressions should not be confused with the essential teachings of the Buddha.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    @AltanBakshi

    You are entitled to your religious beliefs. I do not understand why you are trying to force your beliefs on me in such an aggressive manner.

    I have never met a Buddhist who tries to aggressively force his beliefs on others through insult and mockery. Buddhists normally try to gently help someone wake up with compassion.

    From one point of view Chan/Zen can be regarded as a Buddhist heresy. Some people even think Zen is Taoism, and not Buddhism. From another point of view Zen is the true fulfilment of the Buddha's injunction not to desire. Outwardly, Zen rejects much of the formalism, practice, and ritual of conventional Budhism. Zen is irreverent and iconoclastic. This is particularly evident in the early Chinese masters, who relentlessly mocked the pompous self-importance that had come to characterize conventional Buddhism (and all conventional religion). This fresh spirit of irreverence is evident already in Bodhidarma's interview with the Emperor, where he mocks the latter's desire for accumulating merit and his general religious ernestness.

    You seem excessively preoccupied with the outward form of Buddhism, and what is orthodox or not, and to have missed its spirit and message. That is too bad. You can memorize and repeat doctrine well - but I do not think you are capable of understanding spiritual ideas.

    For my part, I am not a Buddhist - I don't think Buddha wanted people to be Buddhists, just as I don't think Jesus wanted people to be Christian. To be a true follower of the Buddha means to not take refuge anywhere - it is to live the Wisdom of Insecurity, the title of one of Alan Watts books. And even conventional religious Buddhism envisions a time when you discard Buddhism entirely, as you discard a raft once you've reached the other shore.

    But I fully support everyone's right to adopt whatever belief system and practices that bring them comfort. I'm not on any warpath to convert or proselytize. When I see an angry suffering person, I may share a perspective that has helped me, as I did with you - but if it's rejected, that is perfectly all right.

    So best of luck to you on your path.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

  128. @AltanBakshi
    @Europe Europa

    Hitler was genuinely ready to make a power sharing agreement with Britain, unlike with Russians, who he saw as slaves. After all British soldiers were treated in totally different manner than Soviets, and Hitler tried to make a peace with Britain after conquering the France. For Russians the war was an existential struggle from the very beginning. But for Britain it was just continuation of old English policy to have balance of power on continent.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi, @AltanBakshi

    I meant that British soldiers were treated totally different as PoW’s than Soviet soldiers were.

  129. @AltanBakshi
    @Europe Europa

    Hitler was genuinely ready to make a power sharing agreement with Britain, unlike with Russians, who he saw as slaves. After all British soldiers were treated in totally different manner than Soviets, and Hitler tried to make a peace with Britain after conquering the France. For Russians the war was an existential struggle from the very beginning. But for Britain it was just continuation of old English policy to have balance of power on continent.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi, @AltanBakshi

    I meant that British soldiers were treated totally different as PoW’s than Soviet soldiers were.

  130. @AltanBakshi
    @AP

    You may be right, but if Russia's government had officially your position on this topic, I think it would demoralize people and all the old wounds would be opened again. The history of heroic sacrifices would be replaced by a huge gaping wound, if BLM and Liberals in America can have that effect on society based on mostly imagined grievances, what that effect would be in Russia where the grievances are not imagined? China's history is full of endless and irrational suffering and still government there has behaved in wise manner and build a grand narrative that all that has led to united China. Yes it would be harder in nowadays Russia, but no matter if we hate or love Lenin, Stalin and the Communists, they are still part of Russia's history and had a huge effect on what we and our loved ones are now. Its not productive to dream of bright future of old Russia, who knows what then would happened, history never plays how humans imagine. Reality is that in good or bad those things that happened and we should accept them and move on, maybe even learn from them.

    Sometimes I wonder about Iconoclasm in Byzantine Empire, was that driven by same kind impulses? Monks were forced to break their vows, Churches and Monasteries were destroyed, secularized or even sometimed turned to stables. Relics too were destroyed. Of course Iconoclasm was totally different from Bolshevism and product of different historical circumstances. But clearly Communism was the Iconoclasm of Russian civilization, and both started after losing of war or wars.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi, @AP

    To dream of alternative future of old Imperial Russia, would been better choice of words. Its as conducive as to speculate about German empire that didnt lost one of the world wars. Yes Russia’s situation is not ideal, but at least it has kept its independence unlike Germany, Japan and even United Kingdom. It still stands on its own legs, it could have been worse, like being divided by Imperial Germany and made a vassal state, or being subjugated by Nazis, or even worse if Soviet Union would had a Nuclear War with the USA. So there is much good in the current situation, and who knows what there will be in generation or two? Maybe there will be no more USA left or not as a hegemonic power in Europe and then Russia is free again to continue its historical mission….

    • Replies: @AP
    @AltanBakshi


    It still stands on its own legs, it could have been worse, like being divided by Imperial Germany and made a vassal state
     
    This would have been a lesser evil than the Lenin/Stalin nightmare.
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    @AltanBakshi

    A Russia defeated by Germany in WW1 would be reduced (plus or minus) to its current borders within Europe - assuming no subsequent revisions - but would have almost twice its population, in the absence of the repeated demographic catastrophes of the 1917-1947 period.

    For Russia, the second greatest tragedy after losing the war by forfeit is that Germany didn't win it.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

  131. @AltanBakshi
    Dear AaronB this is for you. These are the basic points of Buddhism which are agreed by all authentic Buddhist schools(Zen included), They were composed for World Buddhist Sangha Council by venerable Walpola Rahula. I very much recommend his good book on Buddhist basics for everyone on this site who wants have an excellent introduction to the Buddhadharma. Books name is "What the Buddha Taught."

    Basic points unifying Theravāda and Mahāyāna

    # The Buddha is our only Master (teacher and guide)

    1. We take refuge in the Buddha, the Dharma and the Saṅgha (the Three Jewels)
    2.We do not believe that this world is created and ruled by a God.
    3. We consider that the purpose of life is to develop compassion for all living beings without discrimination and to work for their good, happiness, and peace; and to develop wisdom (prajñā) leading to the realization of Ultimate Truth
    4. We accept the Four Noble Truths, namely duḥkha, the arising of duḥkha, the cessation of duḥkha, and the path leading to the cessation of duḥkha; and the law of cause and effect (pratītyasamutpāda)
    5. All conditioned things (saṃskāra) are impermanent (anitya) and duḥkha, and that all conditioned and unconditioned things (dharma) are without self (anātma) (see trilaksana).
    6. We accept the thirty-seven qualities conducive to enlightenment (bodhipakṣadharma) as different aspects of the Path taught by the Buddha leading to Enlightenment.
    7. There are three ways of attaining bodhi or Enlightenment: namely as a disciple (śrāvaka), as a pratyekabuddha and as a samyaksambuddha (perfectly and fully enlightened Buddha). We accept it as the highest, noblest, and most heroic to follow the career of a Bodhisattva and to become a samyaksambuddha in order to save others.
    8. We admit that in different countries there are differences regarding Buddhist beliefs and practices. These external forms and expressions should not be confused with the essential teachings of the Buddha.

    Replies: @AaronB

    You are entitled to your religious beliefs. I do not understand why you are trying to force your beliefs on me in such an aggressive manner.

    I have never met a Buddhist who tries to aggressively force his beliefs on others through insult and mockery. Buddhists normally try to gently help someone wake up with compassion.

    From one point of view Chan/Zen can be regarded as a Buddhist heresy. Some people even think Zen is Taoism, and not Buddhism. From another point of view Zen is the true fulfilment of the Buddha’s injunction not to desire. Outwardly, Zen rejects much of the formalism, practice, and ritual of conventional Budhism. Zen is irreverent and iconoclastic. This is particularly evident in the early Chinese masters, who relentlessly mocked the pompous self-importance that had come to characterize conventional Buddhism (and all conventional religion). This fresh spirit of irreverence is evident already in Bodhidarma’s interview with the Emperor, where he mocks the latter’s desire for accumulating merit and his general religious ernestness.

    You seem excessively preoccupied with the outward form of Buddhism, and what is orthodox or not, and to have missed its spirit and message. That is too bad. You can memorize and repeat doctrine well – but I do not think you are capable of understanding spiritual ideas.

    For my part, I am not a Buddhist – I don’t think Buddha wanted people to be Buddhists, just as I don’t think Jesus wanted people to be Christian. To be a true follower of the Buddha means to not take refuge anywhere – it is to live the Wisdom of Insecurity, the title of one of Alan Watts books. And even conventional religious Buddhism envisions a time when you discard Buddhism entirely, as you discard a raft once you’ve reached the other shore.

    But I fully support everyone’s right to adopt whatever belief system and practices that bring them comfort. I’m not on any warpath to convert or proselytize. When I see an angry suffering person, I may share a perspective that has helped me, as I did with you – but if it’s rejected, that is perfectly all right.

    So best of luck to you on your path.

    • Replies: @AltanBakshi
    @AaronB

    You still avoid confrontation of your falsehoods like a scared and lost spirit. If the practitioners of the Zen were so much against conventional or organized religion, why then they put an utmost importance and trust into proper transmission of Dharma and had and have lineages of Ordination?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma_transmission
    Why then even Japanese fake monks take the Boddhisattva vow, which include three vows of Refuge? Yes they dont take vows according Vinaya but still they all vow to take refuge in the Triple Gem. All followers of Chan do so. Why it is so you lost spirit? And who the hell claims among Buddhist circles outside some in Hinayana Sangha, that Zen/Chan is a heresy?
    All great Mahasattva Boddhisattva beings do that which is compassionate and strive to liberate beings, so too is with Buddhist teachings, for even they can be perverted and people can be attached into rituals and texts, without understanding their profound meaning. In situation like that they are poison which should be avoided. For one of the three fetters, which are to be eradicated, is clinging to rites and rituals, which means that one believes that one can become pure or liberated simply through performance of rituals. This belief is shared by all schools and there is nothing new in it. Again you are spreading your delusions by saying that Chan is the way of Tao, you lost spirit! Oh and your Grande Finale to claim that Buddha didnt want people who follow him is so silly that it makes me sad that one can be so lost and confused. For he himself formulated the Triple Gem, for he himself said that he established the Sangha, the community of Aryan ones, for safeguarding of his teachings the Dharma, which leads one into the final shore, beyond all.

    Tadyatha Om Gate Gate Paragate Parasamgate Bodhi Svaha


    Lets hear from the Great Sage itself:


    To me —
    resolute in exertion
    near the river Nerañjara,
    making a great effort,
    doing jhana (Jhana/Dhyana is the Chan or Zen in Chinese or Japanese translations)
    to attain rest from the yoke —

    Dark one came,
    speaking words of compassion:
    "You are ashen, thin.
    Death is in
    your presence.
    Death
    has 1,000 parts of you.
    Only one part
    is your life.
    Live, good sir!
    Life is better.
    Alive,
    you can do
    acts of merit.
    Your living the holy life,
    performing the fire sacrifice,
    will heap up much merit.
    What use is exertion to you?
    Hard to follow
    — the path of exertion —
    hard to do, hard
    to sustain."

    Saying these verses,
    Mara stood in the Awakened One's presence.
    And to that Mara, speaking thus,
    the Blessed One said this:

    "Kinsman of the heedless,
    Evil One,
    come here for whatever purpose:
    I haven't, for merit,
    even the least bit of need.
    Those who have need of merit:
    those are the ones
    Mara's fit to address.

    In me are conviction,
    austerity,
    persistence,
    discernment.
    Why, when I'm so resolute
    do you petition me
    to live?
    This wind could burn up
    even river currents.
    Why, when I'm resolute
    shouldn't my blood dry away?
    As my blood dries up
    gall & phlegm dry up.
    As muscles waste away,
    the mind grows clearer;
    mindfulness, discernment,
    concentration stand
    more firm.
    Staying in this way,
    attaining the ultimate feeling,
    the mind has no interest
    in sensual passions.
    See:
    a being's
    purity!

    Sensual passions are your first army.
    Your second is called Discontent.
    Your third is Hunger & Thirst.
    Your fourth is called Craving.
    Fifth is Sloth & Drowsiness.
    Sixth is called Terror.
    Your seventh is Uncertainty.
    Hypocrisy & Stubbornness, your eighth.
    Gains, Offerings, Fame, & Status
    wrongly gained,
    and whoever would praise self
    & disparage others.

    That, Namuci, is your army,
    the Dark One's commando force.
    A coward can't defeat it,
    but one having defeated it
    gains bliss.
    Do I carry muñja grass?(Meaning that do I carry a white flag, in ancient Indian historical context)
    I spit on my life.
    Death in battle woud be better for me
    than that I, defeated,
    survive.

    Sinking here, they don't appear,
    some brahmans & contemplatives.
    They don't know the path
    by which those with good practices
    go.

    Seeing the bannered force
    on all sides —
    the troops, Mara
    along with his mount —
    I go into battle.
    May they not budge me
    from
    my spot.
    That army of yours,
    that the world with its devas
    can't overcome,
    I will smash with discernment —
    as an unfired pot with a stone.

    Making my resolve mastered,
    mindfulness well-established,
    I will go about, from kingdom to kingdom,
    training many disciples.
    They — heedful, resolute
    doing my bidding —
    despite your wishes, will go
    where, having gone,
    there's no grief."
    Mara:
    "For seven years, I've dogged
    the Blessed One's steps,
    but haven't gained an opening
    in the One Self-awakened
    & glorious.
    A crow circled a stone
    the color of fat
    — 'Maybe I've found
    something tender here.
    Maybe there's something delicious' —
    but not getting anything delicious there,
    the crow went away.
    Like the crow attacking the rock,
    I weary myself with Gotama."

    As he was overcome with sorrow,
    his lute fell from under his arm.
    Then he, the despondent spirit,
    right there
    disappeared.

    -Padhana Sutta

    https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.3.02.than.html

    You constantly see my ego, when for me it doesnt matter in this discussion, what matters for me is the defence of Dharma. And Alan Watts is no Buddhist, why you try to shame yourself again and again by referencing non-Buddhists in discussion about the truths of Buddhism? Then when you say that one should discard Buddhism like a raft, you are again stating twisted half truths. For one who is awakened those kind of things should be discarded, again there is a crucial mistake in your views, truly your foundations are rotten! It would be virtue if you would say that you are just inspired by Buddhism, but you claim to understand something of it when you again and again show that you are completely lost! At least ano4 confronted my statements and showed me that he has some understanding of Dharma, I say some understanding, because we all unawakened beings have only limited understanding, if we would have complete understanding then we would be Awakened ones.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi, @AaronB

  132. @AaronB
    @AltanBakshi

    You are entitled to your religious beliefs. I do not understand why you are trying to force your beliefs on me in such an aggressive manner.

    I have never met a Buddhist who tries to aggressively force his beliefs on others through insult and mockery. Buddhists normally try to gently help someone wake up with compassion.

    From one point of view Chan/Zen can be regarded as a Buddhist heresy. Some people even think Zen is Taoism, and not Buddhism. From another point of view Zen is the true fulfilment of the Buddha's injunction not to desire. Outwardly, Zen rejects much of the formalism, practice, and ritual of conventional Budhism. Zen is irreverent and iconoclastic. This is particularly evident in the early Chinese masters, who relentlessly mocked the pompous self-importance that had come to characterize conventional Buddhism (and all conventional religion). This fresh spirit of irreverence is evident already in Bodhidarma's interview with the Emperor, where he mocks the latter's desire for accumulating merit and his general religious ernestness.

    You seem excessively preoccupied with the outward form of Buddhism, and what is orthodox or not, and to have missed its spirit and message. That is too bad. You can memorize and repeat doctrine well - but I do not think you are capable of understanding spiritual ideas.

    For my part, I am not a Buddhist - I don't think Buddha wanted people to be Buddhists, just as I don't think Jesus wanted people to be Christian. To be a true follower of the Buddha means to not take refuge anywhere - it is to live the Wisdom of Insecurity, the title of one of Alan Watts books. And even conventional religious Buddhism envisions a time when you discard Buddhism entirely, as you discard a raft once you've reached the other shore.

    But I fully support everyone's right to adopt whatever belief system and practices that bring them comfort. I'm not on any warpath to convert or proselytize. When I see an angry suffering person, I may share a perspective that has helped me, as I did with you - but if it's rejected, that is perfectly all right.

    So best of luck to you on your path.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

    You still avoid confrontation of your falsehoods like a scared and lost spirit. If the practitioners of the Zen were so much against conventional or organized religion, why then they put an utmost importance and trust into proper transmission of Dharma and had and have lineages of Ordination?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma_transmission
    Why then even Japanese fake monks take the Boddhisattva vow, which include three vows of Refuge? Yes they dont take vows according Vinaya but still they all vow to take refuge in the Triple Gem. All followers of Chan do so. Why it is so you lost spirit? And who the hell claims among Buddhist circles outside some in Hinayana Sangha, that Zen/Chan is a heresy?
    All great Mahasattva Boddhisattva beings do that which is compassionate and strive to liberate beings, so too is with Buddhist teachings, for even they can be perverted and people can be attached into rituals and texts, without understanding their profound meaning. In situation like that they are poison which should be avoided. For one of the three fetters, which are to be eradicated, is clinging to rites and rituals, which means that one believes that one can become pure or liberated simply through performance of rituals. This belief is shared by all schools and there is nothing new in it. Again you are spreading your delusions by saying that Chan is the way of Tao, you lost spirit! Oh and your Grande Finale to claim that Buddha didnt want people who follow him is so silly that it makes me sad that one can be so lost and confused. For he himself formulated the Triple Gem, for he himself said that he established the Sangha, the community of Aryan ones, for safeguarding of his teachings the Dharma, which leads one into the final shore, beyond all.

    Tadyatha Om Gate Gate Paragate Parasamgate Bodhi Svaha

    Lets hear from the Great Sage itself:

    To me —
    resolute in exertion
    near the river Nerañjara,
    making a great effort,
    doing jhana (Jhana/Dhyana is the Chan or Zen in Chinese or Japanese translations)
    to attain rest from the yoke —

    Dark one came,
    speaking words of compassion:
    “You are ashen, thin.
    Death is in
    your presence.
    Death
    has 1,000 parts of you.
    Only one part
    is your life.
    Live, good sir!
    Life is better.
    Alive,
    you can do
    acts of merit.
    Your living the holy life,
    performing the fire sacrifice,
    will heap up much merit.
    What use is exertion to you?
    Hard to follow
    — the path of exertion —
    hard to do, hard
    to sustain.”

    Saying these verses,
    Mara stood in the Awakened One’s presence.
    And to that Mara, speaking thus,
    the Blessed One said this:

    “Kinsman of the heedless,
    Evil One,
    come here for whatever purpose:
    I haven’t, for merit,
    even the least bit of need.
    Those who have need of merit:
    those are the ones
    Mara’s fit to address.

    In me are conviction,
    austerity,
    persistence,
    discernment.
    Why, when I’m so resolute
    do you petition me
    to live?
    This wind could burn up
    even river currents.
    Why, when I’m resolute
    shouldn’t my blood dry away?
    As my blood dries up
    gall & phlegm dry up.
    As muscles waste away,
    the mind grows clearer;
    mindfulness, discernment,
    concentration stand
    more firm.
    Staying in this way,
    attaining the ultimate feeling,
    the mind has no interest
    in sensual passions.
    See:
    a being’s
    purity!

    Sensual passions are your first army.
    Your second is called Discontent.
    Your third is Hunger & Thirst.
    Your fourth is called Craving.
    Fifth is Sloth & Drowsiness.
    Sixth is called Terror.
    Your seventh is Uncertainty.
    Hypocrisy & Stubbornness, your eighth.
    Gains, Offerings, Fame, & Status
    wrongly gained,
    and whoever would praise self
    & disparage others.

    That, Namuci, is your army,
    the Dark One’s commando force.
    A coward can’t defeat it,
    but one having defeated it
    gains bliss.
    Do I carry muñja grass?(Meaning that do I carry a white flag, in ancient Indian historical context)
    I spit on my life.
    Death in battle woud be better for me
    than that I, defeated,
    survive.

    Sinking here, they don’t appear,
    some brahmans & contemplatives.
    They don’t know the path
    by which those with good practices
    go.

    Seeing the bannered force
    on all sides —
    the troops, Mara
    along with his mount —
    I go into battle.
    May they not budge me
    from
    my spot.
    That army of yours,
    that the world with its devas
    can’t overcome,
    I will smash with discernment —
    as an unfired pot with a stone.

    Making my resolve mastered,
    mindfulness well-established,
    I will go about, from kingdom to kingdom,
    training many disciples.
    They — heedful, resolute
    doing my bidding —
    despite your wishes, will go
    where, having gone,
    there’s no grief.”
    Mara:
    “For seven years, I’ve dogged
    the Blessed One’s steps,
    but haven’t gained an opening
    in the One Self-awakened
    & glorious.
    A crow circled a stone
    the color of fat
    — ‘Maybe I’ve found
    something tender here.
    Maybe there’s something delicious’ —
    but not getting anything delicious there,
    the crow went away.
    Like the crow attacking the rock,
    I weary myself with Gotama.”

    As he was overcome with sorrow,
    his lute fell from under his arm.
    Then he, the despondent spirit,
    right there
    disappeared.

    -Padhana Sutta

    https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.3.02.than.html

    You constantly see my ego, when for me it doesnt matter in this discussion, what matters for me is the defence of Dharma. And Alan Watts is no Buddhist, why you try to shame yourself again and again by referencing non-Buddhists in discussion about the truths of Buddhism? Then when you say that one should discard Buddhism like a raft, you are again stating twisted half truths. For one who is awakened those kind of things should be discarded, again there is a crucial mistake in your views, truly your foundations are rotten! It would be virtue if you would say that you are just inspired by Buddhism, but you claim to understand something of it when you again and again show that you are completely lost! At least ano4 confronted my statements and showed me that he has some understanding of Dharma, I say some understanding, because we all unawakened beings have only limited understanding, if we would have complete understanding then we would be Awakened ones.

    • Replies: @AltanBakshi
    @AltanBakshi

    I should have explained for the rest of you here that this excerpt that I posted, tells a story of Buddha's confrontation with the Mara/Namuci/Dark one, who is the devil figure in Buddhism. Mara's name has etymological connection to murder or nightMARE in English language, or death in Latin, Mortem and in my understanding has also etymological connection to Slavic demon called Mara and even to ancient Slavig goddess https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morana_(goddess). And also смерть in Russian. In other words he has very similar role in Buddhism as Devil in Christianity. These kind of etymological connections between Sanskrit and Russian happen very often. Although I have no Russian blood, I believe that Russians and Ukrainians have very strong connection to the ancient Aryans, who were people of Buddha himself. But Michael Witzel who is professor of Sanskrit at Harvard University explains it in better way so if you are interested read this text:

    Journal of the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies
    http://jocbs.org/index.php/jocbs/article/view/26
    or
    http://jocbs.org/index.php/jocbs/article/view/26/29

    Replies: @AP

    , @AaronB
    @AltanBakshi


    You still avoid confrontation of your falsehoods like a scared and lost spirit. If the practitioners of the Zen were so much against conventional or organized religion, why then they put an utmost importance and trust into proper transmission of Dharma and had and have lineages of Ordination?
     
    Because all religions get corrupted. All religions eventually become very different from what their founders said - often the opposite.

    Its human nature. The message of the founder is generally extremely radical and goes against the common sense of his time, generally a radical insight into the nature of reality created by extreme historical conditions, and later generations cannot stay at this level.

    That is why I say there are two or more Buddhism - there are multiple versions of every religion. There is the conventional institutionalized Buddhism which you belong to. There are also masters who write in different veins.

    For instance, Huang Po, the 8th century Chinese master, clearly says that all practice is pointless, that all striving is pointless. You already have everything you need and will only lose it by searching. Many verses in the Mumonkan - a central Zen compilation of sayings of masters - say that if you search even a little for Enlightenment, you completely lose it. That if you make any effort at all to accord with the Way, you miss it by a mile. Other Zen masters, like Dogen, say you should strive - although even they try and pretend its not really striving.

    Every one has to make his choice - does the logic of no-desire support striving or acceptance? Each has to decide for himself.

    I am not a Buddhist - I did not formally surrender myself to any institution, did not bind myself to agree with their interpretations. So I judge freely using my own mind and make clear I do not represent any official Buddhist school. I think that's honest and fair.

    I don't discuss doctrine with you because I'm not interested in the orthodoxy of any school, in approved doctrine, but in the underlying spiritual ideas discussed by ancient masters. These ideas help or hinder on their own merit, and discussing whether they are the approved doctrine of some later official school is irrelevant to me.

    These ideas of the ancient masters should be considered in a real way, as relevant to ones life - do they help or hinder your life. Not if they are the "approved" doctrine of some later church.

    Well, for me, anyways. Your interests seem different than mine.


    And again, I have no problem with you having your religious beliefs and I'm not disputing the official doctrines of any church. I'm discussing the ideas of some ancient Zen/Chan masters - not even all of them, but generally the older ones, and how they might help ones life.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

  133. @AltanBakshi
    @AaronB

    You still avoid confrontation of your falsehoods like a scared and lost spirit. If the practitioners of the Zen were so much against conventional or organized religion, why then they put an utmost importance and trust into proper transmission of Dharma and had and have lineages of Ordination?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma_transmission
    Why then even Japanese fake monks take the Boddhisattva vow, which include three vows of Refuge? Yes they dont take vows according Vinaya but still they all vow to take refuge in the Triple Gem. All followers of Chan do so. Why it is so you lost spirit? And who the hell claims among Buddhist circles outside some in Hinayana Sangha, that Zen/Chan is a heresy?
    All great Mahasattva Boddhisattva beings do that which is compassionate and strive to liberate beings, so too is with Buddhist teachings, for even they can be perverted and people can be attached into rituals and texts, without understanding their profound meaning. In situation like that they are poison which should be avoided. For one of the three fetters, which are to be eradicated, is clinging to rites and rituals, which means that one believes that one can become pure or liberated simply through performance of rituals. This belief is shared by all schools and there is nothing new in it. Again you are spreading your delusions by saying that Chan is the way of Tao, you lost spirit! Oh and your Grande Finale to claim that Buddha didnt want people who follow him is so silly that it makes me sad that one can be so lost and confused. For he himself formulated the Triple Gem, for he himself said that he established the Sangha, the community of Aryan ones, for safeguarding of his teachings the Dharma, which leads one into the final shore, beyond all.

    Tadyatha Om Gate Gate Paragate Parasamgate Bodhi Svaha


    Lets hear from the Great Sage itself:


    To me —
    resolute in exertion
    near the river Nerañjara,
    making a great effort,
    doing jhana (Jhana/Dhyana is the Chan or Zen in Chinese or Japanese translations)
    to attain rest from the yoke —

    Dark one came,
    speaking words of compassion:
    "You are ashen, thin.
    Death is in
    your presence.
    Death
    has 1,000 parts of you.
    Only one part
    is your life.
    Live, good sir!
    Life is better.
    Alive,
    you can do
    acts of merit.
    Your living the holy life,
    performing the fire sacrifice,
    will heap up much merit.
    What use is exertion to you?
    Hard to follow
    — the path of exertion —
    hard to do, hard
    to sustain."

    Saying these verses,
    Mara stood in the Awakened One's presence.
    And to that Mara, speaking thus,
    the Blessed One said this:

    "Kinsman of the heedless,
    Evil One,
    come here for whatever purpose:
    I haven't, for merit,
    even the least bit of need.
    Those who have need of merit:
    those are the ones
    Mara's fit to address.

    In me are conviction,
    austerity,
    persistence,
    discernment.
    Why, when I'm so resolute
    do you petition me
    to live?
    This wind could burn up
    even river currents.
    Why, when I'm resolute
    shouldn't my blood dry away?
    As my blood dries up
    gall & phlegm dry up.
    As muscles waste away,
    the mind grows clearer;
    mindfulness, discernment,
    concentration stand
    more firm.
    Staying in this way,
    attaining the ultimate feeling,
    the mind has no interest
    in sensual passions.
    See:
    a being's
    purity!

    Sensual passions are your first army.
    Your second is called Discontent.
    Your third is Hunger & Thirst.
    Your fourth is called Craving.
    Fifth is Sloth & Drowsiness.
    Sixth is called Terror.
    Your seventh is Uncertainty.
    Hypocrisy & Stubbornness, your eighth.
    Gains, Offerings, Fame, & Status
    wrongly gained,
    and whoever would praise self
    & disparage others.

    That, Namuci, is your army,
    the Dark One's commando force.
    A coward can't defeat it,
    but one having defeated it
    gains bliss.
    Do I carry muñja grass?(Meaning that do I carry a white flag, in ancient Indian historical context)
    I spit on my life.
    Death in battle woud be better for me
    than that I, defeated,
    survive.

    Sinking here, they don't appear,
    some brahmans & contemplatives.
    They don't know the path
    by which those with good practices
    go.

    Seeing the bannered force
    on all sides —
    the troops, Mara
    along with his mount —
    I go into battle.
    May they not budge me
    from
    my spot.
    That army of yours,
    that the world with its devas
    can't overcome,
    I will smash with discernment —
    as an unfired pot with a stone.

    Making my resolve mastered,
    mindfulness well-established,
    I will go about, from kingdom to kingdom,
    training many disciples.
    They — heedful, resolute
    doing my bidding —
    despite your wishes, will go
    where, having gone,
    there's no grief."
    Mara:
    "For seven years, I've dogged
    the Blessed One's steps,
    but haven't gained an opening
    in the One Self-awakened
    & glorious.
    A crow circled a stone
    the color of fat
    — 'Maybe I've found
    something tender here.
    Maybe there's something delicious' —
    but not getting anything delicious there,
    the crow went away.
    Like the crow attacking the rock,
    I weary myself with Gotama."

    As he was overcome with sorrow,
    his lute fell from under his arm.
    Then he, the despondent spirit,
    right there
    disappeared.

    -Padhana Sutta

    https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.3.02.than.html

    You constantly see my ego, when for me it doesnt matter in this discussion, what matters for me is the defence of Dharma. And Alan Watts is no Buddhist, why you try to shame yourself again and again by referencing non-Buddhists in discussion about the truths of Buddhism? Then when you say that one should discard Buddhism like a raft, you are again stating twisted half truths. For one who is awakened those kind of things should be discarded, again there is a crucial mistake in your views, truly your foundations are rotten! It would be virtue if you would say that you are just inspired by Buddhism, but you claim to understand something of it when you again and again show that you are completely lost! At least ano4 confronted my statements and showed me that he has some understanding of Dharma, I say some understanding, because we all unawakened beings have only limited understanding, if we would have complete understanding then we would be Awakened ones.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi, @AaronB

    I should have explained for the rest of you here that this excerpt that I posted, tells a story of Buddha’s confrontation with the Mara/Namuci/Dark one, who is the devil figure in Buddhism. Mara’s name has etymological connection to murder or nightMARE in English language, or death in Latin, Mortem and in my understanding has also etymological connection to Slavic demon called Mara and even to ancient Slavig goddess https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morana_(goddess). And also смерть in Russian. In other words he has very similar role in Buddhism as Devil in Christianity. These kind of etymological connections between Sanskrit and Russian happen very often. Although I have no Russian blood, I believe that Russians and Ukrainians have very strong connection to the ancient Aryans, who were people of Buddha himself. But Michael Witzel who is professor of Sanskrit at Harvard University explains it in better way so if you are interested read this text:

    Journal of the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies
    http://jocbs.org/index.php/jocbs/article/view/26
    or
    http://jocbs.org/index.php/jocbs/article/view/26/29

    • Replies: @AP
    @AltanBakshi

    The name "Buddha" itself matches the Ukrainian words budyty/будити or rozbudyty/розбудити, to wake someone up.

    Similar situation with the Russian language, of course:

    https://www.rbth.com/blogs/2014/11/01/sanskrit_and_russian_ancient_kinship_39451

    Modern Ukrainian pagan (ridnovira) mythology claims that original Aryans were Ukrainians (they link the word Aryan to "oraty", soil-tilling), Scythians were proto-Ukrainians (even though they were nomads, not agriculturalists), Buddha was a Scythian, thus Buddha was related to Ukrainians.

    To be clear, these are marginal people in Ukraine, I'm sure there are similar theories among Russian, Serbian, Polish etc. types. A Ukrainian comedy show made fun of people like this, and in a comedy skit showed a school where kids were taught that Ukrainians dug out the Black Sea and built the pyramids. Some Russian fools believed the skit was an actual documentary about Ukrainian schools and that they really teach that stuff.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi, @AltanBakshi, @Ano4

  134. @AltanBakshi
    @AaronB

    You still avoid confrontation of your falsehoods like a scared and lost spirit. If the practitioners of the Zen were so much against conventional or organized religion, why then they put an utmost importance and trust into proper transmission of Dharma and had and have lineages of Ordination?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma_transmission
    Why then even Japanese fake monks take the Boddhisattva vow, which include three vows of Refuge? Yes they dont take vows according Vinaya but still they all vow to take refuge in the Triple Gem. All followers of Chan do so. Why it is so you lost spirit? And who the hell claims among Buddhist circles outside some in Hinayana Sangha, that Zen/Chan is a heresy?
    All great Mahasattva Boddhisattva beings do that which is compassionate and strive to liberate beings, so too is with Buddhist teachings, for even they can be perverted and people can be attached into rituals and texts, without understanding their profound meaning. In situation like that they are poison which should be avoided. For one of the three fetters, which are to be eradicated, is clinging to rites and rituals, which means that one believes that one can become pure or liberated simply through performance of rituals. This belief is shared by all schools and there is nothing new in it. Again you are spreading your delusions by saying that Chan is the way of Tao, you lost spirit! Oh and your Grande Finale to claim that Buddha didnt want people who follow him is so silly that it makes me sad that one can be so lost and confused. For he himself formulated the Triple Gem, for he himself said that he established the Sangha, the community of Aryan ones, for safeguarding of his teachings the Dharma, which leads one into the final shore, beyond all.

    Tadyatha Om Gate Gate Paragate Parasamgate Bodhi Svaha


    Lets hear from the Great Sage itself:


    To me —
    resolute in exertion
    near the river Nerañjara,
    making a great effort,
    doing jhana (Jhana/Dhyana is the Chan or Zen in Chinese or Japanese translations)
    to attain rest from the yoke —

    Dark one came,
    speaking words of compassion:
    "You are ashen, thin.
    Death is in
    your presence.
    Death
    has 1,000 parts of you.
    Only one part
    is your life.
    Live, good sir!
    Life is better.
    Alive,
    you can do
    acts of merit.
    Your living the holy life,
    performing the fire sacrifice,
    will heap up much merit.
    What use is exertion to you?
    Hard to follow
    — the path of exertion —
    hard to do, hard
    to sustain."

    Saying these verses,
    Mara stood in the Awakened One's presence.
    And to that Mara, speaking thus,
    the Blessed One said this:

    "Kinsman of the heedless,
    Evil One,
    come here for whatever purpose:
    I haven't, for merit,
    even the least bit of need.
    Those who have need of merit:
    those are the ones
    Mara's fit to address.

    In me are conviction,
    austerity,
    persistence,
    discernment.
    Why, when I'm so resolute
    do you petition me
    to live?
    This wind could burn up
    even river currents.
    Why, when I'm resolute
    shouldn't my blood dry away?
    As my blood dries up
    gall & phlegm dry up.
    As muscles waste away,
    the mind grows clearer;
    mindfulness, discernment,
    concentration stand
    more firm.
    Staying in this way,
    attaining the ultimate feeling,
    the mind has no interest
    in sensual passions.
    See:
    a being's
    purity!

    Sensual passions are your first army.
    Your second is called Discontent.
    Your third is Hunger & Thirst.
    Your fourth is called Craving.
    Fifth is Sloth & Drowsiness.
    Sixth is called Terror.
    Your seventh is Uncertainty.
    Hypocrisy & Stubbornness, your eighth.
    Gains, Offerings, Fame, & Status
    wrongly gained,
    and whoever would praise self
    & disparage others.

    That, Namuci, is your army,
    the Dark One's commando force.
    A coward can't defeat it,
    but one having defeated it
    gains bliss.
    Do I carry muñja grass?(Meaning that do I carry a white flag, in ancient Indian historical context)
    I spit on my life.
    Death in battle woud be better for me
    than that I, defeated,
    survive.

    Sinking here, they don't appear,
    some brahmans & contemplatives.
    They don't know the path
    by which those with good practices
    go.

    Seeing the bannered force
    on all sides —
    the troops, Mara
    along with his mount —
    I go into battle.
    May they not budge me
    from
    my spot.
    That army of yours,
    that the world with its devas
    can't overcome,
    I will smash with discernment —
    as an unfired pot with a stone.

    Making my resolve mastered,
    mindfulness well-established,
    I will go about, from kingdom to kingdom,
    training many disciples.
    They — heedful, resolute
    doing my bidding —
    despite your wishes, will go
    where, having gone,
    there's no grief."
    Mara:
    "For seven years, I've dogged
    the Blessed One's steps,
    but haven't gained an opening
    in the One Self-awakened
    & glorious.
    A crow circled a stone
    the color of fat
    — 'Maybe I've found
    something tender here.
    Maybe there's something delicious' —
    but not getting anything delicious there,
    the crow went away.
    Like the crow attacking the rock,
    I weary myself with Gotama."

    As he was overcome with sorrow,
    his lute fell from under his arm.
    Then he, the despondent spirit,
    right there
    disappeared.

    -Padhana Sutta

    https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.3.02.than.html

    You constantly see my ego, when for me it doesnt matter in this discussion, what matters for me is the defence of Dharma. And Alan Watts is no Buddhist, why you try to shame yourself again and again by referencing non-Buddhists in discussion about the truths of Buddhism? Then when you say that one should discard Buddhism like a raft, you are again stating twisted half truths. For one who is awakened those kind of things should be discarded, again there is a crucial mistake in your views, truly your foundations are rotten! It would be virtue if you would say that you are just inspired by Buddhism, but you claim to understand something of it when you again and again show that you are completely lost! At least ano4 confronted my statements and showed me that he has some understanding of Dharma, I say some understanding, because we all unawakened beings have only limited understanding, if we would have complete understanding then we would be Awakened ones.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi, @AaronB

    You still avoid confrontation of your falsehoods like a scared and lost spirit. If the practitioners of the Zen were so much against conventional or organized religion, why then they put an utmost importance and trust into proper transmission of Dharma and had and have lineages of Ordination?

    Because all religions get corrupted. All religions eventually become very different from what their founders said – often the opposite.

    Its human nature. The message of the founder is generally extremely radical and goes against the common sense of his time, generally a radical insight into the nature of reality created by extreme historical conditions, and later generations cannot stay at this level.

    That is why I say there are two or more Buddhism – there are multiple versions of every religion. There is the conventional institutionalized Buddhism which you belong to. There are also masters who write in different veins.

    For instance, Huang Po, the 8th century Chinese master, clearly says that all practice is pointless, that all striving is pointless. You already have everything you need and will only lose it by searching. Many verses in the Mumonkan – a central Zen compilation of sayings of masters – say that if you search even a little for Enlightenment, you completely lose it. That if you make any effort at all to accord with the Way, you miss it by a mile. Other Zen masters, like Dogen, say you should strive – although even they try and pretend its not really striving.

    Every one has to make his choice – does the logic of no-desire support striving or acceptance? Each has to decide for himself.

    I am not a Buddhist – I did not formally surrender myself to any institution, did not bind myself to agree with their interpretations. So I judge freely using my own mind and make clear I do not represent any official Buddhist school. I think that’s honest and fair.

    I don’t discuss doctrine with you because I’m not interested in the orthodoxy of any school, in approved doctrine, but in the underlying spiritual ideas discussed by ancient masters. These ideas help or hinder on their own merit, and discussing whether they are the approved doctrine of some later official school is irrelevant to me.

    These ideas of the ancient masters should be considered in a real way, as relevant to ones life – do they help or hinder your life. Not if they are the “approved” doctrine of some later church.

    Well, for me, anyways. Your interests seem different than mine.

    And again, I have no problem with you having your religious beliefs and I’m not disputing the official doctrines of any church. I’m discussing the ideas of some ancient Zen/Chan masters – not even all of them, but generally the older ones, and how they might help ones life.

    • Replies: @AltanBakshi
    @AaronB

    But still every Zen master that you cite believed in ordination, lineage, Triple Gem and Dharma transmission. Oh you are so lost that you yourself want to believe that all the creation/reality is as lost as you, so its easier for you to just muddy the waters. If you would understood something from the Padhana Sutta, you would noticed that Mara tried to encourage Buddha to practice meaningless rituals and that Buddha said that he does not need any merit that beings are already pure, but still Buddha shows that he will do the most resolute practice, without waiting any merit. In the same text Buddha also said that he will have followers who will do his bidding. Even that he is doing Chan/Jhana. So pretty basic Zen stuff! But your muddled mind will just see divisions and versions. Also you lack of resolution thats why you think that later generations cant achieve same, in the end you have no faith in Buddha, unlike all Zen masters through history. Zen just gives you momentarily peace, for you it isnt something profound, sublime and transcendental. Or lets say that for you Zen brings happiness similar of scratching of mosquitos bite, when the true Zen would be happiness without mosquitos bite! Think little bit about the state of the Buddha. Someone like Buddha is willing to forever to help beings, without getting anything in return, is this not the aim of the Zen practice? To beat minds attachments, to be completely free of them. To have mind without any constrictions or limits. To realize the purity of the mind, free from Kleshas/stains.

    I dont know which temples and monasteries you have visited in Asian countries, but most monastics have very limited skills in English language and really do not often take very seriously Westerners. Therefore its just easier for them to smile, say couple phrases and go on with their lives. I am myself follower of Atisha's Kadam or Tshongkapa's Ganden/Gelug tradition, we follow the traditions of Nalanda, "Gandenpas emphasize the ways of the learned. They delight in debate and are masters of discourse!" Like the great Dzogchenpa Mipham the Great said. Our discussion has been quite peaceful compared to what I have seen sometimes when young monks debate.

    Replies: @AaronB

  135. @AaronB
    @AltanBakshi


    You still avoid confrontation of your falsehoods like a scared and lost spirit. If the practitioners of the Zen were so much against conventional or organized religion, why then they put an utmost importance and trust into proper transmission of Dharma and had and have lineages of Ordination?
     
    Because all religions get corrupted. All religions eventually become very different from what their founders said - often the opposite.

    Its human nature. The message of the founder is generally extremely radical and goes against the common sense of his time, generally a radical insight into the nature of reality created by extreme historical conditions, and later generations cannot stay at this level.

    That is why I say there are two or more Buddhism - there are multiple versions of every religion. There is the conventional institutionalized Buddhism which you belong to. There are also masters who write in different veins.

    For instance, Huang Po, the 8th century Chinese master, clearly says that all practice is pointless, that all striving is pointless. You already have everything you need and will only lose it by searching. Many verses in the Mumonkan - a central Zen compilation of sayings of masters - say that if you search even a little for Enlightenment, you completely lose it. That if you make any effort at all to accord with the Way, you miss it by a mile. Other Zen masters, like Dogen, say you should strive - although even they try and pretend its not really striving.

    Every one has to make his choice - does the logic of no-desire support striving or acceptance? Each has to decide for himself.

    I am not a Buddhist - I did not formally surrender myself to any institution, did not bind myself to agree with their interpretations. So I judge freely using my own mind and make clear I do not represent any official Buddhist school. I think that's honest and fair.

    I don't discuss doctrine with you because I'm not interested in the orthodoxy of any school, in approved doctrine, but in the underlying spiritual ideas discussed by ancient masters. These ideas help or hinder on their own merit, and discussing whether they are the approved doctrine of some later official school is irrelevant to me.

    These ideas of the ancient masters should be considered in a real way, as relevant to ones life - do they help or hinder your life. Not if they are the "approved" doctrine of some later church.

    Well, for me, anyways. Your interests seem different than mine.


    And again, I have no problem with you having your religious beliefs and I'm not disputing the official doctrines of any church. I'm discussing the ideas of some ancient Zen/Chan masters - not even all of them, but generally the older ones, and how they might help ones life.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

    But still every Zen master that you cite believed in ordination, lineage, Triple Gem and Dharma transmission. Oh you are so lost that you yourself want to believe that all the creation/reality is as lost as you, so its easier for you to just muddy the waters. If you would understood something from the Padhana Sutta, you would noticed that Mara tried to encourage Buddha to practice meaningless rituals and that Buddha said that he does not need any merit that beings are already pure, but still Buddha shows that he will do the most resolute practice, without waiting any merit. In the same text Buddha also said that he will have followers who will do his bidding. Even that he is doing Chan/Jhana. So pretty basic Zen stuff! But your muddled mind will just see divisions and versions. Also you lack of resolution thats why you think that later generations cant achieve same, in the end you have no faith in Buddha, unlike all Zen masters through history. Zen just gives you momentarily peace, for you it isnt something profound, sublime and transcendental. Or lets say that for you Zen brings happiness similar of scratching of mosquitos bite, when the true Zen would be happiness without mosquitos bite! Think little bit about the state of the Buddha. Someone like Buddha is willing to forever to help beings, without getting anything in return, is this not the aim of the Zen practice? To beat minds attachments, to be completely free of them. To have mind without any constrictions or limits. To realize the purity of the mind, free from Kleshas/stains.

    I dont know which temples and monasteries you have visited in Asian countries, but most monastics have very limited skills in English language and really do not often take very seriously Westerners. Therefore its just easier for them to smile, say couple phrases and go on with their lives. I am myself follower of Atisha’s Kadam or Tshongkapa’s Ganden/Gelug tradition, we follow the traditions of Nalanda, “Gandenpas emphasize the ways of the learned. They delight in debate and are masters of discourse!” Like the great Dzogchenpa Mipham the Great said. Our discussion has been quite peaceful compared to what I have seen sometimes when young monks debate.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    @AltanBakshi

    Many of the masters I am talking about make no mention of lineage or schools.

    There is no reason not to operate within existing social structures, to avoid persecution or not to disturb people who cannot handle the message. Sufis did this, and Christian mystics did this.


    Also you lack of resolution thats why you think that later generations cant achieve same
     
    The mainstream, conventional approach in all societies is to strive and seek security - to build complex intellectual castles.

    Resolution - to accomplish, to build up, to grasp - is an attempt at grounding oneself securely. The radical message of the Buddha is that this impulse leads to suffering. One should "let go" instead.

    Since it goes counter to superficial common sense and social conditioning, it is hard to maintain for most people for long.

    Zen just gives you momentarily peace, for you it isnt something profound, sublime and transcendental.
     
    What Zen is great at is seeing that ordinary life IS sublime. Zen constantly says how Enlightenment is "nothing special", its just the ordinary activities of ordinary life. Seeking the transcendental makes you miss the sublime and profound in ordinary life.

    Life is miraculous. The world is miraculous. Seeking the transcendental is to miss that you already have it.

    That's Zen.

    Someone like Buddha is willing to forever to help beings, without getting anything in return, is this not the aim of the Zen practice? To beat minds attachments, to be completely free of them. To have mind without any constrictions or limits. To realize the purity of the mind, free from Kleshas/stains.
     
    This is conventional religious institutional Buddhism. It isn't Chan. There is no need to beat any attachments or be free of them because they don't really exist.

    In the Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch, the monks are asked to submit poems to demonstrate their understanding in order to determine who will succeed the Fifth Patriarch.

    The smartest monk, who everyone is sure will get chosen, basically submits a poem that says what you say - that you have to polish the mind until it is clear of grime.

    The lowest monk in the school submits a poem anonymously saying basically - what mind is there to polish? What grime is there to get rid of?

    (You can get the exact wording online, I'm paraphrasing).

    He gets chosen as the Sixth Patriarch.

    Now, I'm not saying your beliefs are not right for you - there are levels of enlightenment. People see differently and we all have to go with what works for us or brings us comfort. One of the wonderful things about Mahayana is that it is such a spacious and large vehicle - it has methods for everyone. It has teachings about striving and teachings about relaxing and letting go. One adopts what works for his level.

    I am certainly not advising you to drop everything, relax, and just let go - that is obviously not where you're "at". Although you may eventually see that striving is unnecessary, you're not there now.

    The majority of people, because of social conditioning, will not understand or find sympathetic the ideas in describing here. And that's fine.

    What I am describing is just one spiritual path that is appropriate to some people at some part of their development.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

  136. @Ano4
    @ivan

    Just like current Russian elites, a great part of the Russian Aristocracy of old had no clue about how Russian people fared and what they wanted. Today, the Rublyovka types, Moscow Golden Mile people and Garden Ring inner Muscovite crowd believe they got it all under control.

    Just like the Tsar in 1905 probably thought that all is well before the first Revolution started. A dozen years later he and his family got shot in a basement. And his Empire was in tatters.

    The Deep People (to use a term often used nowadays) in Russia are hard for the elites to grasp and quite easy to despise. The differences of course between the Empire's times and the Federation days is that (1) Russians have been through a social collapse twice in a century (2) today's Elite has a moral compulsion to shred into pieces anyone standing against it.

    So maybe this time all will end well despite the fall in the price of the major exports and the cut in the federal budget (10% so far). But maybe things will spiral out of control again. In Russia everything is possible, the best and the worst and everything in between. And perhaps that's what is interesting about it. Maybe they will even replace all these Lenin statues with the statues of Stalin...

    Replies: @Ivan

    I have not been to either Russia or Europe but they strike me as a long suffering and forgiving people. I mean those who identify as Russians be they the Orthodox, atheists, Muslims, Jews or Buddhists, even if they can’t stand the Catholics. I do wish that they find peace and prosperity just as anyone else.

    • Replies: @Ano4
    @Ivan

    It's not the Catholic people that they can't stand, it's the Catholic Church that they are wary of. Too much bad blood between Russia and the Latin West.

    I agree that they have suffered a lot and hope that they have suffered enough and will know some peace and quiet and prosperous living.

  137. @Ivan
    @Ano4

    I have not been to either Russia or Europe but they strike me as a long suffering and forgiving people. I mean those who identify as Russians be they the Orthodox, atheists, Muslims, Jews or Buddhists, even if they can't stand the Catholics. I do wish that they find peace and prosperity just as anyone else.

    Replies: @Ano4

    It’s not the Catholic people that they can’t stand, it’s the Catholic Church that they are wary of. Too much bad blood between Russia and the Latin West.

    I agree that they have suffered a lot and hope that they have suffered enough and will know some peace and quiet and prosperous living.

    • Thanks: Ivan
  138. Now I see why AaronB is so confuced, and cant make sense of Dharma and Zen. I should have myself perceived this sooner. How blind I have been.

    In Mahayana we believe in Two truths, that there is conventional or relative truth and then there is an absolute truth. Conventional truth would be that there is an apple and I am eating a apple. Ultimate truth would be to see the empty nature of apple, which is interdependent and co-arisen with perceiver.

    Its just that I did not know that Two Truths doctrine of Nagarjuna is accepted and followed by Chan, which is strange for I thought that they follow purely Yogacara-philosophy and not Madhyamaka. But wonderful shows how united the Mahayana is after all. But now I can say that all Zen masters that you cited believed in Two Truths and made those points from the view of the Ultimate Truth!

    The Buddha’s teaching of the Dharma is based on two truths: a truth of worldly convention and an ultimate truth. Those who do not understand the distinction drawn between these two truths do not understand the Buddha’s profound truth. Without a foundation in the conventional truth the significance of the ultimate cannot be taught. Without understanding the significance of the ultimate, liberation is not achieved.

    -Nagarjuna, Mulamadhyamakakarika

  139. @AltanBakshi
    @AltanBakshi

    To dream of alternative future of old Imperial Russia, would been better choice of words. Its as conducive as to speculate about German empire that didnt lost one of the world wars. Yes Russia's situation is not ideal, but at least it has kept its independence unlike Germany, Japan and even United Kingdom. It still stands on its own legs, it could have been worse, like being divided by Imperial Germany and made a vassal state, or being subjugated by Nazis, or even worse if Soviet Union would had a Nuclear War with the USA. So there is much good in the current situation, and who knows what there will be in generation or two? Maybe there will be no more USA left or not as a hegemonic power in Europe and then Russia is free again to continue its historical mission....

    Replies: @AP, @Anatoly Karlin

    It still stands on its own legs, it could have been worse, like being divided by Imperial Germany and made a vassal state

    This would have been a lesser evil than the Lenin/Stalin nightmare.

