Alexey Navalny detained on return to Moscow - Page 6 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15150978
Odiseizam wrote:Bingo!!! the problem is that people think in usA there is democracy, wrong, they are modern empires with main shadowy elites behind the scenes, tho in Russia that scene is more open, they dont have enough money to bribe everyone locally and globally!

Not exactly. It works differently.
There is no lizard people who control everyone.
It's just multi billion companies, career politicians and journalists affecting one another into this complex shit show in which noone actually rules and there is no stability.
They don't even do it on purpose they are just bind by their interests and everyone is bribing, extorting, blackmailing and using everyone.
More or less capitalism has reached its breaking point.
#15150981
Heisenberg wrote:The quote you chose backs up what I said. I didn't say specifically that Navalny is a neo-Nazi. I said he has ties to them, which he does.


False. Your partisan source has been thoroughly addressed, none of the below is evidence of your propaganda: https://jacobinmag.com/2017/07/alexey-n ... ment-trump

Now who's being obtuse? In my experience, people without far right sympathies don't usually attend marches organised by the far right.


As Atlantis informed you, you can't call the guy a 'nationalist' and a puppet of the west at the same time. You got to choose your poison. Navalny is smart enough to understand this and play with the cards that have been dealt already for him ;)
Being a nationalist does not make him "neonazi", nor does it mean that he has "neo-nazi connections" as you claimed but most importantly it does not make him worse than Putin as is evidenced below.

Heisenberg wrote:Yeah, I'd say that supporting a far right campaign named "Stop Feeding the Caucasus" and calling for strict limits on Central Asian (hint: Muslim) migration to Russia is not the sort of thing that cuddly liberals do.


Your source:

In an interview in January, Navalny laid out the main points of the so-called nationalist agenda, including combating illegal immigration and ethnically based organized-crime groups; protecting ethnic Russians abroad; and bringing order to the North Caucasus, which he has called a de facto lawless "off-shore zone."

He called for an open discussion of all these issues -- which he prefers to call a "realistic agenda" -- in order to develop policies that will prevent ethnic conflict. "This is a basic, realistic agenda," he said. "It exists, but for some reason many in the liberal movement think that all these questions have to be suppressed because a discussion of them would mean the mythical dark side of the soul of the Russian people will be inflamed and the Russian people will immediately produce a Hitler and so on. This is all absolute nonsense."


Sounds like a garden-variety conservative. The more you bring these forward the more appealing you make this person to the average Russian and the more your characterisation of "neo-nazi" falls flat on its face. The alternative to Navalny, Putin. :lol:

Here you go, unless Time magazine is also too pro-Putin for you.


Sounds like an angel compared to Putin who rounded up the migrants as per your own source:

https://world.time.com/2013/10/14/russia-responds-to-anti-migrant-riots-by-arresting-migrants/

Russia Responds to Anti-Migrant Riots by Arresting Migrants

Once again, please show me where I said "Putin is the antidote" to anything. You won't be able to, of course, because I never said it.


Since you do not stand by your own arguments, I am saying now that Putin is far more far-right and "neonazi" than Navalny and your source has confirmed this conclusively.

What do want for Navalny? They have already tried to poison him and he is currently in prison. You 're calling him a stooge with "neonazi connections", what do you want to happen to him? You want him to run or stay in prison or stay dead? What is it exactly that would make you happy Heisenberg? What's your point here?

I think it's pretty clear that my "dismissive attitude" in this thread is reserved for western liberal interventionists, and not "Ukrainian & Russian democracy". Perhaps this is why I've so clearly hit a nerve...


You have gone from, "see you later" to "I'm back", it's laughable claiming you 've hit anyone's nerves other than your own.

The only western interventionist in this conversation is your own self. You are the only one supporting a Russian faction(Putin) by trying to dismiss his opposition with not a single real argument. You 're an agitprop for Putin and have made several statements against Navalny that do not stand up to scrutiny.

You have done this against the Russian opposition leader that has been poisoned and imprisoned and have not even had the decency to state your opinion.

Of all your histrionics, this is the icing on the cake. As a general rule, don't present things as direct quotes when they aren't direct quotes. It's widely considered to be bad form. ;)


Why is it "bad form" to quote your own words? That's a new one. :lol:

You claimed that Navalny is a "CIA-MI6 neo nazi stooge", for evidence you said "well the FT and Economist like him, so he must be"

Get a grip.
#15150984
Something of a reminder, although I'd say democracy is ultimately impossible in a Capitalist society, and that the West is doomed in any case, going down it's unique path to destruction;

https://www.greanvillepost.com/2021/01/ ... ompatible/


When determining the path of development of Russia and Russian society, the most pressing question is: who are we? A Russian super-ethnos that emerged in the European space and united the Slavs ideologically, economically and politically into a political nation and created its powerful Russian civilisation? Or a part of western (European) civilisation – a pitiful limitrophe between Europe and Asia?

