info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Fuck the EU 2022 04
39 views
Skip to first unread message
Oleg Smirnov
Apr 23, 2022, 10:40:14 AM4/23/22
to
Things aren't good, and it's getting worse.
Democracy is not about "geopolitical" orientation, it's about civil and
non-destructive way to sort out communal issues on the basis of prevailing
popular interest with due respect to minorities.
The "western" delusion is so that anything "pro-western" must be labeled
"democratic" automatically, and here is the root of the evil, which inter
alia makes things worse for you.
One African analyst correctly diagnosed the situation.
| <https://tinyurl.com/ybtdg54o> premiumtimesng.com
|
| Perhaps NATO has been silent about the civil war in Ukraine partly
| because it is more a case of its ally rejecting Western democracy
| and relying on violence and non-constitutional means to attain power
| or change government.
| The Ukrainian crises began in 2004 when Viktor Yanukovych from the
| East won the presidential election. But some pro-West Ukrainians
| refused to accept his victory as he was seen as pro-Russian. Mass
| protests erupted .. It was christened the Orange Revolution. The
| election was upturned and in the new election, the rival candidate,
| Viktor Yushchenko, was declared winner. In the 2010 presidential
| election, again Yanukovych won. This time, his electoral victory was
| accepted. But four years later, when his government decided to sign
| a trade agreement with Russia, rather than the European Union,
| Ukrainians, mostly in the Kiev region, protested, killing over 100
| persons. President Yanukovych was overthrown in a coup ..
In other words, despite the results of popular vote implemented through
due civil procedure the "pro-western" activists in the Ukraine repeatedly
sought to impose their will on the whole nation by non-democratic means:
initially through hysterical protesting noises and eventually through the
armed violence that ended with the 2014 anti-consititutional coup.
Of course, these developments in no way were democratic, however, Europe,
"the west", its propaganda, misrepresented it like somewhat a "democratic
revolution", which is a bold and brazen falsity.
The Ukraine's violent developments in 2014 and later led to emergence and
strengthening of ultra-nationalist militant groups ideologically inspired
by neo-Nazi concepts as well as sentiments of pro-Hitlerian nostalgism.
It's not nice.
Before you start criticizing the Kremlin for the present military action
in the Ukraine you need to realize the fact that the Ukraine's 2014 and
later developments wasn't something Europe had to support. It all was as
immoral as anti-democratic. It has put Europe on wrong side of history,
so things aren't good, and it's getting worse.
Do not expect reality will follow your wishful thinking.
The 2014 coup in the Ukraine was violent in favor of a minority. In 2014,
your immoral politicians endorsed and approved the violent anti-democratic
developments in the Ukraine, at the core of which were neo-Nazi militias.
Today, these politicians need to realize their immorality, recognize their
mistakes, misdeeds, and repent sincerely.
Repentance is the only way to sanity.
It's such a Christian invention intended to break perpetuity of revenge.
Democracy is not about "geopolitical" orientation, it's about civil and
non-destructive way to sort out communal issues on the basis of prevailing
popular interest with due respect to minorities.
The "western" delusion is so that anything "pro-western" must be labeled
"democratic" automatically, and here is the root of the evil, which inter
alia makes things worse for you.
One African analyst correctly diagnosed the situation.
| <https://tinyurl.com/ybtdg54o> premiumtimesng.com
|
| Perhaps NATO has been silent about the civil war in Ukraine partly
| because it is more a case of its ally rejecting Western democracy
| and relying on violence and non-constitutional means to attain power
| or change government.
| The Ukrainian crises began in 2004 when Viktor Yanukovych from the
| East won the presidential election. But some pro-West Ukrainians
| refused to accept his victory as he was seen as pro-Russian. Mass
| protests erupted .. It was christened the Orange Revolution. The
| election was upturned and in the new election, the rival candidate,
| Viktor Yushchenko, was declared winner. In the 2010 presidential
| election, again Yanukovych won. This time, his electoral victory was
| accepted. But four years later, when his government decided to sign
| a trade agreement with Russia, rather than the European Union,
| Ukrainians, mostly in the Kiev region, protested, killing over 100
| persons. President Yanukovych was overthrown in a coup ..
In other words, despite the results of popular vote implemented through
due civil procedure the "pro-western" activists in the Ukraine repeatedly
sought to impose their will on the whole nation by non-democratic means:
initially through hysterical protesting noises and eventually through the
armed violence that ended with the 2014 anti-consititutional coup.
Of course, these developments in no way were democratic, however, Europe,
"the west", its propaganda, misrepresented it like somewhat a "democratic
revolution", which is a bold and brazen falsity.
The Ukraine's violent developments in 2014 and later led to emergence and
strengthening of ultra-nationalist militant groups ideologically inspired
by neo-Nazi concepts as well as sentiments of pro-Hitlerian nostalgism.
It's not nice.
Before you start criticizing the Kremlin for the present military action
in the Ukraine you need to realize the fact that the Ukraine's 2014 and
later developments wasn't something Europe had to support. It all was as
immoral as anti-democratic. It has put Europe on wrong side of history,
so things aren't good, and it's getting worse.
Do not expect reality will follow your wishful thinking.
The 2014 coup in the Ukraine was violent in favor of a minority. In 2014,
your immoral politicians endorsed and approved the violent anti-democratic
developments in the Ukraine, at the core of which were neo-Nazi militias.
Today, these politicians need to realize their immorality, recognize their
mistakes, misdeeds, and repent sincerely.
Repentance is the only way to sanity.
It's such a Christian invention intended to break perpetuity of revenge.
Oleg Smirnov
Apr 24, 2022, 4:25:28 AM4/24/22
to
> Democracy is not about "geopolitical" orientation, it's about civil and
> non-destructive way to sort out communal issues on the basis of prevailing
> popular interest with due respect to minorities.
>
> The "western" delusion is so that anything "pro-western" must be labeled
> "democratic" automatically, and here is the root of the evil, which inter
> alia makes things worse for you.
By the way, it's glaringly visible for the 2014 Crimea case.
> non-destructive way to sort out communal issues on the basis of prevailing
> popular interest with due respect to minorities.
>
> The "western" delusion is so that anything "pro-western" must be labeled
> "democratic" automatically, and here is the root of the evil, which inter
> alia makes things worse for you.
People of Crimea voted in favor of Russia, according to their prevailing
interest, and their popular sentiment was later confirmed repeatedly by
various sociological surveys.
May 2014, American Pew found "Crimean residents are almost universally
positive toward Russia .. Overwhelming majorities say the March 16th
referendum was free and fair (91%)" <https://is.gd/agkuT2>
Gallup poll (sponsored by the U.S. government, suddenly), in June 2014
<https://is.gd/xptTX9> (page 28) had found that the vast majority of the
Crimeans agree that "the plebiscite" expressed their will fairly.
In February 2015, the major German pollster GfK had found similar results
<https://is.gd/Yhm15G>: when Crimeans were asked "do you endorse Russia's
annexation" 93% gave positive response while only 4% said they dislike it.
There were also many other surveys there.
"The west" stubbornly refuses to accept this democratic reality, because,
as I said above, the "western" delusion is so that something "democratic"
may happen only if it's "pro-western".
Such an ideological setting is itself somewhat "soft" form of Nazism.
This is why the modern West Europe also needs some "denazification".
Of course, the Crimea case would never happen if the Ukraine's government
kept its successive legitimacy properly. However, the 2014 coup in Kiev
broke legality and legitimacy of all-Ukrainian governance. The new self-
imposed rulers made it clear they will ignore interests of those factions
and regions of the Ukraine who didn't support the coup, and were going to
undertake coercive / repressive means against those who disagree with the
new course (including by means of the militant neo-Nazi squads). This is
why the Crimeans decided their fate apart from the rest of the Ukraine.
Russia's organizational help didn't make their decision less democratic.
Instead of making pathetic statements, noises about secondary issues, the
European policy makers need to look at the roots, where it initially
started. It was a European great mistake and misdeed to endorse and even
instigate those violent and unlawful developments in the Ukraine, even if
the Ukrainian usurpers of power flaunted "democracy" slogans. The present
European politicians need to realize those mistakes and repent sincerely,
and this is the only way to sanity.
Lyrik
Apr 24, 2022, 7:20:37 AM4/24/22
to
On 4/24/2022 10:24 AM, Oleg Smirnov wrote:
Hi Ole!
Happy Orthodox Easter to you and your family.
The Russian bear needs a much bigger chunk of the area which "The
Ukroes" call Ukraine.
In Kherson people are hanging up Russian flags, and the remaining
Crimean Tartars wants to belong together with the Russians on Crimea.
They are tired of being suppressed by the "Ukroes"
Here is the issue where Russia is world champion:"Keeping 92 peoples
inside the Russian federation. Inside that they can be themselves. They
are supported and defended. They can live their everyday life in peace.
The Russian federation is a good place to be.
Then there is another issue. Russians tell the truth! The west is lying
constantly. If you love the truth, then you have no part in the west.
To day Anthony Blinken have the nerve to visit Kiev!
They should place him in the basement of Asovsteel so he could make the
fighters surrender. Or they should show him that it is the "Ukroes" that
kill the civilians!
§;o)
jenserik
Hi Ole!
Happy Orthodox Easter to you and your family.
The Russian bear needs a much bigger chunk of the area which "The
Ukroes" call Ukraine.
In Kherson people are hanging up Russian flags, and the remaining
Crimean Tartars wants to belong together with the Russians on Crimea.
They are tired of being suppressed by the "Ukroes"
Here is the issue where Russia is world champion:"Keeping 92 peoples
inside the Russian federation. Inside that they can be themselves. They
are supported and defended. They can live their everyday life in peace.
The Russian federation is a good place to be.
Then there is another issue. Russians tell the truth! The west is lying
constantly. If you love the truth, then you have no part in the west.
To day Anthony Blinken have the nerve to visit Kiev!
They should place him in the basement of Asovsteel so he could make the
fighters surrender. Or they should show him that it is the "Ukroes" that
kill the civilians!
§;o)
jenserik
KPGH
Apr 24, 2022, 5:16:50 PM4/24/22
to
wider geopolitical conflict between the US and china.
Both 'the EU' and Russia have an obvious interest in detente based on a
regional balances of power that favors trade, and both can probably not
or no longer aspire to roles as independent geopolitical major players.
However, a regional conflict over territory in Europe favors the new
superpowers as ik makes the regional powers more dependent. That's
probably why the US apparently discouraged a European agreement over
geopolitical fault-lines even so pushing these even further would
clearly be met with increasing risistance.
The problem with Ukraine (and Georgia) seems that the Reagan
administration essentially 'pulled a stunt' by tricking the USSR into
dissolving itself on the basis of vague promises:
The US would not encroach on her former sphere of influence, and would
assist (rather then abuse) attempted reforms. At the time it seemed
likely to me that 'economic shock therapy' and the like would result in
the establishment of a plutocracy of 'robber barons' not unlike those
that (with a little help) always seemed to end on top in South America.
What apparently wend wrong, was that the putin-administration, while
being a product of the plutocracy that was successfully installed,
attempted to establish a social compact (of sorts) with Russian people
rather than seeking assurances for himself and his family from
international pupped-masters.
This necessitated resisting the encroachment of nato on territory of the
former USSR. Especially if there's a large ethnic Russian population
involved. This seems now to have resulted in an open confrontation with
a (democrat) American government that have been beating the drums of
neoconservatism since the ninety's.
But if Russia is no longer a dominant geopolitical player, it has
probably still have enough nuclear weapons to make the rules under
'mutual assured destruction' (MAD) apply.
So the Biden administration seems to publicly play down the relevance of
MAD while attempting to trigger regime-change in Russia. By means of
what amounts to sabotaging the civil economy by weaponizing the USD as a
reserve currency. And, even so Germany seems not happy, so far European
governments seem to comply.
Of course, that can all quickly change with a single 'big bang'. :-)
Anyway, a protracted conflict which will impedes free trade seems bad
for the population in both Russia and the EU...
alabenne
Apr 25, 2022, 7:28:22 AM4/25/22
to
nostradamus
Apr 25, 2022, 4:21:14 PM4/25/22
to
"Lyrik" <jenser...@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:t43bq2$7ru$1...@dont-email.me...
Het varken van Breslau
Apr 25, 2022, 4:32:45 PM4/25/22
to
the streets 'pour encourager les autres'.
--
"What a strange and unfamiliar world if everyone were treated
according to his deserts! (Jack Vance)"
nostradamus
Apr 25, 2022, 9:41:28 PM4/25/22
to
"Het varken van Breslau" <ha...@seldon.nl> schreef in bericht
news:t470ha$egm$1...@dont-email.me...
Het varken van Breslau
Apr 26, 2022, 2:24:44 AM4/26/22
to
landen waarin heel wat 'artikel 5' clausules stonden.
Het varken van Breslau
Apr 26, 2022, 2:31:06 AM4/26/22
to
the countries involved had treaties with each another, with lots and
lots of 'article 5' paragraphs.
jmh
Apr 26, 2022, 6:27:49 AM4/26/22
to
Après mûre réflexion, Het varken van Breslau a écrit :
> Een van de verklaringen is het net van verdragen tussen de verschillende
> landen waarin heel wat 'artikel 5' clausules stonden.
Ca existe en Europe des gens qui parlent comme ça??
--
jmh: Docteur en politique nationale et internationale, professeur em,
dr h.c. mult, titulaire d'une chaire de politologie au Café du Commerce
> Een van de verklaringen is het net van verdragen tussen de verschillende
> landen waarin heel wat 'artikel 5' clausules stonden.
--
jmh: Docteur en politique nationale et internationale, professeur em,
dr h.c. mult, titulaire d'une chaire de politologie au Café du Commerce
Het varken van Breslau
Apr 26, 2022, 7:39:53 AM4/26/22
to
On 26-04-2022 12:27, jmh wrote:
> Après mûre réflexion, Het varken van Breslau a écrit :
>
>> Een van de verklaringen is het net van verdragen tussen de
>> verschillende landen waarin heel wat 'artikel 5' clausules stonden.
>
> Ca existe en Europe des gens qui parlent comme ça??
>
Certainement, mais j'ai donne la traduction dans le message suivant.
> Après mûre réflexion, Het varken van Breslau a écrit :
>
>> Een van de verklaringen is het net van verdragen tussen de
>> verschillende landen waarin heel wat 'artikel 5' clausules stonden.
>
> Ca existe en Europe des gens qui parlent comme ça??
>
Investissez .. dans le platre, valeur poudreuse (ski)
Apr 26, 2022, 8:12:08 AM4/26/22
to
Le 26/04/2022 à 13:39, Het varken van Breslau a écrit :
> On 26-04-2022 12:27, jmh wrote:
>> Après mûre réflexion, Het varken van Breslau a écrit :
>>
>>> Een van de verklaringen is het net van verdragen tussen de
>>> verschillende landen waarin heel wat 'artikel 5' clausules stonden.
>>
>> Ca existe en Europe des gens qui parlent comme ça??
>>
>
> Certainement, mais j'ai donne la traduction dans le message suivant.
>
"et venez certainement nous voir" .. le cuisiniste. Oui ca existe, et
> On 26-04-2022 12:27, jmh wrote:
>> Après mûre réflexion, Het varken van Breslau a écrit :
>>
>>> Een van de verklaringen is het net van verdragen tussen de
>>> verschillende landen waarin heel wat 'artikel 5' clausules stonden.
>>
>> Ca existe en Europe des gens qui parlent comme ça??
>>
>
> Certainement, mais j'ai donne la traduction dans le message suivant.
>
ils se rendent incompréhensible quand ils veulent.
cut nl.politiek
--
--
- - - - -- - -
Investissez .. dans le platre, valeur poudreuse (ski)
Apr 26, 2022, 8:57:50 AM4/26/22
to
Le 26/04/2022 à 12:27, jmh a écrit :
> Après mûre réflexion, Het varken van Breslau a écrit :
>
>> Een van de verklaringen is het net van verdragen tussen de
>> verschillende landen waarin heel wat 'artikel 5' clausules stonden.
>
> Ca existe en Europe des gens qui parlent comme ça??
>
non, ça vient surement d'Anvers, micro-état dans l'état qui tire sur
> Après mûre réflexion, Het varken van Breslau a écrit :
>
>> Een van de verklaringen is het net van verdragen tussen de
>> verschillende landen waarin heel wat 'artikel 5' clausules stonden.
>
> Ca existe en Europe des gens qui parlent comme ça??
>
tout ce qui bouge et qui n'est pas blanc et flamand. C'est une maladie,
c'est le nationalisme sans état, ils renient la belgique et appellent à
sa mort depuis toujours dans des manifestations dignes d'arabes
autistes, ce sont des tueurs (d'arabes et de francophones).
je me suis laissé dire pourtant que la wallonie est terre de bonheur
pour les vacanciers flamands .. sans doutes pas les mêmes, allez
comprendre ce qui se passe dans la tête des haineux.
nostradamus
Apr 26, 2022, 10:10:26 AM4/26/22
to
news:t4837a$d0k$1...@dont-email.me...
de staatshoofden van toen waren bijna allemaal familie van elkaar,
het was dus eigenlijk een uit de hand gelopen familieruzie.
het was dus eigenlijk een uit de hand gelopen familieruzie.
Oleg Smirnov
Apr 26, 2022, 2:36:22 PM4/26/22
to
KPGH, <news:XnsAE83ECD1D...@144.76.35.252>
share of irrationality in the European policymaking. Many (like those
in the European Commission and the like) tend to produce hot air.
> and both can probably not
> or no longer aspire to roles as independent geopolitical major players.
>
> However, a regional conflict over territory in Europe favors the new
> superpowers as ik makes the regional powers more dependent. That's
> probably why the US apparently discouraged a European agreement over
> geopolitical fault-lines even so pushing these even further would
> clearly be met with increasing risistance.
>
> The problem with Ukraine (and Georgia) seems that the Reagan
> administration essentially 'pulled a stunt' by tricking the USSR into
> dissolving itself on the basis of vague promises:
>
> The US would not encroach on her former sphere of influence, and would
> assist (rather then abuse) attempted reforms. At the time it seemed
> likely to me that 'economic shock therapy' and the like would result in
> the establishment of a plutocracy of 'robber barons' not unlike those
> that (with a little help) always seemed to end on top in South America.
I doubt Reagan had far reaching plans for decades. There were another
expectations at his time. Ideoilogical settings, expectations and plans
changed over the 1990s and 2000s.
> What apparently wend wrong, was that the putin-administration, while
> being a product of the plutocracy that was successfully installed,
> attempted to establish a social compact (of sorts) with Russian people
> rather than seeking assurances for himself and his family from
> international pupped-masters.
>
> This necessitated resisting the encroachment of nato on territory of the
> former USSR. Especially if there's a large ethnic Russian population
> involved. This seems now to have resulted in an open confrontation with
> a (democrat) American government that have been beating the drums of
> neoconservatism since the ninety's.
>
> But if Russia is no longer a dominant geopolitical player, it has
> probably still have enough nuclear weapons to make the rules under
> 'mutual assured destruction' (MAD) apply.
>
> So the Biden administration seems to publicly play down the relevance of
> MAD while attempting to trigger regime-change in Russia. By means of
> what amounts to sabotaging the civil economy by weaponizing the USD as a
> reserve currency. And, even so Germany seems not happy, so far European
> governments seem to comply.
>
> Of course, that can all quickly change with a single 'big bang'. :-)
>
> Anyway, a protracted conflict which will impedes free trade seems bad
> for the population in both Russia and the EU...