  140. AP says:
    @AltanBakshi
    @AltanBakshi

    I should have explained for the rest of you here that this excerpt that I posted, tells a story of Buddha's confrontation with the Mara/Namuci/Dark one, who is the devil figure in Buddhism. Mara's name has etymological connection to murder or nightMARE in English language, or death in Latin, Mortem and in my understanding has also etymological connection to Slavic demon called Mara and even to ancient Slavig goddess https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morana_(goddess). And also смерть in Russian. In other words he has very similar role in Buddhism as Devil in Christianity. These kind of etymological connections between Sanskrit and Russian happen very often. Although I have no Russian blood, I believe that Russians and Ukrainians have very strong connection to the ancient Aryans, who were people of Buddha himself. But Michael Witzel who is professor of Sanskrit at Harvard University explains it in better way so if you are interested read this text:

    Journal of the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies
    http://jocbs.org/index.php/jocbs/article/view/26
    or
    http://jocbs.org/index.php/jocbs/article/view/26/29

    Replies: @AP

    The name “Buddha” itself matches the Ukrainian words budyty/будити or rozbudyty/розбудити, to wake someone up.

    Similar situation with the Russian language, of course:

    https://www.rbth.com/blogs/2014/11/01/sanskrit_and_russian_ancient_kinship_39451

    Modern Ukrainian pagan (ridnovira) mythology claims that original Aryans were Ukrainians (they link the word Aryan to “oraty”, soil-tilling), Scythians were proto-Ukrainians (even though they were nomads, not agriculturalists), Buddha was a Scythian, thus Buddha was related to Ukrainians.

    To be clear, these are marginal people in Ukraine, I’m sure there are similar theories among Russian, Serbian, Polish etc. types. A Ukrainian comedy show made fun of people like this, and in a comedy skit showed a school where kids were taught that Ukrainians dug out the Black Sea and built the pyramids. Some Russian fools believed the skit was an actual documentary about Ukrainian schools and that they really teach that stuff.

    • Replies: @AltanBakshi
    @AP

    AP I did not mean nationalist fringe theories, but connection through Combed Ware culture and Yamnaya, and that Slavs had probably had strong connection to Iranic peoples before Turkic peoples conquered Sarmatian and Alan lands in 5th or 6th century.
    Buddha's people Shakyas were part of the last tribal migrations of Aryans from the Central Asia. Who had preserved ancient Aryan traditions. After all Buddhist Stupa is just Kurgan of the ancient Aryan nomads of the steppe, two first lay followers of Buddha were from Bactria, which is the border region between Afghanistan and Uzbekistan, Trapusa and Bahalika. And Buddha told hundreds of stories about the ancient Aryan wheel turning monarchs, Chakravartins, who were his ancestors. For wheels of their chariots could travel/turn in any direction. Buddha's funeral rites were done according the honors of great Aryan kings. He was cremated on huge funeral pyre and his remains were put into huge Stupa/Kurgan in Kushinagar. Buddha never forbid his followers to eat cows, but he forbid eating of horse for its nobility.(It was hard sacrifice for me, horsemeat and especially horses liver have an excellent taste.)

    AaronB I am very grateful to you, for my knowledge of Chan had big holes, and I personally thought that they follow strictly Yogachara, but it fills me with joy to know that they follow Nagarjuna Two Truths, truly our Dharma has same meaning only exposition differs! For we Gelug also follow both, but we give pre-eminence to Madhyamaka.

    Replies: @AaronB

    , @AltanBakshi
    @AP

    Your link is such bullshit and based on pseudoscience, there is consensus among scholars that there were Aryan migrations or invasions to Indian subcontinent. Also there are no ancient Shiva statues from Russia, there can be some from the Southern Russia for there was small community of Indian merchants after the conquest of Astrakhan khanate. Really it hurts my head to read such trash. I believed that you are man of truth, still I believe so, but that link just utterly stupid.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi, @AP

    , @Ano4
    @AP

    There were also sedentary Scythians farmers further north from the Pontic steppes.



    http://newskif.su/2013/%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%84%D1%8B-%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%85%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8/#:~:text=%D0%A1%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%84%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B8%2D%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%85%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8F%D0%BC%D0%B8%20%D0%BC%D1%8B%20%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%B5%D0%BC%20%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%B5,%D1%8D%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BC%20%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BC%20%D0%93%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BE%D1%82%20%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B8%20%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%82.&text=%D0%92%20%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%87%D1%8C%D0%B5%20%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BF%D0%B8%20%D1%81%20%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BF%D1%8C%D1%8E%20%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%89%D0%B0%20%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B7%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8E%D1%82%20%D0%B5%D1%89%D0%B5%20%D0%BD%D0%B0%20%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC%20%D1%8D%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%B5.

    Interestingly enough the analysis of the late Trypolian/Cucuteni tumulus DNA has yielded Y Y haplogroup R1a Z93 a typically Scythian and nowadays Turkish haplogroup.

    https://indo-european.eu/2020/03/earliest-r1a-z93-from-late-trypillian-in-the-podolian-volhynian-upland/

    Modern Slavs are of other Y haplogroup clades originating in the Balto-Slavic people of late antiquity, but of course both branches are related and both have Aryan origins.

    Slavic oрати is indeed from the same root as Arya and the Finno-Ugric orja which for the Finns means slave probably due to the assimilation of the Balto-Slavic populations in the beginning of common era in the Baltic area by the Finnish newcomers of Akozino-Ananino warrior culture.

    Also think of the Scandinavian Aesir vs Vannir fighting and the domination of the Vannir by the Aesir. Although being described as gods of the Norse pantheon, the Aesir in the Islandic Sagas originate from Asia and are mentioned as Turks that had a kingdom somewhere down south where they imposed themselves upon the Vannir.

    In Estonian Russia is Venemaa and in Finish it is Venäjä. For their German and Scandinavian neighbors the Western Slavs are Wends. For the Roman and Byzantine historians the proto-Slavs are Antes and Sklavins. Ант = Wend = Vene = Vannir. Sklavin = Slav = Slavyanin. Also because of the Germanic depredations against the Slavs/Wends during the Carolingian times and Drang nach Osten Slav = slave and Sklavin = esclave.

  141. AP says:
    @AltanBakshi
    @AP

    You may be right, but if Russia's government had officially your position on this topic, I think it would demoralize people and all the old wounds would be opened again. The history of heroic sacrifices would be replaced by a huge gaping wound, if BLM and Liberals in America can have that effect on society based on mostly imagined grievances, what that effect would be in Russia where the grievances are not imagined? China's history is full of endless and irrational suffering and still government there has behaved in wise manner and build a grand narrative that all that has led to united China. Yes it would be harder in nowadays Russia, but no matter if we hate or love Lenin, Stalin and the Communists, they are still part of Russia's history and had a huge effect on what we and our loved ones are now. Its not productive to dream of bright future of old Russia, who knows what then would happened, history never plays how humans imagine. Reality is that in good or bad those things that happened and we should accept them and move on, maybe even learn from them.

    Sometimes I wonder about Iconoclasm in Byzantine Empire, was that driven by same kind impulses? Monks were forced to break their vows, Churches and Monasteries were destroyed, secularized or even sometimed turned to stables. Relics too were destroyed. Of course Iconoclasm was totally different from Bolshevism and product of different historical circumstances. But clearly Communism was the Iconoclasm of Russian civilization, and both started after losing of war or wars.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi, @AP

    You may be right, but if Russia’s government had officially your position on this topic, I think it would demoralize people and all the old wounds would be opened again

    The way to approach this would be to emphasize the Russian people’s greatness in withstanding and surviving the evil foreign-imposed Communist yoke and celebrating the process of rebuilding itself after they had finally overthrown it. Russia was subjected to and took upon itself the worst evil of the 20th century and survived, and is now starting to renew itself and prosper.

    Such an approach would also inoculate Russia against any BLM-type claims against it.

    Sometimes I wonder about Iconoclasm in Byzantine Empire, was that driven by same kind impulses? Monks were forced to break their vows, Churches and Monasteries were destroyed, secularized or even sometimed turned to stables. Relics too were destroyed. Of course Iconoclasm was totally different from Bolshevism and product of different historical circumstances. But clearly Communism was the Iconoclasm of Russian civilization, and both started after losing of war or wars.

    A brilliant observation! And Iconoclasm was foreign-inspired, linked to triumphant Islam, just as Bolshevism was a Western disease adopted in Russia. Bolshevism should be treated the same way in Russia, as Iconoclasm has been by the Orthodox world.

    • Agree: Ano4, Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @AltanBakshi
    @AP

    But its impossible to say that all that Communists did was evil, like I said victory in WW2, Space program, literacy rate, mass education, healthcare, colonial struggle etc etc. It would have bipolar an effect on Russian people. For heavens sake, look Ukrainians!

    The way to approach this would be to emphasize the Ukrainian people’s greatness in withstanding and surviving the evil foreign-imposed Communist yoke and celebrating the process of rebuilding itself after they had finally overthrown it. Ukraine was subjected to and took upon itself the worst evil of the 20th century and survived, and is now starting to renew itself and prosper.

    Sorry If I sound insulting, I genuinely like your commenting here.

    Replies: @AP

  142. @AP
    @AltanBakshi

    The name "Buddha" itself matches the Ukrainian words budyty/будити or rozbudyty/розбудити, to wake someone up.

    Similar situation with the Russian language, of course:

    https://www.rbth.com/blogs/2014/11/01/sanskrit_and_russian_ancient_kinship_39451

    Modern Ukrainian pagan (ridnovira) mythology claims that original Aryans were Ukrainians (they link the word Aryan to "oraty", soil-tilling), Scythians were proto-Ukrainians (even though they were nomads, not agriculturalists), Buddha was a Scythian, thus Buddha was related to Ukrainians.

    To be clear, these are marginal people in Ukraine, I'm sure there are similar theories among Russian, Serbian, Polish etc. types. A Ukrainian comedy show made fun of people like this, and in a comedy skit showed a school where kids were taught that Ukrainians dug out the Black Sea and built the pyramids. Some Russian fools believed the skit was an actual documentary about Ukrainian schools and that they really teach that stuff.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi, @AltanBakshi, @Ano4

    AP I did not mean nationalist fringe theories, but connection through Combed Ware culture and Yamnaya, and that Slavs had probably had strong connection to Iranic peoples before Turkic peoples conquered Sarmatian and Alan lands in 5th or 6th century.
    Buddha’s people Shakyas were part of the last tribal migrations of Aryans from the Central Asia. Who had preserved ancient Aryan traditions. After all Buddhist Stupa is just Kurgan of the ancient Aryan nomads of the steppe, two first lay followers of Buddha were from Bactria, which is the border region between Afghanistan and Uzbekistan, Trapusa and Bahalika. And Buddha told hundreds of stories about the ancient Aryan wheel turning monarchs, Chakravartins, who were his ancestors. For wheels of their chariots could travel/turn in any direction. Buddha’s funeral rites were done according the honors of great Aryan kings. He was cremated on huge funeral pyre and his remains were put into huge Stupa/Kurgan in Kushinagar. Buddha never forbid his followers to eat cows, but he forbid eating of horse for its nobility.(It was hard sacrifice for me, horsemeat and especially horses liver have an excellent taste.)

    AaronB I am very grateful to you, for my knowledge of Chan had big holes, and I personally thought that they follow strictly Yogachara, but it fills me with joy to know that they follow Nagarjuna Two Truths, truly our Dharma has same meaning only exposition differs! For we Gelug also follow both, but we give pre-eminence to Madhyamaka.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    @AltanBakshi

    Yes, Madhyamika and Nagarjuna are very influential in institutionalized school Zen.

    The Lankavatara Sutra, the Heart Sutra, and the Diamond Sutras are the big ones for them.

    Chan, Atiyoga (Tibetan Zen), and Mahamudra all derive from the same Mahayana sources.

    I am glad you are happy.

    But ultimately what matters are the ideas :)

  143. @AP
    @AltanBakshi

    The name "Buddha" itself matches the Ukrainian words budyty/будити or rozbudyty/розбудити, to wake someone up.

    Similar situation with the Russian language, of course:

    https://www.rbth.com/blogs/2014/11/01/sanskrit_and_russian_ancient_kinship_39451

    Modern Ukrainian pagan (ridnovira) mythology claims that original Aryans were Ukrainians (they link the word Aryan to "oraty", soil-tilling), Scythians were proto-Ukrainians (even though they were nomads, not agriculturalists), Buddha was a Scythian, thus Buddha was related to Ukrainians.

    To be clear, these are marginal people in Ukraine, I'm sure there are similar theories among Russian, Serbian, Polish etc. types. A Ukrainian comedy show made fun of people like this, and in a comedy skit showed a school where kids were taught that Ukrainians dug out the Black Sea and built the pyramids. Some Russian fools believed the skit was an actual documentary about Ukrainian schools and that they really teach that stuff.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi, @AltanBakshi, @Ano4

    Your link is such bullshit and based on pseudoscience, there is consensus among scholars that there were Aryan migrations or invasions to Indian subcontinent. Also there are no ancient Shiva statues from Russia, there can be some from the Southern Russia for there was small community of Indian merchants after the conquest of Astrakhan khanate. Really it hurts my head to read such trash. I believed that you are man of truth, still I believe so, but that link just utterly stupid.

    • Replies: @AltanBakshi
    @AltanBakshi

    There can be some 400 year old statues. Oh how some Hindutva people love to say that there was 30000000 year old statue of Shiva discovered in Norway or Australia etc, and 200000000 year old Lingam found from the Atlantis and Pluto. Im saying in jest but they often have crazy claims. Almost on the level of fringe Ukrainian nationalists.

    , @AP
    @AltanBakshi


    Your link is such bullshit and based on pseudoscience
     
    I was only using it to point out word similarities, I don't vouch to whatever claims were written.

    there is consensus among scholars that there were Aryan migrations or invasions to Indian subcontinent.
     
    Of course.

    Really it hurts my head to read such trash. I believed that you are man of truth, still I believe so, but that link just utterly stupid.
     
    It came up when I googled examples of similarities between Russian and Sanskrit words. Unfortunately there was some crap attached to it. Sorry.

    Replies: @Ano4

  144. @AltanBakshi
    @AP

    Your link is such bullshit and based on pseudoscience, there is consensus among scholars that there were Aryan migrations or invasions to Indian subcontinent. Also there are no ancient Shiva statues from Russia, there can be some from the Southern Russia for there was small community of Indian merchants after the conquest of Astrakhan khanate. Really it hurts my head to read such trash. I believed that you are man of truth, still I believe so, but that link just utterly stupid.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi, @AP

    There can be some 400 year old statues. Oh how some Hindutva people love to say that there was 30000000 year old statue of Shiva discovered in Norway or Australia etc, and 200000000 year old Lingam found from the Atlantis and Pluto. Im saying in jest but they often have crazy claims. Almost on the level of fringe Ukrainian nationalists.

  145. @AltanBakshi
    @AaronB

    But still every Zen master that you cite believed in ordination, lineage, Triple Gem and Dharma transmission. Oh you are so lost that you yourself want to believe that all the creation/reality is as lost as you, so its easier for you to just muddy the waters. If you would understood something from the Padhana Sutta, you would noticed that Mara tried to encourage Buddha to practice meaningless rituals and that Buddha said that he does not need any merit that beings are already pure, but still Buddha shows that he will do the most resolute practice, without waiting any merit. In the same text Buddha also said that he will have followers who will do his bidding. Even that he is doing Chan/Jhana. So pretty basic Zen stuff! But your muddled mind will just see divisions and versions. Also you lack of resolution thats why you think that later generations cant achieve same, in the end you have no faith in Buddha, unlike all Zen masters through history. Zen just gives you momentarily peace, for you it isnt something profound, sublime and transcendental. Or lets say that for you Zen brings happiness similar of scratching of mosquitos bite, when the true Zen would be happiness without mosquitos bite! Think little bit about the state of the Buddha. Someone like Buddha is willing to forever to help beings, without getting anything in return, is this not the aim of the Zen practice? To beat minds attachments, to be completely free of them. To have mind without any constrictions or limits. To realize the purity of the mind, free from Kleshas/stains.

    I dont know which temples and monasteries you have visited in Asian countries, but most monastics have very limited skills in English language and really do not often take very seriously Westerners. Therefore its just easier for them to smile, say couple phrases and go on with their lives. I am myself follower of Atisha's Kadam or Tshongkapa's Ganden/Gelug tradition, we follow the traditions of Nalanda, "Gandenpas emphasize the ways of the learned. They delight in debate and are masters of discourse!" Like the great Dzogchenpa Mipham the Great said. Our discussion has been quite peaceful compared to what I have seen sometimes when young monks debate.

    Replies: @AaronB

    Many of the masters I am talking about make no mention of lineage or schools.

    There is no reason not to operate within existing social structures, to avoid persecution or not to disturb people who cannot handle the message. Sufis did this, and Christian mystics did this.

    Also you lack of resolution thats why you think that later generations cant achieve same

    The mainstream, conventional approach in all societies is to strive and seek security – to build complex intellectual castles.

    Resolution – to accomplish, to build up, to grasp – is an attempt at grounding oneself securely. The radical message of the Buddha is that this impulse leads to suffering. One should “let go” instead.

    Since it goes counter to superficial common sense and social conditioning, it is hard to maintain for most people for long.

    Zen just gives you momentarily peace, for you it isnt something profound, sublime and transcendental.

    What Zen is great at is seeing that ordinary life IS sublime. Zen constantly says how Enlightenment is “nothing special”, its just the ordinary activities of ordinary life. Seeking the transcendental makes you miss the sublime and profound in ordinary life.

    Life is miraculous. The world is miraculous. Seeking the transcendental is to miss that you already have it.

    That’s Zen.

    Someone like Buddha is willing to forever to help beings, without getting anything in return, is this not the aim of the Zen practice? To beat minds attachments, to be completely free of them. To have mind without any constrictions or limits. To realize the purity of the mind, free from Kleshas/stains.

    This is conventional religious institutional Buddhism. It isn’t Chan. There is no need to beat any attachments or be free of them because they don’t really exist.

    In the Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch, the monks are asked to submit poems to demonstrate their understanding in order to determine who will succeed the Fifth Patriarch.

    The smartest monk, who everyone is sure will get chosen, basically submits a poem that says what you say – that you have to polish the mind until it is clear of grime.

    The lowest monk in the school submits a poem anonymously saying basically – what mind is there to polish? What grime is there to get rid of?

    (You can get the exact wording online, I’m paraphrasing).

    He gets chosen as the Sixth Patriarch.

    Now, I’m not saying your beliefs are not right for you – there are levels of enlightenment. People see differently and we all have to go with what works for us or brings us comfort. One of the wonderful things about Mahayana is that it is such a spacious and large vehicle – it has methods for everyone. It has teachings about striving and teachings about relaxing and letting go. One adopts what works for his level.

    I am certainly not advising you to drop everything, relax, and just let go – that is obviously not where you’re “at”. Although you may eventually see that striving is unnecessary, you’re not there now.

    The majority of people, because of social conditioning, will not understand or find sympathetic the ideas in describing here. And that’s fine.

    What I am describing is just one spiritual path that is appropriate to some people at some part of their development.

    • Replies: @AltanBakshi
    @AaronB

    Im tired of replying to you, but every Chan master you mentioned was an ordained monk, or at least most of them. Everyone of them believed in Dharma transmission, refuge in Triple gem etc etc etc etc.... Why the hell they then followed Vinaya, Dogen was almost fanatic on these matters. You are not part of Mahayana in anyway by the way. I think it should be self evident for you. And although I repeat and repeat with you its like pouring water into broken vase. Still by your nihilistic logic there would be no reason to constrain ones being with monastic vows. And Dharmaguptaka vows which are followed by Chan monks are quite heavy stuff. You just try to take some cool or hip sounding(for now) doctrine and want to appropriate it to suit it your own needs. There is quite negative karmic outcome from it. But I tried to stop you. I dont stop you from establishing your own religion, but dont try to sell it as Buddhism, I dont know if you are from USA, but western convert groups there are often quite lost cases. Practically they have made their own religion there, and reinterpreted heavily, to suit their own needs, plus they mostly lack monastics, which is no wonder when they often trace their lineage to dubious Japanese lineages, which have lacked monks already for 150-500 years. If you are an Israeli Jew, then I would recommend Dharma Friends of Israel that are an excellent group, they often are taught by monastics known personally to me. At least you would get some basic knowledge. But I am tired of you. Get help(Dharmic), and not from Kung Fu Panda.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi, @AaronB

  146. @AltanBakshi
    @AP

    AP I did not mean nationalist fringe theories, but connection through Combed Ware culture and Yamnaya, and that Slavs had probably had strong connection to Iranic peoples before Turkic peoples conquered Sarmatian and Alan lands in 5th or 6th century.
    Buddha's people Shakyas were part of the last tribal migrations of Aryans from the Central Asia. Who had preserved ancient Aryan traditions. After all Buddhist Stupa is just Kurgan of the ancient Aryan nomads of the steppe, two first lay followers of Buddha were from Bactria, which is the border region between Afghanistan and Uzbekistan, Trapusa and Bahalika. And Buddha told hundreds of stories about the ancient Aryan wheel turning monarchs, Chakravartins, who were his ancestors. For wheels of their chariots could travel/turn in any direction. Buddha's funeral rites were done according the honors of great Aryan kings. He was cremated on huge funeral pyre and his remains were put into huge Stupa/Kurgan in Kushinagar. Buddha never forbid his followers to eat cows, but he forbid eating of horse for its nobility.(It was hard sacrifice for me, horsemeat and especially horses liver have an excellent taste.)

    AaronB I am very grateful to you, for my knowledge of Chan had big holes, and I personally thought that they follow strictly Yogachara, but it fills me with joy to know that they follow Nagarjuna Two Truths, truly our Dharma has same meaning only exposition differs! For we Gelug also follow both, but we give pre-eminence to Madhyamaka.

    Replies: @AaronB

    Yes, Madhyamika and Nagarjuna are very influential in institutionalized school Zen.

    The Lankavatara Sutra, the Heart Sutra, and the Diamond Sutras are the big ones for them.

    Chan, Atiyoga (Tibetan Zen), and Mahamudra all derive from the same Mahayana sources.

    I am glad you are happy.

    But ultimately what matters are the ideas 🙂

  147. @AP
    @AltanBakshi

    The name "Buddha" itself matches the Ukrainian words budyty/будити or rozbudyty/розбудити, to wake someone up.

    Similar situation with the Russian language, of course:

    https://www.rbth.com/blogs/2014/11/01/sanskrit_and_russian_ancient_kinship_39451

    Modern Ukrainian pagan (ridnovira) mythology claims that original Aryans were Ukrainians (they link the word Aryan to "oraty", soil-tilling), Scythians were proto-Ukrainians (even though they were nomads, not agriculturalists), Buddha was a Scythian, thus Buddha was related to Ukrainians.

    To be clear, these are marginal people in Ukraine, I'm sure there are similar theories among Russian, Serbian, Polish etc. types. A Ukrainian comedy show made fun of people like this, and in a comedy skit showed a school where kids were taught that Ukrainians dug out the Black Sea and built the pyramids. Some Russian fools believed the skit was an actual documentary about Ukrainian schools and that they really teach that stuff.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi, @AltanBakshi, @Ano4

    There were also sedentary Scythians farmers further north from the Pontic steppes.

    [MORE]

    http://newskif.su/2013/%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%84%D1%8B-%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%85%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8/#:~:text=%D0%A1%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%84%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B8%2D%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%85%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8F%D0%BC%D0%B8%20%D0%BC%D1%8B%20%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%B5%D0%BC%20%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%B5,%D1%8D%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BC%20%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BC%20%D0%93%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BE%D1%82%20%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B8%20%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%82.&text=%D0%92%20%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%87%D1%8C%D0%B5%20%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BF%D0%B8%20%D1%81%20%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BF%D1%8C%D1%8E%20%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%89%D0%B0%20%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B7%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8E%D1%82%20%D0%B5%D1%89%D0%B5%20%D0%BD%D0%B0%20%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC%20%D1%8D%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%B5.

    Interestingly enough the analysis of the late Trypolian/Cucuteni tumulus DNA has yielded Y Y haplogroup R1a Z93 a typically Scythian and nowadays Turkish haplogroup.

    https://indo-european.eu/2020/03/earliest-r1a-z93-from-late-trypillian-in-the-podolian-volhynian-upland/

    Modern Slavs are of other Y haplogroup clades originating in the Balto-Slavic people of late antiquity, but of course both branches are related and both have Aryan origins.

    Slavic oрати is indeed from the same root as Arya and the Finno-Ugric orja which for the Finns means slave probably due to the assimilation of the Balto-Slavic populations in the beginning of common era in the Baltic area by the Finnish newcomers of Akozino-Ananino warrior culture.

    Also think of the Scandinavian Aesir vs Vannir fighting and the domination of the Vannir by the Aesir. Although being described as gods of the Norse pantheon, the Aesir in the Islandic Sagas originate from Asia and are mentioned as Turks that had a kingdom somewhere down south where they imposed themselves upon the Vannir.

    In Estonian Russia is Venemaa and in Finish it is Venäjä. For their German and Scandinavian neighbors the Western Slavs are Wends. For the Roman and Byzantine historians the proto-Slavs are Antes and Sklavins. Ант = Wend = Vene = Vannir. Sklavin = Slav = Slavyanin. Also because of the Germanic depredations against the Slavs/Wends during the Carolingian times and Drang nach Osten Slav = slave and Sklavin = esclave.

  148. AP says:
    @AltanBakshi
    @AP

    Your link is such bullshit and based on pseudoscience, there is consensus among scholars that there were Aryan migrations or invasions to Indian subcontinent. Also there are no ancient Shiva statues from Russia, there can be some from the Southern Russia for there was small community of Indian merchants after the conquest of Astrakhan khanate. Really it hurts my head to read such trash. I believed that you are man of truth, still I believe so, but that link just utterly stupid.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi, @AP

    Your link is such bullshit and based on pseudoscience

    I was only using it to point out word similarities, I don’t vouch to whatever claims were written.

    there is consensus among scholars that there were Aryan migrations or invasions to Indian subcontinent.

    Of course.

    Really it hurts my head to read such trash. I believed that you are man of truth, still I believe so, but that link just utterly stupid.

    It came up when I googled examples of similarities between Russian and Sanskrit words. Unfortunately there was some crap attached to it. Sorry.

    • Thanks: AltanBakshi
    • Replies: @Ano4
    @AP

    There are many cognate words in Slavic and Sanskrit.

    There are several lists comparing both languages on the internet.

    For what it's worth here is a Russian take on this question. It seems that Russian Northern dialects are the closest to Sanskrit, maybe because they are more archaic.

    https://scriptures.ru/sanskrit/sanskrit_i_russkiy.htm

    Also traditional embroidery from Vologda region widely used up until the 1930ies when it was persecuted for quite understandable reasons:

    https://avatars.mds.yandex.net/get-pdb/1621302/cff54a45-67dc-4899-b6f7-b05579cd822b/s600

  149. @AP
    @AltanBakshi


    Your link is such bullshit and based on pseudoscience
     
    I was only using it to point out word similarities, I don't vouch to whatever claims were written.

    there is consensus among scholars that there were Aryan migrations or invasions to Indian subcontinent.
     
    Of course.

    Really it hurts my head to read such trash. I believed that you are man of truth, still I believe so, but that link just utterly stupid.
     
    It came up when I googled examples of similarities between Russian and Sanskrit words. Unfortunately there was some crap attached to it. Sorry.

    Replies: @Ano4

    There are many cognate words in Slavic and Sanskrit.

    There are several lists comparing both languages on the internet.

    For what it’s worth here is a Russian take on this question. It seems that Russian Northern dialects are the closest to Sanskrit, maybe because they are more archaic.

    https://scriptures.ru/sanskrit/sanskrit_i_russkiy.htm

    Also traditional embroidery from Vologda region widely used up until the 1930ies when it was persecuted for quite understandable reasons:

    https://avatars.mds.yandex.net/get-pdb/1621302/cff54a45-67dc-4899-b6f7-b05579cd822b/s600

  150. @AaronB
    @AltanBakshi

    Many of the masters I am talking about make no mention of lineage or schools.

    There is no reason not to operate within existing social structures, to avoid persecution or not to disturb people who cannot handle the message. Sufis did this, and Christian mystics did this.


    Also you lack of resolution thats why you think that later generations cant achieve same
     
    The mainstream, conventional approach in all societies is to strive and seek security - to build complex intellectual castles.

    Resolution - to accomplish, to build up, to grasp - is an attempt at grounding oneself securely. The radical message of the Buddha is that this impulse leads to suffering. One should "let go" instead.

    Since it goes counter to superficial common sense and social conditioning, it is hard to maintain for most people for long.

    Zen just gives you momentarily peace, for you it isnt something profound, sublime and transcendental.
     
    What Zen is great at is seeing that ordinary life IS sublime. Zen constantly says how Enlightenment is "nothing special", its just the ordinary activities of ordinary life. Seeking the transcendental makes you miss the sublime and profound in ordinary life.

    Life is miraculous. The world is miraculous. Seeking the transcendental is to miss that you already have it.

    That's Zen.

    Someone like Buddha is willing to forever to help beings, without getting anything in return, is this not the aim of the Zen practice? To beat minds attachments, to be completely free of them. To have mind without any constrictions or limits. To realize the purity of the mind, free from Kleshas/stains.
     
    This is conventional religious institutional Buddhism. It isn't Chan. There is no need to beat any attachments or be free of them because they don't really exist.

    In the Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch, the monks are asked to submit poems to demonstrate their understanding in order to determine who will succeed the Fifth Patriarch.

    The smartest monk, who everyone is sure will get chosen, basically submits a poem that says what you say - that you have to polish the mind until it is clear of grime.

    The lowest monk in the school submits a poem anonymously saying basically - what mind is there to polish? What grime is there to get rid of?

    (You can get the exact wording online, I'm paraphrasing).

    He gets chosen as the Sixth Patriarch.

    Now, I'm not saying your beliefs are not right for you - there are levels of enlightenment. People see differently and we all have to go with what works for us or brings us comfort. One of the wonderful things about Mahayana is that it is such a spacious and large vehicle - it has methods for everyone. It has teachings about striving and teachings about relaxing and letting go. One adopts what works for his level.

    I am certainly not advising you to drop everything, relax, and just let go - that is obviously not where you're "at". Although you may eventually see that striving is unnecessary, you're not there now.

    The majority of people, because of social conditioning, will not understand or find sympathetic the ideas in describing here. And that's fine.

    What I am describing is just one spiritual path that is appropriate to some people at some part of their development.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

    Im tired of replying to you, but every Chan master you mentioned was an ordained monk, or at least most of them. Everyone of them believed in Dharma transmission, refuge in Triple gem etc etc etc etc…. Why the hell they then followed Vinaya, Dogen was almost fanatic on these matters. You are not part of Mahayana in anyway by the way. I think it should be self evident for you. And although I repeat and repeat with you its like pouring water into broken vase. Still by your nihilistic logic there would be no reason to constrain ones being with monastic vows. And Dharmaguptaka vows which are followed by Chan monks are quite heavy stuff. You just try to take some cool or hip sounding(for now) doctrine and want to appropriate it to suit it your own needs. There is quite negative karmic outcome from it. But I tried to stop you. I dont stop you from establishing your own religion, but dont try to sell it as Buddhism, I dont know if you are from USA, but western convert groups there are often quite lost cases. Practically they have made their own religion there, and reinterpreted heavily, to suit their own needs, plus they mostly lack monastics, which is no wonder when they often trace their lineage to dubious Japanese lineages, which have lacked monks already for 150-500 years. If you are an Israeli Jew, then I would recommend Dharma Friends of Israel that are an excellent group, they often are taught by monastics known personally to me. At least you would get some basic knowledge. But I am tired of you. Get help(Dharmic), and not from Kung Fu Panda.

    • Replies: @AltanBakshi
    @AltanBakshi

    Huang Po was student of Linji Yixuan and had lineage through Mahakasyapa to Buddha, same with Huineng who originated from the same Dharma lineage. This is elementary stuff. Im not 100% sure but I think that every master or Buddhist person that you have mentioned was a monk. Alan Watts and Panda excluded.

    , @AaronB
    @AltanBakshi

    That's fine. I respect the right of everyone to be who they are.

    No one can change anyone else.

    I don't claim to be a Buddhist or represent any official Buddhist school, not even Zen/Chan - so if that bothers you let me clear up any ambiguity on that point.

    I am simply someone who has read widely in Buddhist texts from different schools, as well as widely in the ancient and modern commentaries, and excercising my personal, subjective, free judgement have come to the conclusion that the summit and quintessence of Buddhist teaching, the highest development of its inner logic, is found in Kung Fu Panda and Alan Watts :) And possible in Dzogchen, Mahamudra, and select Chan masters.

    I respect your right to disagree. Peace, and I hope your path works out for you.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

  151. @AltanBakshi
    @AaronB

    Im tired of replying to you, but every Chan master you mentioned was an ordained monk, or at least most of them. Everyone of them believed in Dharma transmission, refuge in Triple gem etc etc etc etc.... Why the hell they then followed Vinaya, Dogen was almost fanatic on these matters. You are not part of Mahayana in anyway by the way. I think it should be self evident for you. And although I repeat and repeat with you its like pouring water into broken vase. Still by your nihilistic logic there would be no reason to constrain ones being with monastic vows. And Dharmaguptaka vows which are followed by Chan monks are quite heavy stuff. You just try to take some cool or hip sounding(for now) doctrine and want to appropriate it to suit it your own needs. There is quite negative karmic outcome from it. But I tried to stop you. I dont stop you from establishing your own religion, but dont try to sell it as Buddhism, I dont know if you are from USA, but western convert groups there are often quite lost cases. Practically they have made their own religion there, and reinterpreted heavily, to suit their own needs, plus they mostly lack monastics, which is no wonder when they often trace their lineage to dubious Japanese lineages, which have lacked monks already for 150-500 years. If you are an Israeli Jew, then I would recommend Dharma Friends of Israel that are an excellent group, they often are taught by monastics known personally to me. At least you would get some basic knowledge. But I am tired of you. Get help(Dharmic), and not from Kung Fu Panda.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi, @AaronB

    Huang Po was student of Linji Yixuan and had lineage through Mahakasyapa to Buddha, same with Huineng who originated from the same Dharma lineage. This is elementary stuff. Im not 100% sure but I think that every master or Buddhist person that you have mentioned was a monk. Alan Watts and Panda excluded.

  152. @AltanBakshi
    @AaronB

    Im tired of replying to you, but every Chan master you mentioned was an ordained monk, or at least most of them. Everyone of them believed in Dharma transmission, refuge in Triple gem etc etc etc etc.... Why the hell they then followed Vinaya, Dogen was almost fanatic on these matters. You are not part of Mahayana in anyway by the way. I think it should be self evident for you. And although I repeat and repeat with you its like pouring water into broken vase. Still by your nihilistic logic there would be no reason to constrain ones being with monastic vows. And Dharmaguptaka vows which are followed by Chan monks are quite heavy stuff. You just try to take some cool or hip sounding(for now) doctrine and want to appropriate it to suit it your own needs. There is quite negative karmic outcome from it. But I tried to stop you. I dont stop you from establishing your own religion, but dont try to sell it as Buddhism, I dont know if you are from USA, but western convert groups there are often quite lost cases. Practically they have made their own religion there, and reinterpreted heavily, to suit their own needs, plus they mostly lack monastics, which is no wonder when they often trace their lineage to dubious Japanese lineages, which have lacked monks already for 150-500 years. If you are an Israeli Jew, then I would recommend Dharma Friends of Israel that are an excellent group, they often are taught by monastics known personally to me. At least you would get some basic knowledge. But I am tired of you. Get help(Dharmic), and not from Kung Fu Panda.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi, @AaronB

    That’s fine. I respect the right of everyone to be who they are.

    No one can change anyone else.

    I don’t claim to be a Buddhist or represent any official Buddhist school, not even Zen/Chan – so if that bothers you let me clear up any ambiguity on that point.

    I am simply someone who has read widely in Buddhist texts from different schools, as well as widely in the ancient and modern commentaries, and excercising my personal, subjective, free judgement have come to the conclusion that the summit and quintessence of Buddhist teaching, the highest development of its inner logic, is found in Kung Fu Panda and Alan Watts 🙂 And possible in Dzogchen, Mahamudra, and select Chan masters.

    I respect your right to disagree. Peace, and I hope your path works out for you.

    • Replies: @AltanBakshi
    @AaronB

    Its our path in Mahayana! Okay thank you, and sorry if I have been an asshole. In my opinion I have been sometimes, but what one would not do when defending of ones faith.

    But wait a minute Atiyoga is not Tibetan Zen, also Zen, Atiyoga, Mahamudra have different lineages/sources(although ultimately they come from Awakened mind)! I really need to start writing falsehoods about Jews or Israel, why you are trying to put me in to this position? Maybe then you would empathize with me? Clearly Halal is just Muslim Kosher! Jews and Muslims have same prophets. They even have the same lineage! Muhammad is just someone who restored the true form of ancient faith of Israel. Allah after all is the true God of Jews!

    Replies: @AaronB

  153. @AP
    @AltanBakshi


    You may be right, but if Russia’s government had officially your position on this topic, I think it would demoralize people and all the old wounds would be opened again
     
    The way to approach this would be to emphasize the Russian people's greatness in withstanding and surviving the evil foreign-imposed Communist yoke and celebrating the process of rebuilding itself after they had finally overthrown it. Russia was subjected to and took upon itself the worst evil of the 20th century and survived, and is now starting to renew itself and prosper.

    Such an approach would also inoculate Russia against any BLM-type claims against it.

    Sometimes I wonder about Iconoclasm in Byzantine Empire, was that driven by same kind impulses? Monks were forced to break their vows, Churches and Monasteries were destroyed, secularized or even sometimed turned to stables. Relics too were destroyed. Of course Iconoclasm was totally different from Bolshevism and product of different historical circumstances. But clearly Communism was the Iconoclasm of Russian civilization, and both started after losing of war or wars.
     
    A brilliant observation! And Iconoclasm was foreign-inspired, linked to triumphant Islam, just as Bolshevism was a Western disease adopted in Russia. Bolshevism should be treated the same way in Russia, as Iconoclasm has been by the Orthodox world.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

    But its impossible to say that all that Communists did was evil, like I said victory in WW2, Space program, literacy rate, mass education, healthcare, colonial struggle etc etc. It would have bipolar an effect on Russian people. For heavens sake, look Ukrainians!

    The way to approach this would be to emphasize the Ukrainian people’s greatness in withstanding and surviving the evil foreign-imposed Communist yoke and celebrating the process of rebuilding itself after they had finally overthrown it. Ukraine was subjected to and took upon itself the worst evil of the 20th century and survived, and is now starting to renew itself and prosper.

    Sorry If I sound insulting, I genuinely like your commenting here.

    • Replies: @AP
    @AltanBakshi


    But its impossible to say that all that Communists did was evil
     
    The things they were best at, were evil. Mass killing, total destruction of traditions, liquidation of the best classes of the people. They were very good at doing evil things.

    The none-evil things they did were mostly mediocre:

    victory in WW2
     
    Poorly done. Won in the end, but bottom line is that they allowed a much-smaller enemy to kill over 25 million of their people

    Space program,
     
    Devoted huge resources to a space race with the global rival. They lost.

    literacy rate, mass education
     
    Almost every place on Earth accomplished this. Communist place do have slightly greater literacy rates than non-communist ones but it is a difference of around 1%.

    healthcare
     
    Worse than in most other European countries. Life expectancy was affected by alcohol so let's look at infant mortality is a rough indicator of healthcare quality:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_and_under-five_mortality_rates#Infant_mortality_from_the_United_Nations_population_division

    Other than Slovenia, in 1975-1980 and 1980-1985 communist places were among the highest in Europe. The only non-Communist country with a higher rate of infant mortality than the Communist countries was Portugal.

    In 1975-1980 Russian infants were dying at a rate that was around double that of American, British, and German infants.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

  154. @AaronB
    @AltanBakshi

    That's fine. I respect the right of everyone to be who they are.

    No one can change anyone else.

    I don't claim to be a Buddhist or represent any official Buddhist school, not even Zen/Chan - so if that bothers you let me clear up any ambiguity on that point.

    I am simply someone who has read widely in Buddhist texts from different schools, as well as widely in the ancient and modern commentaries, and excercising my personal, subjective, free judgement have come to the conclusion that the summit and quintessence of Buddhist teaching, the highest development of its inner logic, is found in Kung Fu Panda and Alan Watts :) And possible in Dzogchen, Mahamudra, and select Chan masters.

    I respect your right to disagree. Peace, and I hope your path works out for you.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

    Its our path in Mahayana! Okay thank you, and sorry if I have been an asshole. In my opinion I have been sometimes, but what one would not do when defending of ones faith.

    But wait a minute Atiyoga is not Tibetan Zen, also Zen, Atiyoga, Mahamudra have different lineages/sources(although ultimately they come from Awakened mind)! I really need to start writing falsehoods about Jews or Israel, why you are trying to put me in to this position? Maybe then you would empathize with me? Clearly Halal is just Muslim Kosher! Jews and Muslims have same prophets. They even have the same lineage! Muhammad is just someone who restored the true form of ancient faith of Israel. Allah after all is the true God of Jews!

    • Replies: @AaronB
    @AltanBakshi

    Well, if its any consolation I am also a very eccentric Jew :) I guess I just don't do mainstream religion very well!

    I'm not trying to press my views as the only version of Buddhism - its just the one that I like the most. Look, if you genuinely came to the conclusion that Islam is the true reformed Jewish faith - Muslims actually believe this, that Jews falsified their records and Islam restores the true record - I might argue with you but I'd respect your right to your opinion.

    Also, please note I am not "invalidating" your version of Buddhism - I think its legitimate on its level. Such a view of Judaism would invalidate it, so would be a much more aggressive move. But even so, everyone has the right to their opinion.

    As for being an asshole, don't worry about it! As I've said before, the best thing we can do is just be who we genuinely are.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

  155. @AP
    @AltanBakshi


    In the 19th Century these problems were even worse and losing war against Japan 1905 even bigger scandal.
     
    Performance in World War I indicates huge improvement since 1905.

    But in the case of Gorbachev there is something fishy. Like did he have any knowledge about Russian history....Did he watch or consume too much western popular culture and got demoralized because of that or something? He should be made of an example and punished still when there is time. Many Russian boomers sense of justice would be fulfilled.
     
    One of my close in-laws worked with and knew Gorby very well in the 1980s. Gorby was not a traitor, in the sense that he did not seek to destroy or undermine the USSR, nor did he work for outside powers to do so. Nor was Gorby really a fool. He was a very cunning guy who rose to the top of the USSR from humble origins (his inability to speak proper Russian masked his intelligence and led to to others underestimating him). Nor was Gorby the cuddly decent humanitarian that Westerners sometimes think he is. He had no problem ditching his reformist allies and surrounding himself with hardliners when he decided it was necessary for him to do so (the ones who later overthrew him) and zero qualms about sending tanks and troops to kill people in Lithuania. He miscalculated and would have happily done so sooner and killed many more people if it would have saved his government. So he was not a good person. His great personal flaw was narcissism. He really wanted to be a beloved historical figure, a Soviet JFK, or perhaps a transformative figure like Peter the Great, who would have turned the USSR into a "Social Democracy," an enormous Superpower Sweden and been forever remembered for doing so. He wasn't motivated so much by love of the Soviet people but by extreme vanity and wish to be a historical figure. Being a product of the USSR, several generations removed from capitalism, he of course completely ignorant of how it worked. There probably really wasn't anyone in the USSR in the 1980s capable of competently managing or shepherding such a transition. There were only nascent criminals that would take advantage of the collapse for their own benefit (neither Gorby nor most of his inner circle did so). The Chinese approach hadn't come to fruition yet so there really was no model about how to get out of the Communist dead-end.

    So who is to blame for the 1990s debacle? The Soviet system overall that demoralized society and made it rotten and corrupt on almost every level. Such a debacle does not arise from nowhere in only a couple of years. The rot was there, everywhere, just beneath the surface, ready to emerge. The film Маленькая Вера came out in 1988. To the extent that individuals can be blamed it was not failed Gorby, Yakovlev and 1980s would-be reformers, but what came after, Yeltsin and those around him.

    Overall, the transition was probably the only way that it could have happened. Russia has turned out much better than did Ukraine or Belarus.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi, @Mr. XYZ

    There probably really wasn’t anyone in the USSR in the 1980s capable of competently managing or shepherding such a transition.

    Yuri Andropov had he lived longer?

  156. AP says:
    @AltanBakshi
    @AP

    But its impossible to say that all that Communists did was evil, like I said victory in WW2, Space program, literacy rate, mass education, healthcare, colonial struggle etc etc. It would have bipolar an effect on Russian people. For heavens sake, look Ukrainians!

    The way to approach this would be to emphasize the Ukrainian people’s greatness in withstanding and surviving the evil foreign-imposed Communist yoke and celebrating the process of rebuilding itself after they had finally overthrown it. Ukraine was subjected to and took upon itself the worst evil of the 20th century and survived, and is now starting to renew itself and prosper.

    Sorry If I sound insulting, I genuinely like your commenting here.

    Replies: @AP

    But its impossible to say that all that Communists did was evil

    The things they were best at, were evil. Mass killing, total destruction of traditions, liquidation of the best classes of the people. They were very good at doing evil things.

    The none-evil things they did were mostly mediocre:

    victory in WW2

    Poorly done. Won in the end, but bottom line is that they allowed a much-smaller enemy to kill over 25 million of their people

    Space program,

    Devoted huge resources to a space race with the global rival. They lost.

    literacy rate, mass education

    Almost every place on Earth accomplished this. Communist place do have slightly greater literacy rates than non-communist ones but it is a difference of around 1%.

    healthcare

    Worse than in most other European countries. Life expectancy was affected by alcohol so let’s look at infant mortality is a rough indicator of healthcare quality:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_and_under-five_mortality_rates#Infant_mortality_from_the_United_Nations_population_division

    Other than Slovenia, in 1975-1980 and 1980-1985 communist places were among the highest in Europe. The only non-Communist country with a higher rate of infant mortality than the Communist countries was Portugal.

    In 1975-1980 Russian infants were dying at a rate that was around double that of American, British, and German infants.

    • Replies: @AltanBakshi
    @AP

    I in no way meant that they were excellent in those things that I mentioned, but they are still important milestones in the history of Russian people and nation. If communists had ruled for just couple decades then maybe what you are advicating would be beneficial. 70 years rule has irrevocably left strong imprints on Russian psyche both in good and bad, to just say that whole 70 years was utter evil would take Russia on the same path as Ukraine spiritually and philosophically. And yes 20's and 30's were horrible, and years after that quite mediocre, still you emphasize too much the first two decades. For the rate of killing by regime was not anywhere near that level after war or at least after Stalin. I presume that you are not Russian but you feel great empathy towards Russians, I too am not Russian, although I have lived at least 7 years there and couple more if I count all the shorter trips and summer visits to grandmother in Buryatia. But if you speak with Russian boomers you can understand that in their experience there were many beautiful and interesting things in their life, although filled with hardship. But all those things happened under Soviet rule and were sometimes caused by the peculiarities of that rule. And in many ways the society of 70s and 80s Russia was healthier than nowadays, people had safe jobs, stronger sense of community, more conservative morals, especially on sexual morality, of course there were exceptions. But you would just say that all that time was Manichean dualistic Evil compared to Good present and Imperial times. That path would just lead to the path of Ukraine, which is bipolar nation, without roots, without healthy sense of continuity. And before you think that I sympathize commies, I must say that I despise communism and all utopian political ideologies, Stalin slaughtered almost all Buddhist monks in Russia etc. I think just that we should have organic and holistic view of past, to accept things and try to find good in them, for they made us what we are now, in good or bad they are now our roots, part of us.

    Replies: @AP

  157. @AP
    @AltanBakshi


    But its impossible to say that all that Communists did was evil
     
    The things they were best at, were evil. Mass killing, total destruction of traditions, liquidation of the best classes of the people. They were very good at doing evil things.

    The none-evil things they did were mostly mediocre:

    victory in WW2
     
    Poorly done. Won in the end, but bottom line is that they allowed a much-smaller enemy to kill over 25 million of their people

    Space program,
     
    Devoted huge resources to a space race with the global rival. They lost.

    literacy rate, mass education
     
    Almost every place on Earth accomplished this. Communist place do have slightly greater literacy rates than non-communist ones but it is a difference of around 1%.

    healthcare
     
    Worse than in most other European countries. Life expectancy was affected by alcohol so let's look at infant mortality is a rough indicator of healthcare quality:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_and_under-five_mortality_rates#Infant_mortality_from_the_United_Nations_population_division

    Other than Slovenia, in 1975-1980 and 1980-1985 communist places were among the highest in Europe. The only non-Communist country with a higher rate of infant mortality than the Communist countries was Portugal.

    In 1975-1980 Russian infants were dying at a rate that was around double that of American, British, and German infants.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

    I in no way meant that they were excellent in those things that I mentioned, but they are still important milestones in the history of Russian people and nation. If communists had ruled for just couple decades then maybe what you are advicating would be beneficial. 70 years rule has irrevocably left strong imprints on Russian psyche both in good and bad, to just say that whole 70 years was utter evil would take Russia on the same path as Ukraine spiritually and philosophically. And yes 20’s and 30’s were horrible, and years after that quite mediocre, still you emphasize too much the first two decades. For the rate of killing by regime was not anywhere near that level after war or at least after Stalin. I presume that you are not Russian but you feel great empathy towards Russians, I too am not Russian, although I have lived at least 7 years there and couple more if I count all the shorter trips and summer visits to grandmother in Buryatia. But if you speak with Russian boomers you can understand that in their experience there were many beautiful and interesting things in their life, although filled with hardship. But all those things happened under Soviet rule and were sometimes caused by the peculiarities of that rule. And in many ways the society of 70s and 80s Russia was healthier than nowadays, people had safe jobs, stronger sense of community, more conservative morals, especially on sexual morality, of course there were exceptions. But you would just say that all that time was Manichean dualistic Evil compared to Good present and Imperial times. That path would just lead to the path of Ukraine, which is bipolar nation, without roots, without healthy sense of continuity. And before you think that I sympathize commies, I must say that I despise communism and all utopian political ideologies, Stalin slaughtered almost all Buddhist monks in Russia etc. I think just that we should have organic and holistic view of past, to accept things and try to find good in them, for they made us what we are now, in good or bad they are now our roots, part of us.

    • Replies: @AP
    @AltanBakshi


    say that whole 70 years was utter evil would take Russia on the same path as Ukraine spiritually and philosophically.
     
    The Western part of Ukraine that utterly rejected Bolshevism and its legacy is spiritually the healthiest region of Ukraine and, perhaps, of all Eastern Slavdom.

    The Ukrainian state OTOH has been dysfunctional because the Bolsheviks added non-Ukrainian territory to it, because it underwent colonization by Soviets, and because its elites were inherited Soviet elites. There was constant tension between being pro-Western (by the natives) or pro-Russian (by Russians and by multinational Soviets), between Ukrainian nationalism and Soviet multiculturalism. This situation has improved a lot (but not completely) since 2014. If 2014 had occurred in 1991 - that is, if Crime and Donbas successfully left, and anti-Sovietization was strong - Ukraine would have been much better off today. It probably would have been a lot like Poland.


    That path would just lead to the path of Ukraine, which is bipolar nation, without roots, without healthy sense of continuity.
     
    Roots were largely destroyed in Central and Eastern Ukraine by Bolsheviks. They uprooted, murdered, and starved to death the timeless Ukraine of Gogol's stories. They did something similar in Russia, but Russia is bigger. Renewal means erasing the 70 year Soviet nightmare, socially and culturally. There has been some success in central Ukraine but of course not much could be done with a place like Donbas which was created by and under Soviets and populated by them. AnoninTN likes to quote some Donbas warlord who stated "My mother is Ukrainian, my father is a German, that makes me a Russian." No, it makes you a deracinated rootless Sovok who happens to speak Russian because the Russian language was the USSR's lingua franca.