In choosing the path of development of a society, a set of values that distinguishes it from other peoples is decisive.

To unite into a single people and nation, a system of values must be developed in the form of ideas, symbols and images that characterise the world in which they want to live, acceptable conditions and way of life, spiritual principles and ways of their implementation.

All of this is built not on an empty place, but on the basis of civilisational culture, cultivated in the ethnic group by previous generations and covering all spheres of human life. Any culture lays down different values ​​in its carriers, and a strictly defined set of them is the basis of the ethnic character.

What set of spiritual and moral values ​​is characteristic of the Russian people and what is the value base of Russian society? Why is it fundamentally different from the western one? Why are these values ​​incompatible?

The way of life of the Russian ethnic group was originally communal in nature with its own peculiar culture. The social organisation of Russian society is based on the institution of a community with traditional moral values and the priority of protecting public rather than personal interests, wherein society, in turn, must protect the interests of the individual. A person was evaluated on the basis of their personal contribution and usefulness to the common cause. I.e., a collectivist civilisational code was laid in Russian society, defining each individual in terms of usefulness for society as a whole. Hence the craving of the Russian people for justice and a social state.

Community ethics and morals have laid the foundation for the formation of a society of mutual assistance, in which the problems facing it are solved together. In the community values there was no sacralisation of private property, which leads to social inequality, and therefore the protection of human honour in Russian society has always been considered more important than the protection of property, since for Russian society property is the result of labour, not profit.

Thus, Russian society has developed its own system of values: the primacy of common interests (collectivism) over individual ones, justice over the law, power over property, service over possession, responsiveness over acquisitiveness. In addition, Russian society was characterised by paternalism, the sacralisation of the leader, the father of the nation, combining unity of command and popular trust.

It was not by chance that Orthodoxy was laid in the foundations of Russian society as a set of parishes-communities united by common values, meeting the collectivist aspirations of the Russian ethnos and contributing to the consolidation of a society in which public interests always prevailed over the interests of the individual. Orthodoxy has become the basis of the morality and culture of Russian society, which has absorbed traditional Russian values.

The image and way of life of the ethnic groups of the west was fundamentally different from Russian ones, and it was based on completely different customs and traditions that developed other civilisational values based on individualism and the priority of personal interests. They were later used as the basis for the ideology of liberalism, which denies any kind of collectivism.

Liberalism is characterised by the absolutisation of the individual’s freedom as the highest good and self-expression, their independence in choosing a set of values for themselves and using them for personal interests without any obligations to society. The task of liberalism is to liberate the individual from all forms of collective identity and atomise society. For liberalism, wealth is the only value to strive for. It provides for the monetisation of anything and everything and making a profit at the expense of others. In the name of profit, the strong can eat the weak. Liberalism frees the individual from society and the state, and the state frees itself from the individual. In this regard, the social state is incompatible with the ideas of liberalism.

In liberalism, the priority of individual rights over the rights of society leads to social inequality. If in Russian society social justice is the basis of morality, in western society it is self-interest and consumerism at the expense of others. In this regard, liberalism is unacceptable for the Russian person. Even Danilevsky wrote that in Russian life, harmony passes through trial, overcoming, self-knowledge, and in western life – through pleasure, wealth, gratification.

In Russian society, the preaching of responsibility is opposed to the preaching of freedom as an absolute and requires the restriction of freedom for the sake of public interests, narrowing the rights of the individual by their duties to society. It is not by chance that western society was based on the religion of Catholicism and its trends, which profess the priority of the individual over society. The struggle between Orthodoxy and western Christianity is always a struggle between two cultures and different ideological values, a struggle between collectivism, in which everyone survives together, and individualism, where everyone survives as best they can.

In Russian traditional culture – the cult of sympathy, empathy and mutual assistance, and in the Western traditional culture – the cult of superiority, personal success and suppression of fellow man. The western project is based on liberalism with its traditional values of freedom and individual success. This was especially evident in the United States with their idea of the “American dream”.

