[litwin]

So, literally like the Stalinists&German Nazis did. Except they took the effort to call it "science", and the Muscovite Nazis are doing it for their sadistic pleasure. It doesn't shock me at all! Even my grandmother was afraid of these creatures. There's nothing human about them! there is the only one solution :



ps Milchakov is getting fat. The other guy too.

[litwin]

still, Compared to the corrupt Putin´s families , they are like Florence Nightingale.


ps

Are these people ALLOWED to resign? Did they sign them near open windows?

[litwin]

still, Compared to the corrupt Putin´s families , they are like Florence Nightingale.


ps

Are these people ALLOWED to resign? Did they sign them near open windows?

SO , WILL HE appear on the List_of_foreign_agents ? he falls under foreign agents law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_f ... _in_Russia

[litwin]

For what? Not being Nazi enough?

[Rich]

For what? Not being Nazi enough?

Yes if you want to be picky, if you're some kind of historical pedant, you could probably argue that the Finn's , Latvians, Ukrainians, Romanians, Hungarians and Bulgarians weren't 100 percent, totally and absolutely consistent in their anti Nazism in the late nineteen thirties and early nineteen thirties. And even the Poles, I know this sounds silly, but sometimes this crazy thought enters my head, was the Polish opposition to the Nazis more one of self interest than pure moral principle. That couldn't be the case because we all know Poles totally opposed the carve up of Czechoslovakia and were begging Germany to send them their Jewish residents.

But anyway none of the matters. what matters is that they oppose the Nazis now.

er, Ok let me nuance that, what matters if that they oppose the Nazis in principle now, They're not required to oppose Neo Nazi formations like Azov. That would be more nit picking.

[litwin]

Yes if you want to be picky, if you're some kind of historical pedant, you could probably argue that the Finn's , Latvians, Ukrainians, Romanians, Hungarians and Bulgarians weren't 100 percent, totally and absolutely consistent in their anti Nazism in the late nineteen thirties and early nineteen thirties. And even the Poles, I know this sounds silly, but sometimes this crazy thought enters my head, was the Polish opposition to the Nazis more one of self interest than pure moral principle. That couldn't be the case because we all know Poles totally opposed the carve up of Czechoslovakia and were begging Germany to send them their Jewish residents.

But anyway none of the matters. what matters is that they oppose the Nazis now.

er, Ok let me nuance that, what matters if that they oppose the Nazis in principle now, They're not required to oppose Neo Nazi formations like Azov. That would be more nit picking.

Muscovite schizophrenic Ivan Ilyin is quite literally the definition of pure Muscovite nazi - Imperialistic evil. any comment on this subject ? I won't read your response if it does´t include words - Ivan Ilyin

[Rich]

Muscovite schizophrenic Ivan Ilyin is quite literally the definition of pure Muscovite nazi - Imperialistic evil. any comment on this subject ? I won't read your response if it does´t include words - Ivan Ilyin

Tsarism was the greater protector of the Christians and Jews. Sadly there were a lot of prominent Jewish liars that constantly sought to demonise Tsarist Russia. Tsarist Russia protected the Christians from the Muslim genociders and it protected the Jews from the Christian genociders, from the Poles, Latvians, Ukrainians, Romanians and Cossacks, so many of which were so keen to genocide the Jews. The campaign of lies against Russia on this was really quite severe, even going as far to pretend an anti German pogrom was an anti Jewish one.

Winston Churchill was one of Russia's great supporters. He recognised the common interest and duty of Britain and Russia in controlling and defeat Muslim savagery. He was one of Denikin's great supporters and although he abhored the pogroming of Jews by Denikin's troops, he understood. What was Denikin to do with Novgorod and Muscovy under the occupation of the German financed Bolsheviks, Denikin was now heavily dependent on Cossack genociders.

[JohnRawls]

Tsarism was the greater protector of the Christians and Jews. Sadly there were a lot of prominent Jewish liars that constantly sought to demonise Tsarist Russia. Tsarist Russia protected the Christians from the Muslim genociders and it protected the Jews from the Christian genociders, from the Poles, Latvians, Ukrainians, Romanians and Cossacks, so many of which were so keen to genocide the Jews. The campaign of lies against Russia on this was really quite severe, even going as far to pretend an anti German pogrom was an anti Jewish one.

Winston Churchill was one of Russia's great supporters. He recognised the common interest and duty of Britain and Russia in controlling and defeat Muslim savagery. He was one of Denikin's great supporters and although he abhored the pogroming of Jews by Denikin's troops, he understood. What was Denikin to do with Novgorod and Muscovy under the occupation of the German financed Bolsheviks, Denikin was now heavily dependent on Cossack genociders.

Jews? Are you insane?

Tsars actively supported the Pogroms and also the product that you know as "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" is Russian made and spread from Russia. Heck for most of the time Jews weren't even allowed in Russian cities to live there. There was also a Jew exclusion zone within the Russian Empire.

[Potemkin]

Jews? Are you insane?

