Russia and China: Who is more worthy of respect?

[Ilya Shambat]

In 1985, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union elected a noble-
minded leader named Mikhail Gorbachev. Gorbachev promised to make the
Soviet Union more humane and democratic.He signed a nuclear
disarmament agreement with Ronald Reagan and allowed the satellite
countries in Eastern Europe to secede from the Communist Bloc. His
reforms - glasnost (political openness) and perestroika (economic
reconstruction) - became world-known. In 1991, the communist
hardliners deposed Gorbachev and put him under house arrest. The
people poured into the Red Square, and the hardliners sent in tanks.
The military however refused the orders to shoot at the people, and
the Soviet Union was no more.

In 1989, a large group of people in China poured into the Tiannamnen
Square demanding democratic reforms. The hardliners sent in tanks, and
the military obeyed their orders to shoot. China remained as it was
and still remains as it was. And yet America, and the rest of the
West, continue to treat China and the Chinese respectfully even as
they continue to spit on Russia. And my question is, what signal does
this send to the rest of the world?

One country's leadership and the military make a noble and rightful
decision, and their country becomes the toilet of the world. Another
country's leadership and military make a barbaric decision, and the
country continues to grow in power and wealth. This is not only bad
ethics; it also is bad politics.

Just how bad? Well let's look at Iran. In 1997, a moderate leader
named Mohammad Khatami was elected the President of Iran. The Guardian
Council had sucess in thwarting his reform agenda by saying that he
was the Gorbachev of Iran. Iran is presently led by a madman who is
aggressively pursuing nuclear weapons. The hardliners in Iran came
back by floating before the Iranian people the spectre of Iran going
the way of the Soviet Union.

There are many in America and elsewhere who claim that they won the
Cold War. They are wrong. The Soviet Union could have gone on
indefinitely, as have the much smaller Cuba and North Korea. Instead
the leadership and the military of the Soviet Union made rightful and
noble decisions. And the reward for that rightful and noble choice has
been the country being plundered and its people being treated like
trash.

This is something that needs to be said in any number of circles in
order to put matters into perspective. To reward noble and rightful
choices with plunder and ugly behavior creates a perverse set of
incentives in which any villain can stay in power by referring to
people what happened when the Soviet leadership went on a rightful
course. Russia, China and places such as Iran, will continue to exist.
What matters is the form in which they exist and what it means for
their people as much as what it means for America and its allies. The
policy regarding these places must be reworked to incentivize noble
and righteous behavior and disincentivize barbarism. One can start by
recognizing the goodwill and righteousness that had been shown by
Russian leadership and its military and treating Russia and Russian
people with respect.

[Zerkon]

In article <749f0780-9e93-4d1e-a338-
c7e2e6...@t2g2000pbg.googlegroups.com>, ibsh...@gmail.com says...

> And my question is, what signal does this send to the rest of the
> world?

Money

> Just how bad? Well let's look at Iran.
>

"In 1951, after the assassination of prime minister Ali Razmara, Dr.
Mohammad Mosaddegh was elected prime minister by a parliamentary vote
which was then ratified by the Shah. As prime minister, Mosaddegh became
enormously popular in Iran after he nationalized Iran's petroleum
industry and oil reserves. In response, the British government, headed
by Winston Churchill, embargoed Iranian oil and successfully enlisted
the United States to join in a plot to depose the democratically elected
government of Mosaddegh. In 1953 US President Dwight D. Eisenhower
authorized Operation Ajax. The operation was successful, and Mosaddegh
was arrested on 19 August 1953. The coup was the first time the US had
openly overthrown an elected, civilian government"

> Iran is presently led by a madman who is aggressively pursuing nuclear
> weapons.

He is not mad, he is yet one more human being hated by your kind. Not at
all the same thing. And, by all sane indications Iran not pursuing
these weapons. The very real question is why shouldn't Iran have these
weapons.

> To reward noble and rightful choices

yea right

[Ilya Shambat]

On Apr 16, 8:50 pm, Zerkon <Z...@z.net> wrote:
> He is not mad, he is yet one more human being hated by your kind.

Do you have any idea what his henchmen have been doing to young women
who had demonstrated against him?

> Not at all the same thing.  And, by all sane indications Iran not pursuing
> these weapons. The very real question is why shouldn't Iran have these
> weapons.

When it was United States vs. Soviet Union, nuclear weapons prevented
the Cold War from becoming an actual war, as neither party was crazy
enough to use them. The Iranians just might be that crazy.

> > To reward noble and rightful choices
> yea right

So are you saying that what the Chinese did in Tiannanmen was better
than what the Soviet army did (or refused to do) in Red Square?

Do you consider Deng Qiaping to have been better than Gorbachev?

[tooly]

My studies on the matter are this...is was an ecnomic imperative that
the USSR 'change'. Gorbechev was simply
the man in place at a certain time when 'everyone' sort of knew things
were falling apart and needed that change. Ergo, perestroika was
born.

Here was the economic problem as I had to learn to pass tests in
class. In command economies, you cannot operate on the 'margin'...ie,
'the next units worth'...be it prices, costs, wages...whatever.
Operating on the margin is an IDENTITY of capitalism, as the markets
are defined 'every moment' by countless people either demanding things
or supplying things 'on the go'. Not so in command ecnomies where
Central Control has the obligation to set things like price and
wages. So, how does one set wages anyway, when they do not have the
services of the succinct 'moment to moment' intricasies of nature
itself to tell you? Hmm...you go by averages, that's what [what it
all boils down to]. Market get behind every quickly with the slowness
of single departments making the decisions for millions [ergo, the
main reason socialism does not work explained].

Anyhew...the Soviets were long into the process of a 'shrinking'
economy, thusly the long bread lines and lack of supply for those
millions. Sure...equality and all, but everyone now sharing
impoverishment, say he, ha.

Anyway, it was found that the setting of things like wages, on the
AVERAGE, equated to a lot of 'economic loss'...that is 'dead weight
loss'...resource gone askew, vanished [sort of]. That LOSS was about
equal to the 'reinvestment' under capital systems just to maintain
infrastructure. Ergo, the poor soviets could not even maintain
things...and it was all deteriating. People knew something had to
give.

Cudos to Gorbechev of course, for being the guy bring about that
change. 'Winning the cold war'...is just a political nicety for the
administration in charge at the time [ergo, Reagan got the credit,
though, bet your booty, if it was a democrat in charge, he'd have
claimed the same]. But Reagan did perhaps provide some motivation, in
his staunch 'anti-communist' stance, that probably at least influenced
private discussion in the Kremlin at least some.

Events in recent years makes one's eyes widen a bit about what exactly
IS going on though. I, for one, always thought The USSR crumbled
awafully 'easily'. With such heavy handed regimes like Stalin,
Kruschev, Breschnev, et.al., one would think there'd be more bloodshed
in the streets.

That pesky Dialectical Matrialism of Hegel haunts my own thinking.
It's a bit of a conspiracy theory I suppose, but I wonder if perhaps
'think tank' influentials for the Communist cause, perhaps understood
that the Boleshevik methods simply were not going to work [the
cultural marxists surely saw that]. I mean, perhaps they understood
that the dialectic suggested to them, that perhaps it would be best to
'let things fail' temporarily [hmm...now this really gets into
paranoid hinking] so that it could RESURFACE, under a more receptive
world that now only saw 'social programs' that offered benefits to the
working man [sort of like the Bolsheviks promising land to the
peasants if only they'd revolt against the Czar; ha...was lark that
was].

Well, I doubt people back in Gorbechev's time were smart enough to see
so far ahead, but it turns out, by allowing the heavy handed regimes
of the old Soviet Union to pass into the night, it surely has allowed
western civilization to 'let it's guard down' from within.

And so, here we are today, on the precipice' of a no-return polito-
scape where socialism is being embraced by once stubborn 'anti-
communists', and Obamalytes have become another of Lenin's useful
idiot masses, ready to bring down the one defense the world depended
upon to fight communism.

Oh, most think communism died when the Berlin Wall came down, ha. But
that pesky Dialectic you see. To the marxist, there is no 'death of
communism', but only the 'rebirth'...over and over, however long it
takes, however many methods, however many angles...all an
'inevitability' in the world.

Who wudda thunk, that just a few short decades after the Soviet Union
fell apart, that's we be witnessing the essential 'communist' takeover
of America herself. Oh...yea, we don't use the 'word' communism now
of course [that's probably dead except for a select few]. But marxism,
under whatever word we use, amounts to the same...SOCIALISM, cum
eventually, to a ruling intellectual elite that controls it all. Oh,
it ain't happening tomorrow; but the 'road' we are to travel; the path
we can no longer turn away from...that's where Obama and the now
radicalized, no longer American (and very marxist in scope), Democrat
party now take us.

And just like Kruschev predicted, revolution is coming through our
universities. I wonder if any of these kids have ever seen clips of
Kruschev banging his shoe on the UN floor, or screaming, "WE WILL
BURY YOU"? Nah, I doubt it. They are too busy learning how Jefferson
fucked little slave girls, say what, hehe. What's wrong with this
picture?

[Ilya Shambat]

"We will bury you" is a mis-translation. The word he used
("pohoronit") means outlive, as in being present at your burial. It
got translated as meaning "we will nuke you" but that's not what he
said.

To claim that there's an intellectual elite that runs everything is
ridiculous. America has all sorts of entities with power of one kind
or another, there is not a single group that is running everything. To
assert that an intellectual elite runs everything in America is as
ridiculous as LaRouche asserting that a group of London banks is
running the world.

As for the idea that Communists are taking over America, that's
nothing but a long-running paranoia. If Obama was any such thing,
you'd be in a labor camp. That people are free to claim such nonsense,
using government-built Internet of all things, shows that these claims
are ridiculous and that people who make them simply do not have sense
of reality.

[tooly]

I appreciate your viewpoint. I'm not saying it is tightly
organized...but a loose confederacy of sorts.
If one does some research, say, of the many organizations that are
tied to the Appollo foundation, or
to ACORN [did they change their name yet?], or the various
organizations that Turner Industries give to....
Or Emerald Cities, or...well, there are literally hundreds, if not
thousands, of these organizations, each
with some 'anti-establishment' cause that binds them together as a
'single force' [highly funded by the likes
of those like George Soros and other very wealthy contributors].

Then, if you do research on the people heading up these
organizations...the names attached,...and yes, it takes a
lot of time and pain to research this stuff...but invariably you find
an almost invariable COMMON strain....and that
these organizations are LED, run...are founded, by known people with
heavy attachment to MARXISM [and radical
left causes in general]. Greenpeace comes to mind; just one in MANY
MANY...a reknown organization founded by
people with highly public MARXIST agendas. In fact, the GREEN
movement in general can pretty much be considered
a clandestine MARXIST front it is so heavily represented by marx
embracing people.

One telltale event was the Copenhagen conference, now a few years
back, where Hugo Chavez got a standing ovation
by the conference attendees [the world's elite environmental
representitives]...when he declared "Capitalism is the problem".

Then after studying all this, read how Cultural marxism came to
America, and set it's roots here, slowly expanding out onto
college campuses everywhere to INFLUENCE how kids think, slowly
'marching through our institutions' by taking over influencing
media [again, by INFLUENCE], to turn people's minds against their own
country to embrace marxist thinking [under the guise of
equality and government programs].

So, it's not an easy animal to pin down, but IT DOES EXIST...not so
much as a recongizable PARTY like the bolsheviks were, but
more as a loose confederation of many organizations, all tied together
under this cultural marxist set of values that, under arguments
of equalty and income redistribution [class warfare], make it into a
SINGLE army...a marxist army...of useful idiots.

And yes, I do think there MUST be 'powers behind the scenes'...those
like Soros..and whomever brought us things like Arab Spring,
Occupy Wall Street, and the Chicago seven [riots]. Busy busy bees
they are...bzzzzzz....bzzzzzing about...bzzzzzzing up insurrection
and revolution.

[Ilya Shambat]

The Tea Party is a much more cohesive entity than what you are writing
about here, and one that is much more aggressive. If there's some
loose left-wing confederacy, there are more tight confederacies on the
Right. Yes, there is Soros; but there are also Koch Brothers. It is
expected that people who have similar beliefs would find a way to work
together. That, once again, exists on the Right as much as it exists
on the Left.

[Bret Cahill]

It's always a mistake to focus too much on leaders. Backwards
countries are going to have bad leaders.

The Iranian president uses jingoism for the same reason all despots
must do it to stay in power: They aren't popular.

He _must_ do it even though Iran has no cruise missle and in all
likelihood will never have any nuclear arms.


Bret Cahill


"Not only does filth rest on the throne but the throne rests on
filth."

-- Nietzsche