Thus, over time, in the process of ethnogenesis, two Christian civilisations developed with different fundamental principles of life, different social models of societal organisation, different civilisational values and different civilisational codes of the peoples inhabiting them. In Russia – with a collectivist form of identity, and in the west – with an individualist one. The western culture is characterised by the cult of personal wealth, and the Russian culture is characterised by the cult of prosperity. In Russian self-consciousness, wealth is a sin. Capital destroys the soul, creates injustice and humiliates the other person. It’s not for nothing that the collectivist ideology of communism, born in the west, has found fertile ground in Russian civilisation.

Western civilisation is built on the desire to conquer the “infidels” and convert them to their faith, and Russian (with its imperial template) ― not to conquer, but mainly to incorporate other peoples into their environment with the preservation of their traditions, culture, religion and way of life. In Russia, the protection of the land was encouraged, and in the west ― its capture.

Russian traditional values suggest a different way of development based on collective forms of social organisation and a different way of life, not on individual consumerism, but on the creation of spiritual and material benefits in the interests of society and the individual. This is the otherness of Russia as a bastion of civilisational values different from the west. For the Russian person, the highest value is justice and the resulting sense of dignity, which does not allow one’s own humiliation and does not humiliate another.

The main lines dividing humanity are primarily the conflict of cultures, which leads to a conflict of nations and civilisations in global politics. Civilisation is the broadest level of cultural identity of people, characterised by such objective elements as history, religion, language, social institutions, self-identification and the national identity of people.

The Russian scientist Danilevsky, who is the founder of the civilisational approach to history, in the 19th century justified the theory of civilisations as a unity of cultural and historical types that are in continuous struggle with each other. In his works, he proved that European civilisation is alien and even hostile to Russian civilisation, and its interests are directly opposite to the interests of Russian society. At the end of the 20th century, the American scientist Huntington developed the theory of the clash of civilisations, in which he also substantiated that the world order on the European continent determines the development and conflict of western and Russian civilisations, and that their conflict is irreconcilable.

In the course of its development, the Russian ethnos united into a political nation and was able to create not only a stable state formation, but also a powerful Russian civilisation. The socio-ethnic interpretation of a nation presupposes a community of people connected by a common past, culture, language, religion and customs, and the political one – a form of co-citizenship associated with statehood and civil identity, which includes all people on a certain territory and assumes the form “one nation – one territory – one state “.

Russia is not a limitrophe. Russian traditional values ​​were able to unite all peoples inhabiting its territory, regardless of their ethnicity, into a single political nation, which became the basis of the Russian world and which included everyone involved in a common historical memory, Russian culture and general views on social life. This geopolitical and cultural-historical community of people who consider themselves Russian in spirit was able to offer the world a different image of the world order, where public interests prevail over individual interests and everyone survives not at the expense of each other, but in close interaction for common goals.

The national communities living in the Russian and western civilisations have formed different civilisational values, they have fundamentally different national identity and national consciousness. National identity implies the awareness of ethnic groups of their belonging to a particular national group, and national identity is characterised by a set of ideals, cultural norms, worldview and social ideas of the national community. Since the national identity of the peoples of these civilisations is fundamentally different, they cannot integrate in any way.

In connection with different concepts of the organisation of social life, different goal-setting and the incompatibility of the civilisation codes and civilisational values ​​of the peoples of the two civilisations, there has always been a rivalry between them for influence in the world and a tough growing standoff, often resulting in bloody wars. Hence the desire of the west by any means to conquer and subjugate the Russian civilisation.

The attempts of the Russian elite in different historical periods – from Peter the Great to the present – to integrate Russia into western civilisation did not and could not receive support in society and ended in failure, since we are too different. In modern Russia, attempts by liberals to re-integrate Russia into Europe are also not supported by society, and the liberal discourse imposed by them is rejected.

Part of society under the influence of liberal propaganda still loses its Russian identity, but it is impossible to recode the Russian civilisation code. The liberal value base based on private property and individualism did not become sacred in Russia. All of this suggests that the concept of the development of Russian civilisation in no way lies in the plane of integration with western civilisation, we are irreconcilable competitors with them and can develop only by competing with each other. Russia is one of the world civilisations that has withstood violent clashes with other civilisations, and its future is in independent development based on Russian civilisational values.



Others may wish to sell out to the West and it's anti-values, but they'll have to as much as admit that they are mercenary liars to do it.
#15150985
annatar1914 wrote:Something of a reminder, although I'd say democracy is ultimately impossible in a Capitalist society, and that the West is doomed in any case, going down it's unique path to destruction;

https://www.greanvillepost.com/2021/01/ ... compatible


Others may wish to sell out to the West and it's anti-values, but they'll have to as much as admit that they are mercenary liars to do it.