    But Western Ukraine was less damaged and is well-rooted. This is reflected in all sorts of social indicators such as crime rate, HIV rate, divorce rate, religiosity, out of wedlock birth rate, life expectancy, etc. On such measures it is the healthiest part of Ukraine and probably as healthy as the healthiest parts of Russia, if not more so.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

  158. @AP
    @Dmitry

    A lot of the allegedly positive things about Stalin are just copes. People don't want to think that their immense suffering was for nothing, a waste, so they pretend it was for the sake of something special when the sad reality it was for nothing. Most of what Stalin accomplished would have been done without him, and without the enormous cost in suffering. It is like an abused person who make sense of their terrible childhood by thinking that it made them "strong" or whatever, when plenty of people have such traits without having been abused.


    How do you assess a leader who is personally evil, has caused many deaths of innocent people whose descendants campaigning for their memory today, who built a cult of personality, and who has been incompetent in some areas (for example in the beginning of the war), but competent in many others (including even things like architecture, if we want to look beyond the history’s fastest industrialization and victor of largest ever military campaign).
     
    Actually Korea in 1920-1939 had a higher rate of industrialization than did the USSR in the same time period:

    https://eh.net/eha/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Williamson.pdf

    (page 33)

    Somehow a huge % of Koreans weren't killed in order to accomplish this.

    And while Soviet industrialization rate surpassed that of the Tsars, the latter's rate was still very high. Between 1870 and 1913 Russia's manufacturing output growth rate was greater than that of any country in Western Europe and the USA.

    A leader who caught the motherland with a plough, and left with nuclear weapons,
     
    Russia was rapidly industrializing before Bolsheviks. Most of the civilized world managed to go from plows to nuclear technology without killing millions of its people and having its population living in relative poverty.

    What's next - give credit to Communists for electrification, antibiotics, or mass literacy (which all came to be in every civilized country, Communism wasn't necessary)

    and the world’s best space program. A most unpleasant recent leader, but also one of the most successful leaders of world history – with the latter qualified by the fact the empire collapsed within less than 40 years of his death.
     
    " one of the most successful leaders of world history" - nearly lost a war to a much smaller country, allowing that country to kill 27 million of his citizens; owned vast Eurasia but was forced to be in a close second place to the American upstart; made a system so brittle it utterly collapsed as you said after only 40 years

    Replies: @AltanBakshi, @Anatoly Karlin

    What’s next – give credit to Communists for electrification, antibiotics, or mass literacy (which all came to be in every civilized country, Communism wasn’t necessary)

    Well, that’s what the sovok hardcore literally do.

    For them, it’s as if not for the Bolsheviks, Russia would have permanently frozen in the state (they imagine) it was at in 1917.

    • Agree: AP
  159. @AltanBakshi
    @AltanBakshi

    To dream of alternative future of old Imperial Russia, would been better choice of words. Its as conducive as to speculate about German empire that didnt lost one of the world wars. Yes Russia's situation is not ideal, but at least it has kept its independence unlike Germany, Japan and even United Kingdom. It still stands on its own legs, it could have been worse, like being divided by Imperial Germany and made a vassal state, or being subjugated by Nazis, or even worse if Soviet Union would had a Nuclear War with the USA. So there is much good in the current situation, and who knows what there will be in generation or two? Maybe there will be no more USA left or not as a hegemonic power in Europe and then Russia is free again to continue its historical mission....

    Replies: @AP, @Anatoly Karlin

    A Russia defeated by Germany in WW1 would be reduced (plus or minus) to its current borders within Europe – assuming no subsequent revisions – but would have almost twice its population, in the absence of the repeated demographic catastrophes of the 1917-1947 period.

    For Russia, the second greatest tragedy after losing the war by forfeit is that Germany didn’t win it.

    • Agree: AP, Ano4
    • Replies: @AltanBakshi
    @Anatoly Karlin

    When I was younger I believed that victory of the German empire would had been better for the Europe in the longer run, but now I am not so sure. I thought that Germans of those times were much, much more civilized and nobler than Hitler's Nazis, yes they were, but not so much as I thought. Ludendorff already had plans about colonization and settling of his troops in Ober Ost. German army also had sense of cultural and racial superiority compared to locals in the East. Victorious Germany vwould never ever allowed Russia to regain its power. I think that its highly possible that if Germany had won war in 1918 or 1919, when Russia was in civil war, that they would have separated Cossack areas from Russia, they were already supporting Azerbaijan and Georgia. So what you would end with rump Russia? Political situation would possibly be even worse than nowadays, although I hate the hegemony of the empire, but they still are not anywhere as militaristic and ready to take their chances on the field of battle as Prussian led German empire. We are of course now speaking about highly hypothetical scenarios. But there are some things that are certain if Germany had won. A Russia with pre-ww2 border with Finland, without Belarus, Baltics, Ukraine and Caucasus, led by Communists that no German Junker government would tolerate on its borders. In my view that kind of situation in 1920 would be even worse than Soviet Russia's in 1924. And also even worse than situation 1920 in real life, at least German empire had fallen. Maybe they would put some aristocrat on throne, but what future that would been, a broken divided Russia in semi-colonial relationship with the German empire?

    Replies: @AP

  160. @AltanBakshi
    Like Mao Zedong, from the viewpoint of 70's and 80's he surely was total catastrophe for China and nationalist alternatives would have been better, but from the viewpoint of present they probably would have been too corrupted and decentralized and many frontier regions of China would have been lost if Chiang Kai-Shek would have kept the power. Crucially there wouldnt been foundations for industrialization of China. Likewise from the point of view of 50's or 60's Lenin was best that had happened to Russia, Communism was resurgent everywhere in the world led by the mighty Soviet Union that had the strongest army in the history of the mankind. Western universities were full of scholars and academicians who believed in principles of scientific socialism and in the inevitable victory of the Soviet Union in those times. And we could continue and continue this, with every country and make new revisions decade after decade. Is this fruitful?

    Yes now Russia seems weak and under siege, but we cant know how thing will be in in generation or two, if we look the history of past hundred years, we can say that deck has been shuffled quite many times? More important is to develop holistic view of history and be proud of Soviet achievements. Many of my relatives suffered because of Stalin and revolution, but then there was also much of beauty and good. Lenin may be a cynic charlatan who enchanted the masses, but does that lessen the greatness of victory against the hordes of Hitler? Does that take honor away from Sputnik, Gagarin, MIR-Space station, from global struggle against western imperialism? From liberation of Vietnam, or help that Soviet Union showed to many young and weak nations like India and China? After all Lenin maybe a scoundrel but he couldnt poison the hearts of Russian people, after all Soviet Union and Russians quickly returned to conservative morals and love of their fatherland, and even kept their respect towards Church and family.

    This view of history that you Anatoly Karlin propagate has similarities with Ukrainian nationalists, they too view that Soviet Union was failed experiment, led by evil Commies. Although your case is much better it still will in the end produce just social strife and not social healing or cohesion. For even if you would hate your father, your father is still your father, no matter what. Sorry for bad English....

    Oh almost forgot to add, Gorbachev and surviving leadership from the 1989-1991, should be taken to the court and sentenced of treason.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi, @Anatoly Karlin

    Sorry, but this is mostly either:

    (1) Attacking straw men about men of your own creation (I did not support collapsing the USSR, nor do I dismiss the USSR, albeit quite paltry, achievements);

    (2) Are not even so much achievements as either things that would have come about anyway (e.g. primary schooling rate was at 80% by the outbreak of WW1, mass literacy was inevitable – all Soviets did was delay it slightly, due to civil war chaos), typically also at much lower cost as AP notes; or were of dubious benefit to the people who are supposed to benefit from their own state, i.e. Russians (Soviet help to “anti-imperialism” forces was perhaps good for the “colonial oppressed”… but it certainly wasn’t so for Russians from whom those resources were extracted, and who would never see those loans to Angola, Cuba, and the like returned).

    • Replies: @AltanBakshi
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Sorry, I misunderstood that you had similar or as radically revisionist viewpoint as AP and some other fellows on this site regarding Russia's relationship on its Soviet past. I am in no way friend of the Soviet system nor think that it was good for the Russian people in the longer run, but still thinks are not so black and white, its better to accept past and ones roots than to end on same road as Ukrainian nationalists and state builders.

  161. @AltanBakshi
    @AaronB

    Its our path in Mahayana! Okay thank you, and sorry if I have been an asshole. In my opinion I have been sometimes, but what one would not do when defending of ones faith.

    But wait a minute Atiyoga is not Tibetan Zen, also Zen, Atiyoga, Mahamudra have different lineages/sources(although ultimately they come from Awakened mind)! I really need to start writing falsehoods about Jews or Israel, why you are trying to put me in to this position? Maybe then you would empathize with me? Clearly Halal is just Muslim Kosher! Jews and Muslims have same prophets. They even have the same lineage! Muhammad is just someone who restored the true form of ancient faith of Israel. Allah after all is the true God of Jews!

    Replies: @AaronB

    Well, if its any consolation I am also a very eccentric Jew 🙂 I guess I just don’t do mainstream religion very well!

    I’m not trying to press my views as the only version of Buddhism – its just the one that I like the most. Look, if you genuinely came to the conclusion that Islam is the true reformed Jewish faith – Muslims actually believe this, that Jews falsified their records and Islam restores the true record – I might argue with you but I’d respect your right to your opinion.

    Also, please note I am not “invalidating” your version of Buddhism – I think its legitimate on its level. Such a view of Judaism would invalidate it, so would be a much more aggressive move. But even so, everyone has the right to their opinion.

    As for being an asshole, don’t worry about it! As I’ve said before, the best thing we can do is just be who we genuinely are.

    • Replies: @AltanBakshi
    @AaronB

    I tried to be humble with nutcase like you, but its just impossible for you never ever learn. "Your version," I am part of living tradition and if I am wrong in some views regarding of Buddhism, my Geshes will quickly correct me after some healthy debate and discussion. But for your kind, for postmodernists everything is hyper-individualist, and no one can see what other really thinks, and everybody has his own unique view, and everything is just personal interpretations. In Buddhism we believe that those who have attained high level on Jhana/Dhayana/Chan meditation can perceive other beings mental states. I will try one last time. You said that you have learned from books, right? But what about painting? Would you ever learn to be a good painter if you would read all your life books about painting, but you would never practice painting? Would you? If you will answer no, then think how much harder its to attain the state of some like Buddha!

    Also you are quite petty asshole that by stating that it would be more aggressive, quite subjective I would say? Like you have no regard to other people's religion and culture, but when its about yours then its "aggressive!"

    Yes Rabbinic Jews falsified their texts, when comparing to Septuagint, for the Masoretic text was composed even after the Quran was composed, quite gap in time! Also Karaites are the real Jews when the rest are fakes!

    You know possibly I believe so, possibly not, but your presumptuous attitude leaves me no choice.
    I tried humility with you, thought that maybe he will then stop his again and again disproved claims of understanding the Dharma. Your version of Buddhism is no Buddhism at all, from Buddha's viewpoint its heretical. He clearly stated which kind of views are to be seen as heretical. For God's sake Buddhism is a religion, not some hippie festival, where everyone is free to think and do as they like. Every Zen master was under teacher-disciple relationship. You are not therefore you are like someone who hasnt gone school but still saying that he knows all about the stuff that they taught in school.

    Replies: @AaronB

  162. AP says:
    @AltanBakshi
    @AP

    I in no way meant that they were excellent in those things that I mentioned, but they are still important milestones in the history of Russian people and nation. If communists had ruled for just couple decades then maybe what you are advicating would be beneficial. 70 years rule has irrevocably left strong imprints on Russian psyche both in good and bad, to just say that whole 70 years was utter evil would take Russia on the same path as Ukraine spiritually and philosophically. And yes 20's and 30's were horrible, and years after that quite mediocre, still you emphasize too much the first two decades. For the rate of killing by regime was not anywhere near that level after war or at least after Stalin. I presume that you are not Russian but you feel great empathy towards Russians, I too am not Russian, although I have lived at least 7 years there and couple more if I count all the shorter trips and summer visits to grandmother in Buryatia. But if you speak with Russian boomers you can understand that in their experience there were many beautiful and interesting things in their life, although filled with hardship. But all those things happened under Soviet rule and were sometimes caused by the peculiarities of that rule. And in many ways the society of 70s and 80s Russia was healthier than nowadays, people had safe jobs, stronger sense of community, more conservative morals, especially on sexual morality, of course there were exceptions. But you would just say that all that time was Manichean dualistic Evil compared to Good present and Imperial times. That path would just lead to the path of Ukraine, which is bipolar nation, without roots, without healthy sense of continuity. And before you think that I sympathize commies, I must say that I despise communism and all utopian political ideologies, Stalin slaughtered almost all Buddhist monks in Russia etc. I think just that we should have organic and holistic view of past, to accept things and try to find good in them, for they made us what we are now, in good or bad they are now our roots, part of us.

    Replies: @AP

    say that whole 70 years was utter evil would take Russia on the same path as Ukraine spiritually and philosophically.

    The Western part of Ukraine that utterly rejected Bolshevism and its legacy is spiritually the healthiest region of Ukraine and, perhaps, of all Eastern Slavdom.

    The Ukrainian state OTOH has been dysfunctional because the Bolsheviks added non-Ukrainian territory to it, because it underwent colonization by Soviets, and because its elites were inherited Soviet elites. There was constant tension between being pro-Western (by the natives) or pro-Russian (by Russians and by multinational Soviets), between Ukrainian nationalism and Soviet multiculturalism. This situation has improved a lot (but not completely) since 2014. If 2014 had occurred in 1991 – that is, if Crime and Donbas successfully left, and anti-Sovietization was strong – Ukraine would have been much better off today. It probably would have been a lot like Poland.

    That path would just lead to the path of Ukraine, which is bipolar nation, without roots, without healthy sense of continuity.

    Roots were largely destroyed in Central and Eastern Ukraine by Bolsheviks. They uprooted, murdered, and starved to death the timeless Ukraine of Gogol’s stories. They did something similar in Russia, but Russia is bigger. Renewal means erasing the 70 year Soviet nightmare, socially and culturally. There has been some success in central Ukraine but of course not much could be done with a place like Donbas which was created by and under Soviets and populated by them. AnoninTN likes to quote some Donbas warlord who stated “My mother is Ukrainian, my father is a German, that makes me a Russian.” No, it makes you a deracinated rootless Sovok who happens to speak Russian because the Russian language was the USSR’s lingua franca.

    But Western Ukraine was less damaged and is well-rooted. This is reflected in all sorts of social indicators such as crime rate, HIV rate, divorce rate, religiosity, out of wedlock birth rate, life expectancy, etc. On such measures it is the healthiest part of Ukraine and probably as healthy as the healthiest parts of Russia, if not more so.

    • Replies: @AltanBakshi
    @AP

    Oh where to start... By your logic then Russian North Caucasus is the healthiest part of the Russia, it ticks all the boxes on your list by the way. Galicia as a case is more similar to Baltic countries and has very different history from all the lands inhabited by the Eastern Slavs. They never were part of Russia before 1939, so they had less of history of Russian administration than Baltics had. From my point of view their annexation was probably one of the biggest mistakes that Stalin ever did. Without them Russophilic Ukraine would be reality and Polish-Ukrainian antipathy would had continued. By the way why you are so positive towards Galicia? They are the enemies of whole greater Russian civilization, or at least their nationalism is(yes there are good Galicians, those few Russified ones).

    By denying the Soviet past and/or saying that it was evil you are committing the same sin that Bolsheviks committed, cutting roots once again. Great national narratives are based on unity and healing. In Finland they had a civil war that divided that nation very, very strongly, but they had wise leaders and politicians who made everything so that reconciliation would succeed. Its infantile to think that things are resolved by throwing gas into fire. Great nations and civilizations accept the past and proudly walk towards the future, filled with experience and wisdom. Then there are Germany, UK, Ukraine, and soon USA, who are all in the process of cutting their roots and having a bipolar attitude towards their past. I dont see it as healthy and I dont wish same to Russia. We can accept the mistakes of Soviet Union in the same way as CCP when talks about Mao or about Cultural revolution. Like I wrote, in good or bad Soviet past is part of the Russia, nothing good would arise from its demonization, although free and open discussion about it would be good for the society. But then if you want Russia that is divided and polarized, then by all means support the black and white view of the past.

    Replies: @AP

  163. @Anatoly Karlin
    @AltanBakshi

    Sorry, but this is mostly either:

    (1) Attacking straw men about men of your own creation (I did not support collapsing the USSR, nor do I dismiss the USSR, albeit quite paltry, achievements);

    (2) Are not even so much achievements as either things that would have come about anyway (e.g. primary schooling rate was at 80% by the outbreak of WW1, mass literacy was inevitable - all Soviets did was delay it slightly, due to civil war chaos), typically also at much lower cost as AP notes; or were of dubious benefit to the people who are supposed to benefit from their own state, i.e. Russians (Soviet help to "anti-imperialism" forces was perhaps good for the "colonial oppressed"... but it certainly wasn't so for Russians from whom those resources were extracted, and who would never see those loans to Angola, Cuba, and the like returned).

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

    Sorry, I misunderstood that you had similar or as radically revisionist viewpoint as AP and some other fellows on this site regarding Russia’s relationship on its Soviet past. I am in no way friend of the Soviet system nor think that it was good for the Russian people in the longer run, but still thinks are not so black and white, its better to accept past and ones roots than to end on same road as Ukrainian nationalists and state builders.

  164. @AaronB
    @AltanBakshi

    Well, if its any consolation I am also a very eccentric Jew :) I guess I just don't do mainstream religion very well!

    I'm not trying to press my views as the only version of Buddhism - its just the one that I like the most. Look, if you genuinely came to the conclusion that Islam is the true reformed Jewish faith - Muslims actually believe this, that Jews falsified their records and Islam restores the true record - I might argue with you but I'd respect your right to your opinion.

    Also, please note I am not "invalidating" your version of Buddhism - I think its legitimate on its level. Such a view of Judaism would invalidate it, so would be a much more aggressive move. But even so, everyone has the right to their opinion.

    As for being an asshole, don't worry about it! As I've said before, the best thing we can do is just be who we genuinely are.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

    I tried to be humble with nutcase like you, but its just impossible for you never ever learn. “Your version,” I am part of living tradition and if I am wrong in some views regarding of Buddhism, my Geshes will quickly correct me after some healthy debate and discussion. But for your kind, for postmodernists everything is hyper-individualist, and no one can see what other really thinks, and everybody has his own unique view, and everything is just personal interpretations. In Buddhism we believe that those who have attained high level on Jhana/Dhayana/Chan meditation can perceive other beings mental states. I will try one last time. You said that you have learned from books, right? But what about painting? Would you ever learn to be a good painter if you would read all your life books about painting, but you would never practice painting? Would you? If you will answer no, then think how much harder its to attain the state of some like Buddha!

    Also you are quite petty asshole that by stating that it would be more aggressive, quite subjective I would say? Like you have no regard to other people’s religion and culture, but when its about yours then its “aggressive!”

    Yes Rabbinic Jews falsified their texts, when comparing to Septuagint, for the Masoretic text was composed even after the Quran was composed, quite gap in time! Also Karaites are the real Jews when the rest are fakes!

    You know possibly I believe so, possibly not, but your presumptuous attitude leaves me no choice.
    I tried humility with you, thought that maybe he will then stop his again and again disproved claims of understanding the Dharma. Your version of Buddhism is no Buddhism at all, from Buddha’s viewpoint its heretical. He clearly stated which kind of views are to be seen as heretical. For God’s sake Buddhism is a religion, not some hippie festival, where everyone is free to think and do as they like. Every Zen master was under teacher-disciple relationship. You are not therefore you are like someone who hasnt gone school but still saying that he knows all about the stuff that they taught in school.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    @AltanBakshi

    Well, in my opinion practice doesn't work - it only builds your ego. There are studies that show people who meditate become more egotistic.

    Huang Po tells me practice is useless, and there is no need to achieve anything. We are all already Buddhas. I believe Huang Po.

    So for me, the best practice is to just sit back and relax and let things take their course. I'm already where I need to be.

    I understand that for you its practice. I am not saying you are wrong. Instead of right and wrong, I prefer to think of it in terms of levels of insight. So you are right for your level.

    So you see, I am not invalidating you.

    Good luck on your journey.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

  165. @AP
    @AltanBakshi


    say that whole 70 years was utter evil would take Russia on the same path as Ukraine spiritually and philosophically.
     
    The Western part of Ukraine that utterly rejected Bolshevism and its legacy is spiritually the healthiest region of Ukraine and, perhaps, of all Eastern Slavdom.

    The Ukrainian state OTOH has been dysfunctional because the Bolsheviks added non-Ukrainian territory to it, because it underwent colonization by Soviets, and because its elites were inherited Soviet elites. There was constant tension between being pro-Western (by the natives) or pro-Russian (by Russians and by multinational Soviets), between Ukrainian nationalism and Soviet multiculturalism. This situation has improved a lot (but not completely) since 2014. If 2014 had occurred in 1991 - that is, if Crime and Donbas successfully left, and anti-Sovietization was strong - Ukraine would have been much better off today. It probably would have been a lot like Poland.


    That path would just lead to the path of Ukraine, which is bipolar nation, without roots, without healthy sense of continuity.
     
    Roots were largely destroyed in Central and Eastern Ukraine by Bolsheviks. They uprooted, murdered, and starved to death the timeless Ukraine of Gogol's stories. They did something similar in Russia, but Russia is bigger. Renewal means erasing the 70 year Soviet nightmare, socially and culturally. There has been some success in central Ukraine but of course not much could be done with a place like Donbas which was created by and under Soviets and populated by them. AnoninTN likes to quote some Donbas warlord who stated "My mother is Ukrainian, my father is a German, that makes me a Russian." No, it makes you a deracinated rootless Sovok who happens to speak Russian because the Russian language was the USSR's lingua franca.

    But Western Ukraine was less damaged and is well-rooted. This is reflected in all sorts of social indicators such as crime rate, HIV rate, divorce rate, religiosity, out of wedlock birth rate, life expectancy, etc. On such measures it is the healthiest part of Ukraine and probably as healthy as the healthiest parts of Russia, if not more so.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

    Oh where to start… By your logic then Russian North Caucasus is the healthiest part of the Russia, it ticks all the boxes on your list by the way. Galicia as a case is more similar to Baltic countries and has very different history from all the lands inhabited by the Eastern Slavs. They never were part of Russia before 1939, so they had less of history of Russian administration than Baltics had. From my point of view their annexation was probably one of the biggest mistakes that Stalin ever did. Without them Russophilic Ukraine would be reality and Polish-Ukrainian antipathy would had continued. By the way why you are so positive towards Galicia? They are the enemies of whole greater Russian civilization, or at least their nationalism is(yes there are good Galicians, those few Russified ones).

    By denying the Soviet past and/or saying that it was evil you are committing the same sin that Bolsheviks committed, cutting roots once again. Great national narratives are based on unity and healing. In Finland they had a civil war that divided that nation very, very strongly, but they had wise leaders and politicians who made everything so that reconciliation would succeed. Its infantile to think that things are resolved by throwing gas into fire. Great nations and civilizations accept the past and proudly walk towards the future, filled with experience and wisdom. Then there are Germany, UK, Ukraine, and soon USA, who are all in the process of cutting their roots and having a bipolar attitude towards their past. I dont see it as healthy and I dont wish same to Russia. We can accept the mistakes of Soviet Union in the same way as CCP when talks about Mao or about Cultural revolution. Like I wrote, in good or bad Soviet past is part of the Russia, nothing good would arise from its demonization, although free and open discussion about it would be good for the society. But then if you want Russia that is divided and polarized, then by all means support the black and white view of the past.

    • Replies: @AP
    @AltanBakshi


    By your logic then Russian North Caucasus is the healthiest part of the Russia,
     
    A region can be healthy but also bad. This region is very healthy, but its violently Islamic culture is unappealing for Europeans and Christians.

    Galicia as a case is more similar to Baltic countries and has very different history from all the lands inhabited by the Eastern Slavs.
     
    There are several regions in Western Ukraine. Volhynia was part of the Russian Empire and has an identical history with Right Bank Ukraine (central Ukraine including Kiev oblast) until 1919 when it became part of Poland. Galicia had the same history as central Ukraine until the 1770s when it became part of Austria. While Galicia is an outlier, most of Ukraine spent more time as part of Poland and Lithuania than they did as part of Russia.

    From my point of view their annexation was probably one of the biggest mistakes that Stalin ever did. Without them Russophilic Ukraine would be reality and Polish-Ukrainian antipathy would had continued.
     
    Central Ukraine was not "Russophilic." Its people voted for Ukrainian nationalist parties even in 1917 and during the Civil War there were no pro-Russian leaders or military units from those territories. Without Galicia, Ukraine would still have been divided, but the pro-Western Ukrainians in Kiev would have been outnumbered by the pro-Russians and ethnic Russians in Kharkiv, Donbas and Crimea.

    By the way why you are so positive towards Galicia?
     
    I know it very well; three of my grandparents are from there. The fourth is from a village in central Ukraine 2 hours by car from Kiev, but moved from Kharkiv to Lviv in 1939.

    They are the enemies of whole greater Russian civilization, or at least their nationalism is
     
    If you mean Great Russian civilization specifically, then sure. Galicia was a rival of Suzdal even before the Mongolian invasion. It was the last owner of Kiev prior to that catastrophe.

    But if you mean greater Rus civilization, not really. It is another vector of it, not an enemy of it. It has retained its East Slavic identity under incredible pressure.

    BTW in 1918, Galicia was less anti-Russian than was Central and Eastern Ukraine. Galicians made a deal with Denikin and the two groups didn't shoot at each other that much. In contrast to Petliura or Makhno.

    Also, Ukrainian nationalism was not a native Galician thing but was brought to Galicia by exiles from Central and Eastern Ukraine such as Hrushevsky.

    I am neither a Russian nor Ukrainian nationalist, I support all the Rus peoples (and Slavs, and Christians).

    (yes there are good Galicians, those few Russified ones).
     


    There have been Russophile Galicians (some of my family origins are from those) but no real Russified ones. My Russophile great-grandparents spoke Polish primarily, though they were loyal to Russia and even hosted Brusilov (or governor Bobrinsky, I have forgotten this detail) at their estate during the war. Afterwards they provided shelter for many Whites fleeing westward. My grandmother's oldest brothers were sent to the military-medical academy in St. Petersburg and stayed in Russia after the Revolution. One of them married a ballerina from the Mariinsky theater and moved to a village outside Moscow - by bizarre coincidence of fate, the same one where my wife's family has a dacha! I was born in the USA, my wife in Russia. Years after our marriage we discovered this link between our families.

    Replies: @Ano4, @AltanBakshi

  166. @AltanBakshi
    @AaronB

    I tried to be humble with nutcase like you, but its just impossible for you never ever learn. "Your version," I am part of living tradition and if I am wrong in some views regarding of Buddhism, my Geshes will quickly correct me after some healthy debate and discussion. But for your kind, for postmodernists everything is hyper-individualist, and no one can see what other really thinks, and everybody has his own unique view, and everything is just personal interpretations. In Buddhism we believe that those who have attained high level on Jhana/Dhayana/Chan meditation can perceive other beings mental states. I will try one last time. You said that you have learned from books, right? But what about painting? Would you ever learn to be a good painter if you would read all your life books about painting, but you would never practice painting? Would you? If you will answer no, then think how much harder its to attain the state of some like Buddha!

    Also you are quite petty asshole that by stating that it would be more aggressive, quite subjective I would say? Like you have no regard to other people's religion and culture, but when its about yours then its "aggressive!"

    Yes Rabbinic Jews falsified their texts, when comparing to Septuagint, for the Masoretic text was composed even after the Quran was composed, quite gap in time! Also Karaites are the real Jews when the rest are fakes!

    You know possibly I believe so, possibly not, but your presumptuous attitude leaves me no choice.
    I tried humility with you, thought that maybe he will then stop his again and again disproved claims of understanding the Dharma. Your version of Buddhism is no Buddhism at all, from Buddha's viewpoint its heretical. He clearly stated which kind of views are to be seen as heretical. For God's sake Buddhism is a religion, not some hippie festival, where everyone is free to think and do as they like. Every Zen master was under teacher-disciple relationship. You are not therefore you are like someone who hasnt gone school but still saying that he knows all about the stuff that they taught in school.

    Replies: @AaronB

    Well, in my opinion practice doesn’t work – it only builds your ego. There are studies that show people who meditate become more egotistic.

    Huang Po tells me practice is useless, and there is no need to achieve anything. We are all already Buddhas. I believe Huang Po.

    So for me, the best practice is to just sit back and relax and let things take their course. I’m already where I need to be.

    I understand that for you its practice. I am not saying you are wrong. Instead of right and wrong, I prefer to think of it in terms of levels of insight. So you are right for your level.

    So you see, I am not invalidating you.

    Good luck on your journey.

    • Replies: @AltanBakshi
    @AaronB

    I never would have thought that anyone could be as much caricature of misunderstanding the Dharma as you are. I could again say somethings about Huang Po that would prove that you are lost. But what it helps! And by the way your understanding of Buddhadharma does invalidate it. So there's that.

    So let's go to the wonderful topic of Judaism and Islam, to the wonderland of monotheistic desert religions, oh what ano4 said about Ishmael, hmm quite puzzling and the promise that was given to him and his descendants. After all he was the older son of the Abraham, so Jews are from junior branch, compared to the Arabs, who are the older brothers after all. Truly God works in mysterious ways. I could continue this, or prove that Christians are the true Israel, or that it was lost after Assyrians conquered it and now only true Israelites left are the Samaritans, but maybe I'm not so petty?

    Sparring with you is quite fun, your defense is bad, but you dont let yourself get cornered, so I cant finish you off. Buddha called people like you "eel wrigglers."

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

  167. @Anatoly Karlin
    @AltanBakshi

    A Russia defeated by Germany in WW1 would be reduced (plus or minus) to its current borders within Europe - assuming no subsequent revisions - but would have almost twice its population, in the absence of the repeated demographic catastrophes of the 1917-1947 period.

    For Russia, the second greatest tragedy after losing the war by forfeit is that Germany didn't win it.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

    When I was younger I believed that victory of the German empire would had been better for the Europe in the longer run, but now I am not so sure. I thought that Germans of those times were much, much more civilized and nobler than Hitler’s Nazis, yes they were, but not so much as I thought. Ludendorff already had plans about colonization and settling of his troops in Ober Ost. German army also had sense of cultural and racial superiority compared to locals in the East. Victorious Germany vwould never ever allowed Russia to regain its power. I think that its highly possible that if Germany had won war in 1918 or 1919, when Russia was in civil war, that they would have separated Cossack areas from Russia, they were already supporting Azerbaijan and Georgia. So what you would end with rump Russia? Political situation would possibly be even worse than nowadays, although I hate the hegemony of the empire, but they still are not anywhere as militaristic and ready to take their chances on the field of battle as Prussian led German empire. We are of course now speaking about highly hypothetical scenarios. But there are some things that are certain if Germany had won. A Russia with pre-ww2 border with Finland, without Belarus, Baltics, Ukraine and Caucasus, led by Communists that no German Junker government would tolerate on its borders. In my view that kind of situation in 1920 would be even worse than Soviet Russia’s in 1924. And also even worse than situation 1920 in real life, at least German empire had fallen. Maybe they would put some aristocrat on throne, but what future that would been, a broken divided Russia in semi-colonial relationship with the German empire?

    • Replies: @AP
    @AltanBakshi


    Victorious Germany vwould never ever allowed Russia to regain its power.
     
    Russian (it was more like Soviet, and thus not completely Russian and in some respects anti-Russian) "power" only lasted 40 years and resulted in a terribly weak, underpopulated and poor Russia.

    I think that its highly possible that if Germany had won war in 1918 or 1919, when Russia was in civil war, that they would have separated Cossack areas from Russia, they were already supporting Azerbaijan and Georgia.
     
    This would only have occurred if the Bolsheviks had stayed in power in Moscow.

    In that case, why would this be bad? The Cossack areas and southern Russia would have avoided genocidal terror-famine, gulags, mass repressions that other Russians were forced to endure. IIRC Soviets killed about 2 million people in the Russian Cossack lands. These regions would have retained higher levels of fertility. The Church would not have been touched or compromised. If non-Russian Kalmyk areas were speared that too would have been a very good thing. Taking into account the lives saved, the fertility boost, and the children and grandchildren those now-saved people would have had, anti-Soviet, German-sponsored Russian "Taiwan" would have meant about 6 million more Russian people in the world today. It would have meant a healthy, prosperous, traditional, relatively non-corrupt, religious, non-Soviet Cossack Russia of 20 million people with international mountain and beach resorts, probably a high cultural level (many exiles would have moved there rather than to Paris or been lost in the gulags). How is that worse than what actually happened?

    However, a more likely scenario is that Germany wouldn't tolerate a Bolshevik state on their periphery and that they would instead promote some friendly reactionary White government. Russia would lose Ukraine, the Baltics, and the Caucuses but would retain Central Asia, which would not be made into separate republics who would one day split off. This would mean many more Muslims within Russia's borders. Fortunately, however, the lack of Soviet rule would have meant that there would not have been an ethnic Russian demographic collapse. There probably would have been 200 million ethnic Russians rather than only 120 million, to balance out all of those Central Asians (and loss of troublesome Caucasian Muslims would somewhat balance the large numbers of more compliant Central Asian ones). Russian world might not have been a global superpower but it would have been strong and healthy and huge enough to be relatively self-contained. It would have had something like China's current position.

    Again, how is this worse than the actual reality? Was 40 years of superpower glory worth the deaths of tens of millions, wholesale destruction of culture, traditions, religion, morality, etc., and all ending in a shadow of what once was and could have been?

    So yes, German defeat was a tragedy for Russia also.

  168. @AaronB
    @AltanBakshi

    Well, in my opinion practice doesn't work - it only builds your ego. There are studies that show people who meditate become more egotistic.

    Huang Po tells me practice is useless, and there is no need to achieve anything. We are all already Buddhas. I believe Huang Po.

    So for me, the best practice is to just sit back and relax and let things take their course. I'm already where I need to be.

    I understand that for you its practice. I am not saying you are wrong. Instead of right and wrong, I prefer to think of it in terms of levels of insight. So you are right for your level.

    So you see, I am not invalidating you.

    Good luck on your journey.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

    I never would have thought that anyone could be as much caricature of misunderstanding the Dharma as you are. I could again say somethings about Huang Po that would prove that you are lost. But what it helps! And by the way your understanding of Buddhadharma does invalidate it. So there’s that.

    So let’s go to the wonderful topic of Judaism and Islam, to the wonderland of monotheistic desert religions, oh what ano4 said about Ishmael, hmm quite puzzling and the promise that was given to him and his descendants. After all he was the older son of the Abraham, so Jews are from junior branch, compared to the Arabs, who are the older brothers after all. Truly God works in mysterious ways. I could continue this, or prove that Christians are the true Israel, or that it was lost after Assyrians conquered it and now only true Israelites left are the Samaritans, but maybe I’m not so petty?

    Sparring with you is quite fun, your defense is bad, but you dont let yourself get cornered, so I cant finish you off. Buddha called people like you “eel wrigglers.”

    • Agree: Ano4
    • Replies: @AltanBakshi
    @AltanBakshi

    The Buddha’s teaching of the Dharma is based on two truths: a truth of worldly convention and an ultimate truth. Those who do not understand the distinction drawn between these two truths do not understand the Buddha’s profound truth. Without a foundation in the conventional truth the significance of the ultimate cannot be taught. Without understanding the significance of the ultimate, liberation is not achieved.

    -Nagarjuna, Mulamadhyamakakarika

    What Huang Po taught to his students was the ultimate truth, and the students had already a good grasp of conventional truth/view of reality, but you claim that its not needed that you have already understanding of the ultimate, without conventional. It does invalidate whole Mahayana Buddhism, such arrogance from you. Although your arrogance knows no limits.

  169. @AltanBakshi
    @AaronB

    I never would have thought that anyone could be as much caricature of misunderstanding the Dharma as you are. I could again say somethings about Huang Po that would prove that you are lost. But what it helps! And by the way your understanding of Buddhadharma does invalidate it. So there's that.

    So let's go to the wonderful topic of Judaism and Islam, to the wonderland of monotheistic desert religions, oh what ano4 said about Ishmael, hmm quite puzzling and the promise that was given to him and his descendants. After all he was the older son of the Abraham, so Jews are from junior branch, compared to the Arabs, who are the older brothers after all. Truly God works in mysterious ways. I could continue this, or prove that Christians are the true Israel, or that it was lost after Assyrians conquered it and now only true Israelites left are the Samaritans, but maybe I'm not so petty?

    Sparring with you is quite fun, your defense is bad, but you dont let yourself get cornered, so I cant finish you off. Buddha called people like you "eel wrigglers."

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

    The Buddha’s teaching of the Dharma is based on two truths: a truth of worldly convention and an ultimate truth. Those who do not understand the distinction drawn between these two truths do not understand the Buddha’s profound truth. Without a foundation in the conventional truth the significance of the ultimate cannot be taught. Without understanding the significance of the ultimate, liberation is not achieved.

    -Nagarjuna, Mulamadhyamakakarika

    What Huang Po taught to his students was the ultimate truth, and the students had already a good grasp of conventional truth/view of reality, but you claim that its not needed that you have already understanding of the ultimate, without conventional. It does invalidate whole Mahayana Buddhism, such arrogance from you. Although your arrogance knows no limits.

    • Agree: Ano4
  170. AP says:
    @AltanBakshi
    @Anatoly Karlin

    When I was younger I believed that victory of the German empire would had been better for the Europe in the longer run, but now I am not so sure. I thought that Germans of those times were much, much more civilized and nobler than Hitler's Nazis, yes they were, but not so much as I thought. Ludendorff already had plans about colonization and settling of his troops in Ober Ost. German army also had sense of cultural and racial superiority compared to locals in the East. Victorious Germany vwould never ever allowed Russia to regain its power. I think that its highly possible that if Germany had won war in 1918 or 1919, when Russia was in civil war, that they would have separated Cossack areas from Russia, they were already supporting Azerbaijan and Georgia. So what you would end with rump Russia? Political situation would possibly be even worse than nowadays, although I hate the hegemony of the empire, but they still are not anywhere as militaristic and ready to take their chances on the field of battle as Prussian led German empire. We are of course now speaking about highly hypothetical scenarios. But there are some things that are certain if Germany had won. A Russia with pre-ww2 border with Finland, without Belarus, Baltics, Ukraine and Caucasus, led by Communists that no German Junker government would tolerate on its borders. In my view that kind of situation in 1920 would be even worse than Soviet Russia's in 1924. And also even worse than situation 1920 in real life, at least German empire had fallen. Maybe they would put some aristocrat on throne, but what future that would been, a broken divided Russia in semi-colonial relationship with the German empire?

    Replies: @AP

    Victorious Germany vwould never ever allowed Russia to regain its power.

    Russian (it was more like Soviet, and thus not completely Russian and in some respects anti-Russian) “power” only lasted 40 years and resulted in a terribly weak, underpopulated and poor Russia.

    I think that its highly possible that if Germany had won war in 1918 or 1919, when Russia was in civil war, that they would have separated Cossack areas from Russia, they were already supporting Azerbaijan and Georgia.

    This would only have occurred if the Bolsheviks had stayed in power in Moscow.

    In that case, why would this be bad? The Cossack areas and southern Russia would have avoided genocidal terror-famine, gulags, mass repressions that other Russians were forced to endure. IIRC Soviets killed about 2 million people in the Russian Cossack lands. These regions would have retained higher levels of fertility. The Church would not have been touched or compromised. If non-Russian Kalmyk areas were speared that too would have been a very good thing. Taking into account the lives saved, the fertility boost, and the children and grandchildren those now-saved people would have had, anti-Soviet, German-sponsored Russian “Taiwan” would have meant about 6 million more Russian people in the world today. It would have meant a healthy, prosperous, traditional, relatively non-corrupt, religious, non-Soviet Cossack Russia of 20 million people with international mountain and beach resorts, probably a high cultural level (many exiles would have moved there rather than to Paris or been lost in the gulags). How is that worse than what actually happened?

    However, a more likely scenario is that Germany wouldn’t tolerate a Bolshevik state on their periphery and that they would instead promote some friendly reactionary White government. Russia would lose Ukraine, the Baltics, and the Caucuses but would retain Central Asia, which would not be made into separate republics who would one day split off. This would mean many more Muslims within Russia’s borders. Fortunately, however, the lack of Soviet rule would have meant that there would not have been an ethnic Russian demographic collapse. There probably would have been 200 million ethnic Russians rather than only 120 million, to balance out all of those Central Asians (and loss of troublesome Caucasian Muslims would somewhat balance the large numbers of more compliant Central Asian ones). Russian world might not have been a global superpower but it would have been strong and healthy and huge enough to be relatively self-contained. It would have had something like China’s current position.

    Again, how is this worse than the actual reality? Was 40 years of superpower glory worth the deaths of tens of millions, wholesale destruction of culture, traditions, religion, morality, etc., and all ending in a shadow of what once was and could have been?

    So yes, German defeat was a tragedy for Russia also.

  171. AP says:
    @AltanBakshi
    @AP

    Oh where to start... By your logic then Russian North Caucasus is the healthiest part of the Russia, it ticks all the boxes on your list by the way. Galicia as a case is more similar to Baltic countries and has very different history from all the lands inhabited by the Eastern Slavs. They never were part of Russia before 1939, so they had less of history of Russian administration than Baltics had. From my point of view their annexation was probably one of the biggest mistakes that Stalin ever did. Without them Russophilic Ukraine would be reality and Polish-Ukrainian antipathy would had continued. By the way why you are so positive towards Galicia? They are the enemies of whole greater Russian civilization, or at least their nationalism is(yes there are good Galicians, those few Russified ones).

    By denying the Soviet past and/or saying that it was evil you are committing the same sin that Bolsheviks committed, cutting roots once again. Great national narratives are based on unity and healing. In Finland they had a civil war that divided that nation very, very strongly, but they had wise leaders and politicians who made everything so that reconciliation would succeed. Its infantile to think that things are resolved by throwing gas into fire. Great nations and civilizations accept the past and proudly walk towards the future, filled with experience and wisdom. Then there are Germany, UK, Ukraine, and soon USA, who are all in the process of cutting their roots and having a bipolar attitude towards their past. I dont see it as healthy and I dont wish same to Russia. We can accept the mistakes of Soviet Union in the same way as CCP when talks about Mao or about Cultural revolution. Like I wrote, in good or bad Soviet past is part of the Russia, nothing good would arise from its demonization, although free and open discussion about it would be good for the society. But then if you want Russia that is divided and polarized, then by all means support the black and white view of the past.

    Replies: @AP

    By your logic then Russian North Caucasus is the healthiest part of the Russia,

    A region can be healthy but also bad. This region is very healthy, but its violently Islamic culture is unappealing for Europeans and Christians.

    Galicia as a case is more similar to Baltic countries and has very different history from all the lands inhabited by the Eastern Slavs.

    There are several regions in Western Ukraine. Volhynia was part of the Russian Empire and has an identical history with Right Bank Ukraine (central Ukraine including Kiev oblast) until 1919 when it became part of Poland. Galicia had the same history as central Ukraine until the 1770s when it became part of Austria. While Galicia is an outlier, most of Ukraine spent more time as part of Poland and Lithuania than they did as part of Russia.

    From my point of view their annexation was probably one of the biggest mistakes that Stalin ever did. Without them Russophilic Ukraine would be reality and Polish-Ukrainian antipathy would had continued.

    Central Ukraine was not “Russophilic.” Its people voted for Ukrainian nationalist parties even in 1917 and during the Civil War there were no pro-Russian leaders or military units from those territories. Without Galicia, Ukraine would still have been divided, but the pro-Western Ukrainians in Kiev would have been outnumbered by the pro-Russians and ethnic Russians in Kharkiv, Donbas and Crimea.

    By the way why you are so positive towards Galicia?

    I know it very well; three of my grandparents are from there. The fourth is from a village in central Ukraine 2 hours by car from Kiev, but moved from Kharkiv to Lviv in 1939.

    They are the enemies of whole greater Russian civilization, or at least their nationalism is

    If you mean Great Russian civilization specifically, then sure. Galicia was a rival of Suzdal even before the Mongolian invasion. It was the last owner of Kiev prior to that catastrophe.

    But if you mean greater Rus civilization, not really. It is another vector of it, not an enemy of it. It has retained its East Slavic identity under incredible pressure.

    BTW in 1918, Galicia was less anti-Russian than was Central and Eastern Ukraine. Galicians made a deal with Denikin and the two groups didn’t shoot at each other that much. In contrast to Petliura or Makhno.

    Also, Ukrainian nationalism was not a native Galician thing but was brought to Galicia by exiles from Central and Eastern Ukraine such as Hrushevsky.

    I am neither a Russian nor Ukrainian nationalist, I support all the Rus peoples (and Slavs, and Christians).

    (yes there are good Galicians, those few Russified ones).

    [MORE]

    There have been Russophile Galicians (some of my family origins are from those) but no real Russified ones. My Russophile great-grandparents spoke Polish primarily, though they were loyal to Russia and even hosted Brusilov (or governor Bobrinsky, I have forgotten this detail) at their estate during the war. Afterwards they provided shelter for many Whites fleeing westward. My grandmother’s oldest brothers were sent to the military-medical academy in St. Petersburg and stayed in Russia after the Revolution. One of them married a ballerina from the Mariinsky theater and moved to a village outside Moscow – by bizarre coincidence of fate, the same one where my wife’s family has a dacha! I was born in the USA, my wife in Russia. Years after our marriage we discovered this link between our families.

    • Replies: @Ano4
    @AP


    I am neither a Russian nor Ukrainian nationalist, I support all the Rus peoples (and Slavs, and Christians).
     
    I agree with your take, this is how I feel too. Although I would extend my support to the people of all religious traditions that are not destructive towards other cultures and belief systems.



    I would support anyone who makes a good neighbor and a good friend, with whom a common long term interest might be found and a lasting synergy can be built.

    All the better if this person is from a related genetic population, but if he is from a more distant genetic lineage, but shares the same values and acts respectfully, then this person would never be my enemy just because of his race, ethnic makeup or religious beliefs.

    I am thoroughly a race-realist, but I believe that despite their differences people can live in mutual harmony and respect if they have common values.

    Same about religion, I am well aware of the differences between different creeds, I know full well the conflict potential these differences entail, but I still believe that the majority of people prefer peaceful and harmonious life to strife and struggle against each other.
    , @AltanBakshi
    @AP

    Its possible that your scenario would have succeeded although in my belief you make basic mistake of people on right, belief that Germans of those times were not as highly imperialistic and chauvinistic as they were. Also it presumes that everything would had gone perfectly for defenceless rump Russia and for separatist Cossack states. I believe that my scenario would have been as or more possible. But now we are going too far, speculation with alternative history has its limits in my opinion. Its one thing to presume how things would have ended just after the war if there were different winners, and another thing how things would happened decades after the wars.

    Your Galicia of 1914 is no more, the reality is that Galicia after 1939 has been the center of Russophobia and that Galician people have done everything to stop Russia's historic mission of regathering the Rus' lands. They may be the most dangerous population in Europe regarding Russia's ambitions. I never said that Central Ukraine is Russophilic, but without Galicia those parties and populations who support good relations with Russia would had have reliable majority of population and votes, as you probably yourself know, therefore Eastern and Southern Ukraine would had dominated Ukrainian politics. And I dont care how Ukrainian nationalism got into Galicia, what is quite clear that they are only Eastern Slavs under the Catholic church and themselves culturally a mutilated child of Rus' under centuries of brainwashing under Poles and Austrians. They are a Frankensteins monster that should go on their separate way. After all historically the major identifier for Rus' civilization has been an Orthodox faith. They may have been once part of Rus', but now they are only a mockery of Rus', real Latin Ruthenia they are, nothing more, nothing less.

    What you preach is a bipolar Russian nation, but thank God and Buddha that we dont have such kind of leaders in Russia, for verily Russia espoused by you would rehabilitate all the traitors: Vlasovites, Mazepas and all the rest. Verily Russia would be on Ukraines failed path. Past has happened, we cant change it, only choose between rejecting it like rootless revolutionaries, or accept it and grow as individuals and as nations.

    Truth is that modern Russia with all its faults, with all its dirt and failures is the present incarnation of the ancient Rus'! It is only East Slavic state with an administrative continuity from the Kievan Rus' through principality of Vladimir-Suzdal, therefore it had arisen from one part of ancient Rus' that retained its autonomy through harsh years of Mongol invasion. It shares the faith of Rus' and is not under religious schism like Ukrainian nation, where state authorities support schismatics or even worse Catholics, when in Russia the patriarch of Moscow and all Rus' has a direct line of succession with the ancient metropolitan of Kiev and all Rus'. For me the people if Donbass, the people of Urals and so on are the real Rus', no matter their social problems, verily Rus' are not some people who bow before Roman pope and who use lyakh words. True Rus' are descentants of those who beat the Nazi armies and saved Europe, not those who joined Hitler in murderous glee and once again show their true colors by doing their very best as lackeys of USA.

    Replies: @AP

  172. @AP
    @AltanBakshi


    By your logic then Russian North Caucasus is the healthiest part of the Russia,
     
    A region can be healthy but also bad. This region is very healthy, but its violently Islamic culture is unappealing for Europeans and Christians.

    Galicia as a case is more similar to Baltic countries and has very different history from all the lands inhabited by the Eastern Slavs.
     
    There are several regions in Western Ukraine. Volhynia was part of the Russian Empire and has an identical history with Right Bank Ukraine (central Ukraine including Kiev oblast) until 1919 when it became part of Poland. Galicia had the same history as central Ukraine until the 1770s when it became part of Austria. While Galicia is an outlier, most of Ukraine spent more time as part of Poland and Lithuania than they did as part of Russia.

    From my point of view their annexation was probably one of the biggest mistakes that Stalin ever did. Without them Russophilic Ukraine would be reality and Polish-Ukrainian antipathy would had continued.
     
    Central Ukraine was not "Russophilic." Its people voted for Ukrainian nationalist parties even in 1917 and during the Civil War there were no pro-Russian leaders or military units from those territories. Without Galicia, Ukraine would still have been divided, but the pro-Western Ukrainians in Kiev would have been outnumbered by the pro-Russians and ethnic Russians in Kharkiv, Donbas and Crimea.

    By the way why you are so positive towards Galicia?
     
    I know it very well; three of my grandparents are from there. The fourth is from a village in central Ukraine 2 hours by car from Kiev, but moved from Kharkiv to Lviv in 1939.

    They are the enemies of whole greater Russian civilization, or at least their nationalism is
     
    If you mean Great Russian civilization specifically, then sure. Galicia was a rival of Suzdal even before the Mongolian invasion. It was the last owner of Kiev prior to that catastrophe.

    But if you mean greater Rus civilization, not really. It is another vector of it, not an enemy of it. It has retained its East Slavic identity under incredible pressure.

    BTW in 1918, Galicia was less anti-Russian than was Central and Eastern Ukraine. Galicians made a deal with Denikin and the two groups didn't shoot at each other that much. In contrast to Petliura or Makhno.

    Also, Ukrainian nationalism was not a native Galician thing but was brought to Galicia by exiles from Central and Eastern Ukraine such as Hrushevsky.

    I am neither a Russian nor Ukrainian nationalist, I support all the Rus peoples (and Slavs, and Christians).

    (yes there are good Galicians, those few Russified ones).
     


    There have been Russophile Galicians (some of my family origins are from those) but no real Russified ones. My Russophile great-grandparents spoke Polish primarily, though they were loyal to Russia and even hosted Brusilov (or governor Bobrinsky, I have forgotten this detail) at their estate during the war. Afterwards they provided shelter for many Whites fleeing westward. My grandmother's oldest brothers were sent to the military-medical academy in St. Petersburg and stayed in Russia after the Revolution. One of them married a ballerina from the Mariinsky theater and moved to a village outside Moscow - by bizarre coincidence of fate, the same one where my wife's family has a dacha! I was born in the USA, my wife in Russia. Years after our marriage we discovered this link between our families.

    Replies: @Ano4, @AltanBakshi

    I am neither a Russian nor Ukrainian nationalist, I support all the Rus peoples (and Slavs, and Christians).

    I agree with your take, this is how I feel too. Although I would extend my support to the people of all religious traditions that are not destructive towards other cultures and belief systems.

    [MORE]

    I would support anyone who makes a good neighbor and a good friend, with whom a common long term interest might be found and a lasting synergy can be built.

    All the better if this person is from a related genetic population, but if he is from a more distant genetic lineage, but shares the same values and acts respectfully, then this person would never be my enemy just because of his race, ethnic makeup or religious beliefs.