Tsars actively supported the Pogroms and also the product that you know as "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" is Russian made and spread from Russia. Heck for most of the time Jews weren't even allowed in Russian cities to live there. There was also a Jew exclusion zone within the Russian Empire.

The point @Rich is making, in his usual hyperbolic and contrarian manner, is that Tsarist Russia may well have been deeply anti-semitic, but Tsarist Russia’s enemies were even more deeply anti-semitic. Whenever the Cossacks or the Ukrainians or the Poles rebelled against Tsarist Russia - which was rather often - things tended to go very badly for the Jews. Very badly indeed. Whenever the despotic hand of Tsarism was temporarily lifted from them, the first thing the freedom-loving Cossacks or Ukrainians or Poles would do was to look around themselves for any Jews they could kill….

[Rancid]

The point @Rich is making, in his usual hyperbolic and contrarian manner, is that Tsarist Russia may well have been deeply anti-semitic, but Tsarist Russia’s enemies were even more deeply anti-semitic. Whenever the Cossacks or the Ukrainians or the Poles rebelled against Tsarist Russia - which was rather often - things tended to go very badly for the Jews. Very badly indeed. Whenever the despotic hand of Tsarism was temporarily lifted from them, the first thing the freedom-loving Cossacks or Ukrainians or Poles would do was to look around themselves for any Jews they could kill….

There is a guest lecture about this in that Ukraine history youtube series I posted a while back. I don't recall the details, but I do recall Jews getting fucked over a lot.

It is interesting how the elites of Europe used Jews as a buffer between their own wealth and power versus all the plebs. Brilliant positioning if you don't give a shit about human rights actually.

[Potemkin]

There is a guest lecture about this in that Ukraine history youtube series I posted a while back. I don't recall the details, but I do recall Jews getting fucked over a lot.

It is interesting how the elites of Europe used Jews as a buffer between their own wealth and power versus all the plebs. Brilliant positioning if you don't give a shit about human rights actually.

It was indeed brilliant positioning, and yes, nobody in that part of the world gave a rat’s ass about human rights back then. Still don’t, in fact.

[skinster]

[Rich]

It is interesting how the elites of Europe used Jews as a buffer between their own wealth and power versus all the plebs. Brilliant positioning if you don't give a shit about human rights actually.

OK I'm gonna adjust my basic rights by leaving Trans out of it. Trans only became a major issue quite recently so I'm going to go for:

1 All people have over the age of 18 have the right to vote
2 Women are considered just as capable as men to be leaders of industry, science, technology and government
3 women can become and are just as capable as Priests, Bishops and Pope or the equivalent religious positions
4 women have control of their own bodies and are free to enter conscenting sexual relationships with as many or as few men and as many or as few women as they choose
5 Women have the right to abortion
6 Men have the right to have sexual relationships with men without suffering prejudice
7 People can access facilities regardless of race and become top leaders regardless of race

OK I think off the top of my head that's what I would consider basic rights. Note the fact that I haven't included Trans would for many people today, mark me out as a far right White Supremacist Nazi. But even still until fairly recently almost no one actually supported those human rights. There's this strange notion, or at least I find it strange, that people in the past should have respected human rights, when even today we still can't agree on what those rights are.

[JohnRawls]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLEFm2BjyoY

How is the Ukranian army destroyed? That kinda doesn't correlate to reality? Who is fighting then?

[litwin]

https://x.com/i/status/1791406694175510965

Muscovite soldier, Alexander Naumov with his wife, began adopting kids from orphanages, murdering them, hiding the bodies in the garage to then continue collecting payments from the government. Both kids were tortured, of course, because Muscovy
https://x.com/i/status/1791383870656426155

[Negotiator]

Winston Churchill was one of Russia's great supporters.

Say what ?

Stalins soviet union could not find a single ally in the west against Nazi Germany, including not the UK.

In the end they tried to contain Nazi Germany, which they knew was planning on attacking them, by doing a secret treaty with them, splitting Poland in half, west half goes to Nazi Germany, east half goes to Russia.

Which nowadays is the hook why certain polish politicians claim that the soviet union was 50% guilty of starting WW2, or even 100% guilty. Even if the soviet union didnt actually start the war, and did its best to avoid the war beforehand, and really just tried to defend itself best they could.

IMHO the soviet union should have followed this treaty word by word and taken over half of Poland as the treaty said, and then prepared the defenses, and then given it all back immediately to Poland once Germany had lost the war. That would have absolutely minimized the grief poles have against Russia nowadays.

Then again this is a game you just cannot win. The west plain and simple wants Russia as the enemy, no matter what Russia does. Anything nice is quickly forgotten. Anything bad is emphasized and the reasons why the bad thing happened suppressed. And if there is no thread, they make one up.

So, whatever.


Either way Churchill was never a supporter of Russia. The whole idea is absurd. Churchill found himself forced to be on the same side as the soviet union, against his will.

Russia has been consistently the enemy of the west since 1840, even back when the tzar was in power. The problem the west has with Russia simply that its too strong and too independent. Thats all.