What a bunch of nonsense. You can't be seriously endorsing this claptrap? :eh:

This takes the cake:

Western civilisation is built on the desire to conquer the “infidels” and convert them to their faith, and Russian (with its imperial template) ― not to conquer, but mainly to incorporate other peoples into their environment with the preservation of their traditions, culture, religion and way of life. In Russia, the protection of the land was encouraged, and in the west ― its capture.


:lol:

The whole thing is bog-standard propaganda, creates a false dichotomy where none exists and then assumes some imaginary high-ground.
#15150986
noemon wrote:False. Your partisan source has been thoroughly addressed, none of the below is evidence of your propaganda: https://jacobinmag.com/2017/07/alexey-n ... ment-trump

As Atlantis informed you, you can't call the guy a 'nationalist' and a puppet of the west at the same time. You got to choose your poison. Navalny is smart enough to understand this and play with the cards that have been dealt already for him ;)



Your source:



Sounds like a garden-variety conservative. Are you serious? The more you bring these forward the more appealing your make this person to the average Russian and the more your characterisation of neo-nazis falls flat on its face. The alternative to Navalny, Putin. :lol:



Sounds like an angel compared to Putin who rounded up the migrants as per your own source:

https://world.time.com/2013/10/14/russia-responds-to-anti-migrant-riots-by-arresting-migrants/

Russia Responds to Anti-Migrant Riots by Arresting Migrants



You behave like Pants-of-Dog. Since you do not stand by your own arguments, I am saying now that Putin is far more far-right and "neonazi" than Navalny and your source has confirmed this conclusively.



You have gone from, "see you later" to "I'm back", it's laughable claiming you 've hit anyone's nerves other than your own.

The only western interventionist in this conversation is your own self. You are the only one supporting a Russian faction(Putin) by trying to dismiss his opposition with not a single real argument. You 're an agitprop for Putin and have made several statements against Navalny that do not stand up to scrutiny.

You have done this against the Russian opposition leader that has been poisoned and imprisoned.



What is bad form to quote your own words? That's a new one. :lol:

You claimed that Navalny is a CIA-MI6 neo nazi stooge, for evidence you said "well the FT and Economist like him, so he must be"

Get a grip.

1) you people have to stop using that left-centre-right scale, it's not pragmatic to the actions someone has to take to run a state in reality . Sometimes you have to do left actions sometimes you ahve to do right. That's how a successful human works, by adapting at each situation

2)It's not about Putin being a better leader, its about what putins position contributes to the state and what it represents.
Putin is stability, Putin is the person under which Russia recovered from its collapse and communism, Putin is the face of new Russia.
3) Putins era will end at one point but again I repeat it has to happen SMOOOOTH, Russia can't afford gambling on a republican circus so early after its collapse. 3 decades is too little for the longterm, they still haven't fully recovered from the damages done to society military and economy during 19th and 20th centuries.
They ahve to play the sure games only. And the sure game is Putin for now.
This topic should be ended by now
#15150989
Hellas me ponas wrote:Not exactly. It works differently.
There is no lizard people who control everyone.
It's just multi billion companies, career politicians and journalists affecting one another into this complex shit show in which noone actually rules and there is no stability.
They don't even do it on purpose they are just bind by their interests and everyone is bribing, extorting, blackmailing and using everyone.
More or less capitalism has reached its breaking point.


I'll will dissagree behind every empire there is pride and need for continuity thus there are elites that are behind the scenes, in usA there are two groups neocons and globalists both seeking to maximize american might through own perspective, in Russia also one stream are patriots and other one ex-communists, in both of the cases there are ideologies behind the scenes that dictate the tempo, whether they are Blessed or possessed thats another thing, after all this world rests on spiritual live energies i.e. they are the backbone of all that surrounds us ...