    I am thoroughly a race-realist, but I believe that despite their differences people can live in mutual harmony and respect if they have common values.

    Same about religion, I am well aware of the differences between different creeds, I know full well the conflict potential these differences entail, but I still believe that the majority of people prefer peaceful and harmonious life to strife and struggle against each other.

    • Agree: AP
  173. @AP
    @AltanBakshi


    By your logic then Russian North Caucasus is the healthiest part of the Russia,
     
    A region can be healthy but also bad. This region is very healthy, but its violently Islamic culture is unappealing for Europeans and Christians.

    Galicia as a case is more similar to Baltic countries and has very different history from all the lands inhabited by the Eastern Slavs.
     
    There are several regions in Western Ukraine. Volhynia was part of the Russian Empire and has an identical history with Right Bank Ukraine (central Ukraine including Kiev oblast) until 1919 when it became part of Poland. Galicia had the same history as central Ukraine until the 1770s when it became part of Austria. While Galicia is an outlier, most of Ukraine spent more time as part of Poland and Lithuania than they did as part of Russia.

    From my point of view their annexation was probably one of the biggest mistakes that Stalin ever did. Without them Russophilic Ukraine would be reality and Polish-Ukrainian antipathy would had continued.
     
    Central Ukraine was not "Russophilic." Its people voted for Ukrainian nationalist parties even in 1917 and during the Civil War there were no pro-Russian leaders or military units from those territories. Without Galicia, Ukraine would still have been divided, but the pro-Western Ukrainians in Kiev would have been outnumbered by the pro-Russians and ethnic Russians in Kharkiv, Donbas and Crimea.

    By the way why you are so positive towards Galicia?
     
    I know it very well; three of my grandparents are from there. The fourth is from a village in central Ukraine 2 hours by car from Kiev, but moved from Kharkiv to Lviv in 1939.

    They are the enemies of whole greater Russian civilization, or at least their nationalism is
     
    If you mean Great Russian civilization specifically, then sure. Galicia was a rival of Suzdal even before the Mongolian invasion. It was the last owner of Kiev prior to that catastrophe.

    But if you mean greater Rus civilization, not really. It is another vector of it, not an enemy of it. It has retained its East Slavic identity under incredible pressure.

    BTW in 1918, Galicia was less anti-Russian than was Central and Eastern Ukraine. Galicians made a deal with Denikin and the two groups didn't shoot at each other that much. In contrast to Petliura or Makhno.

    Also, Ukrainian nationalism was not a native Galician thing but was brought to Galicia by exiles from Central and Eastern Ukraine such as Hrushevsky.

    I am neither a Russian nor Ukrainian nationalist, I support all the Rus peoples (and Slavs, and Christians).

    (yes there are good Galicians, those few Russified ones).
     


    There have been Russophile Galicians (some of my family origins are from those) but no real Russified ones. My Russophile great-grandparents spoke Polish primarily, though they were loyal to Russia and even hosted Brusilov (or governor Bobrinsky, I have forgotten this detail) at their estate during the war. Afterwards they provided shelter for many Whites fleeing westward. My grandmother's oldest brothers were sent to the military-medical academy in St. Petersburg and stayed in Russia after the Revolution. One of them married a ballerina from the Mariinsky theater and moved to a village outside Moscow - by bizarre coincidence of fate, the same one where my wife's family has a dacha! I was born in the USA, my wife in Russia. Years after our marriage we discovered this link between our families.

    Replies: @Ano4, @AltanBakshi

    Its possible that your scenario would have succeeded although in my belief you make basic mistake of people on right, belief that Germans of those times were not as highly imperialistic and chauvinistic as they were. Also it presumes that everything would had gone perfectly for defenceless rump Russia and for separatist Cossack states. I believe that my scenario would have been as or more possible. But now we are going too far, speculation with alternative history has its limits in my opinion. Its one thing to presume how things would have ended just after the war if there were different winners, and another thing how things would happened decades after the wars.

    Your Galicia of 1914 is no more, the reality is that Galicia after 1939 has been the center of Russophobia and that Galician people have done everything to stop Russia’s historic mission of regathering the Rus’ lands. They may be the most dangerous population in Europe regarding Russia’s ambitions. I never said that Central Ukraine is Russophilic, but without Galicia those parties and populations who support good relations with Russia would had have reliable majority of population and votes, as you probably yourself know, therefore Eastern and Southern Ukraine would had dominated Ukrainian politics. And I dont care how Ukrainian nationalism got into Galicia, what is quite clear that they are only Eastern Slavs under the Catholic church and themselves culturally a mutilated child of Rus’ under centuries of brainwashing under Poles and Austrians. They are a Frankensteins monster that should go on their separate way. After all historically the major identifier for Rus’ civilization has been an Orthodox faith. They may have been once part of Rus’, but now they are only a mockery of Rus’, real Latin Ruthenia they are, nothing more, nothing less.

    What you preach is a bipolar Russian nation, but thank God and Buddha that we dont have such kind of leaders in Russia, for verily Russia espoused by you would rehabilitate all the traitors: Vlasovites, Mazepas and all the rest. Verily Russia would be on Ukraines failed path. Past has happened, we cant change it, only choose between rejecting it like rootless revolutionaries, or accept it and grow as individuals and as nations.

    Truth is that modern Russia with all its faults, with all its dirt and failures is the present incarnation of the ancient Rus’! It is only East Slavic state with an administrative continuity from the Kievan Rus’ through principality of Vladimir-Suzdal, therefore it had arisen from one part of ancient Rus’ that retained its autonomy through harsh years of Mongol invasion. It shares the faith of Rus’ and is not under religious schism like Ukrainian nation, where state authorities support schismatics or even worse Catholics, when in Russia the patriarch of Moscow and all Rus’ has a direct line of succession with the ancient metropolitan of Kiev and all Rus’. For me the people if Donbass, the people of Urals and so on are the real Rus’, no matter their social problems, verily Rus’ are not some people who bow before Roman pope and who use lyakh words. True Rus’ are descentants of those who beat the Nazi armies and saved Europe, not those who joined Hitler in murderous glee and once again show their true colors by doing their very best as lackeys of USA.

    • Replies: @AP
    @AltanBakshi


    Its possible that your scenario would have succeeded although in my belief you make basic mistake of people on right, belief that Germans of those times were not as highly imperialistic and chauvinistic as they were. Also it presumes that everything would had gone perfectly for defenceless rump Russia and for separatist Cossack states.
     
    Hungary and Bulgaria, etc. did fine as German allies. There is no reason to assume a Cossack Russia would not. Furthermore it is (sorry) ridiculous to claim that a Cossack Russia allied to Germany would be even close to as bad as Soviet rule. Soviets killed millions of people on Cossack lands and completely uprooted their traditional culture. Likewise for Ukraine.

    No Bolshevik rule in Russia means about 200 million ethnic Russians in Russia today rather than 120 million. Nothing the Soviets "accomplished" is worth 80 million people. And what they accomplished wasn't much, and very brief.

    Your Galicia of 1914 is no more, the reality is that Galicia after 1939 has been the center of Russophobia
     
    Perhaps you should ask yourself why and how this happened? It wasn't because of Poles. They lavishly funded Russophiles in Galicia in the 1920s and 1930s in an effort to divide the East Slavs, renaming everything official from Ukrainian to Rus and restoring the venerable Russophile Stauropegion Institute. It was because the evil Soviet regime murdered some 5% of the local Rus population and deported another 5%, restored serfdom in the form of collective farms, doing far more harm to the Rus people living there than even the Poles ever did.

    Galician people have done everything to stop Russia’s historic mission of regathering the Rus’ lands.
     
    Correction: have done everything to stop Suzdal-Muscovy-Great Russia from conquering other Rus lands and assimilating/destroying the local Rus culture in those lands.

    I see now that you are not someone who treasures all-Rus culture (or pan-Slavic culture) but narrow Muscovite culture. A peripheral part of Rus, that grew strong and big and laid waste to old Novgorod and slaughtered its people and which tried but failed to erase the Rus culture of the Kiev and Galician lands. Your efforts backfired. Great Russian attempts to destroy Little Russian culture directly resulted in a backlash and the rise of anti-Russian Ukrainian nationalism, that then spread to Galicia where Rusyns became Ukrainians.

    what is quite clear that they are only Eastern Slavs under the Catholic church.
     
    Is a Church led by KGB snitches, whose predecessors murdered 100,000s of priests and monks (the ones left were largely collaborators of the murderers), better?

    After all historically the major identifier for Rus’ civilization has been an Orthodox faith.
     
    The faith forced upon the Slavs by Vikings who enslaved them has been a defining feature of Rus civilization but anti-Westernism (including violent opposition to Rome) has not been. This is a specific feature of Muscovite civilization which is only a part of Rus civilization.

    Let me remind you that St. Vladimir and Yaroslav the Wise were also part of a Church in union with Rome, and that the schism of 1054 was seen negatively in Kiev. Daniel of Galicia, last ruler of Kiev and all-Rus before the Mongolian catastrophe, accepted a crown from the Pope. Isidore of Kiev attempted aunion between East and West in 1439. The Greek Catholic Church in Galicia is an Orthodox Church in communion with Rome, a similar position to the Rus Church of Vladimir and Yaroslav.

    The steadfast opposition to the West is a specific Suzdal-Muscovite- Great Russian thing, not a Rus phenomenon.

    I never said that Central Ukraine is Russophilic, but without Galicia those parties and populations who support good relations with Russia would had have reliable majority of population and votes, as you probably yourself know, therefore Eastern and Southern Ukraine would had dominated Ukrainian politics.
     
    So Ukraine would have been dominated by non-Ukrainians (Crimea) and Sovietized multinationals (Donbas) who destroyed both Little Russian and Great Russian culture. No thanks. People of Kiev and the ethnic Ukrainian heartland would not have wanted this.

    Verily Russia would be on Ukraines failed path.
     
    As I explained, Ukraine had failed because it included too many non-Ukrainians (Russians and Soviets) within its territory. Donbas is much more Soviet than Russia is. Without this problem Ukraine would probably have developed in a way similar to that of its neighbors Poland or Romania, which have done better than has Russia.

    Truth is that modern Russia with all its faults, with all its dirt and failures is the present incarnation of the ancient Rus’!
     
    It is an incarnation of one part of Rus. A peripheral part. Moscow did not even exist when Kiev accepted Greek Christianity in union with Rome.

    It is only East Slavic state with an administrative continuity from the Kievan Rus’ through principality of Vladimir-Suzdal
     
    When Napoleon seized Portugal, the royal family fled to Brazil which was the only place with administrative continuity. So verily the mulattos of Brazil were the only real Portuguese?

    therefore it had arisen from one part of ancient Rus’ that retained its autonomy through harsh years of Mongol invasion
     
    The Rus in Ukraine were heavily influenced by their Slavic brothers, the Poles. While the Rus of Muscovy were influenced by the alien (to Slavs) Mongols and Tatars.

    The Rus people survived and thrived as part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Kiev became a center of Orthodox learning, Rus princes led armies and a Rurikid Rus prince even got the Polish throne:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micha%C5%82_Korybut_Wi%C5%9Bniowiecki

    It is actually funny, that in the late 1600s the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was ruled by a Rurikid, while Moscow was not (it was ruled by a Romanov, they had Rurik descent through female ancestry).

    Rus people thrived under the Austrian Hapsburgs (more so than did Rus people under the ethnic German Romanovs). They were the wealthiest and most literate East Slavic population, preserving their Rus culture, Eastern Christianity, and speech.

    ::::::::::::

    Overall, from you I sadly see a combination of Great Russian chauvinism that divided the Rus people, and support of the Soviet state that murdered several millions of Rus people and was deadlier to them than any Poles or Swedes and whose incompetence enabled the Nazis to murder millions more.
  174. AP says:
    @AltanBakshi
    @AP

    Its possible that your scenario would have succeeded although in my belief you make basic mistake of people on right, belief that Germans of those times were not as highly imperialistic and chauvinistic as they were. Also it presumes that everything would had gone perfectly for defenceless rump Russia and for separatist Cossack states. I believe that my scenario would have been as or more possible. But now we are going too far, speculation with alternative history has its limits in my opinion. Its one thing to presume how things would have ended just after the war if there were different winners, and another thing how things would happened decades after the wars.

    Your Galicia of 1914 is no more, the reality is that Galicia after 1939 has been the center of Russophobia and that Galician people have done everything to stop Russia's historic mission of regathering the Rus' lands. They may be the most dangerous population in Europe regarding Russia's ambitions. I never said that Central Ukraine is Russophilic, but without Galicia those parties and populations who support good relations with Russia would had have reliable majority of population and votes, as you probably yourself know, therefore Eastern and Southern Ukraine would had dominated Ukrainian politics. And I dont care how Ukrainian nationalism got into Galicia, what is quite clear that they are only Eastern Slavs under the Catholic church and themselves culturally a mutilated child of Rus' under centuries of brainwashing under Poles and Austrians. They are a Frankensteins monster that should go on their separate way. After all historically the major identifier for Rus' civilization has been an Orthodox faith. They may have been once part of Rus', but now they are only a mockery of Rus', real Latin Ruthenia they are, nothing more, nothing less.

    What you preach is a bipolar Russian nation, but thank God and Buddha that we dont have such kind of leaders in Russia, for verily Russia espoused by you would rehabilitate all the traitors: Vlasovites, Mazepas and all the rest. Verily Russia would be on Ukraines failed path. Past has happened, we cant change it, only choose between rejecting it like rootless revolutionaries, or accept it and grow as individuals and as nations.

    Truth is that modern Russia with all its faults, with all its dirt and failures is the present incarnation of the ancient Rus'! It is only East Slavic state with an administrative continuity from the Kievan Rus' through principality of Vladimir-Suzdal, therefore it had arisen from one part of ancient Rus' that retained its autonomy through harsh years of Mongol invasion. It shares the faith of Rus' and is not under religious schism like Ukrainian nation, where state authorities support schismatics or even worse Catholics, when in Russia the patriarch of Moscow and all Rus' has a direct line of succession with the ancient metropolitan of Kiev and all Rus'. For me the people if Donbass, the people of Urals and so on are the real Rus', no matter their social problems, verily Rus' are not some people who bow before Roman pope and who use lyakh words. True Rus' are descentants of those who beat the Nazi armies and saved Europe, not those who joined Hitler in murderous glee and once again show their true colors by doing their very best as lackeys of USA.

    Replies: @AP

    Its possible that your scenario would have succeeded although in my belief you make basic mistake of people on right, belief that Germans of those times were not as highly imperialistic and chauvinistic as they were. Also it presumes that everything would had gone perfectly for defenceless rump Russia and for separatist Cossack states.

    Hungary and Bulgaria, etc. did fine as German allies. There is no reason to assume a Cossack Russia would not. Furthermore it is (sorry) ridiculous to claim that a Cossack Russia allied to Germany would be even close to as bad as Soviet rule. Soviets killed millions of people on Cossack lands and completely uprooted their traditional culture. Likewise for Ukraine.

    No Bolshevik rule in Russia means about 200 million ethnic Russians in Russia today rather than 120 million. Nothing the Soviets “accomplished” is worth 80 million people. And what they accomplished wasn’t much, and very brief.

    Your Galicia of 1914 is no more, the reality is that Galicia after 1939 has been the center of Russophobia

    Perhaps you should ask yourself why and how this happened? It wasn’t because of Poles. They lavishly funded Russophiles in Galicia in the 1920s and 1930s in an effort to divide the East Slavs, renaming everything official from Ukrainian to Rus and restoring the venerable Russophile Stauropegion Institute. It was because the evil Soviet regime murdered some 5% of the local Rus population and deported another 5%, restored serfdom in the form of collective farms, doing far more harm to the Rus people living there than even the Poles ever did.

    Galician people have done everything to stop Russia’s historic mission of regathering the Rus’ lands.

    Correction: have done everything to stop Suzdal-Muscovy-Great Russia from conquering other Rus lands and assimilating/destroying the local Rus culture in those lands.

    I see now that you are not someone who treasures all-Rus culture (or pan-Slavic culture) but narrow Muscovite culture. A peripheral part of Rus, that grew strong and big and laid waste to old Novgorod and slaughtered its people and which tried but failed to erase the Rus culture of the Kiev and Galician lands. Your efforts backfired. Great Russian attempts to destroy Little Russian culture directly resulted in a backlash and the rise of anti-Russian Ukrainian nationalism, that then spread to Galicia where Rusyns became Ukrainians.

    what is quite clear that they are only Eastern Slavs under the Catholic church.

    Is a Church led by KGB snitches, whose predecessors murdered 100,000s of priests and monks (the ones left were largely collaborators of the murderers), better?

    After all historically the major identifier for Rus’ civilization has been an Orthodox faith.

    The faith forced upon the Slavs by Vikings who enslaved them has been a defining feature of Rus civilization but anti-Westernism (including violent opposition to Rome) has not been. This is a specific feature of Muscovite civilization which is only a part of Rus civilization.

    Let me remind you that St. Vladimir and Yaroslav the Wise were also part of a Church in union with Rome, and that the schism of 1054 was seen negatively in Kiev. Daniel of Galicia, last ruler of Kiev and all-Rus before the Mongolian catastrophe, accepted a crown from the Pope. Isidore of Kiev attempted aunion between East and West in 1439. The Greek Catholic Church in Galicia is an Orthodox Church in communion with Rome, a similar position to the Rus Church of Vladimir and Yaroslav.

    The steadfast opposition to the West is a specific Suzdal-Muscovite- Great Russian thing, not a Rus phenomenon.

    I never said that Central Ukraine is Russophilic, but without Galicia those parties and populations who support good relations with Russia would had have reliable majority of population and votes, as you probably yourself know, therefore Eastern and Southern Ukraine would had dominated Ukrainian politics.

    So Ukraine would have been dominated by non-Ukrainians (Crimea) and Sovietized multinationals (Donbas) who destroyed both Little Russian and Great Russian culture. No thanks. People of Kiev and the ethnic Ukrainian heartland would not have wanted this.

    Verily Russia would be on Ukraines failed path.

    As I explained, Ukraine had failed because it included too many non-Ukrainians (Russians and Soviets) within its territory. Donbas is much more Soviet than Russia is. Without this problem Ukraine would probably have developed in a way similar to that of its neighbors Poland or Romania, which have done better than has Russia.

    Truth is that modern Russia with all its faults, with all its dirt and failures is the present incarnation of the ancient Rus’!

    It is an incarnation of one part of Rus. A peripheral part. Moscow did not even exist when Kiev accepted Greek Christianity in union with Rome.

    It is only East Slavic state with an administrative continuity from the Kievan Rus’ through principality of Vladimir-Suzdal

    When Napoleon seized Portugal, the royal family fled to Brazil which was the only place with administrative continuity. So verily the mulattos of Brazil were the only real Portuguese?

    therefore it had arisen from one part of ancient Rus’ that retained its autonomy through harsh years of Mongol invasion

    The Rus in Ukraine were heavily influenced by their Slavic brothers, the Poles. While the Rus of Muscovy were influenced by the alien (to Slavs) Mongols and Tatars.

    The Rus people survived and thrived as part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Kiev became a center of Orthodox learning, Rus princes led armies and a Rurikid Rus prince even got the Polish throne:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micha%C5%82_Korybut_Wi%C5%9Bniowiecki

    It is actually funny, that in the late 1600s the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was ruled by a Rurikid, while Moscow was not (it was ruled by a Romanov, they had Rurik descent through female ancestry).

    Rus people thrived under the Austrian Hapsburgs (more so than did Rus people under the ethnic German Romanovs). They were the wealthiest and most literate East Slavic population, preserving their Rus culture, Eastern Christianity, and speech.

    ::::::::::::

    Overall, from you I sadly see a combination of Great Russian chauvinism that divided the Rus people, and support of the Soviet state that murdered several millions of Rus people and was deadlier to them than any Poles or Swedes and whose incompetence enabled the Nazis to murder millions more.

    • LOL: Ano4
  175. Is a Church led by KGB snitches, whose predecessors murdered 100,000s of priests and monks (the ones left were largely collaborators of the murderers), better?

    What a surprise, a Christian heretic having heretic beliefs, Donatism by the other name, which is belief that Christian priests should be faultless so that there could be valid sacraments or that church becomes invalid by the sins of the clergy. When its clear for any honest inquirer of ecclesiastical history that validity of Church comes from the apostolic successions and adherence to Orthodox tradition. Still I believe that your figures are highly inflated, yes many died under Soviet purges, but total figure for clergy is probably in 200 000 at maximum and for the common people outside of war is in millions, not in tens of millions like that lying fraud Solzhenitsyn proclaims. Most dead were because of the famines. Still maybe there would had been 160-180 million Russians without Soviet government, still Sweden under Karl XII and French during revolutionary and Napolenic wars had similar demographic losses in the longer run, probably Germany too, the effect in fertility was not as great but near Russian levels after the world wars and complete demoralization of the German people, at least Russian median level is one of the lowest in Europe, although still too high.

    The faith forced upon the Slavs by Vikings who enslaved them has been a defining feature of Rus civilization but anti-Westernism (including violent opposition to Rome) has not been. This is a specific feature of Muscovite civilization which is only a part of Rus civilization.

    Let me remind you that St. Vladimir and Yaroslav the Wise were also part of a Church in union with Rome, and that the schism of 1054 was seen negatively in Kiev. Daniel of Galicia, last ruler of Kiev and all-Rus before the Mongolian catastrophe, accepted a crown from the Pope. Isidore of Kiev attempted aunion between East and West in 1439. The Greek Catholic Church in Galicia is an Orthodox Church in communion with Rome, a similar position to the Rus Church of Vladimir and Yaroslav.

    The steadfast opposition to the West is a specific Suzdal-Muscovite- Great Russian thing, not a Rus phenomenon.

    Really so many misrepresentations and twisted half truths? What about Alexander Nevsky who fought against Teutonic knights? What about Novgorod Republic who defended centuries the Northern borders of Rus’ , by fighting many wars against Sweden and Teutonic order, what about Pskov republic? They too could have become traitors and lose their culture and faith, but no they decided to fight no matter the odds.

    In the pre-schism Church Patriarch of the west, Bishop of Rome was one among equal patriarchs who did not have universal jurisdiction in the Church. The schism of 1054 had small effect on the politics or the working of the western or the eastern church. Only after the start of the Crusades common people became aware of schism or even the rulers of Russian principalities.

    The Council of Carthage (419): Saint Augustine and Saint Aurelius in this council condemned Pope Zosimus for interfering with the African Church’s jurisdiction by falsifying the text of Canon 5 of the First Council of Nicaea. They further warned Pope Zosimus, and later Pope Celestine I, not to “introduce the empty pride of the world into the Church of Christ” and to “keep their Roman noses out of African affairs”. The Council ruled that no bishop may call himself “Prince of Bishops” or “Supreme Bishop” or any other title which suggests Supremacy (Canon 39). It also ruled that if any of the African clergy dared to appeal to Rome, “the same was ipso facto cast out of the clergy”. (Canon 34)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_primacy#Opposition_arguments_from_Church_Councils

    As you see the Church of the Rus’ and Uniates(Greek-Catholics) had a very different communion with pope. One is based on the canons and mutual respect, second is based on the pride, servitude and lust of power.

    Daniel’s reasons to ally himself with pope were similar to the last emperor of the Byzantine Empire, Constantine XI. For Daniel wanted military aid against the Mongols. He was smart ruler and in the end he never subjugated True church of his lands under the Roman bishop. So both sides made just empty promises. And you in Goebbels like manner muddle things in this topic, Daniel was the last ruler of Kiev before it was conquered by Mongols, but he tried to ally with pope only after losing the City itself! And the last one is a joke, Metropolitan, or should I say Cardinal Isidore was put prison for heresy by the good people of the Rus’. For he betrayed the faith of their fathers and accepted the so called union. Once again proof that there was a healthy sense of cultural and religious cohesion. Also Rus’ has never been against all of the west, but only against the western invaders that are threat to it.

    Uniates are an Orthodox church under the Rome? Do you mean the turncoat church under the Rome? You yourself know that any Orthodox priest or monk would answer negatively if given such question. Practically they are a Polish colonial institution, a stepping stone on the road leading to polonization. Happily failed country of Poland was divided in the end of the 18th Century and Russians but end to this madness of their partition, but sadly it continued in Austrian part, whis by the way was the poorest part of Austria. Yes people could continue their culture of being serfs under the rule of Polish Szlachta. What a noble culture, truly a sign mark of the real Rus’! Before you say that things were similar in Russia, yes they were in Central and South Central lands, but in the steppes and in the Northern Russia most people were free farmers unlike in your beloved Galicia that had just slaves and foreign aristocrats, oh and Jews, lots of Jews.

    It is an incarnation of one part of Rus. A peripheral part. Moscow did not even exist when Kiev accepted Greek Christianity in union with Rome.

    So Galicia is not peripheral part? Lvov too didnt exist, actually its younger than Moscow, I have never understood Ukrainian nationalists preoccupation with the city of Moscow, were there people in Alexandria or Carthage shouting that their cities were older and less peripheral than Constantinople? But the first two capitals of the Rus’ belong even now to Russia, the Aldeigjuborg and the Novgorod, and Russia still holds at least half or even 2/3 of the original lands of the Rus’.

    When Napoleon seized Portugal, the royal family fled to Brazil which was the only place with administrative continuity. So verily the mulattos of Brazil were the only real Portuguese?

    Hah ha ha, Thats a strawman, if I’ve ever seen one. Russia has not just administrative but also geographical and cultural continuity, which defines it, not the royal family or Rurikids.

    The Rus in Ukraine were heavily influenced by their Slavic brothers, the Poles. While the Rus of Muscovy were influenced by the alien (to Slavs) Mongols and Tatars.

    Yep you have a bad case of Ukronazism, like the very epitome of the Ukrainian nationhood(in the modern narrative), the cossacks were not heavily influenced by the Mongols, Tatars and Turks? Their clothing, their haircut, their lifestyle, their genetics. Oh this is too funny. You should have said that Russians are Finns or something like that.

    Russian people were divided by Polish and Austrian imperialism and colonization, but Russia has tried it very best no matter the hard circumstances and uneven odds. You are just representative of petty nationalism of petty people, without historic perspective. Probably there were many tribes with peculiar cultures in Italian peninsula, who resisted the Romans, but in the end their were just road bumps of the history for the Romans, so too you Galicians will be for the Russian nation. Yes Stalin made mistakes for being too kind in Galicia, but in near decades the western hegemon beyond the ocean will crumble and the road will be open once again, and lets hope that your people will have then a chance to develop their language and culture in the steppes of Karaganda.

    • LOL: Ano4
    • Replies: @Ano4
    @AltanBakshi

    Well this is quite a khokhlosratch that you and AP are having. Why don't you both calm down a bit. Frankly, each of you has some good arguments...

    🙂

    Replies: @AP, @AltanBakshi

    , @AP
    @AltanBakshi


    What a surprise, a Christian heretic having heretic beliefs, Donatism by the other name, which is belief that Christian priests should be faultless so that there could be valid sacraments or that church becomes invalid by the sins of the clergy.
     
    I did not claim a single one of these things. Nice strawman.

    Still I believe that your figures are highly inflated, yes many died under Soviet purges, but total figure for clergy is probably in 200 000 at maximum
     
    That would be "100,000s of priests and monks" as I wrote.

    lying fraud Solzhenitsyn
     
    What a Rus patriot you are.

    Still maybe there would had been 160-180 million Russians without Soviet government
     
    No, more like 200 million. Let's accept 180 million for the sake of argument. 60 million lost Russians wasn't worth 40 years of second-place "superpower status" ending in a rusted heap.

    Really so many misrepresentations and twisted half truths?
     
    Projection, as will be shown below.

    What about Alexander Nevsky who fought against Teutonic knights?
     
    He was a Suzdalian who brutally slaughtered the people of Novgorod when they rebelled against the Mongols, cutting off their noses and such. He betrayed his own brother and the Rus prince of Galicia who wanted an anti-Mongolian alliance, snitching on them to his Mongolian overlords. Alexander Nevsky was a killer of Rus people.

    What about Novgorod Republic who defended centuries the Northern borders of Rus’
     
    An example of your half-truth.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novgorod_Republic

    Resisting the Muscovite oppression, the government of Novgorod sought an alliance with Poland–Lithuania. Most Novgorodian boyars wished to maintain the Republic's independence since if Novgorod were to be conquered, the boyars' wealth would flow to the grand prince and his Muscovite boyars, and the Novgorodians would fall into decline... According to tradition, Marfa Boretskaya, the wife of Posadnik Isak Boretskii, was the main proponent of an alliance with Poland-Lithuania to save the Republic.

    Muscovite authorities saw Novgorod's behavior as a repudiation of the Treaty of Yazhelbitsy and went to war against the city. The army of Moscow won a decisive victory in the Battle of Shelon River on July 1471, which severely limited Novgorod's freedom to act thereafter, although the city maintained its formal independence for the next seven years. In 1478, Ivan III sent his army to take the city. He destroyed the veche, tore down the Veche bell, the ancient symbol of participatory governance, civil society, and legal rights, and destroyed the library and archives, thus ending the independence of Novgorod.[60]

    Novgorod turned to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth again and was utterly destroyed and its population slaughtered by the Rus of Suzdal.

    So no, Novgorod was not steadfastly anti-Western like Suzdal-Muscovy-Great Russia. It was rather like its Rus brothers in Ukraine.

    Incidentally, Polish-Lithuanian total victory over Muscovy, had it occurred, would have been the greatest chance in history for a real and lasting unification of the Slavic people.

    Daniel was the last ruler of Kiev before it was conquered by Mongols, but he tried to ally with pope only after losing the City itself!
     
    I did not state otherwise.

    And the last one is a joke, Metropolitan, or should I say Cardinal Isidore was put prison for heresy by the good people of the Rus’
     
    In Moscow. Not Kiev. Nor Tver where he got shelter after escaping form Moscow.

    So another half-truth by you. Not "Rus people" but a specific group of them.

    in Austrian part, whis by the way was the poorest part of Austria.
     
    Half-truth. It was tied with Dalmatia. However although Galicia was the poorest part of Austria, it was richer than Russia. In 1890 the per capita product, in 2010 dollars, for Galicia was $1,947. In Russia it was $1,550. Galicia also achieved full literacy of schoolkids by 1910, earlier than did Russia. So I was telling the truth when I stated that Galicians under Austria were the richest and most educated of the East Slavs.

    Yes people could continue their culture of being serfs under the rule of Polish Szlachta.
     
    Another half-truth. Most people were serfs (as in most of Russia) but there were also plenty of Ruthenian nobles. None of my Galician ancestors were ever serfs.

    Before you say that things were similar in Russia, yes they were in Central and South Central lands, but in the steppes and in the Northern Russia
     
    Only because lands there were not good for serfdom. Same as in the Carpathian highlands.

    unlike in your beloved Galicia that had just slaves and foreign aristocrats, oh and Jews, lots of Jews.
     
    List of Galician nobles:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_nobility_of_Galicia#Prominent_western_Ukrainians_with_noble_backgrounds

    Several not listed, such as Austrian Field Marshall Ludwig Sembratovich and his brother Joseph, head of the Greek Catholic Church. They were cousins of one of my great-great etc. grandfathers. Family stems from seven brothers who were granted large tracts of lands in Lemko country.

    So Galicia is not peripheral part?
     
    I didn't day it wasn't. You are the one insisting Russia, which stems from the Suzdal periphery, was some kind of True Rus.

    But the first two capitals of the Rus’ belong even now to Russia, the Aldeigjuborg and the Novgorod
     
    Russia destroyed Novgorod and scattered its people. Novgorod would have been a fourth East Slavic nation but they were destroyed by the Great Russians. Sad.

    the cossacks were not heavily influenced by the Mongols, Tatars and Turks? Their clothing, their haircut, their lifestyle, their genetics.
     
    You must think that people like Daniel Boone were Indians.

    Genetic influence is negligible. Hairstyles were used long before Mongols and Tatars (Sviatoslav had the same). Correct about clothing, not so much about lifestyle (Cossacks maintained farms, they weren't nomads).

    Yes Stalin made mistakes for being too kind in Galicia, but in near decades the western hegemon beyond the ocean will crumble and the road will be open once again, and lets hope that your people will have then a chance to develop their language and culture in the steppes of Karaganda.
     
    You got a little angry for some reason and revealed that you support genocide of Rus people.

    Scratch a Soviet sympathizer, and you get someone who supports the mass murder of Eastern Slavs. Every. Time.

    I oppose the brother-killing of the Great Russians, but I certainly do not hate them nor would I want them to be mass murdered. Obviously you have a different morality. The Soviet poison upon your soul has been strong indeed.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

  176. @AltanBakshi

    Is a Church led by KGB snitches, whose predecessors murdered 100,000s of priests and monks (the ones left were largely collaborators of the murderers), better?
     
    What a surprise, a Christian heretic having heretic beliefs, Donatism by the other name, which is belief that Christian priests should be faultless so that there could be valid sacraments or that church becomes invalid by the sins of the clergy. When its clear for any honest inquirer of ecclesiastical history that validity of Church comes from the apostolic successions and adherence to Orthodox tradition. Still I believe that your figures are highly inflated, yes many died under Soviet purges, but total figure for clergy is probably in 200 000 at maximum and for the common people outside of war is in millions, not in tens of millions like that lying fraud Solzhenitsyn proclaims. Most dead were because of the famines. Still maybe there would had been 160-180 million Russians without Soviet government, still Sweden under Karl XII and French during revolutionary and Napolenic wars had similar demographic losses in the longer run, probably Germany too, the effect in fertility was not as great but near Russian levels after the world wars and complete demoralization of the German people, at least Russian median level is one of the lowest in Europe, although still too high.

    The faith forced upon the Slavs by Vikings who enslaved them has been a defining feature of Rus civilization but anti-Westernism (including violent opposition to Rome) has not been. This is a specific feature of Muscovite civilization which is only a part of Rus civilization.

    Let me remind you that St. Vladimir and Yaroslav the Wise were also part of a Church in union with Rome, and that the schism of 1054 was seen negatively in Kiev. Daniel of Galicia, last ruler of Kiev and all-Rus before the Mongolian catastrophe, accepted a crown from the Pope. Isidore of Kiev attempted aunion between East and West in 1439. The Greek Catholic Church in Galicia is an Orthodox Church in communion with Rome, a similar position to the Rus Church of Vladimir and Yaroslav.

    The steadfast opposition to the West is a specific Suzdal-Muscovite- Great Russian thing, not a Rus phenomenon.


     

    Really so many misrepresentations and twisted half truths? What about Alexander Nevsky who fought against Teutonic knights? What about Novgorod Republic who defended centuries the Northern borders of Rus' , by fighting many wars against Sweden and Teutonic order, what about Pskov republic? They too could have become traitors and lose their culture and faith, but no they decided to fight no matter the odds.

    In the pre-schism Church Patriarch of the west, Bishop of Rome was one among equal patriarchs who did not have universal jurisdiction in the Church. The schism of 1054 had small effect on the politics or the working of the western or the eastern church. Only after the start of the Crusades common people became aware of schism or even the rulers of Russian principalities.

    The Council of Carthage (419): Saint Augustine and Saint Aurelius in this council condemned Pope Zosimus for interfering with the African Church's jurisdiction by falsifying the text of Canon 5 of the First Council of Nicaea. They further warned Pope Zosimus, and later Pope Celestine I, not to "introduce the empty pride of the world into the Church of Christ" and to "keep their Roman noses out of African affairs". The Council ruled that no bishop may call himself "Prince of Bishops" or "Supreme Bishop" or any other title which suggests Supremacy (Canon 39). It also ruled that if any of the African clergy dared to appeal to Rome, "the same was ipso facto cast out of the clergy". (Canon 34)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_primacy#Opposition_arguments_from_Church_Councils

    As you see the Church of the Rus' and Uniates(Greek-Catholics) had a very different communion with pope. One is based on the canons and mutual respect, second is based on the pride, servitude and lust of power.

    Daniel's reasons to ally himself with pope were similar to the last emperor of the Byzantine Empire, Constantine XI. For Daniel wanted military aid against the Mongols. He was smart ruler and in the end he never subjugated True church of his lands under the Roman bishop. So both sides made just empty promises. And you in Goebbels like manner muddle things in this topic, Daniel was the last ruler of Kiev before it was conquered by Mongols, but he tried to ally with pope only after losing the City itself! And the last one is a joke, Metropolitan, or should I say Cardinal Isidore was put prison for heresy by the good people of the Rus'. For he betrayed the faith of their fathers and accepted the so called union. Once again proof that there was a healthy sense of cultural and religious cohesion. Also Rus' has never been against all of the west, but only against the western invaders that are threat to it.

    Uniates are an Orthodox church under the Rome? Do you mean the turncoat church under the Rome? You yourself know that any Orthodox priest or monk would answer negatively if given such question. Practically they are a Polish colonial institution, a stepping stone on the road leading to polonization. Happily failed country of Poland was divided in the end of the 18th Century and Russians but end to this madness of their partition, but sadly it continued in Austrian part, whis by the way was the poorest part of Austria. Yes people could continue their culture of being serfs under the rule of Polish Szlachta. What a noble culture, truly a sign mark of the real Rus'! Before you say that things were similar in Russia, yes they were in Central and South Central lands, but in the steppes and in the Northern Russia most people were free farmers unlike in your beloved Galicia that had just slaves and foreign aristocrats, oh and Jews, lots of Jews.


    It is an incarnation of one part of Rus. A peripheral part. Moscow did not even exist when Kiev accepted Greek Christianity in union with Rome.
     
    So Galicia is not peripheral part? Lvov too didnt exist, actually its younger than Moscow, I have never understood Ukrainian nationalists preoccupation with the city of Moscow, were there people in Alexandria or Carthage shouting that their cities were older and less peripheral than Constantinople? But the first two capitals of the Rus' belong even now to Russia, the Aldeigjuborg and the Novgorod, and Russia still holds at least half or even 2/3 of the original lands of the Rus'.

    When Napoleon seized Portugal, the royal family fled to Brazil which was the only place with administrative continuity. So verily the mulattos of Brazil were the only real Portuguese?
     
    Hah ha ha, Thats a strawman, if I've ever seen one. Russia has not just administrative but also geographical and cultural continuity, which defines it, not the royal family or Rurikids.

    The Rus in Ukraine were heavily influenced by their Slavic brothers, the Poles. While the Rus of Muscovy were influenced by the alien (to Slavs) Mongols and Tatars.
     
    Yep you have a bad case of Ukronazism, like the very epitome of the Ukrainian nationhood(in the modern narrative), the cossacks were not heavily influenced by the Mongols, Tatars and Turks? Their clothing, their haircut, their lifestyle, their genetics. Oh this is too funny. You should have said that Russians are Finns or something like that.

    Russian people were divided by Polish and Austrian imperialism and colonization, but Russia has tried it very best no matter the hard circumstances and uneven odds. You are just representative of petty nationalism of petty people, without historic perspective. Probably there were many tribes with peculiar cultures in Italian peninsula, who resisted the Romans, but in the end their were just road bumps of the history for the Romans, so too you Galicians will be for the Russian nation. Yes Stalin made mistakes for being too kind in Galicia, but in near decades the western hegemon beyond the ocean will crumble and the road will be open once again, and lets hope that your people will have then a chance to develop their language and culture in the steppes of Karaganda.

    Replies: @Ano4, @AP

    Well this is quite a khokhlosratch that you and AP are having. Why don’t you both calm down a bit. Frankly, each of you has some good arguments…

    🙂

    • Replies: @AP
    @Ano4

    LOL, he quickly wished mass death and deportation upon Rus people. The Mongol blood is strong in him :-)

    Replies: @Ano4

    , @AltanBakshi
    @Ano4

    There happened many tragedies in Russia because of Communist rule, but still if your mother or son goes mad or ends in bad company, do you then desert or abandon your own family member? Of course bad things done by loved ones hurt deeply, so too good deeds done by them bring joy and delight, but one should not forsake and give up ones loved ones. But of course traitors never ever will understand this, for they have already broken the bread and shared their bed with the enemy.

    Ancient Rus were very versatile men, they were men of steppes as much men of sailing and men of forests. They travelled much, met may different peoples from Persians with higly refined taste, to Greeks with their classical arts, to Finns of the bogs and forests, to Alans and Turks of the steppe etc etc. They truly had a vast and endless horizons. But this Galician petty nationalism would be the death of the Slavs, yes some embroidery and kitchen books, how wonderful. And your women working in Germany as "working women" and your young and educated leaving at any cost from your failed state. Truly a dead end of culture and civilization. A balkanized Slavdom, a servant of decadent west. But Russia is truly sovereign, its own civilizational pole, a civilization that led men to the stars and will one day continue that mighty work, a country with future, a culture with other possibilities than being just a parasite of western civilization. Spengler said something about the Russians creating future civilization after the westerners. He said something about the vast and endless horizons of steppe and how that will be the defining feature of the Russian spirit of the future. Im not saying he is right, for he is more poet than serious philosopher, but sometimes he has glimpses of truth. But what I know is that the Galician and Ukrainian nationalism has no endless horizons, its constricted and small and it lacks the true greatness of Christian civilization. For Russia is Rus, but Russia is also now something more.

    Replies: @Ano4, @AP

  177. @Ano4
    @AltanBakshi

    Well this is quite a khokhlosratch that you and AP are having. Why don't you both calm down a bit. Frankly, each of you has some good arguments...

    🙂

    Replies: @AP, @AltanBakshi

    LOL, he quickly wished mass death and deportation upon Rus people. The Mongol blood is strong in him 🙂

    • Replies: @Ano4
    @AP


    The Mongol blood is strong in him.
     
    He never made a secret about it.

    And if I am not mistaken, you have some Polish Lithuanian ancestry?

    🙂

    Replies: @AP

  178. @AP
    @Ano4

    LOL, he quickly wished mass death and deportation upon Rus people. The Mongol blood is strong in him :-)

    Replies: @Ano4

    The Mongol blood is strong in him.

    He never made a secret about it.

    And if I am not mistaken, you have some Polish Lithuanian ancestry?

    🙂

    • Replies: @AP
    @Ano4


    And if I am not mistaken, you have some Polish Lithuanian ancestry?
     
    No known Poles or Lithuanians ethnically.



    Local Galician boyars, a Belarussian nobleman who moved to Galicia and married into the local Rusyn gentry community, peasants from central Ukraine, and one non-Slav - an Austrian officer stationed in Przemysl, whose kids all married either Poles or Rusyns. This guy's Polish and Rusyn descendants were shooting at each other on opposite sides in 1919.

    I know the lines for the Galicians for 10 generations, but those of the central Ukrainian peasants I do not know. There is a chance of some Polish descent there, because about 10% of the population in those parts were Polish settlers and they mixed into the Eastern Slavs.

    Replies: @Ano4

  179. AP says:
    @AltanBakshi

    Is a Church led by KGB snitches, whose predecessors murdered 100,000s of priests and monks (the ones left were largely collaborators of the murderers), better?
     
    What a surprise, a Christian heretic having heretic beliefs, Donatism by the other name, which is belief that Christian priests should be faultless so that there could be valid sacraments or that church becomes invalid by the sins of the clergy. When its clear for any honest inquirer of ecclesiastical history that validity of Church comes from the apostolic successions and adherence to Orthodox tradition. Still I believe that your figures are highly inflated, yes many died under Soviet purges, but total figure for clergy is probably in 200 000 at maximum and for the common people outside of war is in millions, not in tens of millions like that lying fraud Solzhenitsyn proclaims. Most dead were because of the famines. Still maybe there would had been 160-180 million Russians without Soviet government, still Sweden under Karl XII and French during revolutionary and Napolenic wars had similar demographic losses in the longer run, probably Germany too, the effect in fertility was not as great but near Russian levels after the world wars and complete demoralization of the German people, at least Russian median level is one of the lowest in Europe, although still too high.

    The faith forced upon the Slavs by Vikings who enslaved them has been a defining feature of Rus civilization but anti-Westernism (including violent opposition to Rome) has not been. This is a specific feature of Muscovite civilization which is only a part of Rus civilization.

    Let me remind you that St. Vladimir and Yaroslav the Wise were also part of a Church in union with Rome, and that the schism of 1054 was seen negatively in Kiev. Daniel of Galicia, last ruler of Kiev and all-Rus before the Mongolian catastrophe, accepted a crown from the Pope. Isidore of Kiev attempted aunion between East and West in 1439. The Greek Catholic Church in Galicia is an Orthodox Church in communion with Rome, a similar position to the Rus Church of Vladimir and Yaroslav.

    The steadfast opposition to the West is a specific Suzdal-Muscovite- Great Russian thing, not a Rus phenomenon.


     

    Really so many misrepresentations and twisted half truths? What about Alexander Nevsky who fought against Teutonic knights? What about Novgorod Republic who defended centuries the Northern borders of Rus' , by fighting many wars against Sweden and Teutonic order, what about Pskov republic? They too could have become traitors and lose their culture and faith, but no they decided to fight no matter the odds.

    In the pre-schism Church Patriarch of the west, Bishop of Rome was one among equal patriarchs who did not have universal jurisdiction in the Church. The schism of 1054 had small effect on the politics or the working of the western or the eastern church. Only after the start of the Crusades common people became aware of schism or even the rulers of Russian principalities.

    The Council of Carthage (419): Saint Augustine and Saint Aurelius in this council condemned Pope Zosimus for interfering with the African Church's jurisdiction by falsifying the text of Canon 5 of the First Council of Nicaea. They further warned Pope Zosimus, and later Pope Celestine I, not to "introduce the empty pride of the world into the Church of Christ" and to "keep their Roman noses out of African affairs". The Council ruled that no bishop may call himself "Prince of Bishops" or "Supreme Bishop" or any other title which suggests Supremacy (Canon 39). It also ruled that if any of the African clergy dared to appeal to Rome, "the same was ipso facto cast out of the clergy". (Canon 34)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_primacy#Opposition_arguments_from_Church_Councils

    As you see the Church of the Rus' and Uniates(Greek-Catholics) had a very different communion with pope. One is based on the canons and mutual respect, second is based on the pride, servitude and lust of power.

    Daniel's reasons to ally himself with pope were similar to the last emperor of the Byzantine Empire, Constantine XI. For Daniel wanted military aid against the Mongols. He was smart ruler and in the end he never subjugated True church of his lands under the Roman bishop. So both sides made just empty promises. And you in Goebbels like manner muddle things in this topic, Daniel was the last ruler of Kiev before it was conquered by Mongols, but he tried to ally with pope only after losing the City itself! And the last one is a joke, Metropolitan, or should I say Cardinal Isidore was put prison for heresy by the good people of the Rus'. For he betrayed the faith of their fathers and accepted the so called union. Once again proof that there was a healthy sense of cultural and religious cohesion. Also Rus' has never been against all of the west, but only against the western invaders that are threat to it.

    Uniates are an Orthodox church under the Rome? Do you mean the turncoat church under the Rome? You yourself know that any Orthodox priest or monk would answer negatively if given such question. Practically they are a Polish colonial institution, a stepping stone on the road leading to polonization. Happily failed country of Poland was divided in the end of the 18th Century and Russians but end to this madness of their partition, but sadly it continued in Austrian part, whis by the way was the poorest part of Austria. Yes people could continue their culture of being serfs under the rule of Polish Szlachta. What a noble culture, truly a sign mark of the real Rus'! Before you say that things were similar in Russia, yes they were in Central and South Central lands, but in the steppes and in the Northern Russia most people were free farmers unlike in your beloved Galicia that had just slaves and foreign aristocrats, oh and Jews, lots of Jews.


    It is an incarnation of one part of Rus. A peripheral part. Moscow did not even exist when Kiev accepted Greek Christianity in union with Rome.
     
    So Galicia is not peripheral part? Lvov too didnt exist, actually its younger than Moscow, I have never understood Ukrainian nationalists preoccupation with the city of Moscow, were there people in Alexandria or Carthage shouting that their cities were older and less peripheral than Constantinople? But the first two capitals of the Rus' belong even now to Russia, the Aldeigjuborg and the Novgorod, and Russia still holds at least half or even 2/3 of the original lands of the Rus'.

    When Napoleon seized Portugal, the royal family fled to Brazil which was the only place with administrative continuity. So verily the mulattos of Brazil were the only real Portuguese?
     
    Hah ha ha, Thats a strawman, if I've ever seen one. Russia has not just administrative but also geographical and cultural continuity, which defines it, not the royal family or Rurikids.

    The Rus in Ukraine were heavily influenced by their Slavic brothers, the Poles. While the Rus of Muscovy were influenced by the alien (to Slavs) Mongols and Tatars.
     
    Yep you have a bad case of Ukronazism, like the very epitome of the Ukrainian nationhood(in the modern narrative), the cossacks were not heavily influenced by the Mongols, Tatars and Turks? Their clothing, their haircut, their lifestyle, their genetics. Oh this is too funny. You should have said that Russians are Finns or something like that.

    Russian people were divided by Polish and Austrian imperialism and colonization, but Russia has tried it very best no matter the hard circumstances and uneven odds. You are just representative of petty nationalism of petty people, without historic perspective. Probably there were many tribes with peculiar cultures in Italian peninsula, who resisted the Romans, but in the end their were just road bumps of the history for the Romans, so too you Galicians will be for the Russian nation. Yes Stalin made mistakes for being too kind in Galicia, but in near decades the western hegemon beyond the ocean will crumble and the road will be open once again, and lets hope that your people will have then a chance to develop their language and culture in the steppes of Karaganda.

    Replies: @Ano4, @AP

    What a surprise, a Christian heretic having heretic beliefs, Donatism by the other name, which is belief that Christian priests should be faultless so that there could be valid sacraments or that church becomes invalid by the sins of the clergy.

    I did not claim a single one of these things. Nice strawman.

    Still I believe that your figures are highly inflated, yes many died under Soviet purges, but total figure for clergy is probably in 200 000 at maximum

    That would be “100,000s of priests and monks” as I wrote.

    lying fraud Solzhenitsyn

    What a Rus patriot you are.

    Still maybe there would had been 160-180 million Russians without Soviet government

    No, more like 200 million. Let’s accept 180 million for the sake of argument. 60 million lost Russians wasn’t worth 40 years of second-place “superpower status” ending in a rusted heap.

    Really so many misrepresentations and twisted half truths?

    Projection, as will be shown below.

    What about Alexander Nevsky who fought against Teutonic knights?

    He was a Suzdalian who brutally slaughtered the people of Novgorod when they rebelled against the Mongols, cutting off their noses and such. He betrayed his own brother and the Rus prince of Galicia who wanted an anti-Mongolian alliance, snitching on them to his Mongolian overlords. Alexander Nevsky was a killer of Rus people.

    What about Novgorod Republic who defended centuries the Northern borders of Rus’

    An example of your half-truth.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novgorod_Republic

    Resisting the Muscovite oppression, the government of Novgorod sought an alliance with Poland–Lithuania. Most Novgorodian boyars wished to maintain the Republic’s independence since if Novgorod were to be conquered, the boyars’ wealth would flow to the grand prince and his Muscovite boyars, and the Novgorodians would fall into decline… According to tradition, Marfa Boretskaya, the wife of Posadnik Isak Boretskii, was the main proponent of an alliance with Poland-Lithuania to save the Republic.

    Muscovite authorities saw Novgorod’s behavior as a repudiation of the Treaty of Yazhelbitsy and went to war against the city. The army of Moscow won a decisive victory in the Battle of Shelon River on July 1471, which severely limited Novgorod’s freedom to act thereafter, although the city maintained its formal independence for the next seven years. In 1478, Ivan III sent his army to take the city. He destroyed the veche, tore down the Veche bell, the ancient symbol of participatory governance, civil society, and legal rights, and destroyed the library and archives, thus ending the independence of Novgorod.[60]

    Novgorod turned to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth again and was utterly destroyed and its population slaughtered by the Rus of Suzdal.

    So no, Novgorod was not steadfastly anti-Western like Suzdal-Muscovy-Great Russia. It was rather like its Rus brothers in Ukraine.

    Incidentally, Polish-Lithuanian total victory over Muscovy, had it occurred, would have been the greatest chance in history for a real and lasting unification of the Slavic people.

    Daniel was the last ruler of Kiev before it was conquered by Mongols, but he tried to ally with pope only after losing the City itself!

    I did not state otherwise.