> "Oleg Smirnov" <os...@netc.eu> wrote on Sun 24 Apr 2022 10:24:51a:
> The conflict in Ukraine is probably best viewed in the context of a much
> wider geopolitical conflict between the US and china.
>
> Both 'the EU' and Russia have an obvious interest in detente based on a
> regional balances of power that favors trade,
Rationally may be, irrationally no. One shouldn't underestimate a
> The conflict in Ukraine is probably best viewed in the context of a much
> wider geopolitical conflict between the US and china.
>
> Both 'the EU' and Russia have an obvious interest in detente based on a
> regional balances of power that favors trade,
share of irrationality in the European policymaking. Many (like those
in the European Commission and the like) tend to produce hot air.
> and both can probably not
> or no longer aspire to roles as independent geopolitical major players.
>
> However, a regional conflict over territory in Europe favors the new
> superpowers as ik makes the regional powers more dependent. That's
> probably why the US apparently discouraged a European agreement over
> geopolitical fault-lines even so pushing these even further would
> clearly be met with increasing risistance.
>
> The problem with Ukraine (and Georgia) seems that the Reagan
> administration essentially 'pulled a stunt' by tricking the USSR into
> dissolving itself on the basis of vague promises:
>
> The US would not encroach on her former sphere of influence, and would
> assist (rather then abuse) attempted reforms. At the time it seemed
> likely to me that 'economic shock therapy' and the like would result in
> the establishment of a plutocracy of 'robber barons' not unlike those
> that (with a little help) always seemed to end on top in South America.
expectations at his time. Ideoilogical settings, expectations and plans
changed over the 1990s and 2000s.
> What apparently wend wrong, was that the putin-administration, while
> being a product of the plutocracy that was successfully installed,
> attempted to establish a social compact (of sorts) with Russian people
> rather than seeking assurances for himself and his family from
> international pupped-masters.
>
> This necessitated resisting the encroachment of nato on territory of the
> former USSR. Especially if there's a large ethnic Russian population
> involved. This seems now to have resulted in an open confrontation with
> a (democrat) American government that have been beating the drums of
> neoconservatism since the ninety's.
>
> But if Russia is no longer a dominant geopolitical player, it has
> probably still have enough nuclear weapons to make the rules under
> 'mutual assured destruction' (MAD) apply.
>
> So the Biden administration seems to publicly play down the relevance of
> MAD while attempting to trigger regime-change in Russia. By means of
> what amounts to sabotaging the civil economy by weaponizing the USD as a
> reserve currency. And, even so Germany seems not happy, so far European
> governments seem to comply.
>
> Of course, that can all quickly change with a single 'big bang'. :-)
>
> Anyway, a protracted conflict which will impedes free trade seems bad
> for the population in both Russia and the EU...
KPGH
Apr 27, 2022, 4:31:10 AM4/27/22
to
"Oleg Smirnov" <os...@netc.eu> wrote on Tue 26 Apr 2022 08:32:57p:
> KPGH, <news:XnsAE83ECD1D...@144.76.35.252>
>> "Oleg Smirnov" <os...@netc.eu> wrote on Sun 24 Apr 2022 10:24:51a:
>
>> The conflict in Ukraine is probably best viewed in the context of a
>> much wider geopolitical conflict between the US and china.
>>
>> Both 'the EU' and Russia have an obvious interest in detente based on
>> a regional balances of power that favors trade,
>
> Rationally may be, irrationally no. One shouldn't underestimate a
> share of irrationality in the European policymaking. Many (like those
> in the European Commission and the like) tend to produce hot air.
The rationality behind European policy-making is that local elites are
> KPGH, <news:XnsAE83ECD1D...@144.76.35.252>
>> "Oleg Smirnov" <os...@netc.eu> wrote on Sun 24 Apr 2022 10:24:51a:
>
>> The conflict in Ukraine is probably best viewed in the context of a
>> much wider geopolitical conflict between the US and china.
>>
>> Both 'the EU' and Russia have an obvious interest in detente based on
>> a regional balances of power that favors trade,
>
> Rationally may be, irrationally no. One shouldn't underestimate a
> share of irrationality in the European policymaking. Many (like those
> in the European Commission and the like) tend to produce hot air.
hanging on to privileges by avoiding the formation of a viable federal
European entity. This 'European Commission' seems to have much in common
with a medieval feudal counsel of regional rulers that seek to keep out
the barbarians and keep down the population. (I think it's currently not
even allowed, never mind practical, to set up a European political party
not affiliated to some local 'national' party.)
In a geopolitical (industrial, fiscal, military) context this 'European
Union' is however not viable as an geopolitical entity, and to
compensate for that the regents of the 'European Commission' take orders
(probably primarily from US geopolitical agencies) which it hidden
behind 'sparkling' -- grant visions about 'universal values' that are
selectively observed.
>> The problem with Ukraine (and Georgia) seems that the Reagan
>> administration essentially 'pulled a stunt' by tricking the USSR into
>> dissolving itself on the basis of vague promises:
>>
>> The US would not encroach on her former sphere of influence, and
>> would assist (rather then abuse) attempted reforms. At the time it
>> seemed likely to me that 'economic shock therapy' and the like would
>> result in the establishment of a plutocracy of 'robber barons' not
>> unlike those that (with a little help) always seemed to end on top in
>> South America.
>
> I doubt Reagan had far reaching plans for decades. There were another
> expectations at his time. Ideoilogical settings, expectations and
> plans changed over the 1990s and 2000s.
soviet system seemed to have fundamental weaknesses they could not fix.
The US responded by increasing the pressure by investing in military and
intelligence strategic assets, while offering the nomenklatura a way
out by letting the US 'assist' them with implementing 'reforms'.
Thus, the soviet elite was essential bribed to dismantle the USSR by
offering them to keep much of their privileges as 'oligarchs' (actually
plutocrats) under the protection of the US.
Today, I suspect that a somewhat similar scheme (thsi time to remove mr
putin) is not going to work as the Russian population is probably, at
least at some level, aware of that they were deceived when they were
promised prosperity under global order dominated by the US some 40 years
ago. ...
>> Anyway, a protracted conflict which will impedes free trade seems bad
>> for the population in both Russia and the EU...
>
> Things aren't good, and it's getting worse.
Today I hear on Bloomberg that Russia is 'weaponizing energy' by
>> for the population in both Russia and the EU...
>
> Things aren't good, and it's getting worse.
stopping deliveries tot Poland as it refuses to pay in rubles. That this
is the result of the US weaponizing international finance (by what some
might call abuse of the status of the USD as a reserve currency) seems
utterly disregarded.
Yesterday I read a story aggrandizing 'Ukrainian patriotism' by
reporting about 'grandmothers and daughters' learning to shoot. Wasn't
the opinion after WW2 that political leaders that recruited children and
the elderly as cannon fodder, were criminals that ought to be shot or
hanged? :-)
Klaus H.
Apr 27, 2022, 10:38:19 AM4/27/22
to
Oleg Smirnov
Apr 27, 2022, 10:45:39 AM4/27/22
to
KPGH, <news:XnsAE866B026...@144.76.35.252>
me that some of them are living within a virtual reality, within a dense
doctrinairist bubble.
To some extent it may be true that the US manipulates over the European
functionaries and media outlets, but there's also some genuine unhealthy
zeal on the part of Europeans themselves.
Rationally, it's a negative-sum game.
>> I doubt Reagan had far reaching plans for decades. There were another
>> expectations at his time. Ideoilogical settings, expectations and
>> plans changed over the 1990s and 2000s.
>
> As I recall the elite (nomenklatura) in the USSR was in turmoil as the
> soviet system seemed to have fundamental weaknesses they could not fix.
> The US responded by increasing the pressure by investing in military and
> intelligence strategic assets, while offering the nomenklatura a way
> out by letting the US 'assist' them with implementing 'reforms'.
>
> Thus, the soviet elite was essential bribed to dismantle the USSR by
> offering them to keep much of their privileges as 'oligarchs' (actually
> plutocrats) under the protection of the US.
>
> Today, I suspect that a somewhat similar scheme (thsi time to remove mr
> putin) is not going to work as the Russian population is probably, at
> least at some level, aware of that they were deceived when they were
> promised prosperity under global order dominated by the US some 40 years
> ago. ...
Removal of Putin won't cancel "counter-western" sentiment in Russia.
Even if a group of "pro-western" guys manages to somehow get power
through a palace coup (they would have no chance through popular vote),
then such a government would hardly last long.
And the sentiment is less linked with "prosperity", more linked with
"western" hypocrisy/self-assumption and double/triple standards. The
Ukraine coup was a point of no return, it not only touched a sensitive
issue for Russia, but it had been done in an very brazen way, when
unlawful and ugly things were declared lawful and nice by "western"
politicians and media. That's why I say that return to sanity would be
possible only if Europe admits it was wrong to support the 2014 coup.
Europe is hardly ready to do so, so things will likely be worsen.
> "Oleg Smirnov" <os...@netc.eu> wrote on Tue 26 Apr 2022 08:32:57p:
>>> Both 'the EU' and Russia have an obvious interest in detente based on
>>> a regional balances of power that favors trade,
>>
>> Rationally may be, irrationally no. One shouldn't underestimate a
>> share of irrationality in the European policymaking. Many (like those
>> in the European Commission and the like) tend to produce hot air.
>
> The rationality behind European policy-making is that local elites are
> hanging on to privileges by avoiding the formation of a viable federal
> European entity. This 'European Commission' seems to have much in common
> with a medieval feudal counsel of regional rulers that seek to keep out
> the barbarians and keep down the population. (I think it's currently not
> even allowed, never mind practical, to set up a European political party
> not affiliated to some local 'national' party.)
>
> In a geopolitical (industrial, fiscal, military) context this 'European
> Union' is however not viable as an geopolitical entity, and to
> compensate for that the regents of the 'European Commission' take orders
> (probably primarily from US geopolitical agencies) which it hidden
> behind 'sparkling' -- grant visions about 'universal values' that are
> selectively observed.
When I occasionally watch speeches of European politicians it looks to
>>> Both 'the EU' and Russia have an obvious interest in detente based on
>>> a regional balances of power that favors trade,
>>
>> Rationally may be, irrationally no. One shouldn't underestimate a
>> share of irrationality in the European policymaking. Many (like those
>> in the European Commission and the like) tend to produce hot air.
>
> The rationality behind European policy-making is that local elites are
> hanging on to privileges by avoiding the formation of a viable federal
> European entity. This 'European Commission' seems to have much in common
> with a medieval feudal counsel of regional rulers that seek to keep out
> the barbarians and keep down the population. (I think it's currently not
> even allowed, never mind practical, to set up a European political party
> not affiliated to some local 'national' party.)
>
> In a geopolitical (industrial, fiscal, military) context this 'European
> Union' is however not viable as an geopolitical entity, and to
> compensate for that the regents of the 'European Commission' take orders
> (probably primarily from US geopolitical agencies) which it hidden
> behind 'sparkling' -- grant visions about 'universal values' that are
> selectively observed.
me that some of them are living within a virtual reality, within a dense
doctrinairist bubble.
To some extent it may be true that the US manipulates over the European
functionaries and media outlets, but there's also some genuine unhealthy
zeal on the part of Europeans themselves.
Rationally, it's a negative-sum game.
>> I doubt Reagan had far reaching plans for decades. There were another
>> expectations at his time. Ideoilogical settings, expectations and
>> plans changed over the 1990s and 2000s.
>
> As I recall the elite (nomenklatura) in the USSR was in turmoil as the
> soviet system seemed to have fundamental weaknesses they could not fix.
> The US responded by increasing the pressure by investing in military and
> intelligence strategic assets, while offering the nomenklatura a way
> out by letting the US 'assist' them with implementing 'reforms'.
>
> Thus, the soviet elite was essential bribed to dismantle the USSR by
> offering them to keep much of their privileges as 'oligarchs' (actually
> plutocrats) under the protection of the US.
>
> Today, I suspect that a somewhat similar scheme (thsi time to remove mr
> putin) is not going to work as the Russian population is probably, at
> least at some level, aware of that they were deceived when they were
> promised prosperity under global order dominated by the US some 40 years
> ago. ...
Even if a group of "pro-western" guys manages to somehow get power
through a palace coup (they would have no chance through popular vote),
then such a government would hardly last long.
And the sentiment is less linked with "prosperity", more linked with
"western" hypocrisy/self-assumption and double/triple standards. The
Ukraine coup was a point of no return, it not only touched a sensitive
issue for Russia, but it had been done in an very brazen way, when
unlawful and ugly things were declared lawful and nice by "western"
politicians and media. That's why I say that return to sanity would be
possible only if Europe admits it was wrong to support the 2014 coup.
Europe is hardly ready to do so, so things will likely be worsen.
Het varken van Breslau
Apr 27, 2022, 10:57:03 AM4/27/22
to
Oleg Smirnov
Apr 30, 2022, 1:26:31 AM4/30/22
to
The total population of the Ukraine within the 2014 boundaries would be
about 40 million (although many suspect it's an overestimation because
the last census happened in 2001, and various indirect indicators hint
that the real figure may be less than the official one). Anyway, the 6-7
million people in the breakaway Crimea and Donbas areas is 15% or more
of the total. Their post-coup escape had significantly changed balance
of voters thus providing more legitimacy for the post-coup regime in the
Kiev-controlled territory. It still didn't change the fact that the 2014
coup happened in an unlawful way in favor of a minority.
The Minsk agreement implied that the breakaway Donbas shall go back to
the Ukraine, but if it really happened according to the agreement, then
it would mean, again, a change of the balance of voters, which would
require from the post-coup regime certain change of their policies. It
would be so if one is talking in "democracy" terms. The freaks in Kiev
hated this prospect, and this is why they were so stubbornly unwilling
to implement the Minsk-2 agreement under this or that bogus pretext.
Instead, they made efforts to take the area by brute force, and there
were quite open talks among them that after the takeover of Donbas, its
locals should be deprived of the vote right (on the basis that they are
degenerates disliking the Banderist ideology <https://bit.ly/3q5yHav>).
Thus, painting of the post-coup regime in Kiev as "democracy" would be
an insult to intelligence, - but this is exactly what the Atlanticism,
including Europe, does. Because, for the Atlanticism, "geopolitics" is
the true interest, while "democracy" is a rhetorical tool, so no wonder
it's leading to disastrous developments. And those regular Europeans
who follow the logics of "our tribe" against "their tribe" should also
realize that such archaics has nothing to do with "democracy" as such.
To strengthen itself, the post-coup regime resorted to unwinding very
hysterical Hitlerian-style agitation among the populace in the Kiev-
controlled territory. You know, before the rise of Hitler in the post-
WW1 Germany, number of members of left-wing German parties was much
larger than the number of members of the Nazi party. But the Hitlerian
agitation soon led to such a situation that a large part of the former
"leftists" willingly switched to Nazi. It was seductive and inspiring.
That's the way a mass psychosis works. The Kiev regime chose to follow
essentially this way.
The Kremlin had decided that such developments - in combination with
the Atlanticist plans to utilize the (post-)Ukraine as a tool against
Russia - can not be tolerated, so we have now what we have.
The only way to restore sanity is to fairly look back at the beginning
and realize, and recognize the fact that the "western" support for the
anti-democratic coup in Kiev in 2014 was a gross mistake.
* * *
And even more initially, it started when the EU arrogantly refused to
take into account Russia's legitimate itnerests / concerns with regard
to the economic assocuation between the EU and the Ukraine. "Putin's
proposal for a tripartite arrangement, rarely if ever reported, was
flatly rejected by US and EU officials." <https://bit.ly/3CCYKee>. It
was in violation of the Helsinki Accords, which stated inter alia that
"participating States .. will take into account the interest of all .."
* * *
about 40 million (although many suspect it's an overestimation because
the last census happened in 2001, and various indirect indicators hint
that the real figure may be less than the official one). Anyway, the 6-7
million people in the breakaway Crimea and Donbas areas is 15% or more
of the total. Their post-coup escape had significantly changed balance
of voters thus providing more legitimacy for the post-coup regime in the
Kiev-controlled territory. It still didn't change the fact that the 2014
coup happened in an unlawful way in favor of a minority.
The Minsk agreement implied that the breakaway Donbas shall go back to
the Ukraine, but if it really happened according to the agreement, then
it would mean, again, a change of the balance of voters, which would
require from the post-coup regime certain change of their policies. It
would be so if one is talking in "democracy" terms. The freaks in Kiev
hated this prospect, and this is why they were so stubbornly unwilling
to implement the Minsk-2 agreement under this or that bogus pretext.
Instead, they made efforts to take the area by brute force, and there
were quite open talks among them that after the takeover of Donbas, its
locals should be deprived of the vote right (on the basis that they are
degenerates disliking the Banderist ideology <https://bit.ly/3q5yHav>).
Thus, painting of the post-coup regime in Kiev as "democracy" would be
an insult to intelligence, - but this is exactly what the Atlanticism,
including Europe, does. Because, for the Atlanticism, "geopolitics" is
the true interest, while "democracy" is a rhetorical tool, so no wonder
it's leading to disastrous developments. And those regular Europeans
who follow the logics of "our tribe" against "their tribe" should also
realize that such archaics has nothing to do with "democracy" as such.
To strengthen itself, the post-coup regime resorted to unwinding very
hysterical Hitlerian-style agitation among the populace in the Kiev-
controlled territory. You know, before the rise of Hitler in the post-
WW1 Germany, number of members of left-wing German parties was much
larger than the number of members of the Nazi party. But the Hitlerian
agitation soon led to such a situation that a large part of the former
"leftists" willingly switched to Nazi. It was seductive and inspiring.
That's the way a mass psychosis works. The Kiev regime chose to follow
essentially this way.
The Kremlin had decided that such developments - in combination with
the Atlanticist plans to utilize the (post-)Ukraine as a tool against
Russia - can not be tolerated, so we have now what we have.
The only way to restore sanity is to fairly look back at the beginning
and realize, and recognize the fact that the "western" support for the
anti-democratic coup in Kiev in 2014 was a gross mistake.
* * *
And even more initially, it started when the EU arrogantly refused to
take into account Russia's legitimate itnerests / concerns with regard
to the economic assocuation between the EU and the Ukraine. "Putin's
proposal for a tripartite arrangement, rarely if ever reported, was
flatly rejected by US and EU officials." <https://bit.ly/3CCYKee>. It
was in violation of the Helsinki Accords, which stated inter alia that
"participating States .. will take into account the interest of all .."
* * *
Oleg Smirnov
Apr 30, 2022, 4:01:23 AM4/30/22
to
R.Phillips, <news:a57bd158-1560-428c...@googlegroups.com>
> Op zaterdag 30 april 2022 om 07:26:30 UTC+2 schreef Oleg Smirnov:
> You can't have our cake and eat it too. Occupation by a totalitarian
> junta does not mix with Ukraine's democracy. There is no breakaway
> but by international law an illegal conquest of part of a sovereign
> nation recognized by the United Nations countries. Say that
> Japan would conquer Sachalin and the Kuril Islands because
> they once were Japanese. It wouldn't fly, in the UN now would it.
What you call "occupation" happened as a secondary thing.
The primary thing was the unawful, violent, anti-constitutional
and anti-democratic coup d'etat in Kiev in February 2014.
It was anti-democratic because the usurpation of power happened
in favor of a minirity, and the self-imposed "government" made
it clear it will apply repressive means to those who are unhappy
about the coup. This, in turn, caused the fact that some regions
decided to break away from the Ukraine (and Russia helped them).