@annatar1914 nice read, but what noemon cant understant is that she is too much biased by her mindset that eventually tho probably unintentionally jump in attack mode when taking side ... in my case whats matter is debating with others that are willing to examine the arguments not rushing to refute them, in her case that would demystifying the myth how democracy will made Russia wealth and prosperous what is just wishfull thinking, I see how prosperous is example Greece nowadays, if they werent using false skims even this level of growth wouldnt be achieved, simply corruption cant be evaded by democracy but transparency mids Open Society, what is still undoable exactly even in Greece how so it would be in Russia or usA, causality rests my case, and only thing that can change that is intervention from above i.e. Higher Authority, in case of modern empires that means for Russia selling Orthodoxy so it would embrace mammonism and like that to became most decadent place in the world if we know how cheerful are russians even without money :) sorry for this metaphysical digression in navalny news topic ...
#15150991
Odiseizam wrote:@annatar1914 nice read, but what noemon cant understant is that she is too much biased by her mindset that eventually tho probably unintentionally jump in attack mode when taking side ... in my case whats matter is debating with others that are willing to examine the arguments not rushing to refute them, in her case that would demystifying the myth how democracy will made Russia wealth and prosperous what is just wishfull thinking,


Noemon is addressing arguments, while you are trying to insult noemon directly without even knowing anything or anybody.

That is called an ad-hom and it proves that you are wrong.
#15150997
noemon wrote:What a bunch of nonsense. You can't be seriously endorsing this claptrap? :eh:

This takes the cake:



:lol:

The whole thing is bog-standard propaganda, creates a false dichotomy where none exists and then assumes some imaginary high-ground.


@noemon

I did not expect you to endorse it. After all, you're rooting for Achilles and ''Liberalism'' ;)
#15151001
annatar1914 wrote:@noemon

I did not expect you to endorse it. After all, you're rooting for Achilles and ''Liberalism'' ;)


Don't put me in nonsense categories to dismiss me. I am not doing that to you, it's rude.

Think about the arguments themselves instead of your interlocutor.

The text you posted creates a false dichotomy where none exists, "Russians are not conquerors we are integrators". Are you bloody serious? :lol: "Faux Collectivism" was drilled into your brains by 70 years of communist brainwashing, anti-wealth was a communist flag not an integral of the Russian ethos.

You have had the same European Royalty as every other western country on earth until a tiny minority took over and murdered your elites in cold blood. You have been lost in the wilderness ever since. You have been under the same education, religion, history, alphabet as the rest of Europe(the 2 alphabets are the Athenian=Greek=Russian and the Spartan=Latin) until a sect retarded your political development. There is no substantive difference at a civilisational level.

Russia established Switzerland, Russia established liberalism in Europe at a time that Metternich was working in overdrive to stop it.
#15151002
annatar1914 wrote:@noemon

I did not expect you to endorse it. After all, you're rooting for Achilles and ''Liberalism'' ;)

Honestly mate. That thing you just sent, it was very similar to my little cousins understanding of the world. In your spectrum I'd be a far right authoritarian.
But this shit, I don't mean any disrespect mate, but these stuff just insult the forum and it's members. You can't post that and then expect people to take it seriously.
#15151003
@noemon I don't know what I've done to upset you lately, but you're acting like a complete fucking arsehole. This isn't the first time you've opted to hurl insults at me rather than have a proper discussion, so I'm done. Declare "victory" all you want.

That said, I cannot let this slide:

noemon wrote:Why is it "bad form" to quote your own words? That's a new one. :lol:

Because they are not my words, as you know perfectly well. You are consciously and deliberately lying.
#15151005
Heisenberg wrote:@noemon I don't know what I've done to upset you lately, but you're acting like a complete fucking arsehole. This isn't the first time you've opted to hurl insults at me rather than have a proper discussion, so I'm done. Declare "victory" all you want.

That said, I cannot let this slide:

Because they are not my words, as you know perfectly well. You are consciously and deliberately lying.


I'm quoting this for posterity just in case you decide to delete it later.

Calling me an arsehole for addressing your arguments is one thing, calling me a liar for addressing what you did say is another story however.

If you had a iota of decency you would actually demonstrate how the heck "I lied". A lie in written conversation is easily challenged but clearly you can't even do that.

I repeat the "lie":

You claimed that Navalny is a "CIA-MI6, neo-nazi stooge", for evidence you said "well the FT and Economist like him, so he must be".

You actually did say these things.

Heisenberg

Heisenberg wrote:It's funny - and more than a little shocking - how gullible western leaders are every time there's a "resistance" figure in a designated enemy country. Navalny is a prat, with ties to a lot of pretty unpleasant people on Russia's far right. I suspect the US, UK and EU like him because they think they have another Yeltsin on their hands.

.....

Look at Ukraine. When the EU, US and UK supported the "Euromaidan" nonsense, they thought they'd found their Ukrainian Yeltsin figure in the form of Petro Poroshenko. Then, as things tend to go with CIA and MI6-supported sham revolutions, they lost control of their chosen idiot and it resulted in the far right gaining the ascendancy in Ukraine. I suspect exactly the same thing will happen if they western powers get their way and Navalny comes to power: they'll think they finally have a nice "liberal" puppet, but the Russian neo-Nazis who have played a part in Navalny attaining his current level of prominence might have other ideas

....