The UK empire wanted to rule the world, the US empire wants to rule the world, and I hope there wont be a China or India empire next because all empires just suck for everyone but a very small minority of people. Either way empires dont like strong foes that they cant control.

Thats why Russia is the enemy and why China is the enemy and why they're already very busy making India the enemy as well.

[JohnRawls]

Say what ?

Stalins soviet union could not find a single ally in the west against Nazi Germany, including not the UK.

In the end they tried to contain Nazi Germany, which they knew was planning on attacking them, by doing a secret treaty with them, splitting Poland in half, west half goes to Nazi Germany, east half goes to Russia.

Which nowadays is the hook why certain polish politicians claim that the soviet union was 50% guilty of starting WW2, or even 100% guilty. Even if the soviet union didnt actually start the war, and did its best to avoid the war beforehand, and really just tried to defend itself best they could.

IMHO the soviet union should have followed this treaty word by word and taken over half of Poland as the treaty said, and then prepared the defenses, and then given it all back immediately to Poland once Germany had lost the war. That would have absolutely minimized the grief poles have against Russia nowadays.

Then again this is a game you just cannot win. The west plain and simple wants Russia as the enemy, no matter what Russia does. Anything nice is quickly forgotten. Anything bad is emphasized and the reasons why the bad thing happened suppressed. And if there is no thread, they make one up.

So, whatever.


Either way Churchill was never a supporter of Russia. The whole idea is absurd. Churchill found himself forced to be on the same side as the soviet union, against his will.

Russia has been consistently the enemy of the west since 1840, even back when the tzar was in power. The problem the west has with Russia simply that its too strong and too independent. Thats all.

The UK empire wanted to rule the world, the US empire wants to rule the world, and I hope there wont be a China or India empire next because all empires just suck for everyone but a very small minority of people. Either way empires dont like strong foes that they cant control.

Thats why Russia is the enemy and why China is the enemy and why they're already very busy making India the enemy as well.

Learn some history. Churchill was one of the largest supporters of Russia and the Russian empire. The Galipoli operation for example was for the sole reason to help the Russian Empire and open more routes to deliver military goods and trade for example along with crushing the Ottomans and freeing Russian Caucuses troops.

Churchill hated the communists though probably because they toppled the Tsarist rule. If I remember correctly he wrote in his memoires that he sort of blamed the collapse of the Russian empire on himself partially because Britain wasn't able to fully assist at the time compared to the assistance that Russian empire provided to the Western Front.

[Potemkin]

Learn some history. Churchill was one of the largest supporters of Russia and the Russian empire. The Galipoli operation for example was for the sole reason to help the Russian Empire and open more routes to deliver military goods and trade for example along with crushing the Ottomans and freeing Russian Caucuses troops.

Churchill hated the communists though probably because they toppled the Tsarist rule. If I remember correctly he wrote in his memoires that he sort of blamed the collapse of the Russian empire on himself partially because Britain wasn't able to fully assist at the time compared to the assistance that Russian empire provided to the Western Front.

Indeed. Tsarist Russia was on the same side as the UK during WWI, so the Revolutions of 1917 were unwelcome news. And the first thing the Bolsheviks did was to pull Russia out of the War. This was the real source of Churchill’s hatred of Bolshevism. He loathed their Communist ideology, but if they had kept Russia in WWI he would quite happily have worked with them (as he demonstrated just a couple of decades later). Churchill was one of the main people behind the Allied intervention in Russia during the Civil War, when the West made a serious attempt to end Bolshevik rule, and the main purpose of that intervention was to keep Russia in WWI. Ending the world’s first and only socialist government would just have been an extra bonus. For the British, nothing was more important in 1917-18 than winning WWI. This would later embarrass him, of course, when Russia was again on the same side as the UK during a world war. When the topic came up once during a meeting with Stalin, Churchill sighed to himself and asked Stalin, “Will you ever forgive us…?”

[litwin]

The fact that Gazprom went from being the empire 's cash cow to multi-billion dollar losses in just one year, its first losses since 1999, is a VERY big deal.

​

https://x.com/nogg_the/status/1791915832588538015

[litwin]

Indeed. Tsarist Russia was on the same side as the UK during WWI, so the Revolutions of 1917 were unwelcome news. And the first thing the Bolsheviks did was to pull Russia out of the War. This was the real source of Churchill’s hatred of Bolshevism. He loathed their Communist ideology, but if they had kept Russia in WWI he would quite happily have worked with them (as he demonstrated just a couple of decades later). Churchill was one of the main people behind the Allied intervention in Russia during the Civil War, when the West made a serious attempt to end Bolshevik rule, and the main purpose of that intervention was to keep Russia in WWI. Ending the world’s first and only socialist government would just have been an extra bonus. For the British, nothing was more important in 1917-18 than winning WWI. This would later embarrass him, of course, when Russia was again on the same side as the UK during a world war. When the topic came up once during a meeting with Stalin, Churchill sighed to himself and asked Stalin, “Will you ever forgive us…?”

He was a great, truly visionary man .