"The west" supported the coup, and it was a gross mistake.
If Europe was really pro-democracy, it should have admitted that
such an usurpation of power by violent means is not a proper way
to implement "will of the people".
It all happened as an intra-Ukrainian situation, so what you may
think about "totalitarian" Russia within your silly weak mind is
absolutely irrelevant. Russia appeared as an actor there only
because the US/EU made it clear that they will unfairly ignore
the legitimate interest of those in the Ukraine who were unhappy
about the unlawful coup. In such a situation, the people could
rely on Russia only.
> Op zaterdag 30 april 2022 om 07:26:30 UTC+2 schreef Oleg Smirnov:
> You can't have our cake and eat it too. Occupation by a totalitarian
> junta does not mix with Ukraine's democracy. There is no breakaway
> but by international law an illegal conquest of part of a sovereign
> nation recognized by the United Nations countries. Say that
> Japan would conquer Sachalin and the Kuril Islands because
> they once were Japanese. It wouldn't fly, in the UN now would it.
What you call "occupation" happened as a secondary thing.
The primary thing was the unawful, violent, anti-constitutional
and anti-democratic coup d'etat in Kiev in February 2014.
It was anti-democratic because the usurpation of power happened
in favor of a minirity, and the self-imposed "government" made
it clear it will apply repressive means to those who are unhappy
about the coup. This, in turn, caused the fact that some regions
decided to break away from the Ukraine (and Russia helped them).
"The west" supported the coup, and it was a gross mistake.
If Europe was really pro-democracy, it should have admitted that
such an usurpation of power by violent means is not a proper way
to implement "will of the people".
It all happened as an intra-Ukrainian situation, so what you may
think about "totalitarian" Russia within your silly weak mind is
absolutely irrelevant. Russia appeared as an actor there only
because the US/EU made it clear that they will unfairly ignore
the legitimate interest of those in the Ukraine who were unhappy
about the unlawful coup. In such a situation, the people could
rely on Russia only.
nostradamus
Apr 30, 2022, 4:10:43 AM4/30/22
to
"Oleg Smirnov" <os...@netc.eu> schreef in bericht
news:t4iqcg$8cf$1...@os.motzarella.org...
> R.Phillips, <news:a57bd158-1560-428c...@googlegroups.com>
>> Op zaterdag 30 april 2022 om 07:26:30 UTC+2 schreef Oleg Smirnov:
>
>> You can't have our cake and eat it too. Occupation by a totalitarian
>> junta does not mix with Ukraine's democracy. There is no breakaway
>> but by international law an illegal conquest of part of a sovereign
>> nation recognized by the United Nations countries. Say that Japan would
>> conquer Sachalin and the Kuril Islands because they once were Japanese.
>> It wouldn't fly, in the UN now would it.
>
> What you call "occupation" happened as a secondary thing.
> The primary thing was the unawful, violent, anti-constitutional
> and anti-democratic coup d'etat in Kiev in February 2014.
> It was anti-democratic because the usurpation of power happened
> in favor of a minirity, and the self-imposed "government" made
> it clear it will apply repressive means to those who are unhappy
> about the coup. This, in turn, caused the fact that some regions
> decided to break away from the Ukraine (and Russia helped them).
> "The west" supported the coup, and it was a gross mistake.
>
2014.
>> Op zaterdag 30 april 2022 om 07:26:30 UTC+2 schreef Oleg Smirnov:
>
>> You can't have our cake and eat it too. Occupation by a totalitarian
>> junta does not mix with Ukraine's democracy. There is no breakaway
>> but by international law an illegal conquest of part of a sovereign
>> nation recognized by the United Nations countries. Say that Japan would
>> conquer Sachalin and the Kuril Islands because they once were Japanese.
>> It wouldn't fly, in the UN now would it.
>
> What you call "occupation" happened as a secondary thing.
> The primary thing was the unawful, violent, anti-constitutional
> and anti-democratic coup d'etat in Kiev in February 2014.
> It was anti-democratic because the usurpation of power happened
> in favor of a minirity, and the self-imposed "government" made
> it clear it will apply repressive means to those who are unhappy
> about the coup. This, in turn, caused the fact that some regions
> decided to break away from the Ukraine (and Russia helped them).
> "The west" supported the coup, and it was a gross mistake.
>
US and Russia agreed the existing president would stay in power for the next
6 month.
Within this period there would be elections.
But, the EU (fascist liberals) at that time organised a coup and put a new
president in place....
Het varken van Breslau
Apr 30, 2022, 4:11:25 AM4/30/22
to
president to keep an eye on it?
KPGH
Apr 30, 2022, 9:05:42 AM4/30/22
to
"Oleg Smirnov" <os...@netc.eu> wrote on Wed 27 Apr 2022 04:44:30p:
> When I occasionally watch speeches of European politicians it looks to
> me that some of them are living within a virtual reality, within a
> dense doctrinairist bubble.
> To some extent it may be true that the US manipulates over the
> European functionaries and media outlets, but there's also some
> genuine unhealthy zeal on the part of Europeans themselves.
The primary condition for a state to exist, is to maintain it's claim to
> When I occasionally watch speeches of European politicians it looks to
> me that some of them are living within a virtual reality, within a
> dense doctrinairist bubble.
> To some extent it may be true that the US manipulates over the
> European functionaries and media outlets, but there's also some
> genuine unhealthy zeal on the part of Europeans themselves.
a monopoly to the use of violence within it's territory. And then to
defend the territory against infringements or encroachments from the
outside. Hence small countries can only exist as satellites of major
countries or try to hedge their dependencies.
As a result, whether they claim to be 'democracies' (which is a rather
ridiculous claim for European monarchies complete with counts and
junkers anyway) or not, for mini-states the freedom to develop policies
independent of external interference will always be severely restricted.
This results in the kind of 'cuckoo parliaments' where party-politicians
(often looking like they were neutered as a condition of becoming
parliamentarians) babble or wheal about 'ideology' instead of debating
how problems could best be solved.
The same applies for the EU that doesn't even claim to be a (federal)
state: the EU in its current form seems basically a symptom of parasitic
disease as pre-WW2 elites attempt tot regain their former privileges in
a vacuum that opened up when the US started to retreat in the 1990s.
...
> Removal of Putin won't cancel "counter-western" sentiment in Russia.
More important seems the position of those controling the state after
pres putin.
> Even if a group of "pro-western" guys manages to somehow get power
> through a palace coup (they would have no chance through popular
> vote), then such a government would hardly last long.
very difficult. Especially as long as the Chinese economy or political
system and/of class doesn't collapse and offer both practical strategic
support and to some extent an alternative model for (academic) 'liberal
democracy' that seems in trouble itself.
However, whatever the (in the west now much maligned) motivations of mr
putin and his inner circle are or may have been, from what I
understand, the political, social en economic systems seem largely
stagnant and waiting for something to break -- in many way like in the
EU?
> And the sentiment is less linked with "prosperity", more linked with
> "western" hypocrisy/self-assumption and double/triple standards. The
> Ukraine coup was a point of no return, it not only touched a sensitive
> issue for Russia, but it had been done in an very brazen way, when
> unlawful and ugly things were declared lawful and nice by "western"
> politicians and media. That's why I say that return to sanity would be
> possible only if Europe admits it was wrong to support the 2014 coup.
>
> Europe is hardly ready to do so, so things will likely be worsen.
between elites who controlled territories and working classes who votes
with their feed by moving between them. Keeping them in bondage to
restict 'voting', became probably increasingly impractical with the
advance of industrialization and military technology.
Today, the chinese seems the only ethnic group big enough to base a
viable nation-state on. Everywhere else it's 'smoke and mirrors'.
In this respect I suspect that the (part of) American revolutionaries
were right in that a stable state needs both to be big enough to pull
its weight in an international zero-sum game, and be based on an idea
about adminstration (ultimately the use of violence) rahter than some
alleged common ancestry or 'divine will'.
Unfortunately at this point it seems unclear if such a system can be
designed to be sufficiently stable and fend of parasitic infestation...
Erika Ciesla
May 1, 2022, 1:52:03 AM5/1/22
to
Am 30.04.22 um 15:05 Uhr KPGH schrieb:
fuck yourself!
fuck yourself!
KPGH
May 1, 2022, 6:20:50 AM5/1/22
to
It seems increasingly likely that Europa is again sleepwalking into the
next great war.
One reason for that seems, apparently much like before world-war-one,
the mass-media on all sides seem to be pounding the drums of the 'just
war'.
Oleg Smirnov
May 1, 2022, 4:21:15 PM5/1/22
to
nostradamus, <news:nnd$7578688c$33c6068d@b615e5bcc1c0105a>
and Ukraine before the 2014 events. With regard to the forthcoming
"economic association" between the Ukraine and the EU, the Kremlin
saw that it can make some disbalances and asked the EU officials to
harmonize it in a trilateral way. The EU answered "get out, we don't
care about Russia". After that, Putin negotiated with the Ukraine
and persuaded their president Yanukovich to postpone the economic
association with the EU in exchange for certain additional benefits
and supports from Russia.
In turn, the Atlanticist mafia activated their agents that started
a protest agitation within the Ukraine. The Atlanticist mass media
immediately started to paint Yanukovich as a kind of corrupt tyrant
and Putin's puppet (despite the fact that the West didn't question
his democratic legitimacy before) which also stimulated the protest
movement. Ukrainian domestic pro-Atlanticist media outlets (funded
by the Atlanticism) fed the populace with dense misinformations, so
that many believed misguiding claims that the association agreement
means EU membership, EU-level salaries etc etc within a couple of
years, whereas evil Yanukovich is seeking to steal their "European
future". There was quite a dirty "social engineering".
The protest movement efficiently split into two "branches", one of
which was a persistent peaceful protest meeting, while another one
turned out highly violent, driven by militant neo-Nazis and similar
groups, who seized various administrative buildings in the country
and sought to take control over the main government quarter in Kiev.
No European country would tolerate such intense violence in street
protests, but in the Ukraine case the 'western' MSM falsely painted
things as fight for freedom against a tyranny. Top US/EU politicians
warned Yanukovich that he must allow "peaceful protest". He
hesitated to apply strong police means against "protesters" turned
insurgents because he hoped to continue some relationship with "the
west". All this demoralized those Ukraine's political factions who
disliked such unlawful developments, it also demoralized police and
other security forces, but emboldened militant "protesters".
February 20, 2014, a mission of a few high-rank European officials
mediated a negotiation between the government and the leaders of
the protests and warranted an agreement which, among other things,
provided for early presidential election by the end of 2014. Next
day, the agreement had immediately been violated by "protesters" so
that Yanukovich had to flee because of threats to his life, while
the European "warrantors" did absolutely nothing to get things back
on lawful track. The putschists proclaimed the president refused to
implement his duties and formed their self-imposed "government".
This way an unlawful, anti-democratic usurpation of power happened
under patronage of the EU and the US. Yanukovich was not a dictator,
he didn't exceed his legal powers. Those who were unhappy about his
decisions and policies, might lawfully elect some another leader
through regular election (or even through early election according
to that February 21 agreement). If the democratic procedure was not
violated, then it is likely that less radical / more constructive
people would get power in the Ukraine, and subsequent developments
would be not as destructive as they are now.
This brazen lawlessness, under "western" ecouragement and approval,
outraged a part of the Ukrainians as well as many in Russia, so the
Kremlin came into play to help Crimea and Donbas to escape from the
post-coup regime, which eventually led to the hostile situation we
have today.
European politicians may blame Russia for something, but, for a
start, they need to recognise their own mistakes and misdeeds that
gave start to such destructive developments.
The current situation isn't good for both Russia and Europe. Europe
had significantly underminded itself, lowered its position against
the rest of the world, through the WW1 and the WW2. The unhealthy
anti-Russia zeal within the European political establishment brings
nothing good for Europeans, it undermines, lowers Europe further.
>> "The west" supported the coup, and it was a gross mistake.
>>
> 2014.
> US and Russia agreed the existing president would stay in power for the next
> 6 month.
> Within this period there would be elections.
> But, the EU (fascist liberals) at that time organised a coup and put a new
> president in place....
There was a strong economic cooperation / vast trade between Russia
>>
> 2014.
> US and Russia agreed the existing president would stay in power for the next
> 6 month.
> Within this period there would be elections.
> But, the EU (fascist liberals) at that time organised a coup and put a new
> president in place....
and Ukraine before the 2014 events. With regard to the forthcoming
"economic association" between the Ukraine and the EU, the Kremlin
saw that it can make some disbalances and asked the EU officials to
harmonize it in a trilateral way. The EU answered "get out, we don't
care about Russia". After that, Putin negotiated with the Ukraine
and persuaded their president Yanukovich to postpone the economic
association with the EU in exchange for certain additional benefits
and supports from Russia.
In turn, the Atlanticist mafia activated their agents that started
a protest agitation within the Ukraine. The Atlanticist mass media
immediately started to paint Yanukovich as a kind of corrupt tyrant
and Putin's puppet (despite the fact that the West didn't question
his democratic legitimacy before) which also stimulated the protest
movement. Ukrainian domestic pro-Atlanticist media outlets (funded
by the Atlanticism) fed the populace with dense misinformations, so
that many believed misguiding claims that the association agreement
means EU membership, EU-level salaries etc etc within a couple of
years, whereas evil Yanukovich is seeking to steal their "European
future". There was quite a dirty "social engineering".
The protest movement efficiently split into two "branches", one of
which was a persistent peaceful protest meeting, while another one
turned out highly violent, driven by militant neo-Nazis and similar
groups, who seized various administrative buildings in the country
and sought to take control over the main government quarter in Kiev.
No European country would tolerate such intense violence in street
protests, but in the Ukraine case the 'western' MSM falsely painted
things as fight for freedom against a tyranny. Top US/EU politicians
warned Yanukovich that he must allow "peaceful protest". He
hesitated to apply strong police means against "protesters" turned
insurgents because he hoped to continue some relationship with "the
west". All this demoralized those Ukraine's political factions who
disliked such unlawful developments, it also demoralized police and
other security forces, but emboldened militant "protesters".
February 20, 2014, a mission of a few high-rank European officials
mediated a negotiation between the government and the leaders of
the protests and warranted an agreement which, among other things,
provided for early presidential election by the end of 2014. Next
day, the agreement had immediately been violated by "protesters" so
that Yanukovich had to flee because of threats to his life, while
the European "warrantors" did absolutely nothing to get things back
on lawful track. The putschists proclaimed the president refused to
implement his duties and formed their self-imposed "government".
This way an unlawful, anti-democratic usurpation of power happened
under patronage of the EU and the US. Yanukovich was not a dictator,
he didn't exceed his legal powers. Those who were unhappy about his
decisions and policies, might lawfully elect some another leader
through regular election (or even through early election according
to that February 21 agreement). If the democratic procedure was not
violated, then it is likely that less radical / more constructive
people would get power in the Ukraine, and subsequent developments
would be not as destructive as they are now.
This brazen lawlessness, under "western" ecouragement and approval,
outraged a part of the Ukrainians as well as many in Russia, so the
Kremlin came into play to help Crimea and Donbas to escape from the
post-coup regime, which eventually led to the hostile situation we
have today.
European politicians may blame Russia for something, but, for a
start, they need to recognise their own mistakes and misdeeds that
gave start to such destructive developments.
The current situation isn't good for both Russia and Europe. Europe
had significantly underminded itself, lowered its position against
the rest of the world, through the WW1 and the WW2. The unhealthy
anti-Russia zeal within the European political establishment brings
nothing good for Europeans, it undermines, lowers Europe further.
KPGH
May 2, 2022, 9:08:19 AM5/2/22
to
"Oleg Smirnov" <os...@netc.eu> wrote on Sun 01 May 2022 10:20:46p:
"Oleg Smirnov" <os...@netc.eu> wrote on Sun 01 May 2022 10:20:46p:
...
'Lawlessness' doesn't seem to apply in the context of geopolitics. It
depends on 'laws' which in turn dependent on whoever makes, interpret
and enforce rules.
Also the 'neo-nazi narrative' doesn't seem to resonate at all in the
west, since 'atlanticist' (NATO-oriented) propaganda presented the
current Russian government as a type of neo-nazi regime. I recall a
cover of the economist newspapers (1990's?) with a cartoon of slumbering
bear with swastikas in its eyes.
The truth is probably that the Russian population got 'fucked over'
around 1990 with lyrical notions like an 'European home' of which they
were going to be part. This then quickly turned into 'daylight robbery'
under a veil of 'the free market' and ''democracy'. That is, a tyranny
justified by 'the will of the majority' which in turn is controlled by
whoever controlled mass media and financial regulatory mechanisms.
Life expectancy apparently continued to decline until after mr. Putin
came to power.
After that, a turnaround in life expectancy might not have entirely
accidentally coincided with a start of the vilification of mr puntin in
western propaganda.
Since then, the primary rule with regard to the geopolitical contest for
spheres of influence (both in Europe and increasingly in Africa where
Russian and Chinese interests seem to be aligned), seems that there are
no rules.
In this constellation Europe seems subservient to the US-interests as
local elites try to sell their services to the highest bidder which so
far was the US. This so called 'europaan union' is in this context
little more than a cocoon of counterrevolutionary interests part of
which are happy to align itself with other parties including russia if
they feel they can get a better deal.
From the perspective of the current US-government, Ukraine, as an
US-depended oligarchy, is probably in many respect what Russia was
suppose to become and Europa increasingly is -- what Donald Rumsfeld
labeled 'New Europe'. A war around Ukraine could probably both serve to
further weaken the Putin government and the establishment of New
Europe.
Initially Russia seemed the have been tricked into a type of
(per-organized) urban guerrilla-warfare in which it took heavy losses.
So far that seems to work with regard to getting the flock of European
states behind a combative policy, while public opinion in Russia went
the other way and apparently resulted in 'rallying around the leader'.
I guess Russia (wisely) retreated after realizing its mistake, and is
now working out a military and diplomatic response.
Much will now depend on the outcome of an upcoming battle?
"Oleg Smirnov" <os...@netc.eu> wrote on Sun 01 May 2022 10:20:46p:
...
depends on 'laws' which in turn dependent on whoever makes, interpret
and enforce rules.
Also the 'neo-nazi narrative' doesn't seem to resonate at all in the
west, since 'atlanticist' (NATO-oriented) propaganda presented the
current Russian government as a type of neo-nazi regime. I recall a
cover of the economist newspapers (1990's?) with a cartoon of slumbering
bear with swastikas in its eyes.
The truth is probably that the Russian population got 'fucked over'
around 1990 with lyrical notions like an 'European home' of which they
were going to be part. This then quickly turned into 'daylight robbery'
under a veil of 'the free market' and ''democracy'. That is, a tyranny
justified by 'the will of the majority' which in turn is controlled by
whoever controlled mass media and financial regulatory mechanisms.
Life expectancy apparently continued to decline until after mr. Putin
came to power.
After that, a turnaround in life expectancy might not have entirely
accidentally coincided with a start of the vilification of mr puntin in
western propaganda.
Since then, the primary rule with regard to the geopolitical contest for
spheres of influence (both in Europe and increasingly in Africa where
Russian and Chinese interests seem to be aligned), seems that there are
no rules.
In this constellation Europe seems subservient to the US-interests as
local elites try to sell their services to the highest bidder which so
far was the US. This so called 'europaan union' is in this context
little more than a cocoon of counterrevolutionary interests part of
which are happy to align itself with other parties including russia if
they feel they can get a better deal.