Indeed, the fact that the Economist and Financial Times - publications which value economic liberalism above all else and have a track record of defending free market dictators over democratically elected socialists - love Alexei Navalny so much should be a red flag to anyone, not just a cranky socialist like me.


If you claim my summation is misinterpreting you then you are more than welcome to show how that is, without insults and screams.
#15151006
@noemon ;

Don't put me in nonsense categories to dismiss me. I am not doing that to you, it's rude.


I am placing you in the category that you proudly claim for yourself, that of Western style Liberalism. I would say that you place me in a ''nonsense category'', when you should know that I'm a Socialist, albeit a non-Marxist one.

Think about the arguments themselves instead of your interlocutor.


I am. I understood quite plainly that you very rightfully placed Homer and his Achilles as the founding source of Western liberalism, even Western civilization itself. Russia is built on another basis, one might say strictly on Orthodoxy and not Homer, maybe Rome but not Greece.

The text you posted creates a false dichotomy where none exists, "Russians are not conquerors we are integrators". Are you bloody serious? :lol: "Faux Collectivism" was drilled into your brains by 70 years of communist brainwashing, anti-wealth was a communist flag not an integral of the Russian ethos.


I simply deny that. Revolution only succeeds to the extent that it ever does when the ground is organically prepared for it.

You have had the same European Royalty as every other western country on earth


Germanic parasites, the ''Romanovs'' being of the House of Oldenbourg-Holstein-Gottorp, and founded by a Westernizing Devil-Tsar Peter ''the great''- whose lunatic efforts saw the deaths of one out of every four Russians alive to fuel his ''modernizations''.


until a tiny minority took over and murdered your elites in cold blood.


Monsters nurtured by those Elites, Monsters who took a Western Ideology and made it their own and ran with it.

You have been lost in the wilderness ever since. You have been under the same education, religion, history, alphabet as the rest of Europe(the 2 alphabets are the Athenian=Greek=Russian and the Spartan=Latin) until a sect retarded your political development. There is no substantive difference at a civilisational level.


The West is been lost in the wilderness, unfortunately, and as a hallmark of your own Westernization you entirely forget the Roman Schism of the Papacy itself as a factor in all of this.

Russia established Switzerland, Russia established liberalism in Europe at a time that Metternich was working in overdrive to stop it.


Yes, and then we had the Decembrist revolt, officers quite besotted with Western thinking that had served in Europe fighting Napoleon but unfortunately caught the disease of the French Revolution themselves in doing so.
#15151010
annatar1914 wrote:@noemon ;
I am placing you in the category that you proudly claim for yourself, that of Western style Liberalism. I would say that you place me in a ''nonsense category'', when you should know that I'm a Socialist, albeit a non-Marxist one.

I am. I understood quite plainly that you very rightfully placed Homer and his Achilles as the founding source of Western liberalism, even Western civilization itself. Russia is built on another basis, one might say strictly on Orthodoxy and not Homer, maybe Rome but not Greece.

I simply deny that. Revolution only succeeds to the extent that it ever does when the ground is organically prepared for it.

Germanic parasites, the ''Romanovs'' being of the House of Oldenbourg-Holstein-Gottorp, and founded by a Westernizing Devil-Tsar Peter ''the great''- whose lunatic efforts saw the deaths of one out of every four Russians alive to fuel his ''modernizations''.

Monsters nurtured by those Elites, Monsters who took a Western Ideology and made it their own and ran with it.

The West is been lost in the wilderness, unfortunately, and as a hallmark of your own Westernization you entirely forget the Roman Schism of the Papacy itself as a factor in all of this.

Yes, and then we had the Decembrist revolt, officers quite besotted with Western thinking that had served in Europe fighting Napoleon but unfortunately caught the disease of the French Revolution themselves in doing so.


I am not placing you in the nonsense category but I have placed the nonsense you posted and explained why. That is very different, address the arguments not the interlocutor. The argument that "Russians are not conquerors but integrators" is some first-class nonsense.

You still have not replied to my arguments, whether the Romanovs were foreigners is irrelevant. All the royal families in Europe are foreigners one way or another. Russia received her alphabet and religion by an ethnic-Greek monk. Both West and Russia received their educational systems from Byzantium. Orthodox Byzantium transmitted Homer and the Odyssey and crystallised it into its educational system. The Russian education teaches it as does the western one. You are creating false dichotomies that do not exist anywhere. Even your author quoted does not make these arguments.