    And the last one is a joke, Metropolitan, or should I say Cardinal Isidore was put prison for heresy by the good people of the Rus’

    In Moscow. Not Kiev. Nor Tver where he got shelter after escaping form Moscow.

    So another half-truth by you. Not “Rus people” but a specific group of them.

    in Austrian part, whis by the way was the poorest part of Austria.

    Half-truth. It was tied with Dalmatia. However although Galicia was the poorest part of Austria, it was richer than Russia. In 1890 the per capita product, in 2010 dollars, for Galicia was $1,947. In Russia it was $1,550. Galicia also achieved full literacy of schoolkids by 1910, earlier than did Russia. So I was telling the truth when I stated that Galicians under Austria were the richest and most educated of the East Slavs.

    Yes people could continue their culture of being serfs under the rule of Polish Szlachta.

    Another half-truth. Most people were serfs (as in most of Russia) but there were also plenty of Ruthenian nobles. None of my Galician ancestors were ever serfs.

    Before you say that things were similar in Russia, yes they were in Central and South Central lands, but in the steppes and in the Northern Russia

    Only because lands there were not good for serfdom. Same as in the Carpathian highlands.

    unlike in your beloved Galicia that had just slaves and foreign aristocrats, oh and Jews, lots of Jews.

    List of Galician nobles:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_nobility_of_Galicia#Prominent_western_Ukrainians_with_noble_backgrounds

    Several not listed, such as Austrian Field Marshall Ludwig Sembratovich and his brother Joseph, head of the Greek Catholic Church. They were cousins of one of my great-great etc. grandfathers. Family stems from seven brothers who were granted large tracts of lands in Lemko country.

    So Galicia is not peripheral part?

    I didn’t day it wasn’t. You are the one insisting Russia, which stems from the Suzdal periphery, was some kind of True Rus.

    But the first two capitals of the Rus’ belong even now to Russia, the Aldeigjuborg and the Novgorod

    Russia destroyed Novgorod and scattered its people. Novgorod would have been a fourth East Slavic nation but they were destroyed by the Great Russians. Sad.

    the cossacks were not heavily influenced by the Mongols, Tatars and Turks? Their clothing, their haircut, their lifestyle, their genetics.

    You must think that people like Daniel Boone were Indians.

    Genetic influence is negligible. Hairstyles were used long before Mongols and Tatars (Sviatoslav had the same). Correct about clothing, not so much about lifestyle (Cossacks maintained farms, they weren’t nomads).

    Yes Stalin made mistakes for being too kind in Galicia, but in near decades the western hegemon beyond the ocean will crumble and the road will be open once again, and lets hope that your people will have then a chance to develop their language and culture in the steppes of Karaganda.

    You got a little angry for some reason and revealed that you support genocide of Rus people.

    Scratch a Soviet sympathizer, and you get someone who supports the mass murder of Eastern Slavs. Every. Time.

    I oppose the brother-killing of the Great Russians, but I certainly do not hate them nor would I want them to be mass murdered. Obviously you have a different morality. The Soviet poison upon your soul has been strong indeed.

    • Replies: @AltanBakshi
    @AP

    You wrote that the Russian Orthodox Church is church with the snitches and is it any better than uniates/schismatics and so on, then I explained to you why its better and to think otherwise would be a model case of Donatist heresy. So maybe you are not heretic, just misguided.

    Its common knowledge that Solzhenitsyn used artistic liberties and inflated his numbers.


    He was a Suzdalian who brutally slaughtered the people of Novgorod when they rebelled against the Mongols, cutting off their noses and such. He betrayed his own brother and the Rus prince of Galicia who wanted an anti-Mongolian alliance, snitching on them to his Mongolian overlords. Alexander Nevsky was a killer of Rus people.

     

    Princes of the Rus were quite mobile people, after all Suzdal was an integral part of the realm. Its not like he was the first Grand Prince who was born there or the first one who used excessive violence against some part of the Rus, like the Saint Olga did it. She too was by your logic a killer of Rus people. I dont get your logic, in medieval times rebellious populations were put down, very simple. Maybe you have some Ukrainian fantasy version were the noble men of Galich never ever used violence against Rus, but those evil Finno-Mongolian trolls from the periphery just couldnt control their bloodlust.

    Resisting the Muscovite oppression, the government of Novgorod sought an alliance with Poland–Lithuania. Most Novgorodian boyars wished to maintain the Republic’s independence since if Novgorod were to be conquered, the boyars’ wealth would flow to the grand prince and his Muscovite boyars, and the Novgorodians would fall into decline… According to tradition, Marfa Boretskaya, the wife of Posadnik Isak Boretskii, was the main proponent of an alliance with Poland-Lithuania to save the Republic.

    Muscovite authorities saw Novgorod’s behavior as a repudiation of the Treaty of Yazhelbitsy and went to war against the city.

     

    So they broke a treaty? I dont see anything wrong in Ivan III behaviour. After all those times were critical so that the Rus could be liberated from the Tatar yoke once and for all(sorry ancestors..). Country needs unity, so that the enemies within must be eliminated so that the enemies without could be beaten. You like to speak about the demographics and about the population size of the Rus. Without your hated Moskals the Tatars could have continued their slave raids and campaigns in the heartlands of Rus without end. When you are dealing with such threat you probably dont like rebellious provincial nobles. But in your heart you know who liberated the Rus from the warriors and slave raiders of steppe!

    So no, Novgorod was not steadfastly anti-Western like Suzdal-Muscovy-Great Russia. It was rather like its Rus brothers in Ukraine.

    Incidentally, Polish-Lithuanian total victory over Muscovy, had it occurred, would have been the greatest chance in history for a real and lasting unification of the Slavic people.
     

    Also Sweden was given Bull of Crusade against Novgorod by the Roman bishop. That is the most serious form of Western aggression that there could be, that the Christian leader of invader has proclaimed crusade against your Christian lands. Novgorod nobly had many battles through centuries against western invaders like I said before. Therefore union with Moscow was logical outcome.
    Save us from your traitorous and brainwashed Galician lies. "Real and lasting unification." That shitty country that was in permanent state of the crisis with couple exceptions, country whose greatest victory was done by marrying a foreign pagan noble. Yes it would been the real and lasting Balkanization of the Slavic people, so that the Swedes and German nobles could have ruled them, oh without forgetting the Tatars, but you probably would like it, with your Stockholm syndrome of foreign rulers. Khans of Crimea(or Sultan) would have probably funded people like you in olden times. But now its the good ol' US of A.

    Half-truth. It was tied with Dalmatia. However although Galicia was the poorest part of Austria, it was richer than Russia. In 1890 the per capita product, in 2010 dollars, for Galicia was $1,947. In Russia it was $1,550. Galicia also achieved full literacy of schoolkids by 1910, earlier than did Russia. So I was telling the truth when I stated that Galicians under Austria were the richest and most educated of the East Slavs.

     

    Half truth because it had a tie with Dalmatia? With small minuscule Dalmatia, okay didnt know about that, I just knew that Galicia was legendary in poverty in Central Europe. Still its different to be a poorest part of the Austria and than its being mediocre in Russia. I think that the picture would change if we would count by per capita PPP, For Galicia all the products and raw materials of the rest of the Austria were probably very very expensive. In Russia I sincerely believe that the raw materials and goods were cheaper, although luxury goods and similar stuff more expensive.

    Another half-truth. Most people were serfs (as in most of Russia) but there were also plenty of Ruthenian nobles. None of my Galician ancestors were ever serfs.
     
    Oh yes I forgot those Kapos of the Polish overlords. By the way most of them got Polonized in the longer run. Yes such fine examples of the Rus.

    Genetic influence is negligible. Hairstyles were used long before Mongols and Tatars (Sviatoslav had the same). Correct about clothing, not so much about lifestyle (Cossacks maintained farms, they weren’t nomads).

     

    Hmm the influence of Altaic inhabitants of steppe is of course much older than the existence of made up nation of Ukraine. After all in most ancient mentions of Rus its written that their ruler was Khagan. Still if I wouldnt know any better I would think after seeing traditional depictions of Cossack Mamai that he is Janissary or a Tatar, and not a Slavic Cossack. Its impossible to know nowadays, but I believe that the Zaporozhian Cossacks had more Turkic blood than average peasants in Ukraine.

    And ano4 you are wrong, Galicia is just lost offshoot of the Rus people, after all they have been ruled for more than half millenium by foreign rulers and priests, very few people can keep their sense of identity in those kind of circumstances. In other words civilizations sometimes lose and sometimes gain lands, some times historical circumstances give birth to new peoples and sometimes old ones disappear(assimilation, migration etc). Galicia is lost land to the Rus. But small loss from the big perspective.

    Replies: @Ano4, @AP

  180. AP says:
    @Ano4
    @AP


    The Mongol blood is strong in him.
     
    He never made a secret about it.

    And if I am not mistaken, you have some Polish Lithuanian ancestry?

    🙂

    Replies: @AP

    And if I am not mistaken, you have some Polish Lithuanian ancestry?

    No known Poles or Lithuanians ethnically.

    [MORE]

    Local Galician boyars, a Belarussian nobleman who moved to Galicia and married into the local Rusyn gentry community, peasants from central Ukraine, and one non-Slav – an Austrian officer stationed in Przemysl, whose kids all married either Poles or Rusyns. This guy’s Polish and Rusyn descendants were shooting at each other on opposite sides in 1919.

    I know the lines for the Galicians for 10 generations, but those of the central Ukrainian peasants I do not know. There is a chance of some Polish descent there, because about 10% of the population in those parts were Polish settlers and they mixed into the Eastern Slavs.

    • Replies: @Ano4
    @AP

    I think what you wrote about Ruthenia being another branch of Rus is correct. It is the Westernized branch.

    Altan's point of view also makes sense, because Vladimir-Suzdal was a continuation of Kievan Rus with a mass migration of the ancient Rus fleeing the Polovtsy raids towards the Zalesye lands. This become later the Eastern, Tatar influenced Muscovite branch.

    Both branches are Rus, no doubt about it. And I don't think that one branch is better or worse than the other.

    Replies: @AP

  181. @AP
    @Ano4


    And if I am not mistaken, you have some Polish Lithuanian ancestry?
     
    No known Poles or Lithuanians ethnically.



    Local Galician boyars, a Belarussian nobleman who moved to Galicia and married into the local Rusyn gentry community, peasants from central Ukraine, and one non-Slav - an Austrian officer stationed in Przemysl, whose kids all married either Poles or Rusyns. This guy's Polish and Rusyn descendants were shooting at each other on opposite sides in 1919.

    I know the lines for the Galicians for 10 generations, but those of the central Ukrainian peasants I do not know. There is a chance of some Polish descent there, because about 10% of the population in those parts were Polish settlers and they mixed into the Eastern Slavs.

    Replies: @Ano4

    I think what you wrote about Ruthenia being another branch of Rus is correct. It is the Westernized branch.

    Altan’s point of view also makes sense, because Vladimir-Suzdal was a continuation of Kievan Rus with a mass migration of the ancient Rus fleeing the Polovtsy raids towards the Zalesye lands. This become later the Eastern, Tatar influenced Muscovite branch.

    Both branches are Rus, no doubt about it. And I don’t think that one branch is better or worse than the other.

    • Replies: @AP
    @Ano4

    I agree though I suspect the mass migration was not substantial.

    Replies: @Ano4

  182. @Ano4
    @AP

    I think what you wrote about Ruthenia being another branch of Rus is correct. It is the Westernized branch.

    Altan's point of view also makes sense, because Vladimir-Suzdal was a continuation of Kievan Rus with a mass migration of the ancient Rus fleeing the Polovtsy raids towards the Zalesye lands. This become later the Eastern, Tatar influenced Muscovite branch.

    Both branches are Rus, no doubt about it. And I don't think that one branch is better or worse than the other.

    Replies: @AP

    I agree though I suspect the mass migration was not substantial.

    • Replies: @Ano4
    @AP

    The chronicles report a massive influx of the Polesye Kievan Rus into Zalesye over a couple of generations. The local Ugric populations were not that numerous, with the Mordvinians a notable exception.

    An interesting theory is that those Rus who fled to the north, did it not only to escape the Steppe nomad raids and Kievan princes frequent infighting, but possibly to keep their pagan traditions and avoid a final christinization. It was easier to not have a priest telling you how to believe in God(s) when you lived with your clan in a deep forest, a few hundred miles from the nearest church. Something similar happened later during the Raskol times.

    This might explain these traditional embroidery motifs from Vologda:

    https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/matveychev_oleg/27303223/7266749/7266749_900.jpg

    Replies: @AP, @AltanBakshi

  183. @AP
    @Ano4

    I agree though I suspect the mass migration was not substantial.

    Replies: @Ano4

    The chronicles report a massive influx of the Polesye Kievan Rus into Zalesye over a couple of generations. The local Ugric populations were not that numerous, with the Mordvinians a notable exception.

    An interesting theory is that those Rus who fled to the north, did it not only to escape the Steppe nomad raids and Kievan princes frequent infighting, but possibly to keep their pagan traditions and avoid a final christinization. It was easier to not have a priest telling you how to believe in God(s) when you lived with your clan in a deep forest, a few hundred miles from the nearest church. Something similar happened later during the Raskol times.

    This might explain these traditional embroidery motifs from Vologda:

    • Thanks: AP
    • Replies: @AP
    @Ano4

    The Vologda population appears to be heavily Finnic though (as well as Slavic):

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2253976/

    , @AltanBakshi
    @Ano4

    Again this nonsense. Swastika was a common symbol in many different religions and cultures, even among the Christians of Antiquity, its not a proof of surviving pagan traditions.

    Replies: @Ano4

  184. @Ano4
    @AP

    The chronicles report a massive influx of the Polesye Kievan Rus into Zalesye over a couple of generations. The local Ugric populations were not that numerous, with the Mordvinians a notable exception.

    An interesting theory is that those Rus who fled to the north, did it not only to escape the Steppe nomad raids and Kievan princes frequent infighting, but possibly to keep their pagan traditions and avoid a final christinization. It was easier to not have a priest telling you how to believe in God(s) when you lived with your clan in a deep forest, a few hundred miles from the nearest church. Something similar happened later during the Raskol times.

    This might explain these traditional embroidery motifs from Vologda:

    https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/matveychev_oleg/27303223/7266749/7266749_900.jpg

    Replies: @AP, @AltanBakshi

    The Vologda population appears to be heavily Finnic though (as well as Slavic):

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2253976/

  185. Yes Northern Rus had a Finnic admixture since the earliest times. In the Primary Chronicle, when writing about the rebellion of Vadim against the Varangians, Nestor describes the Sloven in the Il’men area as interspread among the Chud’. The Sloven and the Chud’ rebelled against the Varangians and expelled them together. Then they called them back together as a warrior class to rule them and ensure organized security in Novgorod. A practice that remained unmoved until Ivan III times, as you eloquently described in one of the comments above.

    [MORE]

    So even before the Rurikid ascension to the leadership among the Rus Varangians, the Slavs of Novgorod lived in close contact with their Finnic neighbors. In fact one of the earliest Y haplogroups R1a has been found in Karelia, dated back to the Mesolithic. The assimilation of the Corded Ware people went both ways: towards the Indo-European Balto-Slavic population with a Finnic admixture and the Finno-Ugric Chud’, Mordva, Ugry a.s.o. population with an Indo-European admixture.

    Already the Seima-Turbino phenomenon might be Finno-Ugric:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seima-Turbino_phenomenon

    The R1a and N haplogroups had a very long history of interacting and intermixing in the forest zone. While the R1a and I haplogroups had been living together in the zone between Pontic-steppe and Carpathian mountains since the late Tripolyan times.

    Around the V century CE, the Balto-Slavic vector prevailed for unknown reasons (the invasion of the Huns and their close association with some proto Slavs?), but only in the modern Russian territory. In Finland the situation was exactly the opposite, with the Y haplogroup N being the dominant one. And in the Baltic you have both N and R1a. Including in the Estonian population.

    This might be connected with the Uralic Akozino-Ananino derived warriors imposing themselves upon the Aryan populations in Finland and actually replacing the earlier Corded Ware Battle Axe culture descended R1a males (orja = slave in Finnish).

    https://bigenc.ru/archeology/text/3906599

    Also one should keep in mind the Aesir and Vanir conflict and unification. Which might provide a glimpse on some important cultural changes happening around the Baltic in the early Iron Age.

    Bottom line: the Finno-Ugric and Slav populations lived together and assimilated each other during millennia. Vologda populations have both genetic lineages, but might have been entirely assimilated into Slavs relatively early. Possibly around the times of the Old Ladoga founding. Perhaps even earlier. Vologda dialect is one of the most archaic among the Russian dialects with a high proportion of cognates to Sanskrit. So they might have become Indo-European Slavic speakers a very long time ago. Although who knows which was the earliest language that the Y haplogroup R1a people initially spoke?

    https://indo-european.eu/2019/07/corded-ware-ancestry-in-north-eurasia-and-the-uralic-expansion/

    And yeah, it is quite possible that the Varangians were Balto-Slavic Wends, not Fenno-Scandian Vikings (although the Norse were also quite high in Y haplogroup R1a).

    • Agree: AltanBakshi
  186. @AP
    @AltanBakshi


    What a surprise, a Christian heretic having heretic beliefs, Donatism by the other name, which is belief that Christian priests should be faultless so that there could be valid sacraments or that church becomes invalid by the sins of the clergy.
     
    I did not claim a single one of these things. Nice strawman.

    Still I believe that your figures are highly inflated, yes many died under Soviet purges, but total figure for clergy is probably in 200 000 at maximum
     
    That would be "100,000s of priests and monks" as I wrote.

    lying fraud Solzhenitsyn
     
    What a Rus patriot you are.

    Still maybe there would had been 160-180 million Russians without Soviet government
     
    No, more like 200 million. Let's accept 180 million for the sake of argument. 60 million lost Russians wasn't worth 40 years of second-place "superpower status" ending in a rusted heap.

    Really so many misrepresentations and twisted half truths?
     
    Projection, as will be shown below.

    What about Alexander Nevsky who fought against Teutonic knights?
     
    He was a Suzdalian who brutally slaughtered the people of Novgorod when they rebelled against the Mongols, cutting off their noses and such. He betrayed his own brother and the Rus prince of Galicia who wanted an anti-Mongolian alliance, snitching on them to his Mongolian overlords. Alexander Nevsky was a killer of Rus people.

    What about Novgorod Republic who defended centuries the Northern borders of Rus’
     
    An example of your half-truth.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novgorod_Republic

    Resisting the Muscovite oppression, the government of Novgorod sought an alliance with Poland–Lithuania. Most Novgorodian boyars wished to maintain the Republic's independence since if Novgorod were to be conquered, the boyars' wealth would flow to the grand prince and his Muscovite boyars, and the Novgorodians would fall into decline... According to tradition, Marfa Boretskaya, the wife of Posadnik Isak Boretskii, was the main proponent of an alliance with Poland-Lithuania to save the Republic.

    Muscovite authorities saw Novgorod's behavior as a repudiation of the Treaty of Yazhelbitsy and went to war against the city. The army of Moscow won a decisive victory in the Battle of Shelon River on July 1471, which severely limited Novgorod's freedom to act thereafter, although the city maintained its formal independence for the next seven years. In 1478, Ivan III sent his army to take the city. He destroyed the veche, tore down the Veche bell, the ancient symbol of participatory governance, civil society, and legal rights, and destroyed the library and archives, thus ending the independence of Novgorod.[60]

    Novgorod turned to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth again and was utterly destroyed and its population slaughtered by the Rus of Suzdal.

    So no, Novgorod was not steadfastly anti-Western like Suzdal-Muscovy-Great Russia. It was rather like its Rus brothers in Ukraine.

    Incidentally, Polish-Lithuanian total victory over Muscovy, had it occurred, would have been the greatest chance in history for a real and lasting unification of the Slavic people.

    Daniel was the last ruler of Kiev before it was conquered by Mongols, but he tried to ally with pope only after losing the City itself!
     
    I did not state otherwise.

    And the last one is a joke, Metropolitan, or should I say Cardinal Isidore was put prison for heresy by the good people of the Rus’
     
    In Moscow. Not Kiev. Nor Tver where he got shelter after escaping form Moscow.

    So another half-truth by you. Not "Rus people" but a specific group of them.

    in Austrian part, whis by the way was the poorest part of Austria.
     
    Half-truth. It was tied with Dalmatia. However although Galicia was the poorest part of Austria, it was richer than Russia. In 1890 the per capita product, in 2010 dollars, for Galicia was $1,947. In Russia it was $1,550. Galicia also achieved full literacy of schoolkids by 1910, earlier than did Russia. So I was telling the truth when I stated that Galicians under Austria were the richest and most educated of the East Slavs.

    Yes people could continue their culture of being serfs under the rule of Polish Szlachta.
     
    Another half-truth. Most people were serfs (as in most of Russia) but there were also plenty of Ruthenian nobles. None of my Galician ancestors were ever serfs.

    Before you say that things were similar in Russia, yes they were in Central and South Central lands, but in the steppes and in the Northern Russia
     
    Only because lands there were not good for serfdom. Same as in the Carpathian highlands.

    unlike in your beloved Galicia that had just slaves and foreign aristocrats, oh and Jews, lots of Jews.
     
    List of Galician nobles:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_nobility_of_Galicia#Prominent_western_Ukrainians_with_noble_backgrounds

    Several not listed, such as Austrian Field Marshall Ludwig Sembratovich and his brother Joseph, head of the Greek Catholic Church. They were cousins of one of my great-great etc. grandfathers. Family stems from seven brothers who were granted large tracts of lands in Lemko country.

    So Galicia is not peripheral part?
     
    I didn't day it wasn't. You are the one insisting Russia, which stems from the Suzdal periphery, was some kind of True Rus.

    But the first two capitals of the Rus’ belong even now to Russia, the Aldeigjuborg and the Novgorod
     
    Russia destroyed Novgorod and scattered its people. Novgorod would have been a fourth East Slavic nation but they were destroyed by the Great Russians. Sad.

    the cossacks were not heavily influenced by the Mongols, Tatars and Turks? Their clothing, their haircut, their lifestyle, their genetics.
     
    You must think that people like Daniel Boone were Indians.

    Genetic influence is negligible. Hairstyles were used long before Mongols and Tatars (Sviatoslav had the same). Correct about clothing, not so much about lifestyle (Cossacks maintained farms, they weren't nomads).

    Yes Stalin made mistakes for being too kind in Galicia, but in near decades the western hegemon beyond the ocean will crumble and the road will be open once again, and lets hope that your people will have then a chance to develop their language and culture in the steppes of Karaganda.
     
    You got a little angry for some reason and revealed that you support genocide of Rus people.

    Scratch a Soviet sympathizer, and you get someone who supports the mass murder of Eastern Slavs. Every. Time.

    I oppose the brother-killing of the Great Russians, but I certainly do not hate them nor would I want them to be mass murdered. Obviously you have a different morality. The Soviet poison upon your soul has been strong indeed.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

    You wrote that the Russian Orthodox Church is church with the snitches and is it any better than uniates/schismatics and so on, then I explained to you why its better and to think otherwise would be a model case of Donatist heresy. So maybe you are not heretic, just misguided.

    Its common knowledge that Solzhenitsyn used artistic liberties and inflated his numbers.

    He was a Suzdalian who brutally slaughtered the people of Novgorod when they rebelled against the Mongols, cutting off their noses and such. He betrayed his own brother and the Rus prince of Galicia who wanted an anti-Mongolian alliance, snitching on them to his Mongolian overlords. Alexander Nevsky was a killer of Rus people.

    Princes of the Rus were quite mobile people, after all Suzdal was an integral part of the realm. Its not like he was the first Grand Prince who was born there or the first one who used excessive violence against some part of the Rus, like the Saint Olga did it. She too was by your logic a killer of Rus people. I dont get your logic, in medieval times rebellious populations were put down, very simple. Maybe you have some Ukrainian fantasy version were the noble men of Galich never ever used violence against Rus, but those evil Finno-Mongolian trolls from the periphery just couldnt control their bloodlust.

    Resisting the Muscovite oppression, the government of Novgorod sought an alliance with Poland–Lithuania. Most Novgorodian boyars wished to maintain the Republic’s independence since if Novgorod were to be conquered, the boyars’ wealth would flow to the grand prince and his Muscovite boyars, and the Novgorodians would fall into decline… According to tradition, Marfa Boretskaya, the wife of Posadnik Isak Boretskii, was the main proponent of an alliance with Poland-Lithuania to save the Republic.

    Muscovite authorities saw Novgorod’s behavior as a repudiation of the Treaty of Yazhelbitsy and went to war against the city.

    So they broke a treaty? I dont see anything wrong in Ivan III behaviour. After all those times were critical so that the Rus could be liberated from the Tatar yoke once and for all(sorry ancestors..). Country needs unity, so that the enemies within must be eliminated so that the enemies without could be beaten. You like to speak about the demographics and about the population size of the Rus. Without your hated Moskals the Tatars could have continued their slave raids and campaigns in the heartlands of Rus without end. When you are dealing with such threat you probably dont like rebellious provincial nobles. But in your heart you know who liberated the Rus from the warriors and slave raiders of steppe!

    So no, Novgorod was not steadfastly anti-Western like Suzdal-Muscovy-Great Russia. It was rather like its Rus brothers in Ukraine.

    Incidentally, Polish-Lithuanian total victory over Muscovy, had it occurred, would have been the greatest chance in history for a real and lasting unification of the Slavic people.

    Also Sweden was given Bull of Crusade against Novgorod by the Roman bishop. That is the most serious form of Western aggression that there could be, that the Christian leader of invader has proclaimed crusade against your Christian lands. Novgorod nobly had many battles through centuries against western invaders like I said before. Therefore union with Moscow was logical outcome.
    Save us from your traitorous and brainwashed Galician lies. “Real and lasting unification.” That shitty country that was in permanent state of the crisis with couple exceptions, country whose greatest victory was done by marrying a foreign pagan noble. Yes it would been the real and lasting Balkanization of the Slavic people, so that the Swedes and German nobles could have ruled them, oh without forgetting the Tatars, but you probably would like it, with your Stockholm syndrome of foreign rulers. Khans of Crimea(or Sultan) would have probably funded people like you in olden times. But now its the good ol’ US of A.

    Half-truth. It was tied with Dalmatia. However although Galicia was the poorest part of Austria, it was richer than Russia. In 1890 the per capita product, in 2010 dollars, for Galicia was $1,947. In Russia it was $1,550. Galicia also achieved full literacy of schoolkids by 1910, earlier than did Russia. So I was telling the truth when I stated that Galicians under Austria were the richest and most educated of the East Slavs.

    Half truth because it had a tie with Dalmatia? With small minuscule Dalmatia, okay didnt know about that, I just knew that Galicia was legendary in poverty in Central Europe. Still its different to be a poorest part of the Austria and than its being mediocre in Russia. I think that the picture would change if we would count by per capita PPP, For Galicia all the products and raw materials of the rest of the Austria were probably very very expensive. In Russia I sincerely believe that the raw materials and goods were cheaper, although luxury goods and similar stuff more expensive.

    Another half-truth. Most people were serfs (as in most of Russia) but there were also plenty of Ruthenian nobles. None of my Galician ancestors were ever serfs.

    Oh yes I forgot those Kapos of the Polish overlords. By the way most of them got Polonized in the longer run. Yes such fine examples of the Rus.

    Genetic influence is negligible. Hairstyles were used long before Mongols and Tatars (Sviatoslav had the same). Correct about clothing, not so much about lifestyle (Cossacks maintained farms, they weren’t nomads).

    Hmm the influence of Altaic inhabitants of steppe is of course much older than the existence of made up nation of Ukraine. After all in most ancient mentions of Rus its written that their ruler was Khagan. Still if I wouldnt know any better I would think after seeing traditional depictions of Cossack Mamai that he is Janissary or a Tatar, and not a Slavic Cossack. Its impossible to know nowadays, but I believe that the Zaporozhian Cossacks had more Turkic blood than average peasants in Ukraine.

    And ano4 you are wrong, Galicia is just lost offshoot of the Rus people, after all they have been ruled for more than half millenium by foreign rulers and priests, very few people can keep their sense of identity in those kind of circumstances. In other words civilizations sometimes lose and sometimes gain lands, some times historical circumstances give birth to new peoples and sometimes old ones disappear(assimilation, migration etc). Galicia is lost land to the Rus. But small loss from the big perspective.

    • Replies: @Ano4
    @AltanBakshi


    After all in most ancient mentions of Rus its written that their ruler was Khagan.
     
    This is correct and the Muslim traders who met and described the ancient pagan Rus on the Volga also wrote that Rus were Turks. I believe that was due to two things: 1) Early Rus being mercenaries to the Khazar Khaganate 2) Early Rus warlike lifestyle that these Persian/Arab traders mainly associated with the Turks in Islamic lands.

    Zaporozhian Cossacks had more Turkic blood than average peasants in Ukraine.
     
    Gumilev derived the Cossacks from the Turk/,Slav hybrid Brodnik populations. What is certain is that by the Zaporogue times they had a lot of Circassians joining in during the Islamization of the North Caucasus. So basically, early Cossacks would be a mix of Slav, Turk and Circassian armed agriculturalists living in a volatile and violent steppe environment.
    , @AP
    @AltanBakshi


    You wrote that the Russian Orthodox Church is church with the snitches and is it any better than uniates/schismatics and so on
     
    I did not claim the Russian Orthodox Church was not valid, nor Christian, nor did I endorse Donatism. I stated that its leadership collaborated with an atheistic regime in the persecution of Christians. Which makes it worse than other Churches in ways that do not have anything to do with its validity.

    Princes of the Rus were quite mobile people, after all Suzdal was an integral part of the realm.
     
    Point is that he was a Suzdalian and as I pointed out, consistent anti-Western stance and preference for the East is not a Rus phenomenon as you implied but a narrow Suzdalian phenomenon. Novgorod was not like that. It of course opposed Swedish or Crusader invaders but was friendly towards the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

    like the Saint Olga did it
     
    Helga was a Viking lady who slaughtered a large number of Slavs when they killed her Viking husband Ingvar who was forcing them to give up tribute such as slaves. It is really funny when modern mythologizers (be they Russian nationalists, or Ukrainian nationalists) pretend that she is one of theirs and argue over her.

    So they broke a treaty? I dont see anything wrong in Ivan III behaviour.

     

    I know you don't see anything wrong with brutally slaughtering lots of Rus people, when they oppose the Muscovites. This is because you are not really a Rus patriot, you are a Great Russian patriot. Those Rus who oppose Great Russian hegemony should die. Which is an understandable attitude from the perspective of a narrow Muscovite.Great Russian patriotism. But don't expect those of us Rus who are not Muscovites to support that.

    “Real and lasting unification.” That shitty country that was in permanent state of the crisis with couple exceptions, country whose greatest victory was done by marrying a foreign pagan noble.
     
    PLC saved Europe from Turks. It was in a bad position because it was surrounded by rivals without good geographic isolation. Germany had a similar problem and a similar fate. If PLC had united with Muscovy as was the project of PLC's Rus princes, this problem would have been solved.

    Yes it would been the real and lasting Balkanization of the Slavic people
     
    Narrow Muscovite chauvinism prevented the creation of an all-Slavic superstate encompassing Poland, the Baltics, and all the Rus lands.

    so that the Swedes and German nobles could have ruled them
     
    Projection. PLC was mostly led by Slavic native elite (combined with Slavicized Lithuanians). Muscovy and Great Russia, OTOH, was loaded with rulers of non-Slavic origins - Tatars, Mongols, Germans, etc. Russian historian Vernadsky cited a survey of Russian noble origins: 229 of Western European (including German) origin, 223 of Polish and Lithuanian origin (this number included Ruthenian nobility), 156 of Tatar and other Oriental origin, 168 families belonged to the House of Rurik and 42 were of unspecified "Russian" origin.

    Half truth because it had a tie with Dalmatia? With small minuscule Dalmatia, okay didnt know about that
     
    Also it was tied with Dalmatia as the poorest part of Austria. It was richer than some regions that were part of Hungary, within Austria-Hungary. Austrian Galicia was slightly richer than Croatia and eastern Hungary. It was about as rich as Slovakia. If Galicia never came under Moscow and was still about as rich as Slovakia it would still be richer than Russia, as it was under the benevolent Hapsburgs.

    I just knew that Galicia was legendary in poverty in Central Europe.
     
    Poor by Central European standards meant richest East Slav region. Moreover it closer to richer Central European lands than it is today. Galicia had about 60% of Austria's per capita GDP. Modern Russia has only about 25% of modern Austria's GDP per capita.

    And you forgot to mention literacy also (full literacy of Galician kids by 1910, a generation earlier than other East Slavs). And the fact that Galicians were freed from serfdom before all the other Eastern Slavs were.

    So yes, the East Slavs under the Austrian Hapsburgs were richer and more educated than were the East Slavs under the German Romanovs.

    I think that the picture would change if we would count by per capita PPP
     
    This is possible though consumer goods were not as relevant then as they are now. One of my grandparents moved from Kharkiv to Lviv in 1939 and it was a huge difference then, Kharkiv was much poorer.

    "Another half-truth. Most people were serfs (as in most of Russia) but there were also plenty of Ruthenian nobles. None of my Galician ancestors were ever serfs."

    Oh yes I forgot those Kapos of the Polish overlords. By the way most of them got Polonized in the longer run.
     
    You are projecting. Suzdalian or Muscovite princes were kapos of the Mongol overlords. Alexander Nevsky slaughtered many Rus people on behalf of his Mongol masters. Much more than were killed by any Poles. you will make the excuse that it was necessary in order for them to consolidate their power. Sure. But they were still clearly kapos serving overlords who persecuted their people.

    And of course you display ignorance of the nature of the PLC. It was a republic of nobles, and Rus princes were among the richest and most powerful of them all. They directed its foreign policy towards the East, not any Poles. For example, the PLC incursion into Moscow was a project not of any "Polish overlords" but two Rus princes - the Orthodox Rus magnate Michael Vyshnevetsky and the Catholic Rus magnate Lew Sapieha. They worked with some Muscovite boyars for the purpose of unifying all the Rus lands into a massive Slavic superstate. The Vyshnevetsky princes were descendants of Rurik and the Sapieha family were Rus boyars from Smolensk and Polotsk.

    Galicia is just lost offshoot of the Rus people, after all they have been ruled for more than half millenium by foreign rulers and priests
     
    As I explained above, rulers of Rus people in Muscovy were more foreign than rulers in Rus lands in Ukraine. Galicians are not "lost", they retain their East Slavic culture.

    very few people can keep their sense of identity in those kind of circumstances.
     
    Maybe your people would not be able to. Galicians would be. I notice that Russians tend to assimilate quickly when they leave Russia, while Galicians retain their language after many generations. This speaks to the stubborn strength of the Galician variant of Rus civilization.

    Replies: @Ano4, @AltanBakshi

  187. @Ano4
    @AP

    The chronicles report a massive influx of the Polesye Kievan Rus into Zalesye over a couple of generations. The local Ugric populations were not that numerous, with the Mordvinians a notable exception.

    An interesting theory is that those Rus who fled to the north, did it not only to escape the Steppe nomad raids and Kievan princes frequent infighting, but possibly to keep their pagan traditions and avoid a final christinization. It was easier to not have a priest telling you how to believe in God(s) when you lived with your clan in a deep forest, a few hundred miles from the nearest church. Something similar happened later during the Raskol times.

    This might explain these traditional embroidery motifs from Vologda:

    https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/matveychev_oleg/27303223/7266749/7266749_900.jpg

    Replies: @AP, @AltanBakshi

    Again this nonsense. Swastika was a common symbol in many different religions and cultures, even among the Christians of Antiquity, its not a proof of surviving pagan traditions.

    • Replies: @Ano4
    @AltanBakshi

    That is just a theory although pagans are still attested around Belozero up to the end of XIV century. Swastika was indeed a universal symbol, but it seems that it first gained prominence in Trypolian culture and the associated R1a groups.

    Although:

    https://i.pinimg.com/originals/fd/86/ed/fd86ed73f2c242c0265a677729240c5c.jpg

    Maybe the African Kings founded Trypolian Culture!

    😄

  188. @AltanBakshi
    @AP

    You wrote that the Russian Orthodox Church is church with the snitches and is it any better than uniates/schismatics and so on, then I explained to you why its better and to think otherwise would be a model case of Donatist heresy. So maybe you are not heretic, just misguided.

    Its common knowledge that Solzhenitsyn used artistic liberties and inflated his numbers.


    He was a Suzdalian who brutally slaughtered the people of Novgorod when they rebelled against the Mongols, cutting off their noses and such. He betrayed his own brother and the Rus prince of Galicia who wanted an anti-Mongolian alliance, snitching on them to his Mongolian overlords. Alexander Nevsky was a killer of Rus people.

     

    Princes of the Rus were quite mobile people, after all Suzdal was an integral part of the realm. Its not like he was the first Grand Prince who was born there or the first one who used excessive violence against some part of the Rus, like the Saint Olga did it. She too was by your logic a killer of Rus people. I dont get your logic, in medieval times rebellious populations were put down, very simple. Maybe you have some Ukrainian fantasy version were the noble men of Galich never ever used violence against Rus, but those evil Finno-Mongolian trolls from the periphery just couldnt control their bloodlust.

    Resisting the Muscovite oppression, the government of Novgorod sought an alliance with Poland–Lithuania. Most Novgorodian boyars wished to maintain the Republic’s independence since if Novgorod were to be conquered, the boyars’ wealth would flow to the grand prince and his Muscovite boyars, and the Novgorodians would fall into decline… According to tradition, Marfa Boretskaya, the wife of Posadnik Isak Boretskii, was the main proponent of an alliance with Poland-Lithuania to save the Republic.

    Muscovite authorities saw Novgorod’s behavior as a repudiation of the Treaty of Yazhelbitsy and went to war against the city.

     

    So they broke a treaty? I dont see anything wrong in Ivan III behaviour. After all those times were critical so that the Rus could be liberated from the Tatar yoke once and for all(sorry ancestors..). Country needs unity, so that the enemies within must be eliminated so that the enemies without could be beaten. You like to speak about the demographics and about the population size of the Rus. Without your hated Moskals the Tatars could have continued their slave raids and campaigns in the heartlands of Rus without end. When you are dealing with such threat you probably dont like rebellious provincial nobles. But in your heart you know who liberated the Rus from the warriors and slave raiders of steppe!

    So no, Novgorod was not steadfastly anti-Western like Suzdal-Muscovy-Great Russia. It was rather like its Rus brothers in Ukraine.

    Incidentally, Polish-Lithuanian total victory over Muscovy, had it occurred, would have been the greatest chance in history for a real and lasting unification of the Slavic people.
     

    Also Sweden was given Bull of Crusade against Novgorod by the Roman bishop. That is the most serious form of Western aggression that there could be, that the Christian leader of invader has proclaimed crusade against your Christian lands. Novgorod nobly had many battles through centuries against western invaders like I said before. Therefore union with Moscow was logical outcome.
    Save us from your traitorous and brainwashed Galician lies. "Real and lasting unification." That shitty country that was in permanent state of the crisis with couple exceptions, country whose greatest victory was done by marrying a foreign pagan noble. Yes it would been the real and lasting Balkanization of the Slavic people, so that the Swedes and German nobles could have ruled them, oh without forgetting the Tatars, but you probably would like it, with your Stockholm syndrome of foreign rulers. Khans of Crimea(or Sultan) would have probably funded people like you in olden times. But now its the good ol' US of A.

    Half-truth. It was tied with Dalmatia. However although Galicia was the poorest part of Austria, it was richer than Russia. In 1890 the per capita product, in 2010 dollars, for Galicia was $1,947. In Russia it was $1,550. Galicia also achieved full literacy of schoolkids by 1910, earlier than did Russia. So I was telling the truth when I stated that Galicians under Austria were the richest and most educated of the East Slavs.

     

    Half truth because it had a tie with Dalmatia? With small minuscule Dalmatia, okay didnt know about that, I just knew that Galicia was legendary in poverty in Central Europe. Still its different to be a poorest part of the Austria and than its being mediocre in Russia. I think that the picture would change if we would count by per capita PPP, For Galicia all the products and raw materials of the rest of the Austria were probably very very expensive. In Russia I sincerely believe that the raw materials and goods were cheaper, although luxury goods and similar stuff more expensive.

    Another half-truth. Most people were serfs (as in most of Russia) but there were also plenty of Ruthenian nobles. None of my Galician ancestors were ever serfs.
     
    Oh yes I forgot those Kapos of the Polish overlords. By the way most of them got Polonized in the longer run. Yes such fine examples of the Rus.

    Genetic influence is negligible. Hairstyles were used long before Mongols and Tatars (Sviatoslav had the same). Correct about clothing, not so much about lifestyle (Cossacks maintained farms, they weren’t nomads).

     

    Hmm the influence of Altaic inhabitants of steppe is of course much older than the existence of made up nation of Ukraine. After all in most ancient mentions of Rus its written that their ruler was Khagan. Still if I wouldnt know any better I would think after seeing traditional depictions of Cossack Mamai that he is Janissary or a Tatar, and not a Slavic Cossack. Its impossible to know nowadays, but I believe that the Zaporozhian Cossacks had more Turkic blood than average peasants in Ukraine.

    And ano4 you are wrong, Galicia is just lost offshoot of the Rus people, after all they have been ruled for more than half millenium by foreign rulers and priests, very few people can keep their sense of identity in those kind of circumstances. In other words civilizations sometimes lose and sometimes gain lands, some times historical circumstances give birth to new peoples and sometimes old ones disappear(assimilation, migration etc). Galicia is lost land to the Rus. But small loss from the big perspective.

    Replies: @Ano4, @AP

    After all in most ancient mentions of Rus its written that their ruler was Khagan.

    This is correct and the Muslim traders who met and described the ancient pagan Rus on the Volga also wrote that Rus were Turks. I believe that was due to two things: 1) Early Rus being mercenaries to the Khazar Khaganate 2) Early Rus warlike lifestyle that these Persian/Arab traders mainly associated with the Turks in Islamic lands.

    Zaporozhian Cossacks had more Turkic blood than average peasants in Ukraine.

    Gumilev derived the Cossacks from the Turk/,Slav hybrid Brodnik populations. What is certain is that by the Zaporogue times they had a lot of Circassians joining in during the Islamization of the North Caucasus. So basically, early Cossacks would be a mix of Slav, Turk and Circassian armed agriculturalists living in a volatile and violent steppe environment.

    • Agree: AltanBakshi
  189. @AltanBakshi
    @Ano4

    Again this nonsense. Swastika was a common symbol in many different religions and cultures, even among the Christians of Antiquity, its not a proof of surviving pagan traditions.

    Replies: @Ano4

    That is just a theory although pagans are still attested around Belozero up to the end of XIV century. Swastika was indeed a universal symbol, but it seems that it first gained prominence in Trypolian culture and the associated R1a groups.

    Although:

    Maybe the African Kings founded Trypolian Culture!

    😄

  190. @Ano4
    @AltanBakshi

    Well this is quite a khokhlosratch that you and AP are having. Why don't you both calm down a bit. Frankly, each of you has some good arguments...

    🙂

    Replies: @AP, @AltanBakshi

    There happened many tragedies in Russia because of Communist rule, but still if your mother or son goes mad or ends in bad company, do you then desert or abandon your own family member? Of course bad things done by loved ones hurt deeply, so too good deeds done by them bring joy and delight, but one should not forsake and give up ones loved ones. But of course traitors never ever will understand this, for they have already broken the bread and shared their bed with the enemy.

    Ancient Rus were very versatile men, they were men of steppes as much men of sailing and men of forests. They travelled much, met may different peoples from Persians with higly refined taste, to Greeks with their classical arts, to Finns of the bogs and forests, to Alans and Turks of the steppe etc etc. They truly had a vast and endless horizons. But this Galician petty nationalism would be the death of the Slavs, yes some embroidery and kitchen books, how wonderful. And your women working in Germany as “working women” and your young and educated leaving at any cost from your failed state. Truly a dead end of culture and civilization. A balkanized Slavdom, a servant of decadent west. But Russia is truly sovereign, its own civilizational pole, a civilization that led men to the stars and will one day continue that mighty work, a country with future, a culture with other possibilities than being just a parasite of western civilization. Spengler said something about the Russians creating future civilization after the westerners. He said something about the vast and endless horizons of steppe and how that will be the defining feature of the Russian spirit of the future. Im not saying he is right, for he is more poet than serious philosopher, but sometimes he has glimpses of truth. But what I know is that the Galician and Ukrainian nationalism has no endless horizons, its constricted and small and it lacks the true greatness of Christian civilization. For Russia is Rus, but Russia is also now something more.

    • Replies: @Ano4
    @AltanBakshi

    Have you been writing to AP?

    Because I have never advocated for Ukrainian nationalism.

    Quite the opposite.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

    , @AP
    @AltanBakshi


    A balkanized Slavdom
     
    The best chance for unity of the Slavs (and of the people of Rus) would have been if the Rus princes of the PLC had succeeded in keeping Moscow and thus of gathering all the Rus lands in the 17th century.

    However you don’t like that. This is because you aren’t really in support of Rus or Slavic unity, rather you want Suzdalian/ Muscovite/Great Russian hegemony over other Rus and Slavs. This is why you justify the mass killings of Rus people, collaboration with killers of Rus and participation in the killings by creatures such as Nevsky, etc.

    Unfortunately for you, such efforts backfire and lead to disunity.

    I will respond to your other post later, when I have more time.

  191. @AltanBakshi
    @Ano4

    There happened many tragedies in Russia because of Communist rule, but still if your mother or son goes mad or ends in bad company, do you then desert or abandon your own family member? Of course bad things done by loved ones hurt deeply, so too good deeds done by them bring joy and delight, but one should not forsake and give up ones loved ones. But of course traitors never ever will understand this, for they have already broken the bread and shared their bed with the enemy.

    Ancient Rus were very versatile men, they were men of steppes as much men of sailing and men of forests. They travelled much, met may different peoples from Persians with higly refined taste, to Greeks with their classical arts, to Finns of the bogs and forests, to Alans and Turks of the steppe etc etc. They truly had a vast and endless horizons. But this Galician petty nationalism would be the death of the Slavs, yes some embroidery and kitchen books, how wonderful. And your women working in Germany as "working women" and your young and educated leaving at any cost from your failed state. Truly a dead end of culture and civilization. A balkanized Slavdom, a servant of decadent west. But Russia is truly sovereign, its own civilizational pole, a civilization that led men to the stars and will one day continue that mighty work, a country with future, a culture with other possibilities than being just a parasite of western civilization. Spengler said something about the Russians creating future civilization after the westerners. He said something about the vast and endless horizons of steppe and how that will be the defining feature of the Russian spirit of the future. Im not saying he is right, for he is more poet than serious philosopher, but sometimes he has glimpses of truth. But what I know is that the Galician and Ukrainian nationalism has no endless horizons, its constricted and small and it lacks the true greatness of Christian civilization. For Russia is Rus, but Russia is also now something more.

    Replies: @Ano4, @AP

    Have you been writing to AP?

    Because I have never advocated for Ukrainian nationalism.

    Quite the opposite.

    • Replies: @AltanBakshi
    @Ano4

    Oh sorry, I first wanted to explain to you my reasons, but then my mind started to wander, yes its more written to AP. I hope that I have not been too harsh for him, he seems nice fellow, and there probably are many nice individuals among Galicians, still the welfare of hundreds of millions of people of the Russian civilization is more important than peripheries of Galicia and Baltics. I still count all ex-Soviet Union as one civilization that is under momentarily state of fragmentation. After all Russia got many centuries of victories and expansion, so there will be always times when civilization constricts and later grows again. Like China, they had couple hundred centuries of good times and then again hundred years of fragmentation and civil war. So has been already for over 4000 years in Chinese history. Russia is much younger, but this is second or third time in its history that it got fragmented, still the situation is much less hopeless than in the 13th or 14th Century. But long time welfare of hundreds of millions is immensely more important than the imagined well being of couple million separatists who are constants source of conflict. Therefore its okay to crush latter (almost)without any reservations. To eliminate the root causes. There is no future in Balkanization for any honorable or smart people, its something that I wish only for my enemies. AP wishes it to the Rus.

    Replies: @Ano4

  192. @Ano4
    @AltanBakshi

    Have you been writing to AP?

    Because I have never advocated for Ukrainian nationalism.

    Quite the opposite.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

    Oh sorry, I first wanted to explain to you my reasons, but then my mind started to wander, yes its more written to AP. I hope that I have not been too harsh for him, he seems nice fellow, and there probably are many nice individuals among Galicians, still the welfare of hundreds of millions of people of the Russian civilization is more important than peripheries of Galicia and Baltics. I still count all ex-Soviet Union as one civilization that is under momentarily state of fragmentation. After all Russia got many centuries of victories and expansion, so there will be always times when civilization constricts and later grows again. Like China, they had couple hundred centuries of good times and then again hundred years of fragmentation and civil war. So has been already for over 4000 years in Chinese history. Russia is much younger, but this is second or third time in its history that it got fragmented, still the situation is much less hopeless than in the 13th or 14th Century. But long time welfare of hundreds of millions is immensely more important than the imagined well being of couple million separatists who are constants source of conflict. Therefore its okay to crush latter (almost)without any reservations. To eliminate the root causes. There is no future in Balkanization for any honorable or smart people, its something that I wish only for my enemies. AP wishes it to the Rus.

    • Replies: @Ano4
    @AltanBakshi

    I understand you quite well. But AP has also many valid historical arguments. Of course, hindsight is 20/20.


    I still count all ex-Soviet Union as one civilization that is under momentarily state of fragmentation. After all Russia got many centuries of victories and expansion, so there will be always times when civilization constricts and later grows again.
     
    The past is foreign land.

    Most ethnic Russians would have none of it. They just want peaceful future and a relatively prosperous living for themselves and their offspring.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi, @AltanBakshi

  193. @AltanBakshi
    @Ano4

    Oh sorry, I first wanted to explain to you my reasons, but then my mind started to wander, yes its more written to AP. I hope that I have not been too harsh for him, he seems nice fellow, and there probably are many nice individuals among Galicians, still the welfare of hundreds of millions of people of the Russian civilization is more important than peripheries of Galicia and Baltics. I still count all ex-Soviet Union as one civilization that is under momentarily state of fragmentation. After all Russia got many centuries of victories and expansion, so there will be always times when civilization constricts and later grows again. Like China, they had couple hundred centuries of good times and then again hundred years of fragmentation and civil war. So has been already for over 4000 years in Chinese history. Russia is much younger, but this is second or third time in its history that it got fragmented, still the situation is much less hopeless than in the 13th or 14th Century. But long time welfare of hundreds of millions is immensely more important than the imagined well being of couple million separatists who are constants source of conflict. Therefore its okay to crush latter (almost)without any reservations. To eliminate the root causes. There is no future in Balkanization for any honorable or smart people, its something that I wish only for my enemies. AP wishes it to the Rus.

    Replies: @Ano4

    I understand you quite well. But AP has also many valid historical arguments. Of course, hindsight is 20/20.

    I still count all ex-Soviet Union as one civilization that is under momentarily state of fragmentation. After all Russia got many centuries of victories and expansion, so there will be always times when civilization constricts and later grows again.

    The past is foreign land.

    Most ethnic Russians would have none of it. They just want peaceful future and a relatively prosperous living for themselves and their offspring.

    • Replies: @AltanBakshi
    @Ano4

    I know, but Russia is bigger than the Russians so its good that Putin in my opinion plays long game, in this summer I have had quite many discussions with Ukrainians from Volyn and Center, and most are totally tired of the situation and think that Yanukovich, although he was thief, was better than these clowns and nazis that they have now. It will happen like Solzhenitsyn foretold(yes sometimes he is right...), that Ukrainians will go on their own road for some time but in the end will understand who is their real family, then the unification process can and will continue. So situation is good on long term. Time for Central Asia will come when Belarus and Ukraine has been dealt. And it will be probably easier than Russians imagine, for people there have quite good memories of Soviet past, big Slavic minorities and ever growing threat of China, for them. And China is reasonable, they already have given Russia the foremost place in Central Asia by not trying to stop Eurasian Union and CSTO, USA is their true enemy, like Russias. After All China and Russia have lived in peace most of their history, with small exceptions. Biggest problem is Chinas too agressive policy towards India, especially when India has so warm relations with Iran. Natural gas pipes through China to India would be heaven send, but China seems to do all to stop the birth of Pan-Asian Russo-Sino-Indian-Iranian Axis, which surely would have enough strength to put an end to the Beast.