From the perspective of the current US-government, Ukraine, as an
US-depended oligarchy, is probably in many respect what Russia was
suppose to become and Europa increasingly is -- what Donald Rumsfeld
labeled 'New Europe'. A war around Ukraine could probably both serve to
further weaken the Putin government and the establishment of New
Europe.
Initially Russia seemed the have been tricked into a type of
(per-organized) urban guerrilla-warfare in which it took heavy losses.
So far that seems to work with regard to getting the flock of European
states behind a combative policy, while public opinion in Russia went
the other way and apparently resulted in 'rallying around the leader'.
I guess Russia (wisely) retreated after realizing its mistake, and is
now working out a military and diplomatic response.
Much will now depend on the outcome of an upcoming battle?
Oleg Smirnov
May 2, 2022, 12:36:40 PM5/2/22
to
R.Phillips, <news:9cb0a395-5114-4ea8...@googlegroups.com>
> Op zaterdag 30 april 2022 om 10:01:23 UTC+2 schreef Oleg Smirnov:
>> What you call "occupation" happened as a secondary thing.
>> The primary thing was the unawful, violent, anti-constitutional
>> and anti-democratic n Kiev in February 2014.
>
> The Ukraine is a sovereign country.
Was (because today it's an Atlanticist 'neo-colony').
Zelensky was a 2nd rate comedian turned president, and now he's
at the center of world politics. He's not really much interested
in well-being of the regular Ukrainians. As well as he's not
interested in deescalating and looking for compromise solutions.
Connection with the Atlanticist powers and escalation makes him
the world political star and brings large money flows under his
control. To lesser extent it's true also for other functionaries
of the Kiev regime. They will seek to unwind the escalation and
hysteria as much as possible as long as they remain capable to
maintain the mass psychosis among the domestic populace and give
a hope to their Atlanticist patrons.
> Moreover the OSCE approved the outcome.
> https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/ukraine/121163
It happened in July 2014. The anti-constitutional anti-democratic
coup happened February 2014. By July 2014, about 15% or more of the
pre-coup Ukraine's voters - mainly the residents of the breakaway
regions - did not participate neither in election debate nor in the
voting procedure. If they did, then things might be much different.
I already had described the demographic changes in connection with
the popular sentiment in this message <https://tinyurl.com/y69bbaxf>
Besides, the OSCE is a pro-Atlanticist/"pro-western" body, it can't
be seen neither as a [moral] authority nor as a kind of arbitrator
in disputes with "counter-western" Russia.
And regarding the coup happened in February 2014 it's as follows.
>> It was anti-democratic because the usurpation of power happened
>> in favor of a minority, and the self-imposed "government" made
> establish recognition of an unlawful coup after the OSCE presented
> a lawful election outcome in 2014 and 2019?
Your OSCE-related links are about July 2014 events in the territory
controlled by the self-imposed "goverment", which was formed after
the anti-constitutional anti-democratic coup in February 2014. Even
if one recognizes the result of the election in the Kiev-controlled
territory in July 2014 as valid, it's not applicable to the people,
- former Ukrainians in the breakaway area - who did not participate
neither in election campaign nor in the vote (in July 2014).
What happened in the Kiev-controlled territory after the February
2014 coup cannot - as a matter of principle - be used as an argument
to legitimize the very February 2014 coup as such.
> Op zaterdag 30 april 2022 om 10:01:23 UTC+2 schreef Oleg Smirnov:
>> What you call "occupation" happened as a secondary thing.
>> The primary thing was the unawful, violent, anti-constitutional
>
> The Ukraine is a sovereign country.
Was (because today it's an Atlanticist 'neo-colony').
Zelensky was a 2nd rate comedian turned president, and now he's
at the center of world politics. He's not really much interested
in well-being of the regular Ukrainians. As well as he's not
interested in deescalating and looking for compromise solutions.
Connection with the Atlanticist powers and escalation makes him
the world political star and brings large money flows under his
control. To lesser extent it's true also for other functionaries
of the Kiev regime. They will seek to unwind the escalation and
hysteria as much as possible as long as they remain capable to
maintain the mass psychosis among the domestic populace and give
a hope to their Atlanticist patrons.
> Moreover the OSCE approved the outcome.
> https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/ukraine/121163
It happened in July 2014. The anti-constitutional anti-democratic
coup happened February 2014. By July 2014, about 15% or more of the
pre-coup Ukraine's voters - mainly the residents of the breakaway
regions - did not participate neither in election debate nor in the
voting procedure. If they did, then things might be much different.
I already had described the demographic changes in connection with
the popular sentiment in this message <https://tinyurl.com/y69bbaxf>
Besides, the OSCE is a pro-Atlanticist/"pro-western" body, it can't
be seen neither as a [moral] authority nor as a kind of arbitrator
in disputes with "counter-western" Russia.
And regarding the coup happened in February 2014 it's as follows.
>> It was anti-democratic because the usurpation of power happened
>> it clear it will apply repressive means to those who are unhappy
>> about the coup. This, in turn, caused the fact that some regions
>> decided to break away from the Ukraine (and Russia helped them).
>> "The west" supported the coup, and it was a gross mistake.
> Think again. What internationally recognized court or tribunal would
>> about the coup. This, in turn, caused the fact that some regions
>> decided to break away from the Ukraine (and Russia helped them).
>> "The west" supported the coup, and it was a gross mistake.
> establish recognition of an unlawful coup after the OSCE presented
> a lawful election outcome in 2014 and 2019?
Your OSCE-related links are about July 2014 events in the territory
controlled by the self-imposed "goverment", which was formed after
the anti-constitutional anti-democratic coup in February 2014. Even
if one recognizes the result of the election in the Kiev-controlled
territory in July 2014 as valid, it's not applicable to the people,
- former Ukrainians in the breakaway area - who did not participate
neither in election campaign nor in the vote (in July 2014).
What happened in the Kiev-controlled territory after the February
2014 coup cannot - as a matter of principle - be used as an argument
to legitimize the very February 2014 coup as such.
Oleg Smirnov
May 4, 2022, 5:38:14 AM5/4/22
to
KPGH, <news:XnsAE8B99FE2...@144.76.35.252>
and in the Ukraine case it went grossly out of proportion. There was an
usurpation of power by some "insistent" faction which didn't represent
the majority, but "the west" supported this faction. For Russians it's
impossible to accept it for granted.
> Also the 'neo-nazi narrative' doesn't seem to resonate at all in the
> west,
The "western" image of Nazis, at least its version intended for mass
consumption, is simplistic: the Nazis must be brutal and against the
Jews, and that's it. This is why the "western" media repeatedy issue
the argument they believe is unbeatable: how there might be Nazis if
their president is Jewish.
In Russia, the Nazi term is applicable to any kind of radical
nationalism/sectarianism seeking to whip up a popular unity through
promotion of a sense of entitlement combined with a hateful and
denigratory agenda against certain group(s) seen as a hindrance (and
usually, to make it efficient, it also must be somewhat psychotic).
The Kiev regime *does* represent such elements.
I still can agree that the Kremlin's "PR effort" is weak and clumsy.
> since 'atlanticist' (NATO-oriented) propaganda presented the
> current Russian government as a type of neo-nazi regime. I recall a
> cover of the economist newspapers (1990's?) with a cartoon of slumbering
> bear with swastikas in its eyes.
Russia's historical background and [long kept] ethnic, cultural and
regional diversity can not encourage Nazi-like developments. European
formations, historically, were mostly sedentary Christians to each
other, while Russia had to maintain a stable neighborhood also with
Muslims and pagans, sedentary and nomadic. It caused certian adaptive
universalist settings (which Europeans didn't need), it also defined
certain Russia's differences against Europe.
European Nazism and "racial" concepts are based on cultural settings
developed during the time Europeans call Renaissance and Enlightenment
as a rationalization of what they call Age of Discovery. For Russia,
such things are alien due to another historical experience. There may
be various marginal freaks, but not in the mainstream.
And by the way that's why the European ideologists are interested in
keeping "Nazism" simplistic, - non-simplistic comprehension threatens
to put in question some basic West/Europe-centric settings.
Given the above, Russia was always somewhat an 'alternative model'
against Europe. It doesn't mean it was 'right' or 'better' model, but
it's what was relevant regarding the Russian specific historical
experience (and Russia never sought to place itself as a sample for
Europe and others). The 1917 revolt changed the situation so that the
Soviet ideologists began to promote a globalist agenda which elements
seemed attractive for many people(s) all over the world.
While the Soviet ideologists in a large part were fairly idealistic,
from the "western" perspective it perceived as a bold assault on the
"western" self-belief that "the west" is a cultural and ideological
world leader, which stimulated search for competitive alternatives.
In particular, the German Nazism emerged so (as "national socialism"
against simply "socialism"). But the main branch was the development
of the west-centric "left liberal" discourse, which also evolved in
a large part as a counter-weight to the pro-Soviet leftism, and it's
goal was to keep "the west" as a leading ideological-cultist force.
The USSR was not Russia but somewhat a "superstructure" over Russia,
and, later, the Soviet excessive-extremist and doctrinairist issues
as pretty much damaged its attractivenes as led to self-dismantlement
of the USSR. Post-Soviet Russia doesn't seek to offer a globalist
model, but "the hegemonist west" learned the precendent, and its
policymakers (embodied today in the form of the Atlanticism) continue
to see Russia as such a place that can produce, at least in potention,
some real threat to the Atlanticist cultural-ideological domination.
It drove them to seek to weaken Russia through the NATO expansion and
impairment of economic cooperation among the countries in the post-
Soviet space. Such a "western" unhealthy zeal was visible even since
the 1990s, and it was what Russia naturally could not like, even if
it doesn't have any globalist ambitions today.
It's what has led to the present day hostilities.
The claims Putin dreams to restore the USSR and conqure this and that
(Baltics, Poland etc) is an exaggeration. Realistically, all the cases
where the Kremlin resorted to military involvement in the post-Sovet
space were linked with emergence of extremist movements-trends in the
near-Russia regions that could produce negative consequences for the
situation inside Russia. This is a reactive-protective logic, but not
a logic of aggressive expansion. Some contradictions there exist as a
legacy of imperfect Soviet designs, but the Atlanticism also seeks to
actively contribute to aggravation of them in order to weaken Russia.
China, and Asia as a whole, has become an important element in the
contemporary layout. "The west" sees China primarily as an economic
rival, but the Atlanticist policymakers seem to believe that China
can't become capable to challenge "the American global leadership" in
the ideological-cultist field at the world scale. Time will tell.
It seems for regular people things will be not good anyway. Trends have
been set to make things further worse. Europe still can make things less
bad if it fairly reconsiders its Ukraine-related bogus narratives.
> "Oleg Smirnov" <os...@netc.eu> wrote on Sun 01 May 2022 10:20:46p:
>> This brazen lawlessness, under "western" ecouragement and approval,
>> outraged a part of the Ukrainians as well as many in Russia, so the
>> Kremlin came into play to help Crimea and Donbas to escape from the
>> post-coup regime, which eventually led to the hostile situation we
>> have today.
>>
>> European politicians may blame Russia for something, but, for a
>> start, they need to recognise their own mistakes and misdeeds that
>> gave start to such destructive developments.
>> This brazen lawlessness, under "western" ecouragement and approval,
>> outraged a part of the Ukrainians as well as many in Russia, so the
>> Kremlin came into play to help Crimea and Donbas to escape from the
>> post-coup regime, which eventually led to the hostile situation we
>> have today.
>>
>> European politicians may blame Russia for something, but, for a
>> start, they need to recognise their own mistakes and misdeeds that
>> gave start to such destructive developments.
> 'Lawlessness' doesn't seem to apply in the context of geopolitics. It
> depends on 'laws' which in turn dependent on whoever makes, interpret
> and enforce rules.
Such a wise cynicism may be good only with a good sense of proportion,
> depends on 'laws' which in turn dependent on whoever makes, interpret
> and enforce rules.
and in the Ukraine case it went grossly out of proportion. There was an
usurpation of power by some "insistent" faction which didn't represent
the majority, but "the west" supported this faction. For Russians it's
impossible to accept it for granted.
> Also the 'neo-nazi narrative' doesn't seem to resonate at all in the
> west,
consumption, is simplistic: the Nazis must be brutal and against the
Jews, and that's it. This is why the "western" media repeatedy issue
the argument they believe is unbeatable: how there might be Nazis if
their president is Jewish.
In Russia, the Nazi term is applicable to any kind of radical
nationalism/sectarianism seeking to whip up a popular unity through
promotion of a sense of entitlement combined with a hateful and
denigratory agenda against certain group(s) seen as a hindrance (and
usually, to make it efficient, it also must be somewhat psychotic).
The Kiev regime *does* represent such elements.
I still can agree that the Kremlin's "PR effort" is weak and clumsy.
> since 'atlanticist' (NATO-oriented) propaganda presented the
> current Russian government as a type of neo-nazi regime. I recall a
> cover of the economist newspapers (1990's?) with a cartoon of slumbering
> bear with swastikas in its eyes.
regional diversity can not encourage Nazi-like developments. European
formations, historically, were mostly sedentary Christians to each
other, while Russia had to maintain a stable neighborhood also with
Muslims and pagans, sedentary and nomadic. It caused certian adaptive
universalist settings (which Europeans didn't need), it also defined
certain Russia's differences against Europe.
European Nazism and "racial" concepts are based on cultural settings
developed during the time Europeans call Renaissance and Enlightenment
as a rationalization of what they call Age of Discovery. For Russia,
such things are alien due to another historical experience. There may
be various marginal freaks, but not in the mainstream.
And by the way that's why the European ideologists are interested in
keeping "Nazism" simplistic, - non-simplistic comprehension threatens
to put in question some basic West/Europe-centric settings.
Given the above, Russia was always somewhat an 'alternative model'
against Europe. It doesn't mean it was 'right' or 'better' model, but
it's what was relevant regarding the Russian specific historical
experience (and Russia never sought to place itself as a sample for
Europe and others). The 1917 revolt changed the situation so that the
Soviet ideologists began to promote a globalist agenda which elements
seemed attractive for many people(s) all over the world.
While the Soviet ideologists in a large part were fairly idealistic,
from the "western" perspective it perceived as a bold assault on the
"western" self-belief that "the west" is a cultural and ideological
world leader, which stimulated search for competitive alternatives.
In particular, the German Nazism emerged so (as "national socialism"
against simply "socialism"). But the main branch was the development
of the west-centric "left liberal" discourse, which also evolved in
a large part as a counter-weight to the pro-Soviet leftism, and it's
goal was to keep "the west" as a leading ideological-cultist force.
The USSR was not Russia but somewhat a "superstructure" over Russia,
and, later, the Soviet excessive-extremist and doctrinairist issues
as pretty much damaged its attractivenes as led to self-dismantlement
of the USSR. Post-Soviet Russia doesn't seek to offer a globalist
model, but "the hegemonist west" learned the precendent, and its
policymakers (embodied today in the form of the Atlanticism) continue
to see Russia as such a place that can produce, at least in potention,
some real threat to the Atlanticist cultural-ideological domination.
It drove them to seek to weaken Russia through the NATO expansion and
impairment of economic cooperation among the countries in the post-
Soviet space. Such a "western" unhealthy zeal was visible even since
the 1990s, and it was what Russia naturally could not like, even if
it doesn't have any globalist ambitions today.
It's what has led to the present day hostilities.
The claims Putin dreams to restore the USSR and conqure this and that
(Baltics, Poland etc) is an exaggeration. Realistically, all the cases
where the Kremlin resorted to military involvement in the post-Sovet
space were linked with emergence of extremist movements-trends in the
near-Russia regions that could produce negative consequences for the
situation inside Russia. This is a reactive-protective logic, but not
a logic of aggressive expansion. Some contradictions there exist as a
legacy of imperfect Soviet designs, but the Atlanticism also seeks to
actively contribute to aggravation of them in order to weaken Russia.
China, and Asia as a whole, has become an important element in the
contemporary layout. "The west" sees China primarily as an economic
rival, but the Atlanticist policymakers seem to believe that China
can't become capable to challenge "the American global leadership" in
the ideological-cultist field at the world scale. Time will tell.
been set to make things further worse. Europe still can make things less
bad if it fairly reconsiders its Ukraine-related bogus narratives.
Oleg Smirnov
May 4, 2022, 11:27:37 AM5/4/22
to
R.Phillips, <news:3dc1ac48-1d13-4c0f...@googlegroups.com>
> Op maandag 2 mei 2022 om 18:36:40 UTC+2 schreef Oleg Smirnov:
>> Zelensky was a 2nd rate comedian turned president, and now he's
>> at the center of world politics. He's not really much interested
>> in well-being of the regular Ukrainians. As well as he's not
>> interested in deescalating and looking for compromise solutions.
>
> And Putin was an apparatchik listening to his masters voice. And
> in leadership he still is. The name is Kyril. So why care about fiction?
"Kyril"? Oh boy.
>>> Moreover the OSCE approved the outcome.
>>> https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/ukraine/121163
>>
>> It happened in July 2014. The anti-constitutional anti-democratic
>> coup happened February 2014. By July 2014, about 15% or more of the
>> pre-coup Ukraine's voters - mainly the residents of the breakaway
>> regions - did not participate neither in election debate nor in the
>> voting procedure. If they did, then things might be much different.
>> I already had described the demographic changes in connection with
>> the popular sentiment in this message <https://tinyurl.com/y69bbaxf>
>
> I know. However the breakaway regions had full support of the Kremlin
> which therefore do not compare to the Basque and Catalan regions
> as they are on their own.
European/"western" bodies, including the OSCE, who seek to present
themselves in position of abitrator on the moralistic high horse,
made it clear they will ignore interest of those in the Ukraine who
refused to recognise the self-imposed "government" which was formed
as a result of the anti-constitutional and anti-democratic coup.
Moreover, many top European politicians and the mass media promoted
bogus narratives that there's no people at all who would be really
unhappy about what they falsely misrepresented as a revolution
against tyranny, while any popular protests against the coup aren't
authentic, but organized and paid by the Kremlin.
That's why these highly indecent European politicians and media in
no way may be recognized as an abitrator, and that's why Russia had
to help those people who found they can rely on Russia only.
The EU needs to recognize its support for the violent putschists in
the Ukraine in 2014.02 was an immoral support for injustice contrary
to principles of democracy, otherwise insanity will rise.
> Op maandag 2 mei 2022 om 18:36:40 UTC+2 schreef Oleg Smirnov:
>> Zelensky was a 2nd rate comedian turned president, and now he's
>> at the center of world politics. He's not really much interested
>> in well-being of the regular Ukrainians. As well as he's not
>> interested in deescalating and looking for compromise solutions.
>
> in leadership he still is. The name is Kyril. So why care about fiction?
"Kyril"? Oh boy.
>>> Moreover the OSCE approved the outcome.
>>> https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/ukraine/121163
>>
>> It happened in July 2014. The anti-constitutional anti-democratic
>> coup happened February 2014. By July 2014, about 15% or more of the
>> pre-coup Ukraine's voters - mainly the residents of the breakaway
>> regions - did not participate neither in election debate nor in the
>> voting procedure. If they did, then things might be much different.
>> I already had described the demographic changes in connection with
>> the popular sentiment in this message <https://tinyurl.com/y69bbaxf>
>
> which therefore do not compare to the Basque and Catalan regions
> as they are on their own.
European/"western" bodies, including the OSCE, who seek to present
themselves in position of abitrator on the moralistic high horse,
made it clear they will ignore interest of those in the Ukraine who
refused to recognise the self-imposed "government" which was formed
as a result of the anti-constitutional and anti-democratic coup.
Moreover, many top European politicians and the mass media promoted
bogus narratives that there's no people at all who would be really
unhappy about what they falsely misrepresented as a revolution
against tyranny, while any popular protests against the coup aren't
authentic, but organized and paid by the Kremlin.
That's why these highly indecent European politicians and media in
no way may be recognized as an abitrator, and that's why Russia had
to help those people who found they can rely on Russia only.
The EU needs to recognize its support for the violent putschists in
the Ukraine in 2014.02 was an immoral support for injustice contrary
to principles of democracy, otherwise insanity will rise.
Oleg Smirnov
May 4, 2022, 4:18:02 PM5/4/22
to
> Ukrainian domestic pro-Atlanticist media outlets (funded
> by the Atlanticism) fed the populace with dense misinformations, so
> that many believed misguiding claims that the association agreement
> means EU membership, EU-level salaries etc etc within a couple of
> years, whereas evil Yanukovich is seeking to steal their "European
> future". There was quite a dirty "social engineering".
Let me remind what I posted six years ago.
> by the Atlanticism) fed the populace with dense misinformations, so
> that many believed misguiding claims that the association agreement
> means EU membership, EU-level salaries etc etc within a couple of
> years, whereas evil Yanukovich is seeking to steal their "European
> future". There was quite a dirty "social engineering".
Message <https://tinyurl.com/yys88lhb>, 2016-03-05
...
One should understand that the 'pro-EU' campaign in the Ukraine
from the beginning - in summer 2013 - made accent to the *full*
membership in the EU. The Ukrainians in average are pretty naive.
If the 'pro-EU' agitators were honest and said clearly that the
trade association and membership are different things then the
number of their supporters was much less. Some persons pointed
to this fact, and they were accused of being Kremlin's agents.
President Yanukovych, while bargaining about terms of the trade
association in the previous years, asked the EU negotiators to
include there a paragraph about certain prospects of the EU
membership, and their refusal to do that was one of the reasons
why he eventually decided to postpone the association.
| <http://archive.is/03Hhf> 2011-09
| Yanukovych insists that the text of the association agreement
| should include a statement about prospects of the Ukraine's
| full membership in the EU. He expressed his conviction that
| the European partners will meet this with understanding.
| <http://archive.is/AGqVy> 2011-10
| Yanukovych complaints that the EU does not even want to hear
| about any prospects of the Ukraine's membership in the EU.
However, in the 2013, the rhetoric of the pro-EU agitators
within the Ukraine started to put emphasis on the membership ..
Here's how it looked from their domestic news sources.
| <http://archive.is/Dr2ZN> 2013-07
| "I am for the Ukraine in Europe", - nationwide campaign to
| collect signatures for the EU membership has begun.
| <http://archive.is/Ae66h> 2014-04
| "EU Parliament by the absolute majority upheld the right of
| the Ukraine to become a EU member."
| <http://archive.is/2QbgZ> 2014-04
| Italian Senator Mario Mauro: I think, the Ukraine has
| every reason to obtain the EU membership quickly and easily.
| <http://archive.is/yCLpY> 2014-04
| Prime-minister Yaytsenyukh explains the EU trade agreement
| will allow the Ukraine to be a full EU member pretty soon.
| <http://archive.is/97oqB>, <http://archive.is/714pd> 2014.09
| President Parashenko to nation: Ukraine will apply for EU
| membership in 2020 and achieve the Western living standards.
| <http://archive.is/NB23k> 2014-11
| Johannes Hahn - 'Commissioner for European Neighbourhood
| Policy' - confirms that taking the Ukraine to the members
| of the EU in the 2020 is a realistic expectation. The EU
| officials notice 'impressive progress' in the Ukraine.
| <http://archive.is/l8AKK> 2014-11
| Swedish ambassador says he sees no obstacles to the Ukraine's
| EU membership, it's not such a big deal, it will be easy.
| <http://archive.is/y8U9o> 2014-12
| Polish minister of defense: The Ukraine will soon be in the
| NATO and in the EU too, this is unavoidable.
| <http://archive.is/5CfQn> 2015-06
| President Parashenko confirms that the Ukraine will become
| a candidate for EU membership in the very next few years.
| <http://archive.is/JImBO> 2015-11
| Prominent Polish MP explains: obtaining the EU membership
| should be 'just a formality' after the EU trade agreement.
* * *
Nowadays.
<https://tinyurl.com/yx9jzt4f> euractiv.com
Ukraine's accession to the EU cannot be achieved "in the next five to
ten years", said Austria's EU and Constitutional Affairs Minister ..
The full accession process for Ukraine would be "a long process to
adjust to .. "some states in the Western Balkans have been waiting for
decades for the next step." There could be no fast-track procedure for
Ukraine .. You might also have to be creative in how you introduce
Ukraine to Western values ..
* * *
So the Western values is to play dirty (and the Ukrainians are silly).
KPGH
May 5, 2022, 2:46:46 PM5/5/22
to
"Oleg Smirnov" <os...@netc.eu> wrote on Wed 04 May 2022 11:31:16a:
>> 'Lawlessness' doesn't seem to apply in the context of geopolitics. It
>> depends on 'laws' which in turn dependent on whoever makes, interpret
>> and enforce rules.
>
> Such a wise cynicism may be good only with a good sense of proportion,
> and in the Ukraine case it went grossly out of proportion. There was
> an usurpation of power by some "insistent" faction which didn't
> represent the majority, but "the west" supported this faction. For
> Russians it's impossible to accept it for granted.
When it comes to 'democracy', a major problem with 'American
>> 'Lawlessness' doesn't seem to apply in the context of geopolitics. It
>> depends on 'laws' which in turn dependent on whoever makes, interpret
>> and enforce rules.
>
> Such a wise cynicism may be good only with a good sense of proportion,
> and in the Ukraine case it went grossly out of proportion. There was
> an usurpation of power by some "insistent" faction which didn't
> represent the majority, but "the west" supported this faction. For
> Russians it's impossible to accept it for granted.
exceptionalism' seems that in the national context 'democracy' is
substituted for 'republicanism'. That is, a system of checks and
balances in which direct popular participation by means of elections and
is jury-duties and the like are part.
On the international stage on the other hand, exceptionalist propaganda
often present 'majoritarianism' as 'democracy' -- a kind of platonic
'tyranny of the majority' that, especially in client-states, can be
easily manipulated. The practical function of this type of 'democracy'
than simply is that of a disposable 'cut-out' (an intermediary in a
clandestine operation) that serves to insulate a real centers of power
from responsibility.
Parts of Russian external propaganda apparently now tries to beat
American propaganda at its own game by questioning the majoritarianist
credentials of a disputed client-state.
It remains to be seen if that's going to work in europe as, since WW2,
in western Europe the legitimacy of governments was largely based on the
'usurpation' of democracy. The reason that it didn't turn malignant
during the cold war, was simply the fear of a Marxism. The 'questioning
more narrative' from RT by giving people like Max Keizer a platform,
seemed much more effective.
But of course RT is now censored in the free democracies of Europe. Now a
US-based mirror is required to see it. :-)
>> Also the 'neo-nazi narrative' doesn't seem to resonate at all in the
>> west,
>
> The "western" image of Nazis, at least its version intended for mass
> consumption, is simplistic: the Nazis must be brutal and against the
> Jews, and that's it. This is why the "western" media repeatedy issue
> the argument they believe is unbeatable: how there might be Nazis if
> their president is Jewish.
children that were considered a liability to the national cause
(Unwertiges Leben) in the early 1940. I think after the invasion of
eastern europa some one third of the population perished? What Norman
Finkelstein labeled a holocaust-industry that redirects attention to one
particular group of victims seems another problem that plagues Europe
today. It redirects attention form the real causes of WW1 & 2, and
complicates relations with the Levant and Arab populations it Europe
many of whom would rather discuss the treatment of Arabs in Palestine.
A more interesting account i read long ago was 'The origins of the
second Word War' by APJ tayor. I recall that the man became the focus of
slander-campaign after which only polemicists willing to harassed for
challenging the official narrative would publish. Since then, that
apparently became the 'proof' of that only the official account is the
reasonable one, and any deviation is the be classified as 'hate'. :-)
> In Russia, the Nazi term is applicable to any kind of radical
> nationalism/sectarianism seeking to whip up a popular unity through
> promotion of a sense of entitlement combined with a hateful and
> denigratory agenda against certain group(s) seen as a hindrance (and
> usually, to make it efficient, it also must be somewhat psychotic).
schemes.
Global access to resources is essentially a zero-sum game. Technical
innovation and cooperation rather than competition might increase
efficiency of production over prolonged intervals of time. But from what
i understand of the historical record underlying patterns so far never
chanced much as people are essentially inclined to compete unless the
benefits of cooperation greatly exceeds the benefits of completion.
The (American) liberal system apparently attempted to regulate
competition for a common good witch showed some promise, while the
spin-off of Marxism apparently attempted to (selectively) repress
competition which only seemed to have worked as long as there was a
'clear an present danger' to the 'common wealth'.
'National socialism' seemed more a scheme derived form fascism (of
Mussolini -- not post-WW2 propaganda) that combined both. The main
feature being that propaganda as a tool to manipulate public perception
and the repression of dissent was justified not as temporary in the
service of some teleological (religious or intellectual) doctrine, but
on the basis of an (assumed) permanent 'clear an present danger' that
emanated form the human condition itself.
> The Kiev regime *does* represent such elements.
internationally recruited plutocratic client-regime in a contested zone.
It seems happy to do whatever benefits it which implies its
international benefactors. Right now that apparently involves engaging
in an asymmetric Clausewitzian 'ideal' (total) war the results of which
with regard to toe local population are presented in the western press
is as a proof of the dedication of that same population.
Hence, in this narrative more weapons should be provided to the regime
to prosecute a dirty war.
> I still can agree that the Kremlin's "PR effort" is weak and clumsy.
remaining PR is the firing of a couple of tactical nukes so as to remind
the European public of how this could now easily end.
Unfortunately the policy of the Russia too, much like the US, seems to
have been and still is to divide Europa rather then to attempt to
encourage a more independent geopolitical stance from the US for which a
level of federal integration would be required. With diverges of
western-European and American geopolitical interests and Russia now
being the junior-partner in its relation with china, the best hope for
stability in the European area might be a regional balance of power that
could be more resistant to external manipulation?
>> since 'atlanticist' (NATO-oriented) propaganda presented the
>> current Russian government as a type of neo-nazi regime. I recall a
>> cover of the economist newspapers (1990's?) with a cartoon of
>> slumbering bear with swastikas in its eyes.
>
> Russia's historical background and [long kept] ethnic, cultural and
> regional diversity can not encourage Nazi-like developments. European
> formations, historically, were mostly sedentary Christians to each
> other, while Russia had to maintain a stable neighborhood also with
> Muslims and pagans, sedentary and nomadic. It caused certian adaptive
> universalist settings (which Europeans didn't need), it also defined
> certain Russia's differences against Europe.
bring territory under control without either major military endeavors or
traveling overseas to estabish colonies. But the existence of an empire
doesn't need to be an indication for opinions of populations under it's
control about each other of the empire.
I understand that part of the problem after the dissolution of the USSR,
was that Russian authorities both before and after the revolution
endeavored to reform subdivisions within the empire to make them
unsuitable as independent states.
Furthermore i understand that the NS regime liberally manipulated the
concept of both ethnicity and nationhood to fit it's political needs.
And didn't china revolved it's problem with 'local color' by switching
from a policy downplaying differences to accentuating them so as to
maken them so fragmented that separatist ambitions became irrelevant?
:-)
The idea of geopolitical competition between ethnic entities divided by
geopolitical fault lines, did however probably serve to
(propagandistical) install a permanent state 'clear an present danger'.
That was probably the formal basis for an attempt to clear eastern
Europe for an 'Aryan race'. But I suppose this policy too had a largely
practical rather than ideological background as a 'Slavic nation' was
associated with communism which in turn was perceived as a hazard to
European privileged classes including the German aristocracy on which
the NS-movement dependent in order to establish a government.
All things considered, I suspect that the NS-regime was opportunistic
and wicked rather than instructed by some uniquely depraved ideology as
post-war propaganda would have it. I think almost immediately after WW1
there were warnings in the ranks of the victorious states against an
attempt to squeeze Germany for reparations, and a read somewhere that
during the Nuremberg trails (of sort) some of the defendants demanded
accusatorial proceedings in which they would be able to argue that the
accent of a exceptionally homicidal regime was largely the result of the
intolerable conditions created by the victors of WW1 which were then
exacerbated by the financial crisis. Which was denied.
Apparently to avoid a repeat performance, after WW2 the US did attached
a condition to the marshal plan that countries that applied for soft
loans would not claim reparations form each other. Which seemed to have
worked.
gonna have to cut of here...
Oleg Smirnov
May 6, 2022, 12:27:19 AM5/6/22
to
KPGH, <news:XnsAE8ED3611...@144.76.35.252>
there may be a situation when, by democratic vote 4 : 1, four of them
can define themselves honorary citizens and obliger the fifth hapless
one to labor in order to serve their needs. Then it would be natural
if this fifth one sought to simply leave the community.
In other words, to avoid separatism, a community of voters needs to
maintain some basic 'equality' / 'respect' among themselves and share
some common interest that keeps to be primarily common regardless of
disagreements about particular interests of members / factions within
the community.
If one looks in world history this one can see the precedential cases,
where democracy is considered functional and somewhat a sample, were
so that in such cases, usually, those who had the right to vote
constituted a privileged class, which shared the habitat with quite a
numerous class of disenfranchised. It seems impossible to find such
precedents where the right to vote was extended to absolutely all the
groups of constituents of the communal coexistence. And it was not an
"imperfection of early models" but, rather the opposite, a necessary
condition for "classic democracy" to be functional.
Those notorious ancient Greeks well-combined their democracy with the
slavery practice (as did those later ones in the North America). For
Europe, the exampe or late-/post-medieval Poland is also notable in
this respect. At the time when west / central Europe strengthened its
Absolutism, the Polish noblemen maintained "democratic spirit" among
themselves, even elected their king by vote. Thus the modern Polish
nationalism seeks to paint then ancient Poland as Europe's democratic
ancestor <https://tinyurl.com/y4tedy7q>. However, this "democracy for
nobles" was well-combined with highly oppressive policies towards
domestic low classes (which was ideologically backed with racist-like
concepts) <https://tinyurl.com/yydsssuu>
In the case of such a democracy for priveleged separatism was fraught
with the risk of losing privileged status. It contributed to keeping
the community united despite their particular disagreements.
Complement from the disenfranchised ones was a necessary element
within the model in order to maintain the henotic sense of privilege.
Universal right to vote is a modern phenomenon, and when one tries to
grasp to what extent it really represents true "will of the people",
this one can't fail to notice that a big deal depends on who controls
the mass media / entertainment industry. It's indeed not a democracy
in the literal sense when competent voters reconcile their particular
interests with the common communal interest through vote. It may be
more correct to call it "soft manipulation", something like that.
It's still indeed better than despotic coercion through oppression or
intimidation, - but it's not a democracy. The MSM performs about the
same role as the Church played in the past, - it teaches the populace
what is good and evil and what to think and what to vote for.
So such a manipulative "democracy" depends critically on who sets the
ideological tone. This is why the Atlanticist policymakers performing
under "democracy-freedom" banner, consider it extremely important to
ensure American/"western" ideological-cultist domination. This is why
so much passion about "Russian disinformation".
Maintenance of "feeling of privilege" among the domestic populace is
also important for keeping the modern "western liberal democracies"
in shape, - by the reasons akin to described above with regard to
"classic democracies". If some disadvantaged ones feel unhappy, say
to them hey guys you're living in an advanced society, just living
here is a privilege itself, be happy with what you have. Although, as
non-democratic Asia is steadily rising, maintenance of the "advanced
society" image in contrast to non-democracy is getting harder, more
"police state" becomes necessary to curb those who feel unhappy.
...
Back to "tyranny of the majority" topic with regard to the Ukraine, I
can say that in the early 2010s there still was a kind of "national
dialogue" there, i.e. different political factions, different regions
of the country, might somehow "hear" and "respect" each other. That
president Yanukovich - later labeled by "the west" as Russian puppet
- was elected in a regular way through a due procedure. However, the
Atlanticism/EU started to support/encourage the pro-"western" faction
in the Ukraine so much, that it began seeing their domestic opponents
as unworthy of respect akin to how those Nazis considered those whom
they dislike. It drove this pro-western faction to unlawfully usurp
the power through the coup, which in turn caused the regional
separatism and the Russia's involvement, and all the next events. The
2014 coup had efficiently destroyed "common interest" in the Ukraine.
The Kiev regime managed to achieve some relative loyalty of populace
in the Kiev-controlled territory by means of the Nazi-like hateful-
psychotic propaganda, censorship of opposition outlets and repression
against opponents, including politically motivated murders, which, of
course, was not much reported in "the west".
Eg., as I wrote before, with regard to breakaway Donbas, they did not
really consider "reintegrating" it in the way the Minsk-2 agreement
implied, instead they considered takeover of it with depriving of the
locals of their right to vote, because the regime did not see these
people as some which opinion and interest need to be respected.
Eventually, all this shit, developed under the Atlanticist / European
patronage, irritated the Kremlin so much that it started the military
action against the regime which is now in progress. The "united west"
has now decided to double down and supply the village idiots with its
best weapons and real-time intelligence etc etc. Whatever the outcome
it will hardly bring any positive civilization developments, but life
of regular Europeans (and not only) will certainly become worse.
> Parts of Russian external propaganda apparently now tries to beat
> American propaganda at its own game by questioning the majoritarianist
> credentials of a disputed client-state.
>
> It remains to be seen if that's going to work in europe as, since WW2,
> in western Europe the legitimacy of governments was largely based on the
> 'usurpation' of democracy. The reason that it didn't turn malignant
> during the cold war, was simply the fear of a Marxism. The 'questioning
> more narrative' from RT by giving people like Max Keizer a platform,
> seemed much more effective.
>
> But of course RT is now censored in the free democracies of Europe. Now a
> US-based mirror is required to see it. :-)
I am posting here on my own, and one can notice my accents somewhat
differ from the narratives prevailing in the Kremlin-controlled news.
Also, the Russian propaganda nowadays isn't divided into external and
internal. Outlets intended for foreigners may cover topics closer to
their audience, but principal narratives for foreign and domestic use
don't differ. Things are more transparent nowadays. Foreign observers
monitor Russian domestic media as well as the Russians themselves can
read / watch as foreign propaganda, as foreign domestic news, as the
Russian external propaganda.
With regard to censorship, some outlets are banned in Russia as well,
but in the recent perspective Europe was noticeably much eager to ban
"Russian disinformation" in comparison to the Kremlin.
> "Oleg Smirnov" <os...@netc.eu> wrote on Wed 04 May 2022 11:31:16a:
>> There was
>> an usurpation of power by some "insistent" faction which didn't
>> represent the majority, but "the west" supported this faction. For
>> Russians it's impossible to accept it for granted.
>
> When it comes to 'democracy', a major problem with 'American
> exceptionalism' seems that in the national context 'democracy' is
> substituted for 'republicanism'. That is, a system of checks and
> balances in which direct popular participation by means of elections and
> is jury-duties and the like are part.