Your distance from any western country is no greater than the distance between any other 2 western countries.
#15151028
@noemon ;

I am not placing you in the nonsense category but I have placed the nonsense you posted and explained why. That is very different, address the arguments not the interlocutor. The argument that "Russians are not conquerors but integrators" is some first-class nonsense.


But it isn't. Russians allowed local cultures to remain as such, with relative freedom of religion, prior to the Soviet era. Allowing for some slight exaggeration in the original article, I think the point still stands.

You still have not replied to my arguments, whether the Romanovs were foreigners is irrelevant. All the royal families in Europe are foreigners one way or another. Russia received her alphabet and religion by an ethnic-Greek monk.


Saints Cyril and Methodius preached the Christian Faith to the Slavic peoples, not Hellenism. Cyrillic/Glagolitic is of course influenced by Greek (how could it not be?) but fit the exact expressive needs of Old Slavonic in a unique way. They are not the Greek alphabet. My initial point about the Romanovs was to show that the Soviet period did not just spring forth like an alien invasion on the soil of Russia, but it came as very much a result of Westernization.

The West is nothing to emulate really.


Both West and Russia received their educational systems from Byzantium. Orthodox Byzantium transmitted Homer and the Odyssey and crystallised it into its educational system. The Russian education teaches it as does the western one. You are creating false dichotomies that do not exist anywhere. Even your author quoted does not make these arguments.


Nobody from ''Byzantium'' ever called it ''Byzantium'', it is a kind of historical slander invented by Western scholars to obscure the fact of the continuation of the Roman Empire in the East for a thousand years after it fell in the West. And so New Rome/Constantinople actually owed more to Jerusalem than to pagan Athens, and thus also did Moscow. Today Russia is coming out of another phase of Westernizing delirium, would that Greece would also as well!
#15151043
annatar1914 wrote:@noemon ;
But it isn't. Russians allowed local cultures to remain as such, with relative freedom of religion, prior to the Soviet era. Allowing for some slight exaggeration in the original article, I think the point still stands.
Saints Cyril and Methodius preached the Christian Faith to the Slavic peoples, not Hellenism. Cyrillic/Glagolitic is of course influenced by Greek (how could it not be?) but fit the exact expressive needs of Old Slavonic in a unique way. They are not the Greek alphabet. My initial point about the Romanovs was to show that the Soviet period did not just spring forth like an alien invasion on the soil of Russia, but it came as very much a result of Westernization.
The West is nothing to emulate really.
Nobody from ''Byzantium'' ever called it ''Byzantium'', it is a kind of historical slander invented by Western scholars to obscure the fact of the continuation of the Roman Empire in the East for a thousand years after it fell in the West. And so New Rome/Constantinople actually owed more to Jerusalem than to pagan Athens, and thus also did Moscow. Today Russia is coming out of another phase of Westernizing delirium, would that Greece would also as well!


Instead of the substantive you are focused on unimportant "nominalism". Byzantium or Constantinople makes no difference, the fact is both the Western educational system and the Russian share a common medieval source regardless if you see that as being Jerusalemite or Athenian or Roman(which is the fusion of all 3 anyway). The westerners took Plato and run with the Enlightenment while the Russians got stuck behind like they did under communism.

Cyril and Methodius preached to Russia the exact same thing Medieval Greeks preached to the west. Christian Hellenism, Greco-Roman education and jurisprudence, they both did not just adopt "Christianity" but Hellenic education, in primary, secondary and tertiary level. Greco-Roman law. Greek fire and shared a common royalty with all of Europe too.

When western liberalism took off in the 18th and 19th centuries Russia was its primary champion, without Russia the vision of Kapodistrias for a Liberal Europe would never have materialised. While the Concert of Europe was trying to undo Napoleonic liberalism by military and spiritual force, Russia set up Switzerland and her liberal constitution and guaranteed French State Unity!!!

In the ensuing Congress of Vienna, 1815, as the Russian minister, he counterbalanced the paramount influence of the Austrian minister, Prince Metternich, and insisted on French state unity under a Bourbon monarch. He also obtained new international guarantees for the constitution and neutrality of Switzerland through an agreement among the Powers. After these brilliant diplomatic successes, Alexander I appointed Kapodistrias joint Foreign Minister of Russia (with Karl Robert Nesselrode).