    What valid historical arguments?

    , @AltanBakshi
    @Ano4


    Most ethnic Russians would have none of it. They just want peaceful future and a relatively prosperous living for themselves and their offspring.
     
    Do you think that common Russians were interested in conquering of the Caucasus, Siberia or khanate of Khiva? Of course not, in most societies in history there has no such desire from the common people(without extensive propaganda). From my opinion invalid argument, more suited to some conformist cattle like Swedes, or maybe for Tolkiens Hobbits.
  194. @Ano4
    @AltanBakshi

    I understand you quite well. But AP has also many valid historical arguments. Of course, hindsight is 20/20.


    I still count all ex-Soviet Union as one civilization that is under momentarily state of fragmentation. After all Russia got many centuries of victories and expansion, so there will be always times when civilization constricts and later grows again.
     
    The past is foreign land.

    Most ethnic Russians would have none of it. They just want peaceful future and a relatively prosperous living for themselves and their offspring.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi, @AltanBakshi

    I know, but Russia is bigger than the Russians so its good that Putin in my opinion plays long game, in this summer I have had quite many discussions with Ukrainians from Volyn and Center, and most are totally tired of the situation and think that Yanukovich, although he was thief, was better than these clowns and nazis that they have now. It will happen like Solzhenitsyn foretold(yes sometimes he is right…), that Ukrainians will go on their own road for some time but in the end will understand who is their real family, then the unification process can and will continue. So situation is good on long term. Time for Central Asia will come when Belarus and Ukraine has been dealt. And it will be probably easier than Russians imagine, for people there have quite good memories of Soviet past, big Slavic minorities and ever growing threat of China, for them. And China is reasonable, they already have given Russia the foremost place in Central Asia by not trying to stop Eurasian Union and CSTO, USA is their true enemy, like Russias. After All China and Russia have lived in peace most of their history, with small exceptions. Biggest problem is Chinas too agressive policy towards India, especially when India has so warm relations with Iran. Natural gas pipes through China to India would be heaven send, but China seems to do all to stop the birth of Pan-Asian Russo-Sino-Indian-Iranian Axis, which surely would have enough strength to put an end to the Beast.

    What valid historical arguments?

  195. @Ano4
    @AltanBakshi

    I understand you quite well. But AP has also many valid historical arguments. Of course, hindsight is 20/20.


    I still count all ex-Soviet Union as one civilization that is under momentarily state of fragmentation. After all Russia got many centuries of victories and expansion, so there will be always times when civilization constricts and later grows again.
     
    The past is foreign land.

    Most ethnic Russians would have none of it. They just want peaceful future and a relatively prosperous living for themselves and their offspring.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi, @AltanBakshi

    Most ethnic Russians would have none of it. They just want peaceful future and a relatively prosperous living for themselves and their offspring.

    Do you think that common Russians were interested in conquering of the Caucasus, Siberia or khanate of Khiva? Of course not, in most societies in history there has no such desire from the common people(without extensive propaganda). From my opinion invalid argument, more suited to some conformist cattle like Swedes, or maybe for Tolkiens Hobbits.

    • Agree: Ano4
  196. AP says:
    @AltanBakshi
    @Ano4

    There happened many tragedies in Russia because of Communist rule, but still if your mother or son goes mad or ends in bad company, do you then desert or abandon your own family member? Of course bad things done by loved ones hurt deeply, so too good deeds done by them bring joy and delight, but one should not forsake and give up ones loved ones. But of course traitors never ever will understand this, for they have already broken the bread and shared their bed with the enemy.

    Ancient Rus were very versatile men, they were men of steppes as much men of sailing and men of forests. They travelled much, met may different peoples from Persians with higly refined taste, to Greeks with their classical arts, to Finns of the bogs and forests, to Alans and Turks of the steppe etc etc. They truly had a vast and endless horizons. But this Galician petty nationalism would be the death of the Slavs, yes some embroidery and kitchen books, how wonderful. And your women working in Germany as "working women" and your young and educated leaving at any cost from your failed state. Truly a dead end of culture and civilization. A balkanized Slavdom, a servant of decadent west. But Russia is truly sovereign, its own civilizational pole, a civilization that led men to the stars and will one day continue that mighty work, a country with future, a culture with other possibilities than being just a parasite of western civilization. Spengler said something about the Russians creating future civilization after the westerners. He said something about the vast and endless horizons of steppe and how that will be the defining feature of the Russian spirit of the future. Im not saying he is right, for he is more poet than serious philosopher, but sometimes he has glimpses of truth. But what I know is that the Galician and Ukrainian nationalism has no endless horizons, its constricted and small and it lacks the true greatness of Christian civilization. For Russia is Rus, but Russia is also now something more.

    Replies: @Ano4, @AP

    A balkanized Slavdom

    The best chance for unity of the Slavs (and of the people of Rus) would have been if the Rus princes of the PLC had succeeded in keeping Moscow and thus of gathering all the Rus lands in the 17th century.

    However you don’t like that. This is because you aren’t really in support of Rus or Slavic unity, rather you want Suzdalian/ Muscovite/Great Russian hegemony over other Rus and Slavs. This is why you justify the mass killings of Rus people, collaboration with killers of Rus and participation in the killings by creatures such as Nevsky, etc.

    Unfortunately for you, such efforts backfire and lead to disunity.

    I will respond to your other post later, when I have more time.

  197. AP says:
    @AltanBakshi
    @AP

    You wrote that the Russian Orthodox Church is church with the snitches and is it any better than uniates/schismatics and so on, then I explained to you why its better and to think otherwise would be a model case of Donatist heresy. So maybe you are not heretic, just misguided.

    Its common knowledge that Solzhenitsyn used artistic liberties and inflated his numbers.


    He was a Suzdalian who brutally slaughtered the people of Novgorod when they rebelled against the Mongols, cutting off their noses and such. He betrayed his own brother and the Rus prince of Galicia who wanted an anti-Mongolian alliance, snitching on them to his Mongolian overlords. Alexander Nevsky was a killer of Rus people.

     

    Princes of the Rus were quite mobile people, after all Suzdal was an integral part of the realm. Its not like he was the first Grand Prince who was born there or the first one who used excessive violence against some part of the Rus, like the Saint Olga did it. She too was by your logic a killer of Rus people. I dont get your logic, in medieval times rebellious populations were put down, very simple. Maybe you have some Ukrainian fantasy version were the noble men of Galich never ever used violence against Rus, but those evil Finno-Mongolian trolls from the periphery just couldnt control their bloodlust.

    Resisting the Muscovite oppression, the government of Novgorod sought an alliance with Poland–Lithuania. Most Novgorodian boyars wished to maintain the Republic’s independence since if Novgorod were to be conquered, the boyars’ wealth would flow to the grand prince and his Muscovite boyars, and the Novgorodians would fall into decline… According to tradition, Marfa Boretskaya, the wife of Posadnik Isak Boretskii, was the main proponent of an alliance with Poland-Lithuania to save the Republic.

    Muscovite authorities saw Novgorod’s behavior as a repudiation of the Treaty of Yazhelbitsy and went to war against the city.

     

    So they broke a treaty? I dont see anything wrong in Ivan III behaviour. After all those times were critical so that the Rus could be liberated from the Tatar yoke once and for all(sorry ancestors..). Country needs unity, so that the enemies within must be eliminated so that the enemies without could be beaten. You like to speak about the demographics and about the population size of the Rus. Without your hated Moskals the Tatars could have continued their slave raids and campaigns in the heartlands of Rus without end. When you are dealing with such threat you probably dont like rebellious provincial nobles. But in your heart you know who liberated the Rus from the warriors and slave raiders of steppe!

    So no, Novgorod was not steadfastly anti-Western like Suzdal-Muscovy-Great Russia. It was rather like its Rus brothers in Ukraine.

    Incidentally, Polish-Lithuanian total victory over Muscovy, had it occurred, would have been the greatest chance in history for a real and lasting unification of the Slavic people.
     

    Also Sweden was given Bull of Crusade against Novgorod by the Roman bishop. That is the most serious form of Western aggression that there could be, that the Christian leader of invader has proclaimed crusade against your Christian lands. Novgorod nobly had many battles through centuries against western invaders like I said before. Therefore union with Moscow was logical outcome.
    Save us from your traitorous and brainwashed Galician lies. "Real and lasting unification." That shitty country that was in permanent state of the crisis with couple exceptions, country whose greatest victory was done by marrying a foreign pagan noble. Yes it would been the real and lasting Balkanization of the Slavic people, so that the Swedes and German nobles could have ruled them, oh without forgetting the Tatars, but you probably would like it, with your Stockholm syndrome of foreign rulers. Khans of Crimea(or Sultan) would have probably funded people like you in olden times. But now its the good ol' US of A.

    Half-truth. It was tied with Dalmatia. However although Galicia was the poorest part of Austria, it was richer than Russia. In 1890 the per capita product, in 2010 dollars, for Galicia was $1,947. In Russia it was $1,550. Galicia also achieved full literacy of schoolkids by 1910, earlier than did Russia. So I was telling the truth when I stated that Galicians under Austria were the richest and most educated of the East Slavs.

     

    Half truth because it had a tie with Dalmatia? With small minuscule Dalmatia, okay didnt know about that, I just knew that Galicia was legendary in poverty in Central Europe. Still its different to be a poorest part of the Austria and than its being mediocre in Russia. I think that the picture would change if we would count by per capita PPP, For Galicia all the products and raw materials of the rest of the Austria were probably very very expensive. In Russia I sincerely believe that the raw materials and goods were cheaper, although luxury goods and similar stuff more expensive.

    Another half-truth. Most people were serfs (as in most of Russia) but there were also plenty of Ruthenian nobles. None of my Galician ancestors were ever serfs.
     
    Oh yes I forgot those Kapos of the Polish overlords. By the way most of them got Polonized in the longer run. Yes such fine examples of the Rus.

    Genetic influence is negligible. Hairstyles were used long before Mongols and Tatars (Sviatoslav had the same). Correct about clothing, not so much about lifestyle (Cossacks maintained farms, they weren’t nomads).

     

    Hmm the influence of Altaic inhabitants of steppe is of course much older than the existence of made up nation of Ukraine. After all in most ancient mentions of Rus its written that their ruler was Khagan. Still if I wouldnt know any better I would think after seeing traditional depictions of Cossack Mamai that he is Janissary or a Tatar, and not a Slavic Cossack. Its impossible to know nowadays, but I believe that the Zaporozhian Cossacks had more Turkic blood than average peasants in Ukraine.

    And ano4 you are wrong, Galicia is just lost offshoot of the Rus people, after all they have been ruled for more than half millenium by foreign rulers and priests, very few people can keep their sense of identity in those kind of circumstances. In other words civilizations sometimes lose and sometimes gain lands, some times historical circumstances give birth to new peoples and sometimes old ones disappear(assimilation, migration etc). Galicia is lost land to the Rus. But small loss from the big perspective.

    Replies: @Ano4, @AP

    You wrote that the Russian Orthodox Church is church with the snitches and is it any better than uniates/schismatics and so on

    I did not claim the Russian Orthodox Church was not valid, nor Christian, nor did I endorse Donatism. I stated that its leadership collaborated with an atheistic regime in the persecution of Christians. Which makes it worse than other Churches in ways that do not have anything to do with its validity.

    Princes of the Rus were quite mobile people, after all Suzdal was an integral part of the realm.

    Point is that he was a Suzdalian and as I pointed out, consistent anti-Western stance and preference for the East is not a Rus phenomenon as you implied but a narrow Suzdalian phenomenon. Novgorod was not like that. It of course opposed Swedish or Crusader invaders but was friendly towards the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

    like the Saint Olga did it

    Helga was a Viking lady who slaughtered a large number of Slavs when they killed her Viking husband Ingvar who was forcing them to give up tribute such as slaves. It is really funny when modern mythologizers (be they Russian nationalists, or Ukrainian nationalists) pretend that she is one of theirs and argue over her.

    So they broke a treaty? I dont see anything wrong in Ivan III behaviour.

    I know you don’t see anything wrong with brutally slaughtering lots of Rus people, when they oppose the Muscovites. This is because you are not really a Rus patriot, you are a Great Russian patriot. Those Rus who oppose Great Russian hegemony should die. Which is an understandable attitude from the perspective of a narrow Muscovite.Great Russian patriotism. But don’t expect those of us Rus who are not Muscovites to support that.

    “Real and lasting unification.” That shitty country that was in permanent state of the crisis with couple exceptions, country whose greatest victory was done by marrying a foreign pagan noble.

    PLC saved Europe from Turks. It was in a bad position because it was surrounded by rivals without good geographic isolation. Germany had a similar problem and a similar fate. If PLC had united with Muscovy as was the project of PLC’s Rus princes, this problem would have been solved.

    Yes it would been the real and lasting Balkanization of the Slavic people

    Narrow Muscovite chauvinism prevented the creation of an all-Slavic superstate encompassing Poland, the Baltics, and all the Rus lands.

    so that the Swedes and German nobles could have ruled them

    Projection. PLC was mostly led by Slavic native elite (combined with Slavicized Lithuanians). Muscovy and Great Russia, OTOH, was loaded with rulers of non-Slavic origins – Tatars, Mongols, Germans, etc. Russian historian Vernadsky cited a survey of Russian noble origins: 229 of Western European (including German) origin, 223 of Polish and Lithuanian origin (this number included Ruthenian nobility), 156 of Tatar and other Oriental origin, 168 families belonged to the House of Rurik and 42 were of unspecified “Russian” origin.

    Half truth because it had a tie with Dalmatia? With small minuscule Dalmatia, okay didnt know about that

    Also it was tied with Dalmatia as the poorest part of Austria. It was richer than some regions that were part of Hungary, within Austria-Hungary. Austrian Galicia was slightly richer than Croatia and eastern Hungary. It was about as rich as Slovakia. If Galicia never came under Moscow and was still about as rich as Slovakia it would still be richer than Russia, as it was under the benevolent Hapsburgs.

    I just knew that Galicia was legendary in poverty in Central Europe.

    Poor by Central European standards meant richest East Slav region. Moreover it closer to richer Central European lands than it is today. Galicia had about 60% of Austria’s per capita GDP. Modern Russia has only about 25% of modern Austria’s GDP per capita.

    And you forgot to mention literacy also (full literacy of Galician kids by 1910, a generation earlier than other East Slavs). And the fact that Galicians were freed from serfdom before all the other Eastern Slavs were.

    So yes, the East Slavs under the Austrian Hapsburgs were richer and more educated than were the East Slavs under the German Romanovs.

    I think that the picture would change if we would count by per capita PPP

    This is possible though consumer goods were not as relevant then as they are now. One of my grandparents moved from Kharkiv to Lviv in 1939 and it was a huge difference then, Kharkiv was much poorer.

    “Another half-truth. Most people were serfs (as in most of Russia) but there were also plenty of Ruthenian nobles. None of my Galician ancestors were ever serfs.”

    Oh yes I forgot those Kapos of the Polish overlords. By the way most of them got Polonized in the longer run.

    You are projecting. Suzdalian or Muscovite princes were kapos of the Mongol overlords. Alexander Nevsky slaughtered many Rus people on behalf of his Mongol masters. Much more than were killed by any Poles. you will make the excuse that it was necessary in order for them to consolidate their power. Sure. But they were still clearly kapos serving overlords who persecuted their people.

    And of course you display ignorance of the nature of the PLC. It was a republic of nobles, and Rus princes were among the richest and most powerful of them all. They directed its foreign policy towards the East, not any Poles. For example, the PLC incursion into Moscow was a project not of any “Polish overlords” but two Rus princes – the Orthodox Rus magnate Michael Vyshnevetsky and the Catholic Rus magnate Lew Sapieha. They worked with some Muscovite boyars for the purpose of unifying all the Rus lands into a massive Slavic superstate. The Vyshnevetsky princes were descendants of Rurik and the Sapieha family were Rus boyars from Smolensk and Polotsk.

    Galicia is just lost offshoot of the Rus people, after all they have been ruled for more than half millenium by foreign rulers and priests

    As I explained above, rulers of Rus people in Muscovy were more foreign than rulers in Rus lands in Ukraine. Galicians are not “lost”, they retain their East Slavic culture.

    very few people can keep their sense of identity in those kind of circumstances.

    Maybe your people would not be able to. Galicians would be. I notice that Russians tend to assimilate quickly when they leave Russia, while Galicians retain their language after many generations. This speaks to the stubborn strength of the Galician variant of Rus civilization.

    • Replies: @Ano4
    @AP


    Muscovy and Great Russia, OTOH, was loaded with rulers of non-Slavic origins – Tatars, Mongols, Germans, etc. Russian historian Vernadsky cited a survey of Russian noble origins: 229 of Western European (including German) origin, 223 of Polish and Lithuanian origin (this number included Ruthenian nobility), 156 of Tatar and other Oriental origin, 168 families belonged to the House of Rurik and 42 were of unspecified “Russian” origin.
     
    Muscovy became Russia after the Time of Troubles, the Raskol and Peter the Great reforms. Each step made it less Rus and more Russian. When one reads Avvakum, and then reads Peter the Great letters, one understands better how much things changed in a matter of a couple of generations.
    Also, when I visit Tretyakovka, I always like to stand a few moments in front of this painting:

    https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/morning-of-the-execution-of-the-streltsy/xAGX5DyRl-AyWw?hl=en-GB&avm=2

    Replies: @AP

    , @AltanBakshi
    @AP

    You have totally mistaken understanding of the PLC. It was terminally unstable country that had it moments of glory only when its neighbours were weak and divided. How long its golden age endured? From 1569 to mid 17th Century till the invasion of Swedes. Still in the 16th and 17th centuries its neigbours were more divided and weaker than it was. In east Russia battled with Tatars, Turks and Swedes, in the west German kingdoms and principalities were constantly preoccupied by civil wars and religious conflicts, to the south Austrians and Turks battled constantly. Your dream is that whole Russia would had lost its faith and become one great brainwashed Galicia, Greater Galicia. What a silly dream. Which depends on so many leaps of faith and on imaginary alternative history that is permissible for some teenagers, not to mature adults. Really you are not even Ukrainian nationalist that has even some sense of reality and just wants to keep their land independent, you dream of the death of all Rus. Rus that would be a catholic, ruled by Polonized elites, by the way I said German and Swedish aristocrats because with a country like a PLC its only a matter of time that their proto-oligarchs, the magnates would have sold their country to a highest bidder made by foreign powers. You dreamth of Rus, that would not be a Rus, but greater Poland! What an ass!

    Lets explain it to you in a simple way, for clearly Galicians are a simple and rural folk, with a limited perspectives. Which of course in itself is no sin(especially under strong ruler). There was Rus, which is Russia, they are the same word just that word in different languages and transliterations. The Eastern enemy the Mongols attacked the Russia, it lost, then the western enemy the Lithuanians attacked and Mongols lost western half of Russia. That half that ended under Poles and Lithuanians lost its autonomy, half that ended under the Mongol rule kept its autonomy and political traditions(and not only that, it became a world power). Later that half became united and beat their overlords and gained sovereignty, then that half became whole, but small slice of it was left under Austrian rule. Very normal progress in history, like Prussia united the Germany, like Piedmont Italy, like Neustria united the France, Castilia and Spain, Svealand and Sweden etc etc. Of course this has been sometimes insufferable for example to Bavarians or Sicilians, but they as civilized people have understood that the unity is more important than being a stupid hillbilly in the way of the Kavkaz(even most of them have understood their best, so they are less hillbillies), truly petty nationalism is nothing else than primitive tribalism. Then there was centuries of religious and cultural persecution in Polish ruled lands against the Orthodox, yes there were good times for Orthodox as long as Lithuania had influence but in the end of the 16th century persecution got worse and many true Russians got martyred and became saints in the Polish partition in Russia, and many aristocrats became turncoats, traitors and adopted the faith of the Poles. Really your civilizational view is so deranged. Russia and Belarus have refused multiple times the choice that your ancestors chose or were forced to chooce. So too has most of Ukraine, like Haydamaki, like Khmelnitsky and so on. And now as weakest part of the Russia they are again under spiritual attack of the western imperialism. But still most of them have kept their true faith, and yes some have become schismatics but not heretics like you, so this will pass. They are salvageable, unlike Galicia, which is less Rus/Russia in my opinion than Riga is nowadays.

    But clearly we cant change each others opinions, so the debate is futile. For me you are not Russian nor Rus, not by faith nor by culture, you are just product of Polish and Austrian colonization, which has made strong crisis of identity for the folk in Galicia, and they do their very best in spreading to the rest of the Rus. Problem with the 19th century Russian rulers was that they were too kind and mild, but meekness is sin for the ruler. They should have done what British did with their Highland clearances and sending of Jacobites, Irish and Highlanders to be indentured servants in the colonies. If they would had done so, there would be many loyal Slavs now in Greater Russian(ex-Soviet) borderlands, like Kuban, which was quite success.

    Replies: @AP

  198. @AP
    @AltanBakshi


    You wrote that the Russian Orthodox Church is church with the snitches and is it any better than uniates/schismatics and so on
     
    I did not claim the Russian Orthodox Church was not valid, nor Christian, nor did I endorse Donatism. I stated that its leadership collaborated with an atheistic regime in the persecution of Christians. Which makes it worse than other Churches in ways that do not have anything to do with its validity.

    Princes of the Rus were quite mobile people, after all Suzdal was an integral part of the realm.
     
    Point is that he was a Suzdalian and as I pointed out, consistent anti-Western stance and preference for the East is not a Rus phenomenon as you implied but a narrow Suzdalian phenomenon. Novgorod was not like that. It of course opposed Swedish or Crusader invaders but was friendly towards the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

    like the Saint Olga did it
     
    Helga was a Viking lady who slaughtered a large number of Slavs when they killed her Viking husband Ingvar who was forcing them to give up tribute such as slaves. It is really funny when modern mythologizers (be they Russian nationalists, or Ukrainian nationalists) pretend that she is one of theirs and argue over her.

    So they broke a treaty? I dont see anything wrong in Ivan III behaviour.

     

    I know you don't see anything wrong with brutally slaughtering lots of Rus people, when they oppose the Muscovites. This is because you are not really a Rus patriot, you are a Great Russian patriot. Those Rus who oppose Great Russian hegemony should die. Which is an understandable attitude from the perspective of a narrow Muscovite.Great Russian patriotism. But don't expect those of us Rus who are not Muscovites to support that.

    “Real and lasting unification.” That shitty country that was in permanent state of the crisis with couple exceptions, country whose greatest victory was done by marrying a foreign pagan noble.
     
    PLC saved Europe from Turks. It was in a bad position because it was surrounded by rivals without good geographic isolation. Germany had a similar problem and a similar fate. If PLC had united with Muscovy as was the project of PLC's Rus princes, this problem would have been solved.

    Yes it would been the real and lasting Balkanization of the Slavic people
     
    Narrow Muscovite chauvinism prevented the creation of an all-Slavic superstate encompassing Poland, the Baltics, and all the Rus lands.

    so that the Swedes and German nobles could have ruled them
     
    Projection. PLC was mostly led by Slavic native elite (combined with Slavicized Lithuanians). Muscovy and Great Russia, OTOH, was loaded with rulers of non-Slavic origins - Tatars, Mongols, Germans, etc. Russian historian Vernadsky cited a survey of Russian noble origins: 229 of Western European (including German) origin, 223 of Polish and Lithuanian origin (this number included Ruthenian nobility), 156 of Tatar and other Oriental origin, 168 families belonged to the House of Rurik and 42 were of unspecified "Russian" origin.

    Half truth because it had a tie with Dalmatia? With small minuscule Dalmatia, okay didnt know about that
     
    Also it was tied with Dalmatia as the poorest part of Austria. It was richer than some regions that were part of Hungary, within Austria-Hungary. Austrian Galicia was slightly richer than Croatia and eastern Hungary. It was about as rich as Slovakia. If Galicia never came under Moscow and was still about as rich as Slovakia it would still be richer than Russia, as it was under the benevolent Hapsburgs.

    I just knew that Galicia was legendary in poverty in Central Europe.
     
    Poor by Central European standards meant richest East Slav region. Moreover it closer to richer Central European lands than it is today. Galicia had about 60% of Austria's per capita GDP. Modern Russia has only about 25% of modern Austria's GDP per capita.

    And you forgot to mention literacy also (full literacy of Galician kids by 1910, a generation earlier than other East Slavs). And the fact that Galicians were freed from serfdom before all the other Eastern Slavs were.

    So yes, the East Slavs under the Austrian Hapsburgs were richer and more educated than were the East Slavs under the German Romanovs.

    I think that the picture would change if we would count by per capita PPP
     
    This is possible though consumer goods were not as relevant then as they are now. One of my grandparents moved from Kharkiv to Lviv in 1939 and it was a huge difference then, Kharkiv was much poorer.

    "Another half-truth. Most people were serfs (as in most of Russia) but there were also plenty of Ruthenian nobles. None of my Galician ancestors were ever serfs."

    Oh yes I forgot those Kapos of the Polish overlords. By the way most of them got Polonized in the longer run.
     
    You are projecting. Suzdalian or Muscovite princes were kapos of the Mongol overlords. Alexander Nevsky slaughtered many Rus people on behalf of his Mongol masters. Much more than were killed by any Poles. you will make the excuse that it was necessary in order for them to consolidate their power. Sure. But they were still clearly kapos serving overlords who persecuted their people.

    And of course you display ignorance of the nature of the PLC. It was a republic of nobles, and Rus princes were among the richest and most powerful of them all. They directed its foreign policy towards the East, not any Poles. For example, the PLC incursion into Moscow was a project not of any "Polish overlords" but two Rus princes - the Orthodox Rus magnate Michael Vyshnevetsky and the Catholic Rus magnate Lew Sapieha. They worked with some Muscovite boyars for the purpose of unifying all the Rus lands into a massive Slavic superstate. The Vyshnevetsky princes were descendants of Rurik and the Sapieha family were Rus boyars from Smolensk and Polotsk.

    Galicia is just lost offshoot of the Rus people, after all they have been ruled for more than half millenium by foreign rulers and priests
     
    As I explained above, rulers of Rus people in Muscovy were more foreign than rulers in Rus lands in Ukraine. Galicians are not "lost", they retain their East Slavic culture.

    very few people can keep their sense of identity in those kind of circumstances.
     
    Maybe your people would not be able to. Galicians would be. I notice that Russians tend to assimilate quickly when they leave Russia, while Galicians retain their language after many generations. This speaks to the stubborn strength of the Galician variant of Rus civilization.

    Replies: @Ano4, @AltanBakshi

    Muscovy and Great Russia, OTOH, was loaded with rulers of non-Slavic origins – Tatars, Mongols, Germans, etc. Russian historian Vernadsky cited a survey of Russian noble origins: 229 of Western European (including German) origin, 223 of Polish and Lithuanian origin (this number included Ruthenian nobility), 156 of Tatar and other Oriental origin, 168 families belonged to the House of Rurik and 42 were of unspecified “Russian” origin.

    Muscovy became Russia after the Time of Troubles, the Raskol and Peter the Great reforms. Each step made it less Rus and more Russian. When one reads Avvakum, and then reads Peter the Great letters, one understands better how much things changed in a matter of a couple of generations.
    Also, when I visit Tretyakovka, I always like to stand a few moments in front of this painting:

    https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/morning-of-the-execution-of-the-streltsy/xAGX5DyRl-AyWw?hl=en-GB&avm=2

    • Agree: AP
    • Replies: @AP
    @Ano4


    Also, when I visit Tretyakovka, I always like to stand a few moments in front of this painting:
     
    That one and this one:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/39/Boyaryna_Morozova_by_V.Surikov_%281884-1887%2C_Tretyakov_gallery%29.jpg

    Illustrate the transition from Muscovy to Russia.

    Tretyakov Gallery is my favorite museum in the world. I visit the original one on every trip to Moscow (the new one is also not bad).

    Here is one (not from Tretyakov) depicting the transition from Rus to Muscovy, Nevsky from Suzdal, prostrating himself before his master the Khan:

    https://previews.magnoliabox.com/heritageimages/mb_hero/2629337/MUS-FAPC1114_850.jpg
  199. AP says:
    @Ano4
    @AP


    Muscovy and Great Russia, OTOH, was loaded with rulers of non-Slavic origins – Tatars, Mongols, Germans, etc. Russian historian Vernadsky cited a survey of Russian noble origins: 229 of Western European (including German) origin, 223 of Polish and Lithuanian origin (this number included Ruthenian nobility), 156 of Tatar and other Oriental origin, 168 families belonged to the House of Rurik and 42 were of unspecified “Russian” origin.
     
    Muscovy became Russia after the Time of Troubles, the Raskol and Peter the Great reforms. Each step made it less Rus and more Russian. When one reads Avvakum, and then reads Peter the Great letters, one understands better how much things changed in a matter of a couple of generations.
    Also, when I visit Tretyakovka, I always like to stand a few moments in front of this painting:

    https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/morning-of-the-execution-of-the-streltsy/xAGX5DyRl-AyWw?hl=en-GB&avm=2

    Replies: @AP

    Also, when I visit Tretyakovka, I always like to stand a few moments in front of this painting:

    That one and this one:

    Illustrate the transition from Muscovy to Russia.

    Tretyakov Gallery is my favorite museum in the world. I visit the original one on every trip to Moscow (the new one is also not bad).

    Here is one (not from Tretyakov) depicting the transition from Rus to Muscovy, Nevsky from Suzdal, prostrating himself before his master the Khan:

  200. @AP
    @AltanBakshi


    You wrote that the Russian Orthodox Church is church with the snitches and is it any better than uniates/schismatics and so on
     
    I did not claim the Russian Orthodox Church was not valid, nor Christian, nor did I endorse Donatism. I stated that its leadership collaborated with an atheistic regime in the persecution of Christians. Which makes it worse than other Churches in ways that do not have anything to do with its validity.

    Princes of the Rus were quite mobile people, after all Suzdal was an integral part of the realm.
     
    Point is that he was a Suzdalian and as I pointed out, consistent anti-Western stance and preference for the East is not a Rus phenomenon as you implied but a narrow Suzdalian phenomenon. Novgorod was not like that. It of course opposed Swedish or Crusader invaders but was friendly towards the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

    like the Saint Olga did it
     
    Helga was a Viking lady who slaughtered a large number of Slavs when they killed her Viking husband Ingvar who was forcing them to give up tribute such as slaves. It is really funny when modern mythologizers (be they Russian nationalists, or Ukrainian nationalists) pretend that she is one of theirs and argue over her.

    So they broke a treaty? I dont see anything wrong in Ivan III behaviour.

     

    I know you don't see anything wrong with brutally slaughtering lots of Rus people, when they oppose the Muscovites. This is because you are not really a Rus patriot, you are a Great Russian patriot. Those Rus who oppose Great Russian hegemony should die. Which is an understandable attitude from the perspective of a narrow Muscovite.Great Russian patriotism. But don't expect those of us Rus who are not Muscovites to support that.

    “Real and lasting unification.” That shitty country that was in permanent state of the crisis with couple exceptions, country whose greatest victory was done by marrying a foreign pagan noble.
     
    PLC saved Europe from Turks. It was in a bad position because it was surrounded by rivals without good geographic isolation. Germany had a similar problem and a similar fate. If PLC had united with Muscovy as was the project of PLC's Rus princes, this problem would have been solved.

    Yes it would been the real and lasting Balkanization of the Slavic people
     
    Narrow Muscovite chauvinism prevented the creation of an all-Slavic superstate encompassing Poland, the Baltics, and all the Rus lands.

    so that the Swedes and German nobles could have ruled them
     
    Projection. PLC was mostly led by Slavic native elite (combined with Slavicized Lithuanians). Muscovy and Great Russia, OTOH, was loaded with rulers of non-Slavic origins - Tatars, Mongols, Germans, etc. Russian historian Vernadsky cited a survey of Russian noble origins: 229 of Western European (including German) origin, 223 of Polish and Lithuanian origin (this number included Ruthenian nobility), 156 of Tatar and other Oriental origin, 168 families belonged to the House of Rurik and 42 were of unspecified "Russian" origin.

    Half truth because it had a tie with Dalmatia? With small minuscule Dalmatia, okay didnt know about that
     
    Also it was tied with Dalmatia as the poorest part of Austria. It was richer than some regions that were part of Hungary, within Austria-Hungary. Austrian Galicia was slightly richer than Croatia and eastern Hungary. It was about as rich as Slovakia. If Galicia never came under Moscow and was still about as rich as Slovakia it would still be richer than Russia, as it was under the benevolent Hapsburgs.

    I just knew that Galicia was legendary in poverty in Central Europe.
     
    Poor by Central European standards meant richest East Slav region. Moreover it closer to richer Central European lands than it is today. Galicia had about 60% of Austria's per capita GDP. Modern Russia has only about 25% of modern Austria's GDP per capita.

    And you forgot to mention literacy also (full literacy of Galician kids by 1910, a generation earlier than other East Slavs). And the fact that Galicians were freed from serfdom before all the other Eastern Slavs were.

    So yes, the East Slavs under the Austrian Hapsburgs were richer and more educated than were the East Slavs under the German Romanovs.

    I think that the picture would change if we would count by per capita PPP
     
    This is possible though consumer goods were not as relevant then as they are now. One of my grandparents moved from Kharkiv to Lviv in 1939 and it was a huge difference then, Kharkiv was much poorer.

    "Another half-truth. Most people were serfs (as in most of Russia) but there were also plenty of Ruthenian nobles. None of my Galician ancestors were ever serfs."

    Oh yes I forgot those Kapos of the Polish overlords. By the way most of them got Polonized in the longer run.
     
    You are projecting. Suzdalian or Muscovite princes were kapos of the Mongol overlords. Alexander Nevsky slaughtered many Rus people on behalf of his Mongol masters. Much more than were killed by any Poles. you will make the excuse that it was necessary in order for them to consolidate their power. Sure. But they were still clearly kapos serving overlords who persecuted their people.

    And of course you display ignorance of the nature of the PLC. It was a republic of nobles, and Rus princes were among the richest and most powerful of them all. They directed its foreign policy towards the East, not any Poles. For example, the PLC incursion into Moscow was a project not of any "Polish overlords" but two Rus princes - the Orthodox Rus magnate Michael Vyshnevetsky and the Catholic Rus magnate Lew Sapieha. They worked with some Muscovite boyars for the purpose of unifying all the Rus lands into a massive Slavic superstate. The Vyshnevetsky princes were descendants of Rurik and the Sapieha family were Rus boyars from Smolensk and Polotsk.

    Galicia is just lost offshoot of the Rus people, after all they have been ruled for more than half millenium by foreign rulers and priests
     
    As I explained above, rulers of Rus people in Muscovy were more foreign than rulers in Rus lands in Ukraine. Galicians are not "lost", they retain their East Slavic culture.

    very few people can keep their sense of identity in those kind of circumstances.
     
    Maybe your people would not be able to. Galicians would be. I notice that Russians tend to assimilate quickly when they leave Russia, while Galicians retain their language after many generations. This speaks to the stubborn strength of the Galician variant of Rus civilization.

    Replies: @Ano4, @AltanBakshi

    You have totally mistaken understanding of the PLC. It was terminally unstable country that had it moments of glory only when its neighbours were weak and divided. How long its golden age endured? From 1569 to mid 17th Century till the invasion of Swedes. Still in the 16th and 17th centuries its neigbours were more divided and weaker than it was. In east Russia battled with Tatars, Turks and Swedes, in the west German kingdoms and principalities were constantly preoccupied by civil wars and religious conflicts, to the south Austrians and Turks battled constantly. Your dream is that whole Russia would had lost its faith and become one great brainwashed Galicia, Greater Galicia. What a silly dream. Which depends on so many leaps of faith and on imaginary alternative history that is permissible for some teenagers, not to mature adults. Really you are not even Ukrainian nationalist that has even some sense of reality and just wants to keep their land independent, you dream of the death of all Rus. Rus that would be a catholic, ruled by Polonized elites, by the way I said German and Swedish aristocrats because with a country like a PLC its only a matter of time that their proto-oligarchs, the magnates would have sold their country to a highest bidder made by foreign powers. You dreamth of Rus, that would not be a Rus, but greater Poland! What an ass!

    Lets explain it to you in a simple way, for clearly Galicians are a simple and rural folk, with a limited perspectives. Which of course in itself is no sin(especially under strong ruler). There was Rus, which is Russia, they are the same word just that word in different languages and transliterations. The Eastern enemy the Mongols attacked the Russia, it lost, then the western enemy the Lithuanians attacked and Mongols lost western half of Russia. That half that ended under Poles and Lithuanians lost its autonomy, half that ended under the Mongol rule kept its autonomy and political traditions(and not only that, it became a world power). Later that half became united and beat their overlords and gained sovereignty, then that half became whole, but small slice of it was left under Austrian rule. Very normal progress in history, like Prussia united the Germany, like Piedmont Italy, like Neustria united the France, Castilia and Spain, Svealand and Sweden etc etc. Of course this has been sometimes insufferable for example to Bavarians or Sicilians, but they as civilized people have understood that the unity is more important than being a stupid hillbilly in the way of the Kavkaz(even most of them have understood their best, so they are less hillbillies), truly petty nationalism is nothing else than primitive tribalism. Then there was centuries of religious and cultural persecution in Polish ruled lands against the Orthodox, yes there were good times for Orthodox as long as Lithuania had influence but in the end of the 16th century persecution got worse and many true Russians got martyred and became saints in the Polish partition in Russia, and many aristocrats became turncoats, traitors and adopted the faith of the Poles. Really your civilizational view is so deranged. Russia and Belarus have refused multiple times the choice that your ancestors chose or were forced to chooce. So too has most of Ukraine, like Haydamaki, like Khmelnitsky and so on. And now as weakest part of the Russia they are again under spiritual attack of the western imperialism. But still most of them have kept their true faith, and yes some have become schismatics but not heretics like you, so this will pass. They are salvageable, unlike Galicia, which is less Rus/Russia in my opinion than Riga is nowadays.

    But clearly we cant change each others opinions, so the debate is futile. For me you are not Russian nor Rus, not by faith nor by culture, you are just product of Polish and Austrian colonization, which has made strong crisis of identity for the folk in Galicia, and they do their very best in spreading to the rest of the Rus. Problem with the 19th century Russian rulers was that they were too kind and mild, but meekness is sin for the ruler. They should have done what British did with their Highland clearances and sending of Jacobites, Irish and Highlanders to be indentured servants in the colonies. If they would had done so, there would be many loyal Slavs now in Greater Russian(ex-Soviet) borderlands, like Kuban, which was quite success.

    • Replies: @AP
    @AltanBakshi


    You have totally mistaken understanding of the PLC.
     
    I have demonstrated with facts that your understanding of the PLC is wrong. You could not address those facts and respond with speculations and Muscovite fairytales.

    You pretended it was some kind of anti-Rus ethnic Polish state when in reality it was a pan-Slavic-Baltic state of Poles, Rus, and Lithuanians whose policies were driven by the Rus princes who were the among the richest and most powerful within the state.


    It was terminally unstable country
     
    One could say the same about Rus. But not, perhaps, Muscovy.

    How long its golden age endured? From 1569 to mid 17th Century till the invasion of Swedes.
     
    Sobieski (of partial Rus descent), who saved Europe from the Turks, ruled until 1696.

    As I explained, PLC's problem was that it was surrounded without natural defenses. A similar position to that of Germany. How long did the German Empire (s) last? 1871-1945.

    Had the union of Muscovy and PLC lasted, this problem would have been solved.


    Still in the 16th and 17th centuries its neigbours were more divided and weaker than it was.
     
    You can make the same excuse for Muscovy's rise. The Tatar overlords became divided (Golden Horde ruined by Tamerlane), PLC had a civil war, etc. Muscovy's advantage was in geography, the easterners were technologically behind and it only had formidable enemies to the West.

    Your dream is that whole Russia would had lost its faith and become one great brainwashed Galicia
     
    You are the one who is mindlessly repeating Muscovite tropes.

    Really you are not even Ukrainian nationalist
     
    Who ever said I was a Ukrainian nationalist? Of course I am not. My people are Rus people, from Galicia, Belarus, though my paternal family is traced to an 11th century Varangian who moved to Kiev from Novgorod region. So ironically I have descent from the original Rus before the Slavs took their name, whereas you are a Buryat and (presumably) a Slavic peasant.

    you dream of the death of all Rus
     
    You, not I, are the one who supports, excuses and justifies mass slaughter of Rus people and extinction of Rus cultures that are not Muscovite-Rus. The brother who kills brothers. But I don't hate you, I forgive you. There is much that is great in your peculiar variant of Rus culture and I love it.

    I said German and Swedish aristocrats because with a country like a PLC its only a matter of time that their proto-oligarchs, the magnates would have sold their country to a highest bidder made by foreign powers.
     
    What a silly dream. The elites of PLC were much more Slavic than were the elites of Muscovy. You can speculate about fairytales of Swedish and Germans ruling PLC but since Catherine, Russia's rulers were actually Germans. Even in the 17th century a huge % of your elites were not Slavs.

    You dreamth of Rus, that would not be a Rus, but greater Poland!
     
    Yes, we know that you do not understand the basic nature of the PLC. By uniting all the Rus lands, the Rus princes of the PLC would have created a state that had many more Rus and Poles. It would have been basically a Rus state but one that was far larger than Muscovy/Russia. However you are not a Rus patriot, but a Muscovy patriot. For you this would have been intolerable because it would have been dominated by western Rus rather than by your Muscovites. So because of your petty Muscovite tribalism/nationalism you oppose the pan-Slavic, pan-Christian PLC project.

    There was Rus, which is Russia, they are the same word just that word in different languages and transliterations
     
    There was Rome, there is Romania, they are the same word just that word in different languages and transliterations. Silly argument, thinking that words are magic like that.

    Russia was Muscovy remade by Peter. Muscovy was Suzdal after Mongol tutoring. Suzdal was only a peripheral part of Rus.

    You are a Muscovite patriot, this is fine, I love Russia too. But try not to be confused by word similarities. Modern Russia is not Rus.


    truly petty nationalism is nothing else than primitive tribalism.
     
    I completely agree. Including your Russian petty nationalism, because pettiness does not depend on the size of the tribe.

    But still most of them have kept their true faith, and yes some have become schismatics but not heretics like you
     
    According to you I would be a schismatic rather than a heretic.

    So too has most of Ukraine, like Haydamaki, like Khmelnitsky
     
    Khmelnytsky was a traitor and his main enemy was not a Pole but the Rus prince Jarema Vyshnevetski. Vyshnevetski kept the Tatars away from Ukraine, despite converting to Catholicism he built Orthodox monasteries and schools throughout Ukraine. The traitor Khmelytsky brought the Tatars to Ukraine, as a price for their help they carried 10,000s of Rus people into slavery (upper estimate goes as high as 200,000 total during the rebellion). Khmelnytsky's men pillaged Orthodox churches and murdered priests and monks. Vyshnevetski's men, who included 10,000s of Orthodox, saved some of those churches.

    And a funny thing - when he died, Khmelnytsky was in negotiations with Swedes against Muscovites.

    That is your Khmelnytsky.

    Maybe you like him because he brought misery to western Rus people, whom you seem to hate because of your Muscovite petty tribalism?

    I'll end my post with nice maps of 17th century Ukraine and post-Soviet Ukrainian voting patterns. By your poisoned Rus-killing logic the people of Kiev and half of Ukraine should be slaughtered or deported:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Polish-Lithuanian_Commonwealth_%281619%29_compared_with_today%27s_borders_%28ENG%29.png

    https://www.electoralgeography.com/new/en/wp-content/gallery/ukraine2012/elections2012urban.PNG

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

  201. AP says:
    @AltanBakshi
    @AP

    You have totally mistaken understanding of the PLC. It was terminally unstable country that had it moments of glory only when its neighbours were weak and divided. How long its golden age endured? From 1569 to mid 17th Century till the invasion of Swedes. Still in the 16th and 17th centuries its neigbours were more divided and weaker than it was. In east Russia battled with Tatars, Turks and Swedes, in the west German kingdoms and principalities were constantly preoccupied by civil wars and religious conflicts, to the south Austrians and Turks battled constantly. Your dream is that whole Russia would had lost its faith and become one great brainwashed Galicia, Greater Galicia. What a silly dream. Which depends on so many leaps of faith and on imaginary alternative history that is permissible for some teenagers, not to mature adults. Really you are not even Ukrainian nationalist that has even some sense of reality and just wants to keep their land independent, you dream of the death of all Rus. Rus that would be a catholic, ruled by Polonized elites, by the way I said German and Swedish aristocrats because with a country like a PLC its only a matter of time that their proto-oligarchs, the magnates would have sold their country to a highest bidder made by foreign powers. You dreamth of Rus, that would not be a Rus, but greater Poland! What an ass!

    Lets explain it to you in a simple way, for clearly Galicians are a simple and rural folk, with a limited perspectives. Which of course in itself is no sin(especially under strong ruler). There was Rus, which is Russia, they are the same word just that word in different languages and transliterations. The Eastern enemy the Mongols attacked the Russia, it lost, then the western enemy the Lithuanians attacked and Mongols lost western half of Russia. That half that ended under Poles and Lithuanians lost its autonomy, half that ended under the Mongol rule kept its autonomy and political traditions(and not only that, it became a world power). Later that half became united and beat their overlords and gained sovereignty, then that half became whole, but small slice of it was left under Austrian rule. Very normal progress in history, like Prussia united the Germany, like Piedmont Italy, like Neustria united the France, Castilia and Spain, Svealand and Sweden etc etc. Of course this has been sometimes insufferable for example to Bavarians or Sicilians, but they as civilized people have understood that the unity is more important than being a stupid hillbilly in the way of the Kavkaz(even most of them have understood their best, so they are less hillbillies), truly petty nationalism is nothing else than primitive tribalism. Then there was centuries of religious and cultural persecution in Polish ruled lands against the Orthodox, yes there were good times for Orthodox as long as Lithuania had influence but in the end of the 16th century persecution got worse and many true Russians got martyred and became saints in the Polish partition in Russia, and many aristocrats became turncoats, traitors and adopted the faith of the Poles. Really your civilizational view is so deranged. Russia and Belarus have refused multiple times the choice that your ancestors chose or were forced to chooce. So too has most of Ukraine, like Haydamaki, like Khmelnitsky and so on. And now as weakest part of the Russia they are again under spiritual attack of the western imperialism. But still most of them have kept their true faith, and yes some have become schismatics but not heretics like you, so this will pass. They are salvageable, unlike Galicia, which is less Rus/Russia in my opinion than Riga is nowadays.

    But clearly we cant change each others opinions, so the debate is futile. For me you are not Russian nor Rus, not by faith nor by culture, you are just product of Polish and Austrian colonization, which has made strong crisis of identity for the folk in Galicia, and they do their very best in spreading to the rest of the Rus. Problem with the 19th century Russian rulers was that they were too kind and mild, but meekness is sin for the ruler. They should have done what British did with their Highland clearances and sending of Jacobites, Irish and Highlanders to be indentured servants in the colonies. If they would had done so, there would be many loyal Slavs now in Greater Russian(ex-Soviet) borderlands, like Kuban, which was quite success.

    Replies: @AP

    You have totally mistaken understanding of the PLC.

    I have demonstrated with facts that your understanding of the PLC is wrong. You could not address those facts and respond with speculations and Muscovite fairytales.

    You pretended it was some kind of anti-Rus ethnic Polish state when in reality it was a pan-Slavic-Baltic state of Poles, Rus, and Lithuanians whose policies were driven by the Rus princes who were the among the richest and most powerful within the state.

    It was terminally unstable country

    One could say the same about Rus. But not, perhaps, Muscovy.

    How long its golden age endured? From 1569 to mid 17th Century till the invasion of Swedes.

    Sobieski (of partial Rus descent), who saved Europe from the Turks, ruled until 1696.

    As I explained, PLC’s problem was that it was surrounded without natural defenses. A similar position to that of Germany. How long did the German Empire (s) last? 1871-1945.

    Had the union of Muscovy and PLC lasted, this problem would have been solved.

    Still in the 16th and 17th centuries its neigbours were more divided and weaker than it was.

    You can make the same excuse for Muscovy’s rise. The Tatar overlords became divided (Golden Horde ruined by Tamerlane), PLC had a civil war, etc. Muscovy’s advantage was in geography, the easterners were technologically behind and it only had formidable enemies to the West.

    Your dream is that whole Russia would had lost its faith and become one great brainwashed Galicia

    You are the one who is mindlessly repeating Muscovite tropes.

    Really you are not even Ukrainian nationalist

    Who ever said I was a Ukrainian nationalist? Of course I am not. My people are Rus people, from Galicia, Belarus, though my paternal family is traced to an 11th century Varangian who moved to Kiev from Novgorod region. So ironically I have descent from the original Rus before the Slavs took their name, whereas you are a Buryat and (presumably) a Slavic peasant.

    you dream of the death of all Rus

    You, not I, are the one who supports, excuses and justifies mass slaughter of Rus people and extinction of Rus cultures that are not Muscovite-Rus. The brother who kills brothers. But I don’t hate you, I forgive you. There is much that is great in your peculiar variant of Rus culture and I love it.

    I said German and Swedish aristocrats because with a country like a PLC its only a matter of time that their proto-oligarchs, the magnates would have sold their country to a highest bidder made by foreign powers.

    What a silly dream. The elites of PLC were much more Slavic than were the elites of Muscovy. You can speculate about fairytales of Swedish and Germans ruling PLC but since Catherine, Russia’s rulers were actually Germans. Even in the 17th century a huge % of your elites were not Slavs.

    You dreamth of Rus, that would not be a Rus, but greater Poland!

    Yes, we know that you do not understand the basic nature of the PLC. By uniting all the Rus lands, the Rus princes of the PLC would have created a state that had many more Rus and Poles. It would have been basically a Rus state but one that was far larger than Muscovy/Russia. However you are not a Rus patriot, but a Muscovy patriot. For you this would have been intolerable because it would have been dominated by western Rus rather than by your Muscovites. So because of your petty Muscovite tribalism/nationalism you oppose the pan-Slavic, pan-Christian PLC project.

    There was Rus, which is Russia, they are the same word just that word in different languages and transliterations

    There was Rome, there is Romania, they are the same word just that word in different languages and transliterations. Silly argument, thinking that words are magic like that.

    Russia was Muscovy remade by Peter. Muscovy was Suzdal after Mongol tutoring. Suzdal was only a peripheral part of Rus.

    You are a Muscovite patriot, this is fine, I love Russia too. But try not to be confused by word similarities. Modern Russia is not Rus.

    truly petty nationalism is nothing else than primitive tribalism.

    I completely agree. Including your Russian petty nationalism, because pettiness does not depend on the size of the tribe.

    But still most of them have kept their true faith, and yes some have become schismatics but not heretics like you

    According to you I would be a schismatic rather than a heretic.

    So too has most of Ukraine, like Haydamaki, like Khmelnitsky

    Khmelnytsky was a traitor and his main enemy was not a Pole but the Rus prince Jarema Vyshnevetski. Vyshnevetski kept the Tatars away from Ukraine, despite converting to Catholicism he built Orthodox monasteries and schools throughout Ukraine. The traitor Khmelytsky brought the Tatars to Ukraine, as a price for their help they carried 10,000s of Rus people into slavery (upper estimate goes as high as 200,000 total during the rebellion). Khmelnytsky’s men pillaged Orthodox churches and murdered priests and monks. Vyshnevetski’s men, who included 10,000s of Orthodox, saved some of those churches.

    And a funny thing – when he died, Khmelnytsky was in negotiations with Swedes against Muscovites.

    That is your Khmelnytsky.

    Maybe you like him because he brought misery to western Rus people, whom you seem to hate because of your Muscovite petty tribalism?

    I’ll end my post with nice maps of 17th century Ukraine and post-Soviet Ukrainian voting patterns. By your poisoned Rus-killing logic the people of Kiev and half of Ukraine should be slaughtered or deported:

    • Replies: @AltanBakshi
    @AP

    What a load of drivel! I clearly have read about different PLC than you have, for me its an unstable aristocratic republic, which elected its rulers and had permanent crises when it lacked a ruler without strong personal wealth and fiefs. The ruler couldnt decide budget or make any major decisions without the consensus of aristocracy, even though you play stupid you probably know about the shortcoming of Golden liberty, and how nobility often picked weak rulers, that could be easily manipulated, not always of course, but often, and nobles also casually took bribes from foreign countries so that they would backed candidate preferred by that foreign power. Commonwealths political system was destined to explode before or later. Thats what I meant by Swedish or German aristocrats, it was only a matter of time before it would had fragmented and exploited by foreign powers, no matter if the Russian Tsardom was or wasnt part of it. It had similar problems as Holy Roman empire had in that regard, although its higher nobility was from the beginning of the 17th Century quite homogeneous religiously, not completely of course. If you dont understand the friction between Catholicism and Orthodoxy in those times, and impossibility of occupation of hostile Orthodox population for PLC in the long run, like the Cossacks didnt bring enough problems by their revolts for PLC, then you are incapable of understanding the historical situation in those times, speaking to a tree would make as much sense for me(at least you are as thick).

    Also Russias problem was as much or more the lack of natural defences than it was for PLC, who had an excellent and natural borders on its north(sea) and south(mountains). Also Russia had not definite technological advantage against the Tatars before the 18th Century. Actually no country in history has had such a vast frontier problem as Russia had those times, militaristic Khanates, were almost every adult man was a potential warrior, was not any small threat, especially when you had thousands upon thousands kilometers of undefined border with them. In my opinion that was the major reason for accelerating centralization in Russia, there was no choice with neighbours like that. Even the Ming with their million men armies, muskets and cannons were defeated by the Manchus in 1644-1645, although there were also other reasons for that and even the Qing had huge campaign that bled the whole state budget of 300 million Chinese empire dry during the 18th century against the nomads

    Your problem is that you demand impossible standards from Russia regarding the successorship of Rus, but with Galicia nothing matters, not even that they were longer under non-Rus foreign rule than they had existence as a part of the Rus, or even that they lost their faith or that their nobility like your ancestors started to speak and behave in the ways of the foreigners. Same happens when you compare PLC and Russia, Russia is always brutal and Mongolian influenced country, but PLC that foreign proto-oligarchy was so much nobler and more perfect and had no fault its own. Like there were no religious persecution there, no revolts by Ukrainians(Rus) against foreign aristocrats and priests and so on? Even with the ancient Rus you have a bipolar attitude, like downplaying the meaning of St. Olga as a foreign viking, who is not part of the Rus history. Most funny was from me that you claimed that I dont address your facts, when from my point of view its been for a quite long clear that you dont answer most of my arguments, but its okay for me, after all one by one I have exhausted your points and you just dont bring them anymore. And this bullshit about the Rus aristocrats in PLC, hey during the early modern period aristocrats were very, very mobile and connected people, with changing loyalties. Queen of Britain is from the house of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and many Royal dynasties in the history of Europe had a foreign founder or foreign blood, so? A true non-argument is that. Also its a clear sign of losing battle when you bring your Polonized Rus ancestors on the debate, like that makes your arguments any stronger? If you really have traceable Varyag ancestor, then congratulations, that is true rarity, but it does not have a meaning in this debate, and most family trees that claimed Varyag or Sarmatian heritage were fabrications both in PLC and Russian empire. If there would be debate about the Mongol empire and I would claim that I have greater claim to truth by having Mongolian ancestors, that would make me quite an ass, I would presume? Maybe with Muslims when debating about Muhammad you have a greater claim to truth if you are a Sayid? By the way what I said about Kavkaz, some similarities there? But I can say that I dont have any Slavic peasants in my lineage, at least in my knowledge, but ironically I have one Polish ancestor from the 19th Century!

    You lack of honesty and I have no desire to continue this mindless debate with you. Clearly we cant persuade each other. I know that you will answer this, for I am similar in that regard. But my spirit is not any more in this debate... it tires me....

    Oh almost forgot, your maps, hey it shows that the Nazi Svoboda won the votes in Galicia, thanks for showing me right! Like Timoshenko isnt anything else than cunning centrist in Ukrainian politics. Or you have claimed crazier things before, maybe he is paragon of Ukrainian nationalism for you, for me he is in game for just personal power, and is as ready to make deals with west or Russia depending on the pay. Central Ukrainians/real Ukrainians, are like any Slavs, they want to feel proud of their homecountry and are by culture more patriotic than westerners, but if they would be couple decades under Russia and had improved quality of life, they would quickly come to their senses, but with Galicians its a different story. Truly greatest mistake by Stalin to add them in Ukraine, should had at least given Lvov oblast to Poland like British asked.(Well Hello Operation Vistula!!!) Then Stalin could left Stettin in German hands. Most infected part of the disease wouldnt then be attached in the Ukrainian nation. But he clearly had old Russian sensibilities from imperial times, and thought about gathering of the Rus land(at least in his subconciousness).

    Replies: @AP, @AP

  202. @AP
    @AltanBakshi


    You have totally mistaken understanding of the PLC.
     
    I have demonstrated with facts that your understanding of the PLC is wrong. You could not address those facts and respond with speculations and Muscovite fairytales.

    You pretended it was some kind of anti-Rus ethnic Polish state when in reality it was a pan-Slavic-Baltic state of Poles, Rus, and Lithuanians whose policies were driven by the Rus princes who were the among the richest and most powerful within the state.


    It was terminally unstable country
     
    One could say the same about Rus. But not, perhaps, Muscovy.

    How long its golden age endured? From 1569 to mid 17th Century till the invasion of Swedes.
     
    Sobieski (of partial Rus descent), who saved Europe from the Turks, ruled until 1696.

    As I explained, PLC's problem was that it was surrounded without natural defenses. A similar position to that of Germany. How long did the German Empire (s) last? 1871-1945.

    Had the union of Muscovy and PLC lasted, this problem would have been solved.


    Still in the 16th and 17th centuries its neigbours were more divided and weaker than it was.
     
    You can make the same excuse for Muscovy's rise. The Tatar overlords became divided (Golden Horde ruined by Tamerlane), PLC had a civil war, etc. Muscovy's advantage was in geography, the easterners were technologically behind and it only had formidable enemies to the West.

    Your dream is that whole Russia would had lost its faith and become one great brainwashed Galicia
     
    You are the one who is mindlessly repeating Muscovite tropes.

    Really you are not even Ukrainian nationalist
     
    Who ever said I was a Ukrainian nationalist? Of course I am not. My people are Rus people, from Galicia, Belarus, though my paternal family is traced to an 11th century Varangian who moved to Kiev from Novgorod region. So ironically I have descent from the original Rus before the Slavs took their name, whereas you are a Buryat and (presumably) a Slavic peasant.

    you dream of the death of all Rus
     
    You, not I, are the one who supports, excuses and justifies mass slaughter of Rus people and extinction of Rus cultures that are not Muscovite-Rus. The brother who kills brothers. But I don't hate you, I forgive you. There is much that is great in your peculiar variant of Rus culture and I love it.

    I said German and Swedish aristocrats because with a country like a PLC its only a matter of time that their proto-oligarchs, the magnates would have sold their country to a highest bidder made by foreign powers.
     
    What a silly dream. The elites of PLC were much more Slavic than were the elites of Muscovy. You can speculate about fairytales of Swedish and Germans ruling PLC but since Catherine, Russia's rulers were actually Germans. Even in the 17th century a huge % of your elites were not Slavs.

    You dreamth of Rus, that would not be a Rus, but greater Poland!
     
    Yes, we know that you do not understand the basic nature of the PLC. By uniting all the Rus lands, the Rus princes of the PLC would have created a state that had many more Rus and Poles. It would have been basically a Rus state but one that was far larger than Muscovy/Russia. However you are not a Rus patriot, but a Muscovy patriot. For you this would have been intolerable because it would have been dominated by western Rus rather than by your Muscovites. So because of your petty Muscovite tribalism/nationalism you oppose the pan-Slavic, pan-Christian PLC project.

    There was Rus, which is Russia, they are the same word just that word in different languages and transliterations
     
    There was Rome, there is Romania, they are the same word just that word in different languages and transliterations. Silly argument, thinking that words are magic like that.

    Russia was Muscovy remade by Peter. Muscovy was Suzdal after Mongol tutoring. Suzdal was only a peripheral part of Rus.

    You are a Muscovite patriot, this is fine, I love Russia too. But try not to be confused by word similarities. Modern Russia is not Rus.


    truly petty nationalism is nothing else than primitive tribalism.
     
    I completely agree. Including your Russian petty nationalism, because pettiness does not depend on the size of the tribe.

    But still most of them have kept their true faith, and yes some have become schismatics but not heretics like you
     
    According to you I would be a schismatic rather than a heretic.

    So too has most of Ukraine, like Haydamaki, like Khmelnitsky
     
    Khmelnytsky was a traitor and his main enemy was not a Pole but the Rus prince Jarema Vyshnevetski. Vyshnevetski kept the Tatars away from Ukraine, despite converting to Catholicism he built Orthodox monasteries and schools throughout Ukraine. The traitor Khmelytsky brought the Tatars to Ukraine, as a price for their help they carried 10,000s of Rus people into slavery (upper estimate goes as high as 200,000 total during the rebellion). Khmelnytsky's men pillaged Orthodox churches and murdered priests and monks. Vyshnevetski's men, who included 10,000s of Orthodox, saved some of those churches.

    And a funny thing - when he died, Khmelnytsky was in negotiations with Swedes against Muscovites.

    That is your Khmelnytsky.

    Maybe you like him because he brought misery to western Rus people, whom you seem to hate because of your Muscovite petty tribalism?

    I'll end my post with nice maps of 17th century Ukraine and post-Soviet Ukrainian voting patterns. By your poisoned Rus-killing logic the people of Kiev and half of Ukraine should be slaughtered or deported:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Polish-Lithuanian_Commonwealth_%281619%29_compared_with_today%27s_borders_%28ENG%29.png

    https://www.electoralgeography.com/new/en/wp-content/gallery/ukraine2012/elections2012urban.PNG

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

    What a load of drivel! I clearly have read about different PLC than you have, for me its an unstable aristocratic republic, which elected its rulers and had permanent crises when it lacked a ruler without strong personal wealth and fiefs. The ruler couldnt decide budget or make any major decisions without the consensus of aristocracy, even though you play stupid you probably know about the shortcoming of Golden liberty, and how nobility often picked weak rulers, that could be easily manipulated, not always of course, but often, and nobles also casually took bribes from foreign countries so that they would backed candidate preferred by that foreign power. Commonwealths political system was destined to explode before or later. Thats what I meant by Swedish or German aristocrats, it was only a matter of time before it would had fragmented and exploited by foreign powers, no matter if the Russian Tsardom was or wasnt part of it. It had similar problems as Holy Roman empire had in that regard, although its higher nobility was from the beginning of the 17th Century quite homogeneous religiously, not completely of course. If you dont understand the friction between Catholicism and Orthodoxy in those times, and impossibility of occupation of hostile Orthodox population for PLC in the long run, like the Cossacks didnt bring enough problems by their revolts for PLC, then you are incapable of understanding the historical situation in those times, speaking to a tree would make as much sense for me(at least you are as thick).

    Also Russias problem was as much or more the lack of natural defences than it was for PLC, who had an excellent and natural borders on its north(sea) and south(mountains). Also Russia had not definite technological advantage against the Tatars before the 18th Century. Actually no country in history has had such a vast frontier problem as Russia had those times, militaristic Khanates, were almost every adult man was a potential warrior, was not any small threat, especially when you had thousands upon thousands kilometers of undefined border with them. In my opinion that was the major reason for accelerating centralization in Russia, there was no choice with neighbours like that. Even the Ming with their million men armies, muskets and cannons were defeated by the Manchus in 1644-1645, although there were also other reasons for that and even the Qing had huge campaign that bled the whole state budget of 300 million Chinese empire dry during the 18th century against the nomads

    Your problem is that you demand impossible standards from Russia regarding the successorship of Rus, but with Galicia nothing matters, not even that they were longer under non-Rus foreign rule than they had existence as a part of the Rus, or even that they lost their faith or that their nobility like your ancestors started to speak and behave in the ways of the foreigners. Same happens when you compare PLC and Russia, Russia is always brutal and Mongolian influenced country, but PLC that foreign proto-oligarchy was so much nobler and more perfect and had no fault its own. Like there were no religious persecution there, no revolts by Ukrainians(Rus) against foreign aristocrats and priests and so on? Even with the ancient Rus you have a bipolar attitude, like downplaying the meaning of St. Olga as a foreign viking, who is not part of the Rus history. Most funny was from me that you claimed that I dont address your facts, when from my point of view its been for a quite long clear that you dont answer most of my arguments, but its okay for me, after all one by one I have exhausted your points and you just dont bring them anymore. And this bullshit about the Rus aristocrats in PLC, hey during the early modern period aristocrats were very, very mobile and connected people, with changing loyalties. Queen of Britain is from the house of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and many Royal dynasties in the history of Europe had a foreign founder or foreign blood, so? A true non-argument is that. Also its a clear sign of losing battle when you bring your Polonized Rus ancestors on the debate, like that makes your arguments any stronger? If you really have traceable Varyag ancestor, then congratulations, that is true rarity, but it does not have a meaning in this debate, and most family trees that claimed Varyag or Sarmatian heritage were fabrications both in PLC and Russian empire. If there would be debate about the Mongol empire and I would claim that I have greater claim to truth by having Mongolian ancestors, that would make me quite an ass, I would presume? Maybe with Muslims when debating about Muhammad you have a greater claim to truth if you are a Sayid? By the way what I said about Kavkaz, some similarities there? But I can say that I dont have any Slavic peasants in my lineage, at least in my knowledge, but ironically I have one Polish ancestor from the 19th Century!

    You lack of honesty and I have no desire to continue this mindless debate with you. Clearly we cant persuade each other. I know that you will answer this, for I am similar in that regard. But my spirit is not any more in this debate… it tires me….

    Oh almost forgot, your maps, hey it shows that the Nazi Svoboda won the votes in Galicia, thanks for showing me right! Like Timoshenko isnt anything else than cunning centrist in Ukrainian politics. Or you have claimed crazier things before, maybe he is paragon of Ukrainian nationalism for you, for me he is in game for just personal power, and is as ready to make deals with west or Russia depending on the pay. Central Ukrainians/real Ukrainians, are like any Slavs, they want to feel proud of their homecountry and are by culture more patriotic than westerners, but if they would be couple decades under Russia and had improved quality of life, they would quickly come to their senses, but with Galicians its a different story. Truly greatest mistake by Stalin to add them in Ukraine, should had at least given Lvov oblast to Poland like British asked.(Well Hello Operation Vistula!!!) Then Stalin could left Stettin in German hands. Most infected part of the disease wouldnt then be attached in the Ukrainian nation. But he clearly had old Russian sensibilities from imperial times, and thought about gathering of the Rus land(at least in his subconciousness).

    • Replies: @AP
    @AltanBakshi


    I clearly have read about different PLC than you have
     
    You have clearly read Soviet "history."

    The ruler couldnt decide budget or make any major decisions without the consensus of aristocracy
     
    Yes, it was not a despotism.

    you probably know about the shortcoming of Golden liberty, and how nobility often picked weak rulers, that could be easily manipulated, not always of course, but often, and nobles also casually took bribes from foreign countries so that they would backed candidate preferred by that foreign power.
     
    Half-truth. Golden Veto was first used only in 1652, but did not paralyze PLC until the 18th century (i.e., most of the time it wasn't used when Sobieski was king). It was finally eliminated in 1791 when Poland got a new constitution, but Poland was then dismembered by its neighbors. PLC didn't fall because its system was unreformable but because it was in a bad geographic position.

    impossibility of occupation of hostile Orthodox population for PLC
     
    10,000s of Orthodox fought for PLC. Orthodox population had mixed loyalties.

    Also Russias problem was as much or more the lack of natural defences than it was for PLC,
     
    Nonsense, it has large distances and forests. And General Winter.

    PLC, who had an excellent and natural borders on its north(sea) and south(mountains).
     
    Perhaps your Soviet books didn't include maps? Not all the north was sea. PLC also bordered Sweden to the North (Livonia). And to the South beyond the Carpathians were the Ukrainian steppes. So PLC was surrounded by Muscovites/Russians, Germans, Swedes, Ottomans and Tatars. In a similar position, PLC outlasted Imperial Germany.

    Also Russia had not definite technological advantage against the Tatars before the 18th Century
     
    Russian artillery was already more advanced and extensive during the takeover of Kazan in the 16th century. And of course the Siberian khanate was much more primitive than Muscovy.

    Even the Ming with their million men armies, muskets and cannons were defeated by the Manchus in 1644-1645
     
    I am not familiar enough with Chinese history to comment extensively, but Manchus were far from Russia and this was not simply a war with Manchus (it involved Chinese defections, etc.):

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transition_from_Ming_to_Qing

    Your problem is that you demand impossible standards from Russia regarding the successorship of Rus
     
    I make no demands of Russia and never denied that it was a successor of Rus. Russia is Muscovy transformed by Peter; Muscovy was Suzdal after Mongol/Tatar overlordship; Suzdal was a peripheral but true part of Rus, the only part of Rus that wasn't fully Slavic.

    Your problem is that you are a petty and parochial Muscovite tribalist. You think only Moscow was a successor of Rus.

    but with Galicia nothing matters, not even that they were longer under non-Rus foreign rule than they had existence as a part of the Rus
     
    It seems that you do not even know what Rus was.

    or even that they lost their faith or that their nobility like your ancestors started to speak and behave in the ways of the foreigners
     
    Rus changed ("lost?") their faith when they adopted Christianity, which was more advanced than the native paganism, from the alien Greeks. Some Rus later adopted Catholicism from their Polish Slavic brothers. So?

    As for language, Polish is no more alien to Ukraine than is the Great Russian speech. Polish was btw most likely your Khmelytsky's first language.

    Same happens when you compare PLC and Russia, Russia is always brutal
     
    Who slaughtered more Rus people, Muscovy or PLC? Who wiped out the Novgorod branch of Rus civilization, PLC or Muscovy? Sorry that facts are not your friends.

    Like there were no religious persecution there
     
    During counter-reformation there was persecution of Orthodoxy, generally initiated not by Poles but by Rus nobles such as Sapieha who felt that Orthodoxy was a backward dead end holding back the Rus people (same approach as St. Vladimir towards native Slavic pagan faith). However this policy was stopped prior to the Khmelytsky treason. The latter was primarily a class conflict of Rus petty nobility versus Rus magnates who were getting more power at the expense of the minor nobles. Khmelnytsky was actually hoping for help form the Polish king against the Rus magnates.

    like downplaying the meaning of St. Olga as a foreign viking
     
    Helga was a Viking as was her husband Ingvar. They forced Slavs to give them tribute, including slaves. When Slavs revolted against them and killed Ingvar, Helga slaughtered them.

    It's very funny when silly Slavic Ukrainian and Russian nationalists argue about whether this Helga was a Ukrainian or a Russian. Helga probably had more in common with the 20th century Germanic invaders of Slavic lands than she did with any Ukrainian or Russian ruler.

    But in your childishness you think that names are magic and because she was a Rus she must have been a Russian. LOL.

    And this bullshit about the Rus aristocrats in PLC
     
    Calling it bullshit is not an argument. Fact is that native Rus princes of PLC were the richest nobles in the PLC and that they directed much PLC policies, particularly towards the East. Your claim that this was a Polish government is demonstrably false. Attempted PLC unification with Muscovy was a project by Rus princes Vyshnyvetsky and Sapieha for the gathering of Rus lands.

    You couldn't contradict reality so you changed the subject by introducing hypothetical German nobles taking over PLC (never happened) or desperately crying "bullshit."

    its a clear sign of losing battle
     
    You demonstrated that you lost the "battle" when you initiated personal insults earlier.

    most family trees that claimed Varyag or Sarmatian heritage were fabrications both in PLC and Russian empire
     
    Genetics is great confirmation.

    Oh almost forgot, your maps, hey it shows that the Nazi Svoboda won the votes in Galicia, thanks for showing me right!
     
    Svoboda is as Nazi as the Austrian Freedom Party. Politically Galicia is the only region in Ukraine not dominated by oligarchic parties. It has Samopomich, Holos, Svoboda.

    Like Timoshenko isnt anything else than cunning centrist in Ukrainian politics.
     
    https://www.rt.com/news/tymoshenko-calls-destroy-russia-917/

    “This is really beyond all boundaries. It’s about time we grab our guns and kill go kill those damn Russians together with their leader,” Tymoshenko said.

    Most infected part of the disease wouldnt then be attached in the Ukrainian nation.
     
    Galicia is the healthiest part of Ukraine and Donbas the sickest. Donbas - abortion capital of the world, near-HIV capital of Europe, lowest fertility rate in Europe, etc. This is diseased.

    but if they would be couple decades under Russia and had improved quality of life, they would quickly come to their senses
     
    LOL.

    In 2014 Svoboda was more popular in Kiev than in Lviv oblast:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/26/%D0%A0%D0%B5%D0%B7%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8_%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%96%D0%B2_%D0%B4%D0%BE_%D0%92%D0%A0_%D0%A3%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%97%D0%BD%D0%B8_2014_%28%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%96%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%82%D1%96%D1%8F_%D0%92%D1%81%D0%B5%D1%83%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%97%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%B5_%D0%BE%D0%B1%E2%80%99%D1%94%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8F_%D0%A1%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B0%29.png

    Replies: @AltanBakshi, @AltanBakshi

    , @AP
    @AltanBakshi


    Also its a clear sign of losing battle when you bring your Polonized Rus ancestors on the debate, like that makes your arguments any stronger?
     
    We are discussing not only facts (about which family background is irrelevant) but also the nature and history of Rus people so yes this is relevant. If we were discussing the nature and attitudes of Russian nobility, I would take more seriously the argument of a descendent of White Russian exiles writing about his own people, than those of a Sovok whose knowledge comes from largely Soviet textbooks and textbooks that passed Soviet censorship. Becauae that it the level of your understanding about western Rus elites and Galicians.
  203. I forgot to add one thing, Russian patriotism and nationalism can be tribalistic in some rare cases, but commonly it is not, for there are many peoples of Russia, who feel patriotic towards it, therefore it has by its nature greater spirit than your Galician petty nationalism. Even the ancient Rus were not limited as you are, for from the very beginning of the Rus there were Finnic tribes part of it, especially under Novgorod Republic. Many of those Chuds, Veps and Karelians loyally fought for Novgorod against Swedes and Teutonic knights and so on. There are of course two extremes, Hitlerian hyper-nationalism and American multiculturalism, I deny both, Russians and their culture have a special role and place among the peoples and cultures of the Russian nation, but it does not mean that Russia is only for them or that other people do not have important role to fulfill in Rus/Russias destiny. Soon you will cry about PLC, yes PLC conquered parts of the Rus/Russia and made them part of Commonwealth, when the Rus/Russia conquered other people and made them part of Russia. For many Russias people this has been very fruitful relation, of course for some it has not been and most suffered greatly under early Soviet rule. But as example population of Tatars, Buryats and many others has grown immensely under the Russian rule. Russia has attained same situation as a civilization as the Roman empire or great Chinese dynasties, for it commands loyalty of many nations, which is different from the western model were they try to make one hodgepodge of everyone, or eliminate the original culture and create a new non-offensive unitary culture.

  204. AP says:
    @AltanBakshi
    @AP

    What a load of drivel! I clearly have read about different PLC than you have, for me its an unstable aristocratic republic, which elected its rulers and had permanent crises when it lacked a ruler without strong personal wealth and fiefs. The ruler couldnt decide budget or make any major decisions without the consensus of aristocracy, even though you play stupid you probably know about the shortcoming of Golden liberty, and how nobility often picked weak rulers, that could be easily manipulated, not always of course, but often, and nobles also casually took bribes from foreign countries so that they would backed candidate preferred by that foreign power. Commonwealths political system was destined to explode before or later. Thats what I meant by Swedish or German aristocrats, it was only a matter of time before it would had fragmented and exploited by foreign powers, no matter if the Russian Tsardom was or wasnt part of it. It had similar problems as Holy Roman empire had in that regard, although its higher nobility was from the beginning of the 17th Century quite homogeneous religiously, not completely of course. If you dont understand the friction between Catholicism and Orthodoxy in those times, and impossibility of occupation of hostile Orthodox population for PLC in the long run, like the Cossacks didnt bring enough problems by their revolts for PLC, then you are incapable of understanding the historical situation in those times, speaking to a tree would make as much sense for me(at least you are as thick).

    Also Russias problem was as much or more the lack of natural defences than it was for PLC, who had an excellent and natural borders on its north(sea) and south(mountains). Also Russia had not definite technological advantage against the Tatars before the 18th Century. Actually no country in history has had such a vast frontier problem as Russia had those times, militaristic Khanates, were almost every adult man was a potential warrior, was not any small threat, especially when you had thousands upon thousands kilometers of undefined border with them. In my opinion that was the major reason for accelerating centralization in Russia, there was no choice with neighbours like that. Even the Ming with their million men armies, muskets and cannons were defeated by the Manchus in 1644-1645, although there were also other reasons for that and even the Qing had huge campaign that bled the whole state budget of 300 million Chinese empire dry during the 18th century against the nomads

    Your problem is that you demand impossible standards from Russia regarding the successorship of Rus, but with Galicia nothing matters, not even that they were longer under non-Rus foreign rule than they had existence as a part of the Rus, or even that they lost their faith or that their nobility like your ancestors started to speak and behave in the ways of the foreigners. Same happens when you compare PLC and Russia, Russia is always brutal and Mongolian influenced country, but PLC that foreign proto-oligarchy was so much nobler and more perfect and had no fault its own. Like there were no religious persecution there, no revolts by Ukrainians(Rus) against foreign aristocrats and priests and so on? Even with the ancient Rus you have a bipolar attitude, like downplaying the meaning of St. Olga as a foreign viking, who is not part of the Rus history. Most funny was from me that you claimed that I dont address your facts, when from my point of view its been for a quite long clear that you dont answer most of my arguments, but its okay for me, after all one by one I have exhausted your points and you just dont bring them anymore. And this bullshit about the Rus aristocrats in PLC, hey during the early modern period aristocrats were very, very mobile and connected people, with changing loyalties. Queen of Britain is from the house of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and many Royal dynasties in the history of Europe had a foreign founder or foreign blood, so? A true non-argument is that. Also its a clear sign of losing battle when you bring your Polonized Rus ancestors on the debate, like that makes your arguments any stronger? If you really have traceable Varyag ancestor, then congratulations, that is true rarity, but it does not have a meaning in this debate, and most family trees that claimed Varyag or Sarmatian heritage were fabrications both in PLC and Russian empire. If there would be debate about the Mongol empire and I would claim that I have greater claim to truth by having Mongolian ancestors, that would make me quite an ass, I would presume? Maybe with Muslims when debating about Muhammad you have a greater claim to truth if you are a Sayid? By the way what I said about Kavkaz, some similarities there? But I can say that I dont have any Slavic peasants in my lineage, at least in my knowledge, but ironically I have one Polish ancestor from the 19th Century!

    You lack of honesty and I have no desire to continue this mindless debate with you. Clearly we cant persuade each other. I know that you will answer this, for I am similar in that regard. But my spirit is not any more in this debate... it tires me....

    Oh almost forgot, your maps, hey it shows that the Nazi Svoboda won the votes in Galicia, thanks for showing me right! Like Timoshenko isnt anything else than cunning centrist in Ukrainian politics. Or you have claimed crazier things before, maybe he is paragon of Ukrainian nationalism for you, for me he is in game for just personal power, and is as ready to make deals with west or Russia depending on the pay. Central Ukrainians/real Ukrainians, are like any Slavs, they want to feel proud of their homecountry and are by culture more patriotic than westerners, but if they would be couple decades under Russia and had improved quality of life, they would quickly come to their senses, but with Galicians its a different story. Truly greatest mistake by Stalin to add them in Ukraine, should had at least given Lvov oblast to Poland like British asked.(Well Hello Operation Vistula!!!) Then Stalin could left Stettin in German hands. Most infected part of the disease wouldnt then be attached in the Ukrainian nation. But he clearly had old Russian sensibilities from imperial times, and thought about gathering of the Rus land(at least in his subconciousness).

    Replies: @AP, @AP

    I clearly have read about different PLC than you have

    You have clearly read Soviet “history.”

    The ruler couldnt decide budget or make any major decisions without the consensus of aristocracy

    Yes, it was not a despotism.

    you probably know about the shortcoming of Golden liberty, and how nobility often picked weak rulers, that could be easily manipulated, not always of course, but often, and nobles also casually took bribes from foreign countries so that they would backed candidate preferred by that foreign power.

    Half-truth. Golden Veto was first used only in 1652, but did not paralyze PLC until the 18th century (i.e., most of the time it wasn’t used when Sobieski was king). It was finally eliminated in 1791 when Poland got a new constitution, but Poland was then dismembered by its neighbors. PLC didn’t fall because its system was unreformable but because it was in a bad geographic position.

    impossibility of occupation of hostile Orthodox population for PLC

    10,000s of Orthodox fought for PLC. Orthodox population had mixed loyalties.

    Also Russias problem was as much or more the lack of natural defences than it was for PLC,

    Nonsense, it has large distances and forests. And General Winter.

    PLC, who had an excellent and natural borders on its north(sea) and south(mountains).

    Perhaps your Soviet books didn’t include maps? Not all the north was sea. PLC also bordered Sweden to the North (Livonia). And to the South beyond the Carpathians were the Ukrainian steppes. So PLC was surrounded by Muscovites/Russians, Germans, Swedes, Ottomans and Tatars. In a similar position, PLC outlasted Imperial Germany.

    Also Russia had not definite technological advantage against the Tatars before the 18th Century

    Russian artillery was already more advanced and extensive during the takeover of Kazan in the 16th century. And of course the Siberian khanate was much more primitive than Muscovy.

    Even the Ming with their million men armies, muskets and cannons were defeated by the Manchus in 1644-1645

    I am not familiar enough with Chinese history to comment extensively, but Manchus were far from Russia and this was not simply a war with Manchus (it involved Chinese defections, etc.):

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transition_from_Ming_to_Qing

    Your problem is that you demand impossible standards from Russia regarding the successorship of Rus

    I make no demands of Russia and never denied that it was a successor of Rus. Russia is Muscovy transformed by Peter; Muscovy was Suzdal after Mongol/Tatar overlordship; Suzdal was a peripheral but true part of Rus, the only part of Rus that wasn’t fully Slavic.

    Your problem is that you are a petty and parochial Muscovite tribalist. You think only Moscow was a successor of Rus.

    but with Galicia nothing matters, not even that they were longer under non-Rus foreign rule than they had existence as a part of the Rus

    It seems that you do not even know what Rus was.

    or even that they lost their faith or that their nobility like your ancestors started to speak and behave in the ways of the foreigners

    Rus changed (“lost?”) their faith when they adopted Christianity, which was more advanced than the native paganism, from the alien Greeks. Some Rus later adopted Catholicism from their Polish Slavic brothers. So?

    As for language, Polish is no more alien to Ukraine than is the Great Russian speech. Polish was btw most likely your Khmelytsky’s first language.

    Same happens when you compare PLC and Russia, Russia is always brutal

    Who slaughtered more Rus people, Muscovy or PLC? Who wiped out the Novgorod branch of Rus civilization, PLC or Muscovy? Sorry that facts are not your friends.

    Like there were no religious persecution there

    During counter-reformation there was persecution of Orthodoxy, generally initiated not by Poles but by Rus nobles such as Sapieha who felt that Orthodoxy was a backward dead end holding back the Rus people (same approach as St. Vladimir towards native Slavic pagan faith). However this policy was stopped prior to the Khmelytsky treason. The latter was primarily a class conflict of Rus petty nobility versus Rus magnates who were getting more power at the expense of the minor nobles. Khmelnytsky was actually hoping for help form the Polish king against the Rus magnates.

    like downplaying the meaning of St. Olga as a foreign viking

    Helga was a Viking as was her husband Ingvar. They forced Slavs to give them tribute, including slaves. When Slavs revolted against them and killed Ingvar, Helga slaughtered them.

    It’s very funny when silly Slavic Ukrainian and Russian nationalists argue about whether this Helga was a Ukrainian or a Russian. Helga probably had more in common with the 20th century Germanic invaders of Slavic lands than she did with any Ukrainian or Russian ruler.

    But in your childishness you think that names are magic and because she was a Rus she must have been a Russian. LOL.

    And this bullshit about the Rus aristocrats in PLC

    Calling it bullshit is not an argument. Fact is that native Rus princes of PLC were the richest nobles in the PLC and that they directed much PLC policies, particularly towards the East. Your claim that this was a Polish government is demonstrably false. Attempted PLC unification with Muscovy was a project by Rus princes Vyshnyvetsky and Sapieha for the gathering of Rus lands.

    You couldn’t contradict reality so you changed the subject by introducing hypothetical German nobles taking over PLC (never happened) or desperately crying “bullshit.”

    its a clear sign of losing battle

    You demonstrated that you lost the “battle” when you initiated personal insults earlier.

    most family trees that claimed Varyag or Sarmatian heritage were fabrications both in PLC and Russian empire

    Genetics is great confirmation.

    Oh almost forgot, your maps, hey it shows that the Nazi Svoboda won the votes in Galicia, thanks for showing me right!

    Svoboda is as Nazi as the Austrian Freedom Party. Politically Galicia is the only region in Ukraine not dominated by oligarchic parties. It has Samopomich, Holos, Svoboda.

    Like Timoshenko isnt anything else than cunning centrist in Ukrainian politics.

    https://www.rt.com/news/tymoshenko-calls-destroy-russia-917/

    “This is really beyond all boundaries. It’s about time we grab our guns and kill go kill those damn Russians together with their leader,” Tymoshenko said.

    Most infected part of the disease wouldnt then be attached in the Ukrainian nation.

    Galicia is the healthiest part of Ukraine and Donbas the sickest. Donbas – abortion capital of the world, near-HIV capital of Europe, lowest fertility rate in Europe, etc. This is diseased.

    but if they would be couple decades under Russia and had improved quality of life, they would quickly come to their senses

    LOL.

    In 2014 Svoboda was more popular in Kiev than in Lviv oblast:

    • Replies: @AltanBakshi
    @AP


    You have clearly read Soviet “history.”
     
    I have read only few Soviet history books in my life.

    10,000s of Orthodox fought for PLC. Orthodox population had mixed loyalties.
     
    Yes the Ukrainian Orthodox had mixed loyalties, but often they were source of discontentment and revolting for the PLC, how do you think integrating Tsardom of Russia would have then succeeded, you silly PLC larper. Its like I need to constantly explain this thing to you for your powers of deduction are quite lacking. If Ukraine was so hard to control, how PLC would then succeeded with controlling of Russia? Also I think that too much speculation with such alternative timelines and histories is not very constructive, why you dont speculate about things like what if Peter I or Ivan IV mothers got miscarriage, at least it would have been more probable than some war having a different ending, after all war does not need a one soldier, but different ruler creates a vastly different implications for the future of realm. But you would not because you think its futile to speculate with such things, but strangely more improbable outcomes, like outcome of war, are more worthy of your speculation(and building your very own fantasy history). There are too many people on this site who love to speculate different outcomes on some specific historical events like differing conclusion of some war and build a wonderful alternative timeline where the outcome would be ideal from their standpoint. Sad that I have lost that child like skill of using imagination in nonsensical ways.

    I dont get your point regarding the new PLC constitution, they did that when all was practically lost, not when it would had been useful, and trust me they had time, but being a proto-oligarch and bleeding their country dry was more important for them, although you as friend of present day Ukraine probably see something nice in it. Yes PLC outlasted Imperial Germany, so did Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Belgium, Luzembourg, Finland, I again dont get your point.

    Russian artillery was already more advanced and extensive during the takeover of Kazan in the 16th century. And of course the Siberian khanate was much more primitive than Muscovy.
     
    You dont do anything with premodern artillery in steppe warfare, yes when you have sieges, but not when you fight in the steppes. Ming bought best European artillery in 17th Century against Jurchens/Manchus and it didnt do shit for them. Also Kazan was a Tatar country, but not a real steppe nomad country, they were sedentary and most of population was farmers or Finno-Ugric forest dwellers.
    Here is one example how hard it is against nomads.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tumu_Crisis
    Here another
    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D1%80%D1%8B%D0%BC%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B4_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%9C%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B2%D1%83_(1571)


    I am not familiar enough with Chinese history to comment extensively, but Manchus were far from Russia and this was not simply a war with Manchus (it involved Chinese defections, etc.):
     
    Still Ming had a huge numerical superiority, but the Qing were half nomads themselves and they had very hard time with subjugation of last Mongol Khanate that threatened the China, the Zungar Khanate, even though they had many Mongol allies. Think about Scottish-English border Marches, they were a huge problem for England till 17th Century and even in the 18th Century Highlanders got as far as Derby(1745). Highlands were very thinly populated and much much smaller than great steppes from Black sea to Manchuria. You in my opinion underestimate the hardships of guarding such border that Russia had.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Zasechnaya_cherta

    "It was guarded by a local militia of about 35,000 in the second half of the 16th century. Another source gives an annual callup of 65,000. Behind the line was a mobile army headquartered in Tula (6,279 men in 1616, 17,005 in 1636)."
     
    During 17th Century no other European power had to keep such armies on permanent state of alert. Very rarely even whole PLC gathered such armies during the wartime. Think how much that drained tax income and resources of Russia? Again you employ totally different criteria for Russia and PLC. Russians succeeded in something that the Chinese did not succeed, even though Ming dynasty had third of the global GDP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_largest_historical_GDP#China
    https://www.researchgate.net/figure/China-and-India-Shares-of-World-GDP-Pre-Industrial-Revolution-percent-Source-Authors_fig10_254072591 by Angus Maddison
    Also Indians couldnt defend themselves from the warriors of steppe. After all Delhi sultanate lost to much smaller forces of Babur, the founder of Mughal empire in the 1526. Same with Persia. As you see I dont like when somebody makes analogy by using only one example, one should employ many analogies/facts when trying to make an argument, more supporting analogies/facts, then firmer is the ground for your arguments(is this good English?).

    Rus changed (“lost?”) their faith when they adopted Christianity, which was more advanced than the native paganism, from the alien Greeks. Some Rus later adopted Catholicism from their Polish Slavic brothers. So?
     
    They adopted uniatism or Catholicism only after the repression of common Orthodox population, funny how you forgot to add that. Also all European people adopted Christianity and forgot their native paganism, are you saying that conversion to paganism is same as one Christian sect forcing followers of another one to convert to their sect? So I must explain these simple things. AP when Christians convert pagans to Christianity, its seen as a good and noble deed from point of view of Christianity, but when forcefully converting other Christians, then its highly debatable. Strange again that if you dont see any difference?

    As for language, Polish is no more alien to Ukraine than is the Great Russian speech. Polish was btw most likely your Khmelytsky’s first language.
     
    In my understanding Ukrainian shares more words with Polish language than with Russian, but grammatically its much closer to Russian, although I dont know about Galician dialect, it could be more closer to Polish of course. Many Ukrainian nationalists employ that logic, but by that logic English would not be a Germanic language, but Romance language, after all it has shares more words with French and Latin. Still Low German (Plattdütsch) people integrated to German empire, though their language was more similar to Dutch, especially in the North West of Germany, and they had literary tradition, which was much greater than literary tradition of Ukrainian language, after all it was language employed by Hansa in Medieval times. People from the Northern third of present Germany spoke this language till the 19th Century.

    Helga was a Viking as was her husband Ingvar. They forced Slavs to give them tribute, including slaves. When Slavs revolted against them and killed Ingvar, Helga slaughtered them.

    It’s very funny when silly Slavic Ukrainian and Russian nationalists argue about whether this Helga was a Ukrainian or a Russian. Helga probably had more in common with the 20th century Germanic invaders of Slavic lands than she did with any Ukrainian or Russian ruler.

    But in your childishness you think that names are magic and because she was a Rus she must have been a Russian. LOL.
     
    He was both from the viewpoint of the present, for Ukraine is region of the Russia. You employ quite intersectional way of seeing history when it suits to you, in your opinion French probably not should celebrate Charlemagne or their founders like king Clovis, after all they are Germans from your point of view. Napoleon Italian and so on. After all their voice is different from the voice of common people and they cant speak for them. In your logic. This again shows that you have historiographical view that there is no continuums in history, only disconnections between ages. I myself like more holistic attitude, yes past is a foreign country, they do things there differently, but the change is gradual, like you when you were child, were quite different from your present self, right? Still I would not say that you are a completely different person or being now, for there is clear continuity. Or think about river? Rivers change their courses through history, they are quite different in upstream among mountains, from their lowlands or delta, there is nothing permanent in the river, but still there is a river!

    Half-truth. Golden Veto was first used only in 1652, but did not paralyze PLC until the 18th century (i.e., most of the time it wasn’t used when Sobieski was king). It was finally eliminated in 1791 when Poland got a new constitution, but Poland was then dismembered by its neighbors. PLC didn’t fall because its system was unreformable but because it was in a bad geographic position.
     
    The New Cambridge Modern History: Volume 5
    https://books.google.se/books?id=FzQ9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA562&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
    Here it says that half of the Sejm proceedings were "not brought to a successful conclusion" So you were wrong on that, though it also states that before Sobieski it was not a big problem. Still aristocratic or oligarchic republics are not very stable in the eyes of the history. And I didnt claim that PLC's geographic position was excellent, but it was not bad in Central or Eastern European context. Till mid 18th Century its neighbours to the west were a collection of fragmented Germanic principalities.

    You couldn’t contradict reality so you changed the subject by introducing hypothetical German nobles taking over PLC (never happened) or desperately crying “bullshit.”
     
    How slow you are lately? I stated: "Thats what I meant by Swedish or German aristocrats, it was only a matter of time before it would had fragmented and exploited by foreign powers, no matter if the Russian Tsardom was or wasnt part of it." I did not mean that they would gain ascendancy or power by infiltrating the PLC, but that foreign nobles and aristocrats would exploit(like they did in REAL history) oligarchic nature of PLC for the good of their own countries, like Austria, Russia, Sweden, Prussia, Saxony, France. Although in your hypothetical Polish-Lithuanian-Rus-Commonwealth the exploiters would have been mainly German and and Swedish nobles. I thought that it was easier to explain things for you in that way, because there were many different German countries with different aristocrats who could have exploited the PLC. I should just have written that German nobles and Sweden could have exploited the PLC(as they did). Also you forget the Swedish kings from the house of Vasa that ruled PLC in its heyday, for me it doesnt matter, but forgotting that is quite odd from you, because you constantly remind about the German rulers of Russia.

    You demonstrated that you lost the “battle” when you initiated personal insults earlier.

    Genetics is great confirmation.

    We are discussing not only facts (about which family background is irrelevant) but also the nature and history of Rus people so yes this is relevant. If we were discussing the nature and attitudes of Russian nobility, I would take more seriously the argument of a descendent of White Russian exiles writing about his own people, than those of a Sovok whose knowledge comes from largely Soviet textbooks and textbooks that passed Soviet censorship. Becauae that it the level of your understanding about western Rus elites and Galicians.

     

    Thats a false analogy, if I have ever seen. Insulting maybe childish and immature behaviour, but it does not disprove ones arguments. But claiming of having a greater knowledge based on ones genetics and heritage is. If one has experienced these historical events himself then he can claim a greater understanding on the subject matter. But being a descendant of someone like a White Russian is a double-edged sword, it can create a bias, or a lack of impartiality, although it too can create a healthy sense of ambition and motivation on these matters, also person like that hears lots of history from his family members, but mostly very subjective and emotionally colored. Strange that you lack such elementary understanding of the Western Enlightenment thought? Are Albanian nationalists or Turkish people automatically more trustworthy experts of their own history? These things depend on a context and individual. But you amuse me so much, a Sovok! Yes my parents met in Soviet Union, and there I was probably made, if you get the gist, but I wasnt even born there. Your powers of deduction astonish me! Although it tells me how your personal biases work... He sees something good in the Soviet Union, he must be a Sovok! He claims that PLC is bad, of course he has read censored Soviet books!

    Svoboda is as Nazi as the Austrian Freedom Party. Politically Galicia is the only region in Ukraine not dominated by oligarchic parties. It has Samopomich, Holos, Svoboda.
     
    If I would drink couple beers with FPÖ members and say how great were the SS-Men, they would in all probability kick me out from their pub or house, but if I would say to Svoboda guys that how great was the Galician SS, they would all cheer! Next you probably will claim that SS was not a Nazi organization.

    “This is really beyond all boundaries. It’s about time we grab our guns and kill go kill those damn Russians together with their leader,” Tymoshenko said.
     
    Timoshenko is a political prostitute, I feel sad when someone believes that she is sincere. There was a time when she carried a St Georges ribbon. Enough said.
    https://www.2000.ua/modules/pages/pictures/10000x10000/331_080899d316aa3d0cde82eb3210eccbb7_5711.jpg
    https://www.2000.ua/v-nomere/aspekty/istorija/grojsman-avakov-ljashko-timoshenko-nosili-georgievskie-lentochki.htm


    Galicia is the healthiest part of Ukraine and Donbas the sickest. Donbas – abortion capital of the world, near-HIV capital of Europe, lowest fertility rate in Europe, etc. This is diseased.
     
    And when it became so? During the (mis)rule of Ukraine. Of course something that was an elementary and organic part of Russia would suffer in artificial separation.

    I will add that I don’t know much about Buddhist doctrine, perhaps in your disputes he was right and you were wrong (he does seem very knowledgeable about that, but I can’t judge), but he reveals himself as not a very good Buddhist seemingly. Quick to anger and insults, not calm, eager to justify mass killings by Muscovites/Russians whose nationalism he seems to hold. Something Soviet-boomerish about him.
     
    I am very happy that you brought this up, I even thought that its odd that you nor Mr.Hack mention this during our debates. But you probably base your opinion on Hollywood pseudo-Buddhist/pseudo-eastern spirituality. If I would be a Christian Polish rambling against Russia or Serb preaching Serbian Kosoco or Ukrainian preaching against Russia, or Great Russian Orthodox man preaching fire and brimstone against NATO or USA, you probably would not question their Christianity. And I already mentioned that Im quick to anger, but afterwards I get calm very quickly in couple minutes and never I hold grudges.
    Although it is true that violence makes a bad Karma, and it should be employed only as a last resort.

    But why then I hold as a Buddhist man such strong opinions on matters of Ukrainian politics and history. My reason is compassion, you are free to disagree, but I believe that most Ukraine would have a better quality and standards of life as part of the Russia. Yes Russia is no wonderland, there is lots of corruption and oligarchs make problems there too. But in Russia they at least are in some kind of control of state and are forced to share some of their wealth and income, be it as little as it may be, but in Ukraine they are in the control of state and they dont want to share their wealth, in my opinion they are bleeding their country dry without caring of Ukraines future. This summer I spoke with common Ukrainians in one farm(in a EU country), and all of them were very tired of the situation of their country, they almost seemed to have lost all hope that things will get better there, it seemed to me that their country is much poorer and more unstable than Russia. Although I have only been once in Ukraine, it was in 2012, in Kiev and Lvov, still Kiev seemed culturally for me much, much closer to Russia than Slovakia, Czechia and Germany, never been in Poland, so I cant say. Actually I think that there are greater cultural differences between some of regions of Russia and Germany than the difference was for me between Kiev and Central Russia.

    Buddha is our guide and master, but in this broken world of Samsara we must do our own decisions, sometimes they are mistaken, sometimes they are right and often in between, it depends on many factors. Some time kind words arising from pride or greed are violence, sometimes a good beating is compassion(quite often Zen and Shaolin masters would employ this). But violence is very dangerous indeed and should not used easily and without very, very good reasons, it can be that I have gone on a wrong path on this matter, but I sincerely believe that my case is build on a more solid foundation than yours and I believe that in longer term both Russia and Ukraine would have greater economical safety if they would be together. Also I dont play videogames. And I can assure you that I debate in a similar way with people that I have met at least couple times. Yes its sad that I insult you, but I have my reasons, many commenters on this site are so lost in my opinion that I just dont want to waste time by arguing with them, but before this khokhlosratch I thought that you are a very intelligent person(and I still believe so, but not in matters of Russian history) and I almost always agreed with you, so it was sad to notice that you have in my view so mistaken opinions about the history, PLC, Russia, Muscovy, Ukraine and so on. If I have offended you, then I am very sorry. But I must say that often I read my text before posting and I do lots of censoring! What I said regarding Stalin and steppes of Karaganda was clearly wrong from a Buddhist point of view, but then we Buddhists are as human as rest of the humanity. Only group among us that has some kind of claim of spiritual superiority is the Monastic community, and I mean among traditional(true) Buddhists of Asia. Although it does not mean that we should not strive to be better on individual level.

    Also having a thick skin and taking insults as a challenge is proper behaviour for a man. Manly behaviour, they use good term for that in Sanskrit language texts of Buddhism, Virya/manly diligence or persistence or བརྩོན་འགྲུས།


    I have resigned to my fate, let us continue this pointless debate, my ego is too strong so I am locked in this state of existence like a ghost haunting old battlegrounds.

    Also ano4 how can agree with both of us? Is that not a sign of cognitive dissonance? You want Slavic confederation, but which federation of confederation has succeeded without dominating element? Even in Switzerland the great majority are Swiss German, and the historical narrative starts from their struggle against HLR. Romandie or Ticino had totally different origins than some small Swiss cantons fighting against the Holy Roman Emperor. And we still dont know if EU is a success story or not( and even in EU Germany and France dominate).
    , @AltanBakshi
    @AP


    You have clearly read Soviet “history.”
     
    I have read only few Soviet history books in my life.

    10,000s of Orthodox fought for PLC. Orthodox population had mixed loyalties.
     
    Yes the Ukrainian Orthodox had mixed loyalties, but often they were source of discontentment and revolting for the PLC, how do you think integrating Tsardom of Russia would have then succeeded, you silly PLC larper. Its like I need to constantly explain this thing to you for your powers of deduction are quite lacking. If Ukraine was so hard to control, how PLC would then succeeded with controlling of Russia? Also I think that too much speculation with such alternative timelines and histories is not very constructive, why you dont speculate about things like what if Peter I or Ivan IV mothers got miscarriage, at least it would have been more probable than some war having a different ending, after all war does not need a one soldier, but different ruler creates a vastly different implications for the future of realm. But you would not because you think its futile to speculate with such things, but strangely more improbable outcomes, like outcome of war, are more worthy of your speculation(and building your very own fantasy history). There are too many people on this site who love to speculate different outcomes on some specific historical events like differing conclusion of some war and build a wonderful alternative timeline where the outcome would be ideal from their standpoint. Sad that I have lost that child like skill of using imagination in nonsensical ways.

    I dont get your point regarding the new PLC constitution, they did that when all was practically lost, not when it would had been useful, and trust me they had time, but being a proto-oligarch and bleeding their country dry was more important for them, although you as friend of present day Ukraine probably see something nice in it. Yes PLC outlasted Imperial Germany, so did Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Belgium, Luzembourg, Finland, I again dont get your point.

    Russian artillery was already more advanced and extensive during the takeover of Kazan in the 16th century. And of course the Siberian khanate was much more primitive than Muscovy.
     
    You dont do anything with premodern artillery in steppe warfare, yes when you have sieges, but not when you fight in the steppes. Ming bought best European artillery in 17th Century against Jurchens/Manchus and it didnt do shit for them. Also Kazan was a Tatar country, but not a real steppe nomad country, they were sedentary and most of population was farmers or Finno-Ugric forest dwellers.
    Here is one example how hard it is against nomads.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tumu_Crisis
    Here another
    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D1%80%D1%8B%D0%BC%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B4_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%9C%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B2%D1%83_(1571)


    I am not familiar enough with Chinese history to comment extensively, but Manchus were far from Russia and this was not simply a war with Manchus (it involved Chinese defections, etc.):
     
    Still Ming had a huge numerical superiority, but the Qing were half nomads themselves and they had very hard time with subjugation of last Mongol Khanate that threatened the China, the Zungar Khanate, even though they had many Mongol allies. Think about Scottish-English border Marches, they were a huge problem for England till 17th Century and even in the 18th Century Highlanders got as far as Derby(1745). Highlands were very thinly populated and much much smaller than great steppes from Black sea to Manchuria. You in my opinion underestimate the hardships of guarding such border that Russia had.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Zasechnaya_cherta

    "It was guarded by a local militia of about 35,000 in the second half of the 16th century. Another source gives an annual callup of 65,000. Behind the line was a mobile army headquartered in Tula (6,279 men in 1616, 17,005 in 1636)."
     
    During 17th Century no other European power had to keep such armies on permanent state of alert. Very rarely even whole PLC gathered such armies during the wartime. Think how much that drained tax income and resources of Russia? Again you employ totally different criteria for Russia and PLC. Russians succeeded in something that the Chinese did not succeed, even though Ming dynasty had third of the global GDP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_largest_historical_GDP#China
    https://www.researchgate.net/figure/China-and-India-Shares-of-World-GDP-Pre-Industrial-Revolution-percent-Source-Authors_fig10_254072591 by Angus Maddison
    Also Indians couldnt defend themselves from the warriors of steppe. After all Delhi sultanate lost to much smaller forces of Babur, the founder of Mughal empire in the 1526. Same with Persia. As you see I dont like when somebody makes analogy by using only one example, one should employ many analogies/facts when trying to make an argument, more supporting analogies/facts, then firmer is the ground for your arguments(is this good English?).

    Rus changed (“lost?”) their faith when they adopted Christianity, which was more advanced than the native paganism, from the alien Greeks. Some Rus later adopted Catholicism from their Polish Slavic brothers. So?
     
    They adopted uniatism or Catholicism only after the repression of common Orthodox population, funny how you forgot to add that. Also all European people adopted Christianity and forgot their native paganism, are you saying that conversion to paganism is same as one Christian sect forcing followers of another one to convert to their sect? So I must explain these simple things. AP when Christians convert pagans to Christianity, its seen as a good and noble deed from point of view of Christianity, but when forcefully converting other Christians, then its highly debatable. Strange again that if you dont see any difference?

    As for language, Polish is no more alien to Ukraine than is the Great Russian speech. Polish was btw most likely your Khmelytsky’s first language.
     
    In my understanding Ukrainian shares more words with Polish language than with Russian, but grammatically its much closer to Russian, although I dont know about Galician dialect, it could be more closer to Polish of course. Many Ukrainian nationalists employ that logic, but by that logic English would not be a Germanic language, but Romance language, after all it has shares more words with French and Latin. Still Low German (Plattdütsch) people integrated to German empire, though their language was more similar to Dutch, especially in the North West of Germany, and they had literary tradition, which was much greater than literary tradition of Ukrainian language, after all it was language employed by Hansa in Medieval times. People from the Northern third of present Germany spoke this language till the 19th Century.

    Helga was a Viking as was her husband Ingvar. They forced Slavs to give them tribute, including slaves. When Slavs revolted against them and killed Ingvar, Helga slaughtered them.

    It’s very funny when silly Slavic Ukrainian and Russian nationalists argue about whether this Helga was a Ukrainian or a Russian. Helga probably had more in common with the 20th century Germanic invaders of Slavic lands than she did with any Ukrainian or Russian ruler.

    But in your childishness you think that names are magic and because she was a Rus she must have been a Russian. LOL.
     
    He was both from the viewpoint of the present, for Ukraine is region of the Russia. You employ quite intersectional way of seeing history when it suits to you, in your opinion French probably not should celebrate Charlemagne or their founders like king Clovis, after all they are Germans from your point of view. Napoleon Italian and so on. After all their voice is different from the voice of common people and they cant speak for them. In your logic. This again shows that you have historiographical view that there is no continuums in history, only disconnections between ages. I myself like more holistic attitude, yes past is a foreign country, they do things there differently, but the change is gradual, like you when you were child, were quite different from your present self, right? Still I would not say that you are a completely different person or being now, for there is clear continuity. Or think about river? Rivers change their courses through history, they are quite different in upstream among mountains, from their lowlands or delta, there is nothing permanent in the river, but still there is a river!

    Half-truth. Golden Veto was first used only in 1652, but did not paralyze PLC until the 18th century (i.e., most of the time it wasn’t used when Sobieski was king). It was finally eliminated in 1791 when Poland got a new constitution, but Poland was then dismembered by its neighbors. PLC didn’t fall because its system was unreformable but because it was in a bad geographic position.
     
    The New Cambridge Modern History: Volume 5
    https://books.google.se/books?id=FzQ9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA562&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
    Here it says that half of the Sejm proceedings were "not brought to a successful conclusion" So you were wrong on that, though it also states that before Sobieski it was not a big problem. Still aristocratic or oligarchic republics are not very stable in the eyes of the history. And I didnt claim that PLC's geographic position was excellent, but it was not bad in Central or Eastern European context. Till mid 18th Century its neighbours to the west were a collection of fragmented Germanic principalities.

    You couldn’t contradict reality so you changed the subject by introducing hypothetical German nobles taking over PLC (never happened) or desperately crying “bullshit.”
     
    How slow you are lately? I stated: "Thats what I meant by Swedish or German aristocrats, it was only a matter of time before it would had fragmented and exploited by foreign powers, no matter if the Russian Tsardom was or wasnt part of it." I did not mean that they would gain ascendancy or power by infiltrating the PLC, but that foreign nobles and aristocrats would exploit(like they did in REAL history) oligarchic nature of PLC for the good of their own countries, like Austria, Russia, Sweden, Prussia, Saxony, France. Although in your hypothetical Polish-Lithuanian-Rus-Commonwealth the exploiters would have been mainly German and and Swedish nobles. I thought that it was easier to explain things for you in that way, because there were many different German countries with different aristocrats who could have exploited the PLC. I should just have written that German nobles and Sweden could have exploited the PLC(as they did). Also you forget the Swedish kings from the house of Vasa that ruled PLC in its heyday, for me it doesnt matter, but forgotting that is quite odd from you, because you constantly remind about the German rulers of Russia.

    You demonstrated that you lost the “battle” when you initiated personal insults earlier.

    Genetics is great confirmation.

    We are discussing not only facts (about which family background is irrelevant) but also the nature and history of Rus people so yes this is relevant. If we were discussing the nature and attitudes of Russian nobility, I would take more seriously the argument of a descendent of White Russian exiles writing about his own people, than those of a Sovok whose knowledge comes from largely Soviet textbooks and textbooks that passed Soviet censorship. Becauae that it the level of your understanding about western Rus elites and Galicians.

     

    Thats a false analogy, if I have ever seen. Insulting maybe childish and immature behaviour, but it does not disprove ones arguments. But claiming of having a greater knowledge based on ones genetics and heritage is. If one has experienced these historical events himself then he can claim a greater understanding on the subject matter. But being a descendant of someone like a White Russian is a double-edged sword, it can create a bias, or a lack of impartiality, although it too can create a healthy sense of ambition and motivation on these matters, also person like that hears lots of history from his family members, but mostly very subjective and emotionally colored. Strange that you lack such elementary understanding of the Western Enlightenment thought? Are Albanian nationalists or Turkish people automatically more trustworthy experts of their own history? These things depend on a context and individual. But you amuse me so much, a Sovok! Yes my parents met in Soviet Union, and there I was probably made, if you get the gist, but I wasnt even born there. Your powers of deduction astonish me! Although it tells me how your personal biases work... He sees something good in the Soviet Union, he must be a Sovok! He claims that PLC is bad, of course he has read censored Soviet books!

    Svoboda is as Nazi as the Austrian Freedom Party. Politically Galicia is the only region in Ukraine not dominated by oligarchic parties. It has Samopomich, Holos, Svoboda.
     
    If I would drink couple beers with FPÖ members and say how great were the SS-Men, they would in all probability kick me out from their pub or house, but if I would say to Svoboda guys that how great was the Galician SS, they would all cheer! Next you probably will claim that SS was not a Nazi organization.

    “This is really beyond all boundaries. It’s about time we grab our guns and kill go kill those damn Russians together with their leader,” Tymoshenko said.
     
    Timoshenko is a political prostitute, I feel sad when someone believes that she is sincere. There was a time when she carried a St Georges ribbon. Enough said.
    https://www.2000.ua/modules/pages/pictures/10000x10000/331_080899d316aa3d0cde82eb3210eccbb7_5711.jpg
    https://www.2000.ua/v-nomere/aspekty/istorija/grojsman-avakov-ljashko-timoshenko-nosili-georgievskie-lentochki.htm


    Galicia is the healthiest part of Ukraine and Donbas the sickest. Donbas – abortion capital of the world, near-HIV capital of Europe, lowest fertility rate in Europe, etc. This is diseased.
     
    And when it became so? During the (mis)rule of Ukraine. Of course something that was an elementary and organic part of Russia would suffer in artificial separation.

    I will add that I don’t know much about Buddhist doctrine, perhaps in your disputes he was right and you were wrong (he does seem very knowledgeable about that, but I can’t judge), but he reveals himself as not a very good Buddhist seemingly. Quick to anger and insults, not calm, eager to justify mass killings by Muscovites/Russians whose nationalism he seems to hold. Something Soviet-boomerish about him.
     
    I am very happy that you brought this up, I even thought that its odd that you nor Mr.Hack mention this during our debates. But you probably base your opinion on Hollywood pseudo-Buddhist/pseudo-eastern spirituality. If I would be a Christian Polish rambling against Russia or Serb preaching Serbian Kosoco or Ukrainian preaching against Russia, or Great Russian Orthodox man preaching fire and brimstone against NATO or USA, you probably would not question their Christianity. And I already mentioned that Im quick to anger, but afterwards I get calm very quickly in couple minutes and never I hold grudges.
    Although it is true that violence makes a bad Karma, and it should be employed only as a last resort.

    But why then I hold as a Buddhist man such strong opinions on matters of Ukrainian politics and history. My reason is compassion, you are free to disagree, but I believe that most Ukraine would have a better quality and standards of life as part of the Russia. Yes Russia is no wonderland, there is lots of corruption and oligarchs make problems there too. But in Russia they at least are in some kind of control of state and are forced to share some of their wealth and income, be it as little as it may be, but in Ukraine they are in the control of state and they dont want to share their wealth, in my opinion they are bleeding their country dry without caring of Ukraines future. This summer I spoke with common Ukrainians in one farm(in a EU country), and all of them were very tired of the situation of their country, they almost seemed to have lost all hope that things will get better there, it seemed to me that their country is much poorer and more unstable than Russia. Although I have only been once in Ukraine, it was in 2012, in Kiev and Lvov, still Kiev seemed culturally for me much, much closer to Russia than Slovakia, Czechia and Germany, never been in Poland, so I cant say. Actually I think that there are greater cultural differences between some of regions of Russia and Germany than the difference was for me between Kiev and Central Russia.

    Buddha is our guide and master, but in this broken world of Samsara we must do our own decisions, sometimes they are mistaken, sometimes they are right and often in between, it depends on many factors. Some time kind words arising from pride or greed are violence, sometimes a good beating is compassion(quite often Zen and Shaolin masters would employ this). But violence is very dangerous indeed and should not used easily and without very, very good reasons, it can be that I have gone on a wrong path on this matter, but I sincerely believe that my case is build on a more solid foundation than yours and I believe that in longer term both Russia and Ukraine would have greater economical safety if they would be together. Also I dont play videogames. And I can assure you that I debate in a similar way with people that I have met at least couple times. Yes its sad that I insult you, but I have my reasons, many commenters on this site are so lost in my opinion that I just dont want to waste time by arguing with them, but before this khokhlosratch I thought that you are a very intelligent person(and I still believe so, but not in matters of Russian history) and I almost always agreed with you, so it was sad to notice that you have in my view so mistaken opinions about the history, PLC, Russia, Muscovy, Ukraine and so on. If I have offended you, then I am very sorry. But I must say that often I read my text before posting and I do lots of censoring! What I said regarding Stalin and steppes of Karaganda was clearly wrong from a Buddhist point of view, but then we Buddhists are as human as rest of the humanity. Only group among us that has some kind of claim of spiritual superiority is the Monastic community, and I mean among traditional(true) Buddhists of Asia. Although it does not mean that we should not strive to be better on individual level.

    Also having a thick skin and taking insults as a challenge is proper behaviour for a man. Manly behaviour, they use good term for that in Sanskrit language texts of Buddhism, Virya/manly diligence or persistence or བརྩོན་འགྲུས།


    I have resigned to my fate, let us continue this pointless debate, my ego is too strong so I am locked in this state of existence like a ghost haunting old battlegrounds.

    Also ano4 how can agree with both of us? Is that not a sign of cognitive dissonance? You want Slavic confederation, but which federation of confederation has succeeded without dominating element? Even in Switzerland the great majority are Swiss German, and the historical narrative starts from their struggle against HLR. Romandie or Ticino had totally different origins than some small Swiss cantons fighting against the Holy Roman Emperor. And we still dont know if EU is a success story or not( and even in EU Germany and France dominate).

    Replies: @AP, @AP

  205. AP says:
    @AltanBakshi
    @AP

    What a load of drivel! I clearly have read about different PLC than you have, for me its an unstable aristocratic republic, which elected its rulers and had permanent crises when it lacked a ruler without strong personal wealth and fiefs. The ruler couldnt decide budget or make any major decisions without the consensus of aristocracy, even though you play stupid you probably know about the shortcoming of Golden liberty, and how nobility often picked weak rulers, that could be easily manipulated, not always of course, but often, and nobles also casually took bribes from foreign countries so that they would backed candidate preferred by that foreign power. Commonwealths political system was destined to explode before or later. Thats what I meant by Swedish or German aristocrats, it was only a matter of time before it would had fragmented and exploited by foreign powers, no matter if the Russian Tsardom was or wasnt part of it. It had similar problems as Holy Roman empire had in that regard, although its higher nobility was from the beginning of the 17th Century quite homogeneous religiously, not completely of course. If you dont understand the friction between Catholicism and Orthodoxy in those times, and impossibility of occupation of hostile Orthodox population for PLC in the long run, like the Cossacks didnt bring enough problems by their revolts for PLC, then you are incapable of understanding the historical situation in those times, speaking to a tree would make as much sense for me(at least you are as thick).

    Also Russias problem was as much or more the lack of natural defences than it was for PLC, who had an excellent and natural borders on its north(sea) and south(mountains). Also Russia had not definite technological advantage against the Tatars before the 18th Century. Actually no country in history has had such a vast frontier problem as Russia had those times, militaristic Khanates, were almost every adult man was a potential warrior, was not any small threat, especially when you had thousands upon thousands kilometers of undefined border with them. In my opinion that was the major reason for accelerating centralization in Russia, there was no choice with neighbours like that. Even the Ming with their million men armies, muskets and cannons were defeated by the Manchus in 1644-1645, although there were also other reasons for that and even the Qing had huge campaign that bled the whole state budget of 300 million Chinese empire dry during the 18th century against the nomads

    Your problem is that you demand impossible standards from Russia regarding the successorship of Rus, but with Galicia nothing matters, not even that they were longer under non-Rus foreign rule than they had existence as a part of the Rus, or even that they lost their faith or that their nobility like your ancestors started to speak and behave in the ways of the foreigners. Same happens when you compare PLC and Russia, Russia is always brutal and Mongolian influenced country, but PLC that foreign proto-oligarchy was so much nobler and more perfect and had no fault its own. Like there were no religious persecution there, no revolts by Ukrainians(Rus) against foreign aristocrats and priests and so on? Even with the ancient Rus you have a bipolar attitude, like downplaying the meaning of St. Olga as a foreign viking, who is not part of the Rus history. Most funny was from me that you claimed that I dont address your facts, when from my point of view its been for a quite long clear that you dont answer most of my arguments, but its okay for me, after all one by one I have exhausted your points and you just dont bring them anymore. And this bullshit about the Rus aristocrats in PLC, hey during the early modern period aristocrats were very, very mobile and connected people, with changing loyalties. Queen of Britain is from the house of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and many Royal dynasties in the history of Europe had a foreign founder or foreign blood, so? A true non-argument is that. Also its a clear sign of losing battle when you bring your Polonized Rus ancestors on the debate, like that makes your arguments any stronger? If you really have traceable Varyag ancestor, then congratulations, that is true rarity, but it does not have a meaning in this debate, and most family trees that claimed Varyag or Sarmatian heritage were fabrications both in PLC and Russian empire. If there would be debate about the Mongol empire and I would claim that I have greater claim to truth by having Mongolian ancestors, that would make me quite an ass, I would presume? Maybe with Muslims when debating about Muhammad you have a greater claim to truth if you are a Sayid? By the way what I said about Kavkaz, some similarities there? But I can say that I dont have any Slavic peasants in my lineage, at least in my knowledge, but ironically I have one Polish ancestor from the 19th Century!

    You lack of honesty and I have no desire to continue this mindless debate with you. Clearly we cant persuade each other. I know that you will answer this, for I am similar in that regard. But my spirit is not any more in this debate... it tires me....

    Oh almost forgot, your maps, hey it shows that the Nazi Svoboda won the votes in Galicia, thanks for showing me right! Like Timoshenko isnt anything else than cunning centrist in Ukrainian politics. Or you have claimed crazier things before, maybe he is paragon of Ukrainian nationalism for you, for me he is in game for just personal power, and is as ready to make deals with west or Russia depending on the pay. Central Ukrainians/real Ukrainians, are like any Slavs, they want to feel proud of their homecountry and are by culture more patriotic than westerners, but if they would be couple decades under Russia and had improved quality of life, they would quickly come to their senses, but with Galicians its a different story. Truly greatest mistake by Stalin to add them in Ukraine, should had at least given Lvov oblast to Poland like British asked.(Well Hello Operation Vistula!!!) Then Stalin could left Stettin in German hands. Most infected part of the disease wouldnt then be attached in the Ukrainian nation. But he clearly had old Russian sensibilities from imperial times, and thought about gathering of the Rus land(at least in his subconciousness).

    Replies: @AP, @AP

    Also its a clear sign of losing battle when you bring your Polonized Rus ancestors on the debate, like that makes your arguments any stronger?

    We are discussing not only facts (about which family background is irrelevant) but also the nature and history of Rus people so yes this is relevant. If we were discussing the nature and attitudes of Russian nobility, I would take more seriously the argument of a descendent of White Russian exiles writing about his own people, than those of a Sovok whose knowledge comes from largely Soviet textbooks and textbooks that passed Soviet censorship. Becauae that it the level of your understanding about western Rus elites and Galicians.

  206. & AltanBakshi

    It is probably a little bit strange, but I basically agree with both of you. I think your opinions are a little extreme and truth is somewhere in the middle. FWIW…

    • Replies: @AP
    @Ano4

    Thanks.

    I will add that I don't know much about Buddhist doctrine, perhaps in your disputes he was right and you were wrong (he does seem very knowledgeable about that, but I can't judge), but he reveals himself as not a very good Buddhist seemingly. Quick to anger and insults, not calm, eager to justify mass killings by Muscovites/Russians whose nationalism he seems to hold. Something Soviet-boomerish about him.

    I understand online isn't real life, for him this may be like a video game, except with verbal sparring over history, rather than involving virtual bloodshed on a digital battlefield. He may be completely different in person (I should hope so, one can learn from him about his faith at least). But still, it's a funny sort of presentation for a Buddhist.

    Replies: @RSDB, @Ano4

  207. AP says:
    @Ano4
    @AP & AltanBakshi

    It is probably a little bit strange, but I basically agree with both of you. I think your opinions are a little extreme and truth is somewhere in the middle. FWIW...

    Replies: @AP

    Thanks.

    I will add that I don’t know much about Buddhist doctrine, perhaps in your disputes he was right and you were wrong (he does seem very knowledgeable about that, but I can’t judge), but he reveals himself as not a very good Buddhist seemingly. Quick to anger and insults, not calm, eager to justify mass killings by Muscovites/Russians whose nationalism he seems to hold. Something Soviet-boomerish about him.

    I understand online isn’t real life, for him this may be like a video game, except with verbal sparring over history, rather than involving virtual bloodshed on a digital battlefield. He may be completely different in person (I should hope so, one can learn from him about his faith at least). But still, it’s a funny sort of presentation for a Buddhist.

    • Replies: @RSDB
    @AP

    Buddhists in real life, as individuals, are more or less like other people, or so at least I've found so far in interactions. On the other hand, of course, the Buddhists I have met have mostly not been scholars of Buddhism.

    I have heard of some very pure, focused monks and some ... less pure monks. Both would agree on how they should be, it's only that not all of them are quite there yet.

    , @Ano4
    @AP


    But still, it’s a funny sort of presentation for a Buddhist.
     
    Well, Buddhist or otherwise we are all human beings first. When we have convictions we tend to cling to them. When the convictions of others contradict our own, we sometimes see these contradictions as a kind of opposition and feel discomfort. This discomfort can become a reason for anger, agression a.s.o.



    Fact is, as humans we are limited in our insight. Even very clever, very knowledgeable people (as both of you certainly are) have limits imposed to their understanding through their personal inclinations, experience, and acquired set of beliefs and convictions. All of us live in a kind of mental cage made of concepts, theories, belief systems, arbitrary preferences, subjective opinions. Reality is many things to many people. Reality is one, but we see it in billion of different ways. All of them subjective. Buddha reportedly said about that he happened to meet people who have been spared a physical disease for a more or less long period of time, but he has yet to meet a person who is free from mental afflictions.

    I have written about it in a reply to Dmitry a couple of weeks ago. I have had a distant relative who lived in a village in the Russian glubinka in a corner of Leningrad oblast. He was imprisoned in the GULAG camps for a long period (not on political grounds). He was a very wise man. Once I was talking with him about Spartacus, I was 7-8 years old then. I found the whole story of Spartacus absolutely amazing. He just smiled and said: " That was a long time ago and is not true". Это было давно и не правда.

    The past is foreign land. Sometimes even the present is.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

  208. @AP
    @Ano4

    Thanks.

    I will add that I don't know much about Buddhist doctrine, perhaps in your disputes he was right and you were wrong (he does seem very knowledgeable about that, but I can't judge), but he reveals himself as not a very good Buddhist seemingly. Quick to anger and insults, not calm, eager to justify mass killings by Muscovites/Russians whose nationalism he seems to hold. Something Soviet-boomerish about him.

    I understand online isn't real life, for him this may be like a video game, except with verbal sparring over history, rather than involving virtual bloodshed on a digital battlefield. He may be completely different in person (I should hope so, one can learn from him about his faith at least). But still, it's a funny sort of presentation for a Buddhist.

    Replies: @RSDB, @Ano4

    Buddhists in real life, as individuals, are more or less like other people, or so at least I’ve found so far in interactions. On the other hand, of course, the Buddhists I have met have mostly not been scholars of Buddhism.

    I have heard of some very pure, focused monks and some … less pure monks. Both would agree on how they should be, it’s only that not all of them are quite there yet.

    • Agree: Ano4
  209. @AP
    @AltanBakshi


    I clearly have read about different PLC than you have
     
    You have clearly read Soviet "history."

    The ruler couldnt decide budget or make any major decisions without the consensus of aristocracy
     
    Yes, it was not a despotism.

    you probably know about the shortcoming of Golden liberty, and how nobility often picked weak rulers, that could be easily manipulated, not always of course, but often, and nobles also casually took bribes from foreign countries so that they would backed candidate preferred by that foreign power.
     
    Half-truth. Golden Veto was first used only in 1652, but did not paralyze PLC until the 18th century (i.e., most of the time it wasn't used when Sobieski was king). It was finally eliminated in 1791 when Poland got a new constitution, but Poland was then dismembered by its neighbors. PLC didn't fall because its system was unreformable but because it was in a bad geographic position.

    impossibility of occupation of hostile Orthodox population for PLC
     
    10,000s of Orthodox fought for PLC. Orthodox population had mixed loyalties.

    Also Russias problem was as much or more the lack of natural defences than it was for PLC,
     
    Nonsense, it has large distances and forests. And General Winter.

    PLC, who had an excellent and natural borders on its north(sea) and south(mountains).
     
    Perhaps your Soviet books didn't include maps? Not all the north was sea. PLC also bordered Sweden to the North (Livonia). And to the South beyond the Carpathians were the Ukrainian steppes. So PLC was surrounded by Muscovites/Russians, Germans, Swedes, Ottomans and Tatars. In a similar position, PLC outlasted Imperial Germany.

    Also Russia had not definite technological advantage against the Tatars before the 18th Century
     
    Russian artillery was already more advanced and extensive during the takeover of Kazan in the 16th century. And of course the Siberian khanate was much more primitive than Muscovy.

    Even the Ming with their million men armies, muskets and cannons were defeated by the Manchus in 1644-1645
     
    I am not familiar enough with Chinese history to comment extensively, but Manchus were far from Russia and this was not simply a war with Manchus (it involved Chinese defections, etc.):

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transition_from_Ming_to_Qing

    Your problem is that you demand impossible standards from Russia regarding the successorship of Rus
     
    I make no demands of Russia and never denied that it was a successor of Rus. Russia is Muscovy transformed by Peter; Muscovy was Suzdal after Mongol/Tatar overlordship; Suzdal was a peripheral but true part of Rus, the only part of Rus that wasn't fully Slavic.

    Your problem is that you are a petty and parochial Muscovite tribalist. You think only Moscow was a successor of Rus.

    but with Galicia nothing matters, not even that they were longer under non-Rus foreign rule than they had existence as a part of the Rus
     
    It seems that you do not even know what Rus was.

    or even that they lost their faith or that their nobility like your ancestors started to speak and behave in the ways of the foreigners
     
    Rus changed ("lost?") their faith when they adopted Christianity, which was more advanced than the native paganism, from the alien Greeks. Some Rus later adopted Catholicism from their Polish Slavic brothers. So?

    As for language, Polish is no more alien to Ukraine than is the Great Russian speech. Polish was btw most likely your Khmelytsky's first language.

    Same happens when you compare PLC and Russia, Russia is always brutal
     
    Who slaughtered more Rus people, Muscovy or PLC? Who wiped out the Novgorod branch of Rus civilization, PLC or Muscovy? Sorry that facts are not your friends.

    Like there were no religious persecution there
     
    During counter-reformation there was persecution of Orthodoxy, generally initiated not by Poles but by Rus nobles such as Sapieha who felt that Orthodoxy was a backward dead end holding back the Rus people (same approach as St. Vladimir towards native Slavic pagan faith). However this policy was stopped prior to the Khmelytsky treason. The latter was primarily a class conflict of Rus petty nobility versus Rus magnates who were getting more power at the expense of the minor nobles. Khmelnytsky was actually hoping for help form the Polish king against the Rus magnates.

    like downplaying the meaning of St. Olga as a foreign viking
     
    Helga was a Viking as was her husband Ingvar. They forced Slavs to give them tribute, including slaves. When Slavs revolted against them and killed Ingvar, Helga slaughtered them.

    It's very funny when silly Slavic Ukrainian and Russian nationalists argue about whether this Helga was a Ukrainian or a Russian. Helga probably had more in common with the 20th century Germanic invaders of Slavic lands than she did with any Ukrainian or Russian ruler.

    But in your childishness you think that names are magic and because she was a Rus she must have been a Russian. LOL.

    And this bullshit about the Rus aristocrats in PLC
     
    Calling it bullshit is not an argument. Fact is that native Rus princes of PLC were the richest nobles in the PLC and that they directed much PLC policies, particularly towards the East. Your claim that this was a Polish government is demonstrably false. Attempted PLC unification with Muscovy was a project by Rus princes Vyshnyvetsky and Sapieha for the gathering of Rus lands.

    You couldn't contradict reality so you changed the subject by introducing hypothetical German nobles taking over PLC (never happened) or desperately crying "bullshit."

    its a clear sign of losing battle
     
    You demonstrated that you lost the "battle" when you initiated personal insults earlier.

    most family trees that claimed Varyag or Sarmatian heritage were fabrications both in PLC and Russian empire
     
    Genetics is great confirmation.

    Oh almost forgot, your maps, hey it shows that the Nazi Svoboda won the votes in Galicia, thanks for showing me right!
     
    Svoboda is as Nazi as the Austrian Freedom Party. Politically Galicia is the only region in Ukraine not dominated by oligarchic parties. It has Samopomich, Holos, Svoboda.

    Like Timoshenko isnt anything else than cunning centrist in Ukrainian politics.
     
    https://www.rt.com/news/tymoshenko-calls-destroy-russia-917/

    “This is really beyond all boundaries. It’s about time we grab our guns and kill go kill those damn Russians together with their leader,” Tymoshenko said.

    Most infected part of the disease wouldnt then be attached in the Ukrainian nation.
     
    Galicia is the healthiest part of Ukraine and Donbas the sickest. Donbas - abortion capital of the world, near-HIV capital of Europe, lowest fertility rate in Europe, etc. This is diseased.

    but if they would be couple decades under Russia and had improved quality of life, they would quickly come to their senses
     
    LOL.

    In 2014 Svoboda was more popular in Kiev than in Lviv oblast:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/26/%D0%A0%D0%B5%D0%B7%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8_%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%96%D0%B2_%D0%B4%D0%BE_%D0%92%D0%A0_%D0%A3%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%97%D0%BD%D0%B8_2014_%28%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%96%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%82%D1%96%D1%8F_%D0%92%D1%81%D0%B5%D1%83%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%97%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%B5_%D0%BE%D0%B1%E2%80%99%D1%94%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8F_%D0%A1%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B0%29.png

    Replies: @AltanBakshi, @AltanBakshi

    You have clearly read Soviet “history.”

    I have read only few Soviet history books in my life.

    10,000s of Orthodox fought for PLC. Orthodox population had mixed loyalties.

    Yes the Ukrainian Orthodox had mixed loyalties, but often they were source of discontentment and revolting for the PLC, how do you think integrating Tsardom of Russia would have then succeeded, you silly PLC larper. Its like I need to constantly explain this thing to you for your powers of deduction are quite lacking. If Ukraine was so hard to control, how PLC would then succeeded with controlling of Russia? Also I think that too much speculation with such alternative timelines and histories is not very constructive, why you dont speculate about things like what if Peter I or Ivan IV mothers got miscarriage, at least it would have been more probable than some war having a different ending, after all war does not need a one soldier, but different ruler creates a vastly different implications for the future of realm. But you would not because you think its futile to speculate with such things, but strangely more improbable outcomes, like outcome of war, are more worthy of your speculation(and building your very own fantasy history). There are too many people on this site who love to speculate different outcomes on some specific historical events like differing conclusion of some war and build a wonderful alternative timeline where the outcome would be ideal from their standpoint. Sad that I have lost that child like skill of using imagination in nonsensical ways.

    I dont get your point regarding the new PLC constitution, they did that when all was practically lost, not when it would had been useful, and trust me they had time, but being a proto-oligarch and bleeding their country dry was more important for them, although you as friend of present day Ukraine probably see something nice in it. Yes PLC outlasted Imperial Germany, so did Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Belgium, Luzembourg, Finland, I again dont get your point.

    Russian artillery was already more advanced and extensive during the takeover of Kazan in the 16th century. And of course the Siberian khanate was much more primitive than Muscovy.

    You dont do anything with premodern artillery in steppe warfare, yes when you have sieges, but not when you fight in the steppes. Ming bought best European artillery in 17th Century against Jurchens/Manchus and it didnt do shit for them. Also Kazan was a Tatar country, but not a real steppe nomad country, they were sedentary and most of population was farmers or Finno-Ugric forest dwellers.
    Here is one example how hard it is against nomads.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tumu_Crisis
    Here another
    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D1%80%D1%8B%D0%BC%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B4_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%9C%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B2%D1%83_(1571)

    I am not familiar enough with Chinese history to comment extensively, but Manchus were far from Russia and this was not simply a war with Manchus (it involved Chinese defections, etc.):

    Still Ming had a huge numerical superiority, but the Qing were half nomads themselves and they had very hard time with subjugation of last Mongol Khanate that threatened the China, the Zungar Khanate, even though they had many Mongol allies. Think about Scottish-English border Marches, they were a huge problem for England till 17th Century and even in the 18th Century Highlanders got as far as Derby(1745). Highlands were very thinly populated and much much smaller than great steppes from Black sea to Manchuria. You in my opinion underestimate the hardships of guarding such border that Russia had.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Zasechnaya_cherta

    “It was guarded by a local militia of about 35,000 in the second half of the 16th century. Another source gives an annual callup of 65,000. Behind the line was a mobile army headquartered in Tula (6,279 men in 1616, 17,005 in 1636).”

    During 17th Century no other European power had to keep such armies on permanent state of alert. Very rarely even whole PLC gathered such armies during the wartime. Think how much that drained tax income and resources of Russia? Again you employ totally different criteria for Russia and PLC. Russians succeeded in something that the Chinese did not succeed, even though Ming dynasty had third of the global GDP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_largest_historical_GDP#China
    https://www.researchgate.net/figure/China-and-India-Shares-of-World-GDP-Pre-Industrial-Revolution-percent-Source-Authors_fig10_254072591 by Angus Maddison
    Also Indians couldnt defend themselves from the warriors of steppe. After all Delhi sultanate lost to much smaller forces of Babur, the founder of Mughal empire in the 1526. Same with Persia. As you see I dont like when somebody makes analogy by using only one example, one should employ many analogies/facts when trying to make an argument, more supporting analogies/facts, then firmer is the ground for your arguments(is this good English?).

    Rus changed (“lost?”) their faith when they adopted Christianity, which was more advanced than the native paganism, from the alien Greeks. Some Rus later adopted Catholicism from their Polish Slavic brothers. So?

    They adopted uniatism or Catholicism only after the repression of common Orthodox population, funny how you forgot to add that. Also all European people adopted Christianity and forgot their native paganism, are you saying that conversion to paganism is same as one Christian sect forcing followers of another one to convert to their sect? So I must explain these simple things. AP when Christians convert pagans to Christianity, its seen as a good and noble deed from point of view of Christianity, but when forcefully converting other Christians, then its highly debatable. Strange again that if you dont see any difference?

    As for language, Polish is no more alien to Ukraine than is the Great Russian speech. Polish was btw most likely your Khmelytsky’s first language.

    In my understanding Ukrainian shares more words with Polish language than with Russian, but grammatically its much closer to Russian, although I dont know about Galician dialect, it could be more closer to Polish of course. Many Ukrainian nationalists employ that logic, but by that logic English would not be a Germanic language, but Romance language, after all it has shares more words with French and Latin. Still Low German (Plattdütsch) people integrated to German empire, though their language was more similar to Dutch, especially in the North West of Germany, and they had literary tradition, which was much greater than literary tradition of Ukrainian language, after all it was language employed by Hansa in Medieval times. People from the Northern third of present Germany spoke this language till the 19th Century.

    Helga was a Viking as was her husband Ingvar. They forced Slavs to give them tribute, including slaves. When Slavs revolted against them and killed Ingvar, Helga slaughtered them.

    It’s very funny when silly Slavic Ukrainian and Russian nationalists argue about whether this Helga was a Ukrainian or a Russian. Helga probably had more in common with the 20th century Germanic invaders of Slavic lands than she did with any Ukrainian or Russian ruler.

    But in your childishness you think that names are magic and because she was a Rus she must have been a Russian. LOL.

    He was both from the viewpoint of the present, for Ukraine is region of the Russia. You employ quite intersectional way of seeing history when it suits to you, in your opinion French probably not should celebrate Charlemagne or their founders like king Clovis, after all they are Germans from your point of view. Napoleon Italian and so on. After all their voice is different from the voice of common people and they cant speak for them. In your logic. This again shows that you have historiographical view that there is no continuums in history, only disconnections between ages. I myself like more holistic attitude, yes past is a foreign country, they do things there differently, but the change is gradual, like you when you were child, were quite different from your present self, right? Still I would not say that you are a completely different person or being now, for there is clear continuity. Or think about river? Rivers change their courses through history, they are quite different in upstream among mountains, from their lowlands or delta, there is nothing permanent in the river, but still there is a river!

    Half-truth. Golden Veto was first used only in 1652, but did not paralyze PLC until the 18th century (i.e., most of the time it wasn’t used when Sobieski was king). It was finally eliminated in 1791 when Poland got a new constitution, but Poland was then dismembered by its neighbors. PLC didn’t fall because its system was unreformable but because it was in a bad geographic position.

    The New Cambridge Modern History: Volume 5
    https://books.google.se/books?id=FzQ9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA562&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
    Here it says that half of the Sejm proceedings were “not brought to a successful conclusion” So you were wrong on that, though it also states that before Sobieski it was not a big problem. Still aristocratic or oligarchic republics are not very stable in the eyes of the history. And I didnt claim that PLC’s geographic position was excellent, but it was not bad in Central or Eastern European context. Till mid 18th Century its neighbours to the west were a collection of fragmented Germanic principalities.

    You couldn’t contradict reality so you changed the subject by introducing hypothetical German nobles taking over PLC (never happened) or desperately crying “bullshit.”

    How slow you are lately? I stated: “Thats what I meant by Swedish or German aristocrats, it was only a matter of time before it would had fragmented and exploited by foreign powers, no matter if the Russian Tsardom was or wasnt part of it.” I did not mean that they would gain ascendancy or power by infiltrating the PLC, but that foreign nobles and aristocrats would exploit(like they did in REAL history) oligarchic nature of PLC for the good of their own countries, like Austria, Russia, Sweden, Prussia, Saxony, France. Although in your hypothetical Polish-Lithuanian-Rus-Commonwealth the exploiters would have been mainly German and and Swedish nobles. I thought that it was easier to explain things for you in that way, because there were many different German countries with different aristocrats who could have exploited the PLC. I should just have written that German nobles and Sweden could have exploited the PLC(as they did). Also you forget the Swedish kings from the house of Vasa that ruled PLC in its heyday, for me it doesnt matter, but forgotting that is quite odd from you, because you constantly remind about the German rulers of Russia.

    You demonstrated that you lost the “battle” when you initiated personal insults earlier.

    Genetics is great confirmation.

    We are discussing not only facts (about which family background is irrelevant) but also the nature and history of Rus people so yes this is relevant. If we were discussing the nature and attitudes of Russian nobility, I would take more seriously the argument of a descendent of White Russian exiles writing about his own people, than those of a Sovok whose knowledge comes from largely Soviet textbooks and textbooks that passed Soviet censorship. Becauae that it the level of your understanding about western Rus elites and Galicians.

    Thats a false analogy, if I have ever seen. Insulting maybe childish and immature behaviour, but it does not disprove ones arguments. But claiming of having a greater knowledge based on ones genetics and heritage is. If one has experienced these historical events himself then he can claim a greater understanding on the subject matter. But being a descendant of someone like a White Russian is a double-edged sword, it can create a bias, or a lack of impartiality, although it too can create a healthy sense of ambition and motivation on these matters, also person like that hears lots of history from his family members, but mostly very subjective and emotionally colored. Strange that you lack such elementary understanding of the Western Enlightenment thought? Are Albanian nationalists or Turkish people automatically more trustworthy experts of their own history? These things depend on a context and individual. But you amuse me so much, a Sovok! Yes my parents met in Soviet Union, and there I was probably made, if you get the gist, but I wasnt even born there. Your powers of deduction astonish me! Although it tells me how your personal biases work… He sees something good in the Soviet Union, he must be a Sovok! He claims that PLC is bad, of course he has read censored Soviet books!

    Svoboda is as Nazi as the Austrian Freedom Party. Politically Galicia is the only region in Ukraine not dominated by oligarchic parties. It has Samopomich, Holos, Svoboda.

    If I would drink couple beers with FPÖ members and say how great were the SS-Men, they would in all probability kick me out from their pub or house, but if I would say to Svoboda guys that how great was the Galician SS, they would all cheer! Next you probably will claim that SS was not a Nazi organization.

    “This is really beyond all boundaries. It’s about time we grab our guns and kill go kill those damn Russians together with their leader,” Tymoshenko said.

    Timoshenko is a political prostitute, I feel sad when someone believes that she is sincere. There was a time when she carried a St Georges ribbon. Enough said.

    https://www.2000.ua/v-nomere/aspekty/istorija/grojsman-avakov-ljashko-timoshenko-nosili-georgievskie-lentochki.htm

    Galicia is the healthiest part of Ukraine and Donbas the sickest. Donbas – abortion capital of the world, near-HIV capital of Europe, lowest fertility rate in Europe, etc. This is diseased.

    And when it became so? During the (mis)rule of Ukraine. Of course something that was an elementary and organic part of Russia would suffer in artificial separation.

    I will add that I don’t know much about Buddhist doctrine, perhaps in your disputes he was right and you were wrong (he does seem very knowledgeable about that, but I can’t judge), but he reveals himself as not a very good Buddhist seemingly. Quick to anger and insults, not calm, eager to justify mass killings by Muscovites/Russians whose nationalism he seems to hold. Something Soviet-boomerish about him.

    I am very happy that you brought this up, I even thought that its odd that you nor Mr.Hack mention this during our debates. But you probably base your opinion on Hollywood pseudo-Buddhist/pseudo-eastern spirituality. If I would be a Christian Polish rambling against Russia or Serb preaching Serbian Kosoco or Ukrainian preaching against Russia, or Great Russian Orthodox man preaching fire and brimstone against NATO or USA, you probably would not question their Christianity. And I already mentioned that Im quick to anger, but afterwards I get calm very quickly in couple minutes and never I hold grudges.
    Although it is true that violence makes a bad Karma, and it should be employed only as a last resort.

    But why then I hold as a Buddhist man such strong opinions on matters of Ukrainian politics and history. My reason is compassion, you are free to disagree, but I believe that most Ukraine would have a better quality and standards of life as part of the Russia. Yes Russia is no wonderland, there is lots of corruption and oligarchs make problems there too. But in Russia they at least are in some kind of control of state and are forced to share some of their wealth and income, be it as little as it may be, but in Ukraine they are in the control of state and they dont want to share their wealth, in my opinion they are bleeding their country dry without caring of Ukraines future. This summer I spoke with common Ukrainians in one farm(in a EU country), and all of them were very tired of the situation of their country, they almost seemed to have lost all hope that things will get better there, it seemed to me that their country is much poorer and more unstable than Russia. Although I have only been once in Ukraine, it was in 2012, in Kiev and Lvov, still Kiev seemed culturally for me much, much closer to Russia than Slovakia, Czechia and Germany, never been in Poland, so I cant say. Actually I think that there are greater cultural differences between some of regions of Russia and Germany than the difference was for me between Kiev and Central Russia.

    Buddha is our guide and master, but in this broken world of Samsara we must do our own decisions, sometimes they are mistaken, sometimes they are right and often in between, it depends on many factors. Some time kind words arising from pride or greed are violence, sometimes a good beating is compassion(quite often Zen and Shaolin masters would employ this). But violence is very dangerous indeed and should not used easily and without very, very good reasons, it can be that I have gone on a wrong path on this matter, but I sincerely believe that my case is build on a more solid foundation than yours and I believe that in longer term both Russia and Ukraine would have greater economical safety if they would be together. Also I dont play videogames. And I can assure you that I debate in a similar way with people that I have met at least couple times. Yes its sad that I insult you, but I have my reasons, many commenters on this site are so lost in my opinion that I just dont want to waste time by arguing with them, but before this khokhlosratch I thought that you are a very intelligent person(and I still believe so, but not in matters of Russian history) and I almost always agreed with you, so it was sad to notice that you have in my view so mistaken opinions about the history, PLC, Russia, Muscovy, Ukraine and so on. If I have offended you, then I am very sorry. But I must say that often I read my text before posting and I do lots of censoring! What I said regarding Stalin and steppes of Karaganda was clearly wrong from a Buddhist point of view, but then we Buddhists are as human as rest of the humanity. Only group among us that has some kind of claim of spiritual superiority is the Monastic community, and I mean among traditional(true) Buddhists of Asia. Although it does not mean that we should not strive to be better on individual level.

    Also having a thick skin and taking insults as a challenge is proper behaviour for a man. Manly behaviour, they use good term for that in Sanskrit language texts of Buddhism, Virya/manly diligence or persistence or བརྩོན་འགྲུས།

    I have resigned to my fate, let us continue this pointless debate, my ego is too strong so I am locked in this state of existence like a ghost haunting old battlegrounds.

    Also ano4 how can agree with both of us? Is that not a sign of cognitive dissonance? You want Slavic confederation, but which federation of confederation has succeeded without dominating element? Even in Switzerland the great majority are Swiss German, and the historical narrative starts from their struggle against HLR. Romandie or Ticino had totally different origins than some small Swiss cantons fighting against the Holy Roman Emperor. And we still dont know if EU is a success story or not( and even in EU Germany and France dominate).

  210. @AP
    @AltanBakshi


    I clearly have read about different PLC than you have
     
    You have clearly read Soviet "history."

    The ruler couldnt decide budget or make any major decisions without the consensus of aristocracy
     
    Yes, it was not a despotism.

    you probably know about the shortcoming of Golden liberty, and how nobility often picked weak rulers, that could be easily manipulated, not always of course, but often, and nobles also casually took bribes from foreign countries so that they would backed candidate preferred by that foreign power.
     
    Half-truth. Golden Veto was first used only in 1652, but did not paralyze PLC until the 18th century (i.e., most of the time it wasn't used when Sobieski was king). It was finally eliminated in 1791 when Poland got a new constitution, but Poland was then dismembered by its neighbors. PLC didn't fall because its system was unreformable but because it was in a bad geographic position.

    impossibility of occupation of hostile Orthodox population for PLC
     
    10,000s of Orthodox fought for PLC. Orthodox population had mixed loyalties.

    Also Russias problem was as much or more the lack of natural defences than it was for PLC,
     
    Nonsense, it has large distances and forests. And General Winter.

    PLC, who had an excellent and natural borders on its north(sea) and south(mountains).
     
    Perhaps your Soviet books didn't include maps? Not all the north was sea. PLC also bordered Sweden to the North (Livonia). And to the South beyond the Carpathians were the Ukrainian steppes. So PLC was surrounded by Muscovites/Russians, Germans, Swedes, Ottomans and Tatars. In a similar position, PLC outlasted Imperial Germany.

    Also Russia had not definite technological advantage against the Tatars before the 18th Century
     
    Russian artillery was already more advanced and extensive during the takeover of Kazan in the 16th century. And of course the Siberian khanate was much more primitive than Muscovy.

    Even the Ming with their million men armies, muskets and cannons were defeated by the Manchus in 1644-1645
     
    I am not familiar enough with Chinese history to comment extensively, but Manchus were far from Russia and this was not simply a war with Manchus (it involved Chinese defections, etc.):

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transition_from_Ming_to_Qing

    Your problem is that you demand impossible standards from Russia regarding the successorship of Rus
     
    I make no demands of Russia and never denied that it was a successor of Rus. Russia is Muscovy transformed by Peter; Muscovy was Suzdal after Mongol/Tatar overlordship; Suzdal was a peripheral but true part of Rus, the only part of Rus that wasn't fully Slavic.

    Your problem is that you are a petty and parochial Muscovite tribalist. You think only Moscow was a successor of Rus.

    but with Galicia nothing matters, not even that they were longer under non-Rus foreign rule than they had existence as a part of the Rus
     
    It seems that you do not even know what Rus was.

    or even that they lost their faith or that their nobility like your ancestors started to speak and behave in the ways of the foreigners
     
    Rus changed ("lost?") their faith when they adopted Christianity, which was more advanced than the native paganism, from the alien Greeks. Some Rus later adopted Catholicism from their Polish Slavic brothers. So?

    As for language, Polish is no more alien to Ukraine than is the Great Russian speech. Polish was btw most likely your Khmelytsky's first language.

    Same happens when you compare PLC and Russia, Russia is always brutal
     
    Who slaughtered more Rus people, Muscovy or PLC? Who wiped out the Novgorod branch of Rus civilization, PLC or Muscovy? Sorry that facts are not your friends.

    Like there were no religious persecution there
     
    During counter-reformation there was persecution of Orthodoxy, generally initiated not by Poles but by Rus nobles such as Sapieha who felt that Orthodoxy was a backward dead end holding back the Rus people (same approach as St. Vladimir towards native Slavic pagan faith). However this policy was stopped prior to the Khmelytsky treason. The latter was primarily a class conflict of Rus petty nobility versus Rus magnates who were getting more power at the expense of the minor nobles. Khmelnytsky was actually hoping for help form the Polish king against the Rus magnates.

    like downplaying the meaning of St. Olga as a foreign viking
     
    Helga was a Viking as was her husband Ingvar. They forced Slavs to give them tribute, including slaves. When Slavs revolted against them and killed Ingvar, Helga slaughtered them.

    It's very funny when silly Slavic Ukrainian and Russian nationalists argue about whether this Helga was a Ukrainian or a Russian. Helga probably had more in common with the 20th century Germanic invaders of Slavic lands than she did with any Ukrainian or Russian ruler.

    But in your childishness you think that names are magic and because she was a Rus she must have been a Russian. LOL.

    And this bullshit about the Rus aristocrats in PLC
     
    Calling it bullshit is not an argument. Fact is that native Rus princes of PLC were the richest nobles in the PLC and that they directed much PLC policies, particularly towards the East. Your claim that this was a Polish government is demonstrably false. Attempted PLC unification with Muscovy was a project by Rus princes Vyshnyvetsky and Sapieha for the gathering of Rus lands.

    You couldn't contradict reality so you changed the subject by introducing hypothetical German nobles taking over PLC (never happened) or desperately crying "bullshit."

    its a clear sign of losing battle
     
    You demonstrated that you lost the "battle" when you initiated personal insults earlier.

    most family trees that claimed Varyag or Sarmatian heritage were fabrications both in PLC and Russian empire
     
    Genetics is great confirmation.

    Oh almost forgot, your maps, hey it shows that the Nazi Svoboda won the votes in Galicia, thanks for showing me right!
     
    Svoboda is as Nazi as the Austrian Freedom Party. Politically Galicia is the only region in Ukraine not dominated by oligarchic parties. It has Samopomich, Holos, Svoboda.

    Like Timoshenko isnt anything else than cunning centrist in Ukrainian politics.
     
    https://www.rt.com/news/tymoshenko-calls-destroy-russia-917/

    “This is really beyond all boundaries. It’s about time we grab our guns and kill go kill those damn Russians together with their leader,” Tymoshenko said.

    Most infected part of the disease wouldnt then be attached in the Ukrainian nation.
     
    Galicia is the healthiest part of Ukraine and Donbas the sickest. Donbas - abortion capital of the world, near-HIV capital of Europe, lowest fertility rate in Europe, etc. This is diseased.

    but if they would be couple decades under Russia and had improved quality of life, they would quickly come to their senses
     
    LOL.

    In 2014 Svoboda was more popular in Kiev than in Lviv oblast:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/26/%D0%A0%D0%B5%D0%B7%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8_%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%96%D0%B2_%D0%B4%D0%BE_%D0%92%D0%A0_%D0%A3%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%97%D0%BD%D0%B8_2014_%28%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%96%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%82%D1%96%D1%8F_%D0%92%D1%81%D0%B5%D1%83%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%97%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%B5_%D0%BE%D0%B1%E2%80%99%D1%94%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8F_%D0%A1%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B0%29.png

    Replies: @AltanBakshi, @AltanBakshi

    You have clearly read Soviet “history.”

    I have read only few Soviet history books in my life.

    10,000s of Orthodox fought for PLC. Orthodox population had mixed loyalties.

    Yes the Ukrainian Orthodox had mixed loyalties, but often they were source of discontentment and revolting for the PLC, how do you think integrating Tsardom of Russia would have then succeeded, you silly PLC larper. Its like I need to constantly explain this thing to you for your powers of deduction are quite lacking. If Ukraine was so hard to control, how PLC would then succeeded with controlling of Russia? Also I think that too much speculation with such alternative timelines and histories is not very constructive, why you dont speculate about things like what if Peter I or Ivan IV mothers got miscarriage, at least it would have been more probable than some war having a different ending, after all war does not need a one soldier, but different ruler creates a vastly different implications for the future of realm. But you would not because you think its futile to speculate with such things, but strangely more improbable outcomes, like outcome of war, are more worthy of your speculation(and building your very own fantasy history). There are too many people on this site who love to speculate different outcomes on some specific historical events like differing conclusion of some war and build a wonderful alternative timeline where the outcome would be ideal from their standpoint. Sad that I have lost that child like skill of using imagination in nonsensical ways.

    I dont get your point regarding the new PLC constitution, they did that when all was practically lost, not when it would had been useful, and trust me they had time, but being a proto-oligarch and bleeding their country dry was more important for them, although you as friend of present day Ukraine probably see something nice in it. Yes PLC outlasted Imperial Germany, so did Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Belgium, Luzembourg, Finland, I again dont get your point.

    Russian artillery was already more advanced and extensive during the takeover of Kazan in the 16th century. And of course the Siberian khanate was much more primitive than Muscovy.

    You dont do anything with premodern artillery in steppe warfare, yes when you have sieges, but not when you fight in the steppes. M