>
> On the international stage on the other hand, exceptionalist propaganda
> often present 'majoritarianism' as 'democracy' -- a kind of platonic
> 'tyranny of the majority' that, especially in client-states, can be
> easily manipulated. The practical function of this type of 'democracy'
> than simply is that of a disposable 'cut-out' (an intermediary in a
> clandestine operation) that serves to insulate a real centers of power
> from responsibility.
'Tyranny of the majority' has its limits. In a community of five men
>> There was
>> an usurpation of power by some "insistent" faction which didn't
>> represent the majority, but "the west" supported this faction. For
>> Russians it's impossible to accept it for granted.
>
> When it comes to 'democracy', a major problem with 'American
> exceptionalism' seems that in the national context 'democracy' is
> substituted for 'republicanism'. That is, a system of checks and
> balances in which direct popular participation by means of elections and
> is jury-duties and the like are part.
>
> On the international stage on the other hand, exceptionalist propaganda
> often present 'majoritarianism' as 'democracy' -- a kind of platonic
> 'tyranny of the majority' that, especially in client-states, can be
> easily manipulated. The practical function of this type of 'democracy'
> than simply is that of a disposable 'cut-out' (an intermediary in a
> clandestine operation) that serves to insulate a real centers of power
> from responsibility.
there may be a situation when, by democratic vote 4 : 1, four of them
can define themselves honorary citizens and obliger the fifth hapless
one to labor in order to serve their needs. Then it would be natural
if this fifth one sought to simply leave the community.
In other words, to avoid separatism, a community of voters needs to
maintain some basic 'equality' / 'respect' among themselves and share
some common interest that keeps to be primarily common regardless of
disagreements about particular interests of members / factions within
the community.
If one looks in world history this one can see the precedential cases,
where democracy is considered functional and somewhat a sample, were
so that in such cases, usually, those who had the right to vote
constituted a privileged class, which shared the habitat with quite a
numerous class of disenfranchised. It seems impossible to find such
precedents where the right to vote was extended to absolutely all the
groups of constituents of the communal coexistence. And it was not an
"imperfection of early models" but, rather the opposite, a necessary
condition for "classic democracy" to be functional.
Those notorious ancient Greeks well-combined their democracy with the
slavery practice (as did those later ones in the North America). For
Europe, the exampe or late-/post-medieval Poland is also notable in
this respect. At the time when west / central Europe strengthened its
Absolutism, the Polish noblemen maintained "democratic spirit" among
themselves, even elected their king by vote. Thus the modern Polish
nationalism seeks to paint then ancient Poland as Europe's democratic
ancestor <https://tinyurl.com/y4tedy7q>. However, this "democracy for
nobles" was well-combined with highly oppressive policies towards
domestic low classes (which was ideologically backed with racist-like
concepts) <https://tinyurl.com/yydsssuu>
In the case of such a democracy for priveleged separatism was fraught
with the risk of losing privileged status. It contributed to keeping
the community united despite their particular disagreements.
Complement from the disenfranchised ones was a necessary element
within the model in order to maintain the henotic sense of privilege.
Universal right to vote is a modern phenomenon, and when one tries to
grasp to what extent it really represents true "will of the people",
this one can't fail to notice that a big deal depends on who controls
the mass media / entertainment industry. It's indeed not a democracy
in the literal sense when competent voters reconcile their particular
interests with the common communal interest through vote. It may be
more correct to call it "soft manipulation", something like that.
It's still indeed better than despotic coercion through oppression or
intimidation, - but it's not a democracy. The MSM performs about the
same role as the Church played in the past, - it teaches the populace
what is good and evil and what to think and what to vote for.
So such a manipulative "democracy" depends critically on who sets the
ideological tone. This is why the Atlanticist policymakers performing
under "democracy-freedom" banner, consider it extremely important to
ensure American/"western" ideological-cultist domination. This is why
so much passion about "Russian disinformation".
Maintenance of "feeling of privilege" among the domestic populace is
also important for keeping the modern "western liberal democracies"
in shape, - by the reasons akin to described above with regard to
"classic democracies". If some disadvantaged ones feel unhappy, say
to them hey guys you're living in an advanced society, just living
here is a privilege itself, be happy with what you have. Although, as
non-democratic Asia is steadily rising, maintenance of the "advanced
society" image in contrast to non-democracy is getting harder, more
"police state" becomes necessary to curb those who feel unhappy.
...
Back to "tyranny of the majority" topic with regard to the Ukraine, I
can say that in the early 2010s there still was a kind of "national
dialogue" there, i.e. different political factions, different regions
of the country, might somehow "hear" and "respect" each other. That
president Yanukovich - later labeled by "the west" as Russian puppet
- was elected in a regular way through a due procedure. However, the
Atlanticism/EU started to support/encourage the pro-"western" faction
in the Ukraine so much, that it began seeing their domestic opponents
as unworthy of respect akin to how those Nazis considered those whom
they dislike. It drove this pro-western faction to unlawfully usurp
the power through the coup, which in turn caused the regional
separatism and the Russia's involvement, and all the next events. The
2014 coup had efficiently destroyed "common interest" in the Ukraine.
The Kiev regime managed to achieve some relative loyalty of populace
in the Kiev-controlled territory by means of the Nazi-like hateful-
psychotic propaganda, censorship of opposition outlets and repression
against opponents, including politically motivated murders, which, of
course, was not much reported in "the west".
Eg., as I wrote before, with regard to breakaway Donbas, they did not
really consider "reintegrating" it in the way the Minsk-2 agreement
implied, instead they considered takeover of it with depriving of the
locals of their right to vote, because the regime did not see these
people as some which opinion and interest need to be respected.
Eventually, all this shit, developed under the Atlanticist / European
patronage, irritated the Kremlin so much that it started the military
action against the regime which is now in progress. The "united west"
has now decided to double down and supply the village idiots with its
best weapons and real-time intelligence etc etc. Whatever the outcome
it will hardly bring any positive civilization developments, but life
of regular Europeans (and not only) will certainly become worse.
> Parts of Russian external propaganda apparently now tries to beat
> American propaganda at its own game by questioning the majoritarianist
> credentials of a disputed client-state.
>
> It remains to be seen if that's going to work in europe as, since WW2,
> in western Europe the legitimacy of governments was largely based on the
> 'usurpation' of democracy. The reason that it didn't turn malignant
> during the cold war, was simply the fear of a Marxism. The 'questioning
> more narrative' from RT by giving people like Max Keizer a platform,
> seemed much more effective.
>
> But of course RT is now censored in the free democracies of Europe. Now a
> US-based mirror is required to see it. :-)
differ from the narratives prevailing in the Kremlin-controlled news.
Also, the Russian propaganda nowadays isn't divided into external and
internal. Outlets intended for foreigners may cover topics closer to
their audience, but principal narratives for foreign and domestic use
don't differ. Things are more transparent nowadays. Foreign observers
monitor Russian domestic media as well as the Russians themselves can
read / watch as foreign propaganda, as foreign domestic news, as the
Russian external propaganda.
With regard to censorship, some outlets are banned in Russia as well,
but in the recent perspective Europe was noticeably much eager to ban
"Russian disinformation" in comparison to the Kremlin.
Oleg Smirnov
May 6, 2022, 10:04:46 AM5/6/22
to
KPGH, <news:XnsAE8ED3611...@144.76.35.252>
political establishment to work for such a "regional
balance of power".
> "Oleg Smirnov" <os...@netc.eu> wrote on Wed 04 May 2022 11:31:16a:
> Unfortunately the policy of the Russia too, much like the US, seems to
> have been and still is to divide Europa rather then to attempt to
> encourage a more independent geopolitical stance from the US for which a
> level of federal integration would be required. With diverges of
> western-European and American geopolitical interests and Russia now
> being the junior-partner in its relation with china, the best hope for
> stability in the European area might be a regional balance of power that
> could be more resistant to external manipulation?
I think you overestimate desire of the European
> Unfortunately the policy of the Russia too, much like the US, seems to
> have been and still is to divide Europa rather then to attempt to
> encourage a more independent geopolitical stance from the US for which a
> level of federal integration would be required. With diverges of
> western-European and American geopolitical interests and Russia now
> being the junior-partner in its relation with china, the best hope for
> stability in the European area might be a regional balance of power that
> could be more resistant to external manipulation?
political establishment to work for such a "regional
balance of power".
Lyrik
May 6, 2022, 11:33:14 AM5/6/22
to
Den 30-04-2022 kl. 07:24 skrev Oleg Smirnov:
The world you live in looks different than you think. The United States
is constantly lying and constantly inventing new lies. They regret
nothing and never look back. They ignored Russian interests, but they
did so on purpose. They cultivate neoconservative and neoliberalist
advisers. One of them is Victoria Nuland's husband "Robert Kagan" who is
a Neo Liberalist. He wants capitalism set free to shape the world in his
image. He says in all seriousness: Maybe we should sacrifice Ukraine so
we can understand what democracy is? There are crazy people who should
not be followed. You can not reform them.
jenserik
The world you live in looks different than you think. The United States
is constantly lying and constantly inventing new lies. They regret
nothing and never look back. They ignored Russian interests, but they
did so on purpose. They cultivate neoconservative and neoliberalist
advisers. One of them is Victoria Nuland's husband "Robert Kagan" who is
a Neo Liberalist. He wants capitalism set free to shape the world in his
image. He says in all seriousness: Maybe we should sacrifice Ukraine so
we can understand what democracy is? There are crazy people who should
not be followed. You can not reform them.
jenserik
Oleg Smirnov
May 7, 2022, 2:04:28 AM5/7/22
to
KPGH, <news:XnsAE8ED3611...@144.76.35.252>
deal about generic competition, the basic idea was, the oppressed
working people, after their liberation from the capitalist
exploitation, are supposed (well, most of them) to be living as a
kind of harmonious brotherhood among themselves.
The great flaw of the socialist-communist-'leftist' philosophies /
doctrines that became popular since the mid-19th century was that
they almost completely missed the topic of generic competition
between individuals. They considered contradictions and 'struggle'
between social-economic classes but not the basic nature of
competition. Later, during the efforts to implement the socialist-
communist teachings in life, it turned out competition within or
between the communist parties (which basically supposed to be sort
of lovely brotherhoods) may take ugly forms.
But this is what "civilization" is about. It sets some limits to
animalistic instincts and establishes some norms. This is what is
recorded in the commonly accepted moral/ethical standards.
But there's a trap, when some people associate themselves with
some grand ideas / plans / mission, they tend to believe that their
high and lofty mission allows them to violate traditional ethical
standards ("our mission is to bring grand good to the humankind, so
it can justify the means").
Many had fallen into this trap (eg., the Russian Bolsheviks did).
This is also applicable to the modern Atlanticism, given that they
declare their "civilization mission" to promote "liberal democracy"
and "Western values" to the whole world. So some unethical things
may be acceptable if it serves this high and lofty mission. This is
applicable to the Ukraine case.
One of the common standards is that it's not good to lie brazenly.
When the "western" politicians and media presented the 2014 coup in
Kiev as "revolution of decency", they lied. They thought, it's OK,
because bringing the Ukraine under Atlanticist patronage will serve
the global mission regardless of what really happened there.
History teaches that abuse of such logics isn't good.
> 'National socialism' seemed more a scheme derived form fascism (of
> Mussolini -- not post-WW2 propaganda) that combined both. The main
> feature being that propaganda as a tool to manipulate public perception
> and the repression of dissent was justified not as temporary in the
> service of some teleological (religious or intellectual) doctrine, but
> on the basis of an (assumed) permanent 'clear an present danger' that
> emanated form the human condition itself.
It seems it was common for all the movements in the 20th century to
see propaganda as a powerful and useful tool to impact/teach/educate
"the masses". It was naturally linked with the fact that by the time
the newspaper news industry started booming and began to cover all
the populations, and new tools like cinema and radio and then TV
came into increasingly wide use. It remains so today as well, but at
then time it was sort of the first love.
> "Oleg Smirnov" <os...@netc.eu> wrote on Wed 04 May 2022 11:31:16a:
>> In Russia, the Nazi term is applicable to any kind of radical
>> nationalism/sectarianism seeking to whip up a popular unity through
>> promotion of a sense of entitlement combined with a hateful and
>> denigratory agenda against certain group(s) seen as a hindrance (and
>> usually, to make it efficient, it also must be somewhat psychotic).
>
> I suspected that a sense of entitlement seems inherent in all national
> schemes.
>
> Global access to resources is essentially a zero-sum game. Technical
> innovation and cooperation rather than competition might increase
> efficiency of production over prolonged intervals of time. But from what
> i understand of the historical record underlying patterns so far never
> chanced much as people are essentially inclined to compete unless the
> benefits of cooperation greatly exceeds the benefits of completion.
>
> The (American) liberal system apparently attempted to regulate
> competition for a common good witch showed some promise, while the
> spin-off of Marxism apparently attempted to (selectively) repress
> competition which only seemed to have worked as long as there was a
> 'clear an present danger' to the 'common wealth'.
Practical Marxism (in the early USSR) simply didn't know how to
>> In Russia, the Nazi term is applicable to any kind of radical
>> nationalism/sectarianism seeking to whip up a popular unity through
>> promotion of a sense of entitlement combined with a hateful and
>> denigratory agenda against certain group(s) seen as a hindrance (and
>> usually, to make it efficient, it also must be somewhat psychotic).
>
> I suspected that a sense of entitlement seems inherent in all national
> schemes.
>
> Global access to resources is essentially a zero-sum game. Technical
> innovation and cooperation rather than competition might increase
> efficiency of production over prolonged intervals of time. But from what
> i understand of the historical record underlying patterns so far never
> chanced much as people are essentially inclined to compete unless the
> benefits of cooperation greatly exceeds the benefits of completion.
>
> The (American) liberal system apparently attempted to regulate
> competition for a common good witch showed some promise, while the
> spin-off of Marxism apparently attempted to (selectively) repress
> competition which only seemed to have worked as long as there was a
> 'clear an present danger' to the 'common wealth'.
deal about generic competition, the basic idea was, the oppressed
working people, after their liberation from the capitalist
exploitation, are supposed (well, most of them) to be living as a
kind of harmonious brotherhood among themselves.
The great flaw of the socialist-communist-'leftist' philosophies /
doctrines that became popular since the mid-19th century was that
they almost completely missed the topic of generic competition
between individuals. They considered contradictions and 'struggle'
between social-economic classes but not the basic nature of
competition. Later, during the efforts to implement the socialist-
communist teachings in life, it turned out competition within or
between the communist parties (which basically supposed to be sort
of lovely brotherhoods) may take ugly forms.
But this is what "civilization" is about. It sets some limits to
animalistic instincts and establishes some norms. This is what is
recorded in the commonly accepted moral/ethical standards.
But there's a trap, when some people associate themselves with
some grand ideas / plans / mission, they tend to believe that their
high and lofty mission allows them to violate traditional ethical
standards ("our mission is to bring grand good to the humankind, so
it can justify the means").
Many had fallen into this trap (eg., the Russian Bolsheviks did).
This is also applicable to the modern Atlanticism, given that they
declare their "civilization mission" to promote "liberal democracy"
and "Western values" to the whole world. So some unethical things
may be acceptable if it serves this high and lofty mission. This is
applicable to the Ukraine case.
One of the common standards is that it's not good to lie brazenly.
When the "western" politicians and media presented the 2014 coup in
Kiev as "revolution of decency", they lied. They thought, it's OK,
because bringing the Ukraine under Atlanticist patronage will serve
the global mission regardless of what really happened there.
History teaches that abuse of such logics isn't good.
> 'National socialism' seemed more a scheme derived form fascism (of
> Mussolini -- not post-WW2 propaganda) that combined both. The main
> feature being that propaganda as a tool to manipulate public perception
> and the repression of dissent was justified not as temporary in the
> service of some teleological (religious or intellectual) doctrine, but
> on the basis of an (assumed) permanent 'clear an present danger' that
> emanated form the human condition itself.
see propaganda as a powerful and useful tool to impact/teach/educate
"the masses". It was naturally linked with the fact that by the time
the newspaper news industry started booming and began to cover all
the populations, and new tools like cinema and radio and then TV
came into increasingly wide use. It remains so today as well, but at
then time it was sort of the first love.
Oleg Smirnov
May 7, 2022, 2:06:54 AM5/7/22
to
Lyrik, <news:t53f3n$5l2$1...@dont-email.me>
These American neoconservatives and neoliberalists believe their
ideology itself creates reality, what they like to think must be
reality, while real reality is simply not so important.
ideology itself creates reality, what they like to think must be
reality, while real reality is simply not so important.
Het varken van Breslau
May 7, 2022, 2:34:51 AM5/7/22
to
are forced to live in it.
--
"Frankrijk heeft de eerste wereldoorlog verloren en Engeland de
tweede. Is nu Duitsland eindelijk aan de beurt? (HP)"
KPGH
May 7, 2022, 12:39:54 PM5/7/22
to
the street (hope) is both a motivator and trap in revolutionary times.
Hope might trigger revolution, but then can extinguish it as result of
policies based on unrealistic expectations. But didn't Lenin's put a
crock in that ('What Is To Be Done?' etc) by establishing a distinction
within the party-system between classes of leaders, soldiers,
sympathizers and 'usefull idiots'? :-)
> The great flaw of the socialist-communist-'leftist' philosophies /
> doctrines that became popular since the mid-19th century was that
> they almost completely missed the topic of generic competition
> between individuals. They considered contradictions and 'struggle'
> between social-economic classes but not the basic nature of
> competition. Later, during the efforts to implement the socialist-
> communist teachings in life, it turned out competition within or
> between the communist parties (which basically supposed to be sort
> of lovely brotherhoods) may take ugly forms.\
> But this is what "civilization" is about. It sets some limits to
> animalistic instincts and establishes some norms. This is what is
> recorded in the commonly accepted moral/ethical standards.
>
> But there's a trap, when some people associate themselves with
> some grand ideas / plans / mission, they tend to believe that their
> high and lofty mission allows them to violate traditional ethical
> standards ("our mission is to bring grand good to the humankind, so
> it can justify the means").
>
> Many had fallen into this trap (eg., the Russian Bolsheviks did).
and hierarchy in the face of inevitable competition for resources, like
with other species, is probably that it's all about cooperative surplus
in context of entropy -- that is, inevitable decline.
The recognition of the inevitability of decline is incompatible with
rational life, because a rational being would self-terminate if it
recognized that not-being is the inevitable outcome of being which is
thus a struggle against not-being that cannot be won.
I assume the practical function of religion is to introduce a set of
rules that exists independent of the human condition and so give life
and a purpose beyond what is observable. Pseudo-scientific theories
about the human condition that are impossible to disprove, seen to
server much the same practical purpose.
Declared rather then observable truth, whether it claims a 'scientific'
basis or not, can both be used for justifying deposing elites 'that
break the rules' and oppressing populations under the control of elites
that make the rules and, in doing so, might claim divine sanction. In a
cyclical system that is stable most of the time but periodically must
reset as seem to the case with human societies, the practical function
religion could be at over the stable period it mitigates the craftiness
en malignity of elites and so make il longer, while it intensifies a
reset (a period of upheaval) and so make it shorter.
In this respect Marxist implementations so far didn't seem to have
worked particular well. Its 'spin-offs', fascism and to some extent
social-democracy that seemed to have hijacked the paternalistic aspect
of deranged christian socialism, might have been or be worse.
> This is also applicable to the modern Atlanticism, given that they
> declare their "civilization mission" to promote "liberal democracy"
> and "Western values" to the whole world. So some unethical things
> may be acceptable if it serves this high and lofty mission. This is
> applicable to the Ukraine case.
>
> One of the common standards is that it's not good to lie brazenly.
> When the "western" politicians and media presented the 2014 coup in
> Kiev as "revolution of decency", they lied. They thought, it's OK,
> because bringing the Ukraine under Atlanticist patronage will serve
> the global mission regardless of what really happened there.
>
> History teaches that abuse of such logics isn't good.
a disputed territory in a shifting landscape. The interests of the
people (or what they allegedly want) has little to do with outcomes. I
think Dostoevsky likened outcomes under such circumstances to the
visible manifestations of the presents of moles: indications of the
digging that's going on underground and out of sight. :-)
KPGH
May 8, 2022, 7:46:18 AM5/8/22
to
was thoroughly obliterate in the early nineties by local interests that
endeavor to restore pre-WW1/2 social conditions. The dominant 'European
political establishment' seems now little more than a cabal of
fragmented special interests seeking security from institutions
dominated by US geopolitical agencies presented as 'the world order'
that is ('unlawfully') infringed by china en russia. :-)
Yesterday i heard a podcast which mentioned (as one of the very few
popular publications) Keynes' "The Economic Consequences of the Peace"
(1919) in connection with 'economic shock therapy'. These so-called
'economic policies' were IMHO in all likelihood never more then a
convoluted scheme to subjugate the former USSR by turning it into
patchwork of competing plutocracies that would fit into what US-pres
Bush labeled the 'next American age'.
https://www.npr.org/2022/05/06/1097135961/the-day-russia-adopted-the-free-market
The relentless push to the east to enlarge 'the new word order' since
the dissolution of the Warsaw-pact seems now about to climax. And from
what a I see of local European media, local European regimes are happy
to do their part in the next 'war to end all wars'.
Oleg Smirnov
May 8, 2022, 10:10:17 AM5/8/22
to
KPGH, <news:XnsAE90BDDE7...@144.76.35.252>
Be Done" is anyway irrelevant because it was written in 1901, long
before "practice". Communist party as a leading force vs. "the masses"
had always been distinguished in the Maxist-Leninist doctrinairism
(and "What Is To Be Done" was much about this distinction). In January
1918, two months after the communist revolution, Lenin had issued an
agitated article "How to Organize a Competition", where's much to be
read between the lines against the contemporary context, but the main
idea about competition was so that people and work teams should compete
on who contributes the most to the common good/cause, and their reward
should be popular respect and promotion up the management hierarchy.
The image of universal brotherhood is an everlasting dream of humans.
Various teachings sought and seek to implement it in this or that way.
It includes ethical systems of the major universalist religions.
Practical attempts to implement it run into various obstacles, mainly
when they demand from people to curb their baser instincts too much.
Inter alia, one of the typal oppositions to an universalism is
"paganist" opposition, which principal feature is that it is some-
centric (linked with a certain central / leading group and tradition).
This is what the Nazis were against the Soviets from the theological
perspective.
> I assume the practical function of religion is to introduce a set of
> rules that exists independent of the human condition and so give life
> and a purpose beyond what is observable. Pseudo-scientific theories
> about the human condition that are impossible to disprove, seen to
> server much the same practical purpose.
>
> Declared rather then observable truth, whether it claims a 'scientific'
> basis or not, can both be used for justifying deposing elites 'that
> break the rules' and oppressing populations under the control of elites
> that make the rules and, in doing so, might claim divine sanction. In a
> cyclical system that is stable most of the time but periodically must
> reset as seem to the case with human societies, the practical function
> religion could be at over the stable period it mitigates the craftiness
> en malignity of elites and so make il longer, while it intensifies a
> reset (a period of upheaval) and so make it shorter.
>
> In this respect Marxist implementations so far didn't seem to have
> worked particular well. Its 'spin-offs', fascism and to some extent
> social-democracy that seemed to have hijacked the paternalistic aspect
> of deranged christian socialism, might have been or be worse.
I consider Marxism a heresy, mainly because it implies class
struggle in a simplified tribalistic manner, as if the economic
classes were rival tribes <https://tinyurl.com/y3jhfcee>
>> One of the common standards is that it's not good to lie brazenly.
>> When the "western" politicians and media presented the 2014 coup in
>> Kiev as "revolution of decency", they lied. They thought, it's OK,
>> because bringing the Ukraine under Atlanticist patronage will serve
>> the global mission regardless of what really happened there.
>>
>> History teaches that abuse of such logics isn't good.
>
> From a geopolitical perspective Ukraine (as most of europe) seems simply
> a disputed territory in a shifting landscape. The interests of the
> people (or what they allegedly want) has little to do with outcomes.
And what's "liberal democracy" for, just for the slogan? From the
Russian perspective, this territory makes little sense in isolation
from the people living there and their specific history linked with
the Russia's history. The present situation is ugly and dangerous,
and one of the helpful means to mitigate it might be a removal of
the dense falsities invented by the Atlanticism in order to justify
the unlawful counter-democratic developments there since 2014.
> "Oleg Smirnov" <os...@netc.eu> wrote on Sat 07 May 2022 08:01:59a:
>> Practical Marxism (in the early USSR) simply didn't know how to
>> deal about generic competition, the basic idea was, the oppressed
>> working people, after their liberation from the capitalist
>> exploitation, are supposed (well, most of them) to be living as a
>> kind of harmonious brotherhood among themselves.
>
> I guess the notion that the sun is always brighter on the other side of
> the street (hope) is both a motivator and trap in revolutionary times.
> Hope might trigger revolution, but then can extinguish it as result of
> policies based on unrealistic expectations. But didn't Lenin's put a
> crock in that ('What Is To Be Done?' etc) by establishing a distinction
> within the party-system between classes of leaders, soldiers,
> sympathizers and 'usefull idiots'? :-)
I've not understood the "crock in" idiom, but the Lenin's "What Is To
>> Practical Marxism (in the early USSR) simply didn't know how to
>> deal about generic competition, the basic idea was, the oppressed
>> working people, after their liberation from the capitalist
>> exploitation, are supposed (well, most of them) to be living as a
>> kind of harmonious brotherhood among themselves.
>
> I guess the notion that the sun is always brighter on the other side of
> the street (hope) is both a motivator and trap in revolutionary times.
> Hope might trigger revolution, but then can extinguish it as result of
> policies based on unrealistic expectations. But didn't Lenin's put a
> crock in that ('What Is To Be Done?' etc) by establishing a distinction
> within the party-system between classes of leaders, soldiers,
> sympathizers and 'usefull idiots'? :-)
Be Done" is anyway irrelevant because it was written in 1901, long
before "practice". Communist party as a leading force vs. "the masses"
had always been distinguished in the Maxist-Leninist doctrinairism
(and "What Is To Be Done" was much about this distinction). In January
1918, two months after the communist revolution, Lenin had issued an
agitated article "How to Organize a Competition", where's much to be
read between the lines against the contemporary context, but the main
idea about competition was so that people and work teams should compete
on who contributes the most to the common good/cause, and their reward
should be popular respect and promotion up the management hierarchy.
The image of universal brotherhood is an everlasting dream of humans.
Various teachings sought and seek to implement it in this or that way.
It includes ethical systems of the major universalist religions.
Practical attempts to implement it run into various obstacles, mainly
when they demand from people to curb their baser instincts too much.
Inter alia, one of the typal oppositions to an universalism is
"paganist" opposition, which principal feature is that it is some-
centric (linked with a certain central / leading group and tradition).
This is what the Nazis were against the Soviets from the theological
perspective.
> I assume the practical function of religion is to introduce a set of
> rules that exists independent of the human condition and so give life
> and a purpose beyond what is observable. Pseudo-scientific theories
> about the human condition that are impossible to disprove, seen to
> server much the same practical purpose.
>
> Declared rather then observable truth, whether it claims a 'scientific'
> basis or not, can both be used for justifying deposing elites 'that
> break the rules' and oppressing populations under the control of elites
> that make the rules and, in doing so, might claim divine sanction. In a
> cyclical system that is stable most of the time but periodically must
> reset as seem to the case with human societies, the practical function
> religion could be at over the stable period it mitigates the craftiness
> en malignity of elites and so make il longer, while it intensifies a
> reset (a period of upheaval) and so make it shorter.
>
> In this respect Marxist implementations so far didn't seem to have
> worked particular well. Its 'spin-offs', fascism and to some extent
> social-democracy that seemed to have hijacked the paternalistic aspect
> of deranged christian socialism, might have been or be worse.
struggle in a simplified tribalistic manner, as if the economic
classes were rival tribes <https://tinyurl.com/y3jhfcee>
>> One of the common standards is that it's not good to lie brazenly.
>> When the "western" politicians and media presented the 2014 coup in
>> Kiev as "revolution of decency", they lied. They thought, it's OK,
>> because bringing the Ukraine under Atlanticist patronage will serve
>> the global mission regardless of what really happened there.
>>
>> History teaches that abuse of such logics isn't good.
>
> From a geopolitical perspective Ukraine (as most of europe) seems simply
> a disputed territory in a shifting landscape. The interests of the
> people (or what they allegedly want) has little to do with outcomes.
Russian perspective, this territory makes little sense in isolation
from the people living there and their specific history linked with
the Russia's history. The present situation is ugly and dangerous,
and one of the helpful means to mitigate it might be a removal of
the dense falsities invented by the Atlanticism in order to justify
the unlawful counter-democratic developments there since 2014.
KPGH
May 8, 2022, 5:06:43 PM5/8/22
to
up'... . :-)
No expert, but i understand that the degree of layering in the command
structure was major part of the conflict with the mensheviks?
> The image of universal brotherhood is an everlasting dream of humans.
prefer to be treated kindly by superiors. And since most people are not
at the top of some hierarchy, they confess in public to care about the
welfare of others. I think evidence overwhelmingly shows that when
confronted with a conflict of interests, actual sympathy levels off
quickly after second-degree descendants.
> Various teachings sought and seek to implement it in this or that way.
> It includes ethical systems of the major universalist religions.
> Practical attempts to implement it run into various obstacles, mainly
> when they demand from people to curb their baser instincts too much.
> Inter alia, one of the typal oppositions to an universalism is
> "paganist" opposition, which principal feature is that it is some-
> centric (linked with a certain central / leading group and tradition).
> This is what the Nazis were against the Soviets from the theological
> perspective.
sacrifice and except expoitation, seems a majors enterprises of
'politics'.
I suspect that the soviets were forced in an early stage to supplement
Marxist theory/idiologie with policies designed to deal with
practicalities. Among which prominently that other states wanted to
finish them off ASAP.
The core of the 'theology' of the NS seemed to have been that the treaty
of Versailles needed to be revisited.
>> I assume the practical function of religion is to introduce a set of
>> rules that exists independent of the human condition and so give life
>> and a purpose beyond what is observable. Pseudo-scientific theories
>> about the human condition that are impossible to disprove, seen to
>> server much the same practical purpose.
>>
>> Declared rather then observable truth, whether it claims a
>> 'scientific' basis or not, can both be used for justifying deposing
>> elites 'that break the rules' and oppressing populations under the
>> control of elites that make the rules and, in doing so, might claim
>> divine sanction. In a cyclical system that is stable most of the time
>> but periodically must reset as seem to the case with human societies,
>> the practical function religion could be at over the stable period it
>> mitigates the craftiness en malignity of elites and so make il
>> longer, while it intensifies a reset (a period of upheaval) and so
>> make it shorter.
>>
>> In this respect Marxist implementations so far didn't seem to have
>> worked particular well. Its 'spin-offs', fascism and to some extent
>> social-democracy that seemed to have hijacked the paternalistic
>> aspect of deranged christian socialism, might have been or be worse.
>>
>
> I consider Marxism a heresy, mainly because it implies class
> struggle in a simplified tribalistic manner, as if the economic
> classes were rival tribes <https://tinyurl.com/y3jhfcee>
ideology/religion claiming scientific roots.
>>> One of the common standards is that it's not good to lie brazenly.
>>> When the "western" politicians and media presented the 2014 coup in
>>> Kiev as "revolution of decency", they lied. They thought, it's OK,
>>> because bringing the Ukraine under Atlanticist patronage will serve
>>> the global mission regardless of what really happened there.
>>>
>>> History teaches that abuse of such logics isn't good.
>>
>> From a geopolitical perspective Ukraine (as most of europe) seems
>> simply a disputed territory in a shifting landscape. The interests of
>> the people (or what they allegedly want) has little to do with
>> outcomes.
>
> And what's "liberal democracy" for, just for the slogan? From the
> Russian perspective, this territory makes little sense in isolation
> from the people living there and their specific history linked with
> the Russia's history. The present situation is ugly and dangerous,
> and one of the helpful means to mitigate it might be a removal of
> the dense falsities invented by the Atlanticism in order to justify
> the unlawful counter-democratic developments there since 2014.
(however defined) for a maximum number of citizens. That's something
different than executing the wishes of an (assumed and/of manipulated)
majority.
The nation-state is a relative recent and poorly wrought invention. Have
never been in Ukraine, but it seems that a considerable part of the
population would rather not belong to this state. So, during the
dissolution of the USSR, why weren't new borders drawn according to the
wishes of the populations involved?
'Liberalism' and 'democracy' are imho clearly incompatible. Same goes
for 'social' and 'democracy'. And 'law' comes ultimately out of the
barrel of a gun, so what is 'unlawful' is yet to be determined... :-)
Oleg Smirnov
May 10, 2022, 12:25:42 AM5/10/22
to
KPGH, <news:XnsAE918C158...@144.76.35.252>
includes political functionaries and big corporations whose interest
is to keep the dominant position in the world in somewhat imperialist
sense regardless of an ideology. Along with that, there's a fetishised
cultist ideology (liberal democracy, universal values, human rights etc)
which attracts quite many people on its own, but it also serves as a
cover for unethical deeds and policies of the Atlanticist establishment.
It's justified through sense of entitlement and according to the logic
"our grand mission and the noble goal in overall justifies the means".
The Atlanticism depicts "promotion of democracy" as sort of its gift to
the "less civilized" world, which is partly true. Another part is that
still not everything is all right with this cultist ideology as such,
and, moreover, the Atlanticism sells its "democracy" only bundled with
the demand to accept "American global leadership" in bluntly non-
liberal and non-ideological sense. Their "rule-based world order" etc
slogans is a kind of sophistry.
When it comes to Russia or China, they have and keep their vision based
on long tradition of their independent statehood. Such nations in the
world are few, in fact, given that "the west" had colonized a large
part of the world in the recent centuries. The post/neo-colonies either
don't have their vision or are shy to express it.
Subjugation of Russia and China to the Atlanticist establishment might
be seen as somewhat "finalization" of the "western" colonization of the
world, but this dream is unrealistic. Also, "soft-imperialist" zeal of
the elites brigns nothing good for regular people. Since the 1980s, the
American GDP growth contributes mainly to an increase in the incomes of
their upper class, while for the American regular populace their real
income changed very little throughout all these decades.
> Yesterday i heard a podcast which mentioned (as one of the very few
> popular publications) Keynes' "The Economic Consequences of the Peace"
> (1919) in connection with 'economic shock therapy'. These so-called
> 'economic policies' were IMHO in all likelihood never more then a
> convoluted scheme to subjugate the former USSR by turning it into
> patchwork of competing plutocracies that would fit into what US-pres
> Bush labeled the 'next American age'.
>
> https://www.npr.org/2022/05/06/1097135961/the-day-russia-adopted-the-free-market
>
> The relentless push to the east to enlarge 'the new word order' since
> the dissolution of the Warsaw-pact seems now about to climax. And from
> what a I see of local European media, local European regimes are happy
> to do their part in the next 'war to end all wars'.
Such a collective vibration within the matrix seems to leave no room
for more sane and balanced / realistic voices. Individuals are free to
think freely, whereas political functionaries have to stick to certain
cultist cliches for political survival. It's difficult to see where it
eventually lead to.
> "Oleg Smirnov" <os...@netc.eu> wrote on Fri 06 May 2022 04:03:46p:
>>> Unfortunately the policy of the Russia too, much like the US, seems
>>> to have been and still is to divide Europa rather then to attempt to
>>> encourage a more independent geopolitical stance from the US for
>>> which a level of federal integration would be required. With diverges
>>> of western-European and American geopolitical interests and Russia
>>> now being the junior-partner in its relation with china, the best
>>> hope for stability in the European area might be a regional balance
>>> of power that could be more resistant to external manipulation?
>>
>> I think you overestimate desire of the European
>> political establishment to work for such a "regional
>> balance of power".
>
> I think a chance to establish a viable European Union (by 'lawful' meas)
> was thoroughly obliterate in the early nineties by local interests that
> endeavor to restore pre-WW1/2 social conditions. The dominant 'European
> political establishment' seems now little more than a cabal of
> fragmented special interests seeking security from institutions
> dominated by US geopolitical agencies presented as 'the world order'
> that is ('unlawfully') infringed by china en russia. :-)
I see "geopolitics" so that there's an Atlanticist establishment that
>>> Unfortunately the policy of the Russia too, much like the US, seems
>>> to have been and still is to divide Europa rather then to attempt to
>>> encourage a more independent geopolitical stance from the US for
>>> which a level of federal integration would be required. With diverges
>>> of western-European and American geopolitical interests and Russia
>>> now being the junior-partner in its relation with china, the best
>>> hope for stability in the European area might be a regional balance
>>> of power that could be more resistant to external manipulation?
>>
>> I think you overestimate desire of the European
>> political establishment to work for such a "regional
>> balance of power".
>
> I think a chance to establish a viable European Union (by 'lawful' meas)
> was thoroughly obliterate in the early nineties by local interests that
> endeavor to restore pre-WW1/2 social conditions. The dominant 'European
> political establishment' seems now little more than a cabal of
> fragmented special interests seeking security from institutions
> dominated by US geopolitical agencies presented as 'the world order'
> that is ('unlawfully') infringed by china en russia. :-)
includes political functionaries and big corporations whose interest
is to keep the dominant position in the world in somewhat imperialist
sense regardless of an ideology. Along with that, there's a fetishised
cultist ideology (liberal democracy, universal values, human rights etc)
which attracts quite many people on its own, but it also serves as a
cover for unethical deeds and policies of the Atlanticist establishment.
It's justified through sense of entitlement and according to the logic
"our grand mission and the noble goal in overall justifies the means".
The Atlanticism depicts "promotion of democracy" as sort of its gift to
the "less civilized" world, which is partly true. Another part is that
still not everything is all right with this cultist ideology as such,
and, moreover, the Atlanticism sells its "democracy" only bundled with
the demand to accept "American global leadership" in bluntly non-
liberal and non-ideological sense. Their "rule-based world order" etc
slogans is a kind of sophistry.
When it comes to Russia or China, they have and keep their vision based
on long tradition of their independent statehood. Such nations in the
world are few, in fact, given that "the west" had colonized a large
part of the world in the recent centuries. The post/neo-colonies either
don't have their vision or are shy to express it.
Subjugation of Russia and China to the Atlanticist establishment might
be seen as somewhat "finalization" of the "western" colonization of the
world, but this dream is unrealistic. Also, "soft-imperialist" zeal of
the elites brigns nothing good for regular people. Since the 1980s, the
American GDP growth contributes mainly to an increase in the incomes of
their upper class, while for the American regular populace their real
income changed very little throughout all these decades.
> Yesterday i heard a podcast which mentioned (as one of the very few
> popular publications) Keynes' "The Economic Consequences of the Peace"
> (1919) in connection with 'economic shock therapy'. These so-called
> 'economic policies' were IMHO in all likelihood never more then a
> convoluted scheme to subjugate the former USSR by turning it into
> patchwork of competing plutocracies that would fit into what US-pres
> Bush labeled the 'next American age'.
>
> https://www.npr.org/2022/05/06/1097135961/the-day-russia-adopted-the-free-market
>
> The relentless push to the east to enlarge 'the new word order' since
> the dissolution of the Warsaw-pact seems now about to climax. And from
> what a I see of local European media, local European regimes are happy
> to do their part in the next 'war to end all wars'.
for more sane and balanced / realistic voices. Individuals are free to
think freely, whereas political functionaries have to stick to certain
cultist cliches for political survival. It's difficult to see where it
eventually lead to.
KPGH
May 10, 2022, 8:18:00 AM5/10/22
to
The obvious reason for that wealth (gini) differentials increased
almost everywhere after 1990, was that there were no longer opposing
more or less equal blocks that needed the cooperation of populations
under control in order to generate cooperative surplus to compete in a
global arena. (sort of red queen hypothesis.)
In this respect china seems in the process of replacing Russia that (so
far) wasn't able to overcome the shock of the end of the cold war.
>> Yesterday i heard a podcast which mentioned (as one of the very few
>> popular publications) Keynes' "The Economic Consequences of the
>> Peace" (1919) in connection with 'economic shock therapy'. These
>> so-called 'economic policies' were IMHO in all likelihood never more
>> then a convoluted scheme to subjugate the former USSR by turning it
>> into patchwork of competing plutocracies that would fit into what
>> US-pres Bush labeled the 'next American age'.
>>
>> https://www.npr.org/2022/05/06/1097135961/the-day-russia-adopted-the-f
>> ree-market
>>
>> The relentless push to the east to enlarge 'the new word order'
>> since the dissolution of the Warsaw-pact seems now about to climax.
>> And from what a I see of local European media, local European regimes
>> are happy to do their part in the next 'war to end all wars'.
>
> Such a collective vibration within the matrix seems to leave no room
> for more sane and balanced / realistic voices. Individuals are free to
> think freely, whereas political functionaries have to stick to certain
> cultist cliches for political survival. It's difficult to see where it
> eventually lead to.
one (sort of) federal state on both sites of the Atlantic.
The reason that plutocratic classes created in the former USSR today are
labeled 'oligarchs' rather than 'plutocrats', is probably that otherwise
the convergence between what was going on in Russia and is still going
on in western Europe would become to obvious: since the German
'unification', in which property in an effectively conquered was simply
confiscated and either given back to pre-WW2 owners of sold to whoever
cloud pay up.
After WW2 the US came firmly in command of western Europe as the USSR
did in the eastern part. Which was probably a good good for stability as
generated oligarchical classes in Europe would probably had been happy
to start a third 'war to end all wars' over reparations and
'international justice' and the like.
The primary reason that western Europa was not turned into some sort of
asset as south America was under the monroe doctrine ater WW2, was
probably the risk that the European population would have turned to
Marxism that to many seemed an alternative for the rule of pre-WW1/2
oligarchical elites.
The fact however was obviously that unlike the US, the USSR itself was
in dire straits after WW2: the population in western Europa at the time
was much better of under the control of the US that could afford to set
up something like the Marshall plan to keep out Marxism. And this was
subsequently presentment as a success of 'democracy' rather then a
confluence of historical ans strategic circumstances.
Today ideological competition has faded, and US is primarily in
competition with China. For Europe that means that the methods of
control has gradually moved from the 'carrot' to the 'stick'. This took
on the form of the restoration of historical (now parasitic) elites and
their proxies, but this time under external direction.
Russia seem to have broken away from this control, but is perceived to
be a weaker party in the system. So now, much like after WW1, in order
to keep it that way, talk of (after 'sanctions') the permanent
appropriation of foreign reserves and endless reparations seems to be
commencing...
Oleg Smirnov
May 10, 2022, 5:53:13 PM5/10/22
to
KPGH, <news:XnsAE939175A...@144.76.35.252>
Talk is cheap, and time will likely better tell how it will turn
out, and since I've no access to any insider info etc I'm mainly
talking about ethical and ideological issues here. It doesn't look
like Europe might indifinitely keep face with regard to the roots
of the current situation, sooner or later it will have to lose it.
There's a necessity to critically reassess the 2014 regime change
and the bogus narratives developed in connection with it.
out, and since I've no access to any insider info etc I'm mainly
talking about ethical and ideological issues here. It doesn't look
like Europe might indifinitely keep face with regard to the roots
of the current situation, sooner or later it will have to lose it.
There's a necessity to critically reassess the 2014 regime change
and the bogus narratives developed in connection with it.
Markus Schaaf
May 10, 2022, 6:31:56 PM5/10/22
to
Am 10.05.22 um 23:52 schrieb Oleg Smirnov:
> Talk is cheap, and time will likely better tell how it will turn
> out, and since I've no access to any insider info etc I'm mainly
> talking about ethical and ideological issues here. It doesn't look
> like Europe might indifinitely keep face with regard to the roots
> of the current situation, sooner or later it will have to lose it.
> There's a necessity to critically reassess the 2014 regime change
> and the bogus narratives developed in connection with it.
In international context ethics and ideology are useless. It's
all about power and strategy. In the end, history is written by
the winners. And they will bend history, ethics and ideology to
fit their needs. Although the Russian's actions seem to be more
justified on moral grounds, than the West's, it's totally clear
that they didn't enter Ukraine primarily to free oppressed
people. If that was their most important goal, they would have
done it years ago. This is a strategic war to defend their
sovereignty. Which is understandable, given the hostile actions
of the Ukrainian government and their allies. But don't miss the
wood for all the trees. There are people in the US who want to
conquer Russia for its resources. And this conflict is older than
the communist revolution.
BR
> Talk is cheap, and time will likely better tell how it will turn
> out, and since I've no access to any insider info etc I'm mainly
> talking about ethical and ideological issues here. It doesn't look
> like Europe might indifinitely keep face with regard to the roots
> of the current situation, sooner or later it will have to lose it.
> There's a necessity to critically reassess the 2014 regime change
> and the bogus narratives developed in connection with it.
all about power and strategy. In the end, history is written by
the winners. And they will bend history, ethics and ideology to
fit their needs. Although the Russian's actions seem to be more
justified on moral grounds, than the West's, it's totally clear
that they didn't enter Ukraine primarily to free oppressed
people. If that was their most important goal, they would have
done it years ago. This is a strategic war to defend their
sovereignty. Which is understandable, given the hostile actions
of the Ukrainian government and their allies. But don't miss the
wood for all the trees. There are people in the US who want to
conquer Russia for its resources. And this conflict is older than
the communist revolution.
BR
KPGH
May 11, 2022, 5:19:01 AM5/11/22
to
Installing client governments is more effective as they provide
plausible deniability and can be replaced. That was probably what was
going in the former USSR until the regime of mr. putin ceased to observe
the implied contract with 'the international community' under which it
ascended to power.
In a somewhat different way mr Deng Xiaoping did probably the same for
china when he convinced the US to help it industrialize with the implied
expectation that 'democratization' would follow.
Now, the essential Chinese narrative appears to be that the US takes an
unfair advantage of asymmetrical relations under the veil of
'democracy'. The response seems to be that China does the same under the
veil of 'free-market operations' -- the Belt and Road Initiative.
Could it be that they're both right, and that Europa too should stop
babbling about 'universal rights' and 'international law'? And start
looking after the legitimate interests of its own citizenry which
implies federalizing itself according to its needs in a new world
instead of endlessly commemorating the old? :-)
Markus Schaaf
May 11, 2022, 6:27:40 AM5/11/22
to
Am 11.05.22 um 11:18 schrieb KPGH:
> Could it be that they're both right, and that Europa too should stop
> babbling about 'universal rights' and 'international law'? And start
> looking after the legitimate interests of its own citizenry which
> implies federalizing itself according to its needs in a new world
> instead of endlessly commemorating the old? :-)
Well, but how to even start? The EU is nothing but the political
branch of NATO. (I guess the Brits left after realizing, that
they hadn't to pay the membership fee anymore to play
US-submarine.) European media are in the hands of US-oligarchs
and their transatlantic friends. And, as the "pandemic" (and the
current Ukrainian crisis) shows, a majority of European citizens
is willing to follow the puppets called government, no matter what.
BR
> Could it be that they're both right, and that Europa too should stop
> babbling about 'universal rights' and 'international law'? And start
> looking after the legitimate interests of its own citizenry which
> implies federalizing itself according to its needs in a new world
> instead of endlessly commemorating the old? :-)
branch of NATO. (I guess the Brits left after realizing, that
they hadn't to pay the membership fee anymore to play
US-submarine.) European media are in the hands of US-oligarchs
and their transatlantic friends. And, as the "pandemic" (and the
current Ukrainian crisis) shows, a majority of European citizens
is willing to follow the puppets called government, no matter what.
BR
KPGH
May 11, 2022, 9:46:26 AM5/11/22
to
The major European political parties now all seem to produce essentially
religious slogans regarding 'the welfare of mankind' under the
guardianship of the US -- while disregarding the interest of real people
in europe.
As an example, it could be (and was) argued that under a monetary
without a fiscal union the German state has been feeding on both
southern European states and its own working classes under an
artificially low exchange-rate: the working classes in the German state
had to compete with workers from southern European states that in turn
could not compete with the german state under a single currency without
internal transfer-payments to compensate for the difference in
industrial efficiency.
International economist on the subject were apparently ignored for some
25 years. And when pres Trump finally tried to classify the practice as
unfair completion, he was apparently attacked not only by European
regent-classes lining their pockets, but also by a the majority of the
American political establishment.
Russia seem to have mainly encouraged inconsistencies and divisions in
the EU by supporting small local 'nationalist' (populist) parties so as
to divide the EU of 'sovereign states'.
Meanwhile, China seem to have been buying critical infrastructure
wherever it could, while driving local regimes into debt by encouraging
local elites to deficit-finance pet-projects like sports-areas or
passenger terminals and subway-systems in places where they're not
needed and often seem to (further) have destabilized the real-estate
market by increasing price- and local wealth-differentials.
Best hope might be that the compliance of the citizenry is more brittle
than it is made to appear.
Problem in that regard seems now that if Russia calculates that it could
'wake up' the European masses, it could attempt to do so with a nuclear
(tactical) bang. And even so that would probably not cause much damage,
the response of any of a bunch of 'sovereign' client states could make
what happened next highly unpredictable?
Oleg Smirnov
May 11, 2022, 9:50:40 AM5/11/22
to
Markus Schaaf, <news:t5ep4p$s2e$1...@dont-email.me>
ethologically, everyone is more or less prone to the Stockholm
syndrome. Somewhat a yang-yin.
> It's
> all about power and strategy. In the end, history is written by
> the winners. And they will bend history, ethics and ideology to
> fit their needs. Although the Russian's actions seem to be more
> justified on moral grounds, than the West's, it's totally clear
> that they didn't enter Ukraine primarily to free oppressed
> people. If that was their most important goal, they would have
> done it years ago.
One of the talking points among the controversies related to the
Kremlin's current military action is that years ago "western
sanctions" on Russia might cause much stronger effect than today.
> This is a strategic war to defend their
> sovereignty. Which is understandable, given the hostile actions
> of the Ukrainian government and their allies. But don't miss the
> wood for all the trees. There are people in the US who want to
> conquer Russia for its resources. And this conflict is older than
> the communist revolution.
The very first European plans to attack Russia under agenda close
to the "simply for resources" concept date back to the early 17th
century, when the English planned it through the Arctic route
<https://is.gd/2E6HrB> (it was the so called Time of Troubles,
when Poland, Sweden and the Crimean khanate invaded Russia not in
plans but in practice, although their agendas were not quite "for
resources"). Later, the British establishment developed a strong
irrational fixation on Russia. Today, it's the most enthusiastic
activist in Europe in organizing Europe against Russia.
> Am 10.05.22 um 23:52 schrieb Oleg Smirnov:
>
>> Talk is cheap, and time will likely better tell how it will turn
>> out, and since I've no access to any insider info etc I'm mainly
>> talking about ethical and ideological issues here. It doesn't look
>> like Europe might indifinitely keep face with regard to the roots
>> of the current situation, sooner or later it will have to lose it.
>> There's a necessity to critically reassess the 2014 regime change
>> and the bogus narratives developed in connection with it.
>
> In international context ethics and ideology are useless.
Ideologies drive popular movements sometimes. Otoh,
>
>> Talk is cheap, and time will likely better tell how it will turn
>> out, and since I've no access to any insider info etc I'm mainly
>> talking about ethical and ideological issues here. It doesn't look
>> like Europe might indifinitely keep face with regard to the roots
>> of the current situation, sooner or later it will have to lose it.
>> There's a necessity to critically reassess the 2014 regime change
>> and the bogus narratives developed in connection with it.
>
> In international context ethics and ideology are useless.
ethologically, everyone is more or less prone to the Stockholm
syndrome. Somewhat a yang-yin.
> It's
> all about power and strategy. In the end, history is written by
> the winners. And they will bend history, ethics and ideology to
> fit their needs. Although the Russian's actions seem to be more
> justified on moral grounds, than the West's, it's totally clear
> that they didn't enter Ukraine primarily to free oppressed
> people. If that was their most important goal, they would have
> done it years ago.
Kremlin's current military action is that years ago "western
sanctions" on Russia might cause much stronger effect than today.
> This is a strategic war to defend their
> sovereignty. Which is understandable, given the hostile actions
> of the Ukrainian government and their allies. But don't miss the
> wood for all the trees. There are people in the US who want to
> conquer Russia for its resources. And this conflict is older than
> the communist revolution.
to the "simply for resources" concept date back to the early 17th
century, when the English planned it through the Arctic route
<https://is.gd/2E6HrB> (it was the so called Time of Troubles,
when Poland, Sweden and the Crimean khanate invaded Russia not in
plans but in practice, although their agendas were not quite "for
resources"). Later, the British establishment developed a strong
irrational fixation on Russia. Today, it's the most enthusiastic
activist in Europe in organizing Europe against Russia.
Oleg Smirnov
May 11, 2022, 10:04:09 AM5/11/22
to
KPGH, <news:XnsAE94731DA...@144.76.35.252>
period as a client government despite that it indulged the
Atlanticism in some ways (and moreover, until the early 2000s,
the Atlanticism itself wasn't as self-confident / imperative
as it became later).
Also it'd be too simple to reduce changes in Russia to
"regime"'s will or Putin's personal will. Some turning point
had happened in 1998-99. It was linked with both domestic
economic crisis <https://is.gd/jg4Fsm> and foreign events
related to Yougoslavia: the former shook credibility of
policies associated with "liberal economists" while the latter
spoiled the image of NATO / "the west" among Russian public.
Nowadays, among the populace there's an increasing share of
those who see Russia non-European <https://archive.is/3XLJu>,
in part due to a desire to distance from modern Europe image.
Traditionaly, Russia's MFA representatives used to imply some
European commonality in talks with European counterparts. But
changes of popular sentiment will demand from them adjusting
accents.
> Markus Schaaf <msc...@elaboris.de> wrote on Wed 11 May 2022 12:31:30a:
>> Am 10.05.22 um 23:52 schrieb Oleg Smirnov:
>> Am 10.05.22 um 23:52 schrieb Oleg Smirnov:
>> conquer Russia for its resources. And this conflict is older than
>> the communist revolution.
>
> 'Conquering' implies taking responsibility for what happens next.
>
> Installing client governments is more effective as they provide
> plausible deniability and can be replaced. That was probably what was
> going in the former USSR until the regime of mr. putin ceased to observe
> the implied contract with 'the international community' under which it
> ascended to power.
It would be an exaggeration to interpret the Yeltsyn's
>> the communist revolution.
>
> 'Conquering' implies taking responsibility for what happens next.
>
> Installing client governments is more effective as they provide
> plausible deniability and can be replaced. That was probably what was
> going in the former USSR until the regime of mr. putin ceased to observe
> the implied contract with 'the international community' under which it
> ascended to power.
period as a client government despite that it indulged the
Atlanticism in some ways (and moreover, until the early 2000s,
the Atlanticism itself wasn't as self-confident / imperative
as it became later).
Also it'd be too simple to reduce changes in Russia to
"regime"'s will or Putin's personal will. Some turning point
had happened in 1998-99. It was linked with both domestic
economic crisis <https://is.gd/jg4Fsm> and foreign events
related to Yougoslavia: the former shook credibility of
policies associated with "liberal economists" while the latter
spoiled the image of NATO / "the west" among Russian public.
Nowadays, among the populace there's an increasing share of
those who see Russia non-European <https://archive.is/3XLJu>,
in part due to a desire to distance from modern Europe image.
Traditionaly, Russia's MFA representatives used to imply some
European commonality in talks with European counterparts. But
changes of popular sentiment will demand from them adjusting
accents.
Markus Schaaf
May 11, 2022, 10:13:58 AM5/11/22
to
Am 11.05.22 um 15:46 schrieb KPGH:
> Problem in that regard seems now that if Russia calculates that it could
> 'wake up' the European masses, it could attempt to do so with a nuclear
> (tactical) bang.
I don't see any logic in that. I guess the Russians have accepted
that there is no partnership possible with western Europe for the
near future. In Russia, you are someone if you can stand on your
own feet. While western aristocrats want to control others. (I
didn't come up with that, it's from Thierry Meyssan, but
describes the current situation.)
> Problem in that regard seems now that if Russia calculates that it could
> 'wake up' the European masses, it could attempt to do so with a nuclear
> (tactical) bang.
that there is no partnership possible with western Europe for the
near future. In Russia, you are someone if you can stand on your
own feet. While western aristocrats want to control others. (I
didn't come up with that, it's from Thierry Meyssan, but
describes the current situation.)
Markus Schaaf
May 11, 2022, 2:36:19 PM5/11/22
to
Am 11.05.22 um 15:48 schrieb Oleg Smirnov:
> One of the talking points among the controversies related to the
> Kremlin's current military action is that years ago "western
> sanctions" on Russia might cause much stronger effect than today.
As Putin mentioned, when he announced the military operation, the
Kremlin understood that a war had already been started by the
West, and more sanctions would be coming with increasing speed,
no matter what Russia did. So they could just deliver a real
reason, instead of the West having to fabricate more Scripal- and
Nawalny-like stories.
BR
> One of the talking points among the controversies related to the
> Kremlin's current military action is that years ago "western
> sanctions" on Russia might cause much stronger effect than today.
Kremlin understood that a war had already been started by the
West, and more sanctions would be coming with increasing speed,
no matter what Russia did. So they could just deliver a real
reason, instead of the West having to fabricate more Scripal- and
Nawalny-like stories.
BR
KPGH
May 11, 2022, 4:21:49 PM5/11/22
to
Markus Schaaf <msc...@elaboris.de> wrote on Wed 11 May 2022 04:13:33p:
> Am 11.05.22 um 15:46 schrieb KPGH:
>
>> Problem in that regard seems now that if Russia calculates that it
>> could 'wake up' the European masses, it could attempt to do so with a
>> nuclear (tactical) bang.
>
> I don't see any logic in that. I guess the Russians have accepted
> that there is no partnership possible with