In the course of his assignment as Foreign Minister of Russia, Kapodistrias's ideas came to represent a progressive alternative to Metternich's aims of Austrian domination of European affairs.[34] Kapodistrias's liberal ideas of a new European order so threatened Metternich that he wrote in 1819:[34]
Kapodistrias is not a bad man, but honestly speaking he is a complete and thorough fool, a perfect miracle of wrong-headedness...He lives in a world to which our minds are often transported by a bad nightmare.

— Metternich on Kapodistrias, [34]
Realising that Kapodistrias's progressive vision was antithetical to his own, Metternich then tried to undermine Kapodistrias's position in the Russian court.[34] Although Metternich was not a decisive factor in Kapodistrias's leaving his post as Russian Foreign Minister, he nevertheless attempted to actively undermine Kapodistrias by rumour and innuendo. According to the French ambassador to Saint Petersburg, Metternich was a master of insinuation, and he attempted to neutralise Kapodistrias, viewing him as the only man capable of counterbalancing Metternich's own influence with the Russian court.
More than anyone else he possesses the art of devaluing opinions that are not his own; the most honourable life, the purest intentions are not sheltered from his insinuations. It is thus with profound ingenuity that he knew how to neutralize the influence of Count Capodistrias, the only one who could counterbalance his own

— French ambassador on Metternich, [34]
Metternich, by default, succeeded in the short term, since Kapodistrias eventually left the Russian court on his own, but with time, Kapodistrias's ideas and policies for a new European order prevailed.[34] He was always keenly interested in the cause of his native country, and in particular the state of affairs in the Seven Islands, which in a few decades' time had passed from French revolutionary influence to Russian protection and then to British rule. He always tried to attract his Emperor's attention to matters Greek. In January 1817, an emissary from the Filiki Eteria, Nikolaos Galátis, arrived in St. Petersburg to offer Kapodistrias leadership of the movement for Greek independence.[36] Kapodhistrias rejected the offer, telling Galátis:

You must be out of your senses, Sir, to dream of such a project. No one could dare communicate such a thing to me in this house, where I have the honour to serve a great and powerful sovereign, except a young man like you, straight from the rocks of Ithaka, and carried away by some sort of blind passion. I can no longer continue this discussion of the objects of your mission, and I assure you that I shall never take note of your papers. The only advice I can give to you to is to tell nobody about them, to return immediately where you have come from, and to tell those who sent you that unless they want to destroy themselves and their innocent and unhappy nation with them, they must abandon their revolutionary course and continue to live as before under their present government until Providence decrees otherwise.[37]


You are now living in a nation that has cut off its religious relations with the Greek Orthodox because they recognised Ukraine as an independent church. Russia poisons and imprisons its own opposition. You 're scared of the vote of your own population and prefer to keep them in spiritual shackles. And to make matters worse you 're trying to justify all these things too!!
#15151045
ingliz wrote:It's all bollocks!

Novichok, Navalny, Nordstream, Nonsense

:lol:


That's the opinion and assumptions of a blogger.

What is not nonsense though is:

Alexei Navalny wrote:Navalny received 27% of the vote, more than candidates appointed by the parties that received second, third, fourth, and fifth highest results during the 2011 parliamentary elections, altogether. Navalny fared better in the center and southwest of Moscow, which have higher income and education levels.[20] However, Sobyanin received 51% of the vote, which meant he won the election. The turnout was 32%.[132]


The only wise opinion stated by the author you linked:

your author wrote:The United States is very keen indeed to stop Germany completing the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which will supply Russian gas to Germany on a massive scale, sufficient for about 40% of its electricity generation. Personally I am opposed to Nord Stream 2 myself, on both environmental and strategic grounds. I would much rather Germany put its formidable industrial might into renewables and self-sufficiency.
#15151046
noemon wrote:opinion and assumptions

Do you honestly believe the crap you peddle?

If Putin wanted Navalny dead, he would be dead.

He is not.


:lol:
#15151047
ingliz wrote:Do you honestly believe the crap you peddle?
If Putin wanted Navalny dead, he would be dead.
He is not.
:lol:


Oh please get a grip with your deification of Putin. He has failed in a whole bunch of matters both internally and externally. The accusations faced by Navalny are totally ridiculous and Putin's attempt to ban him from running against him are totally pathetic, transparent and evidence of his desperation.

"He lives by the grace of Putin" :lol: :lol: :lol:

Get a grip on yourself.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 18

@Oxymoron Can you provide an example of a vacc[…]

Everything is fragile

I watched the first 2 episodes last night. It's[…]

So my girlfriend got the disease and I'm waiting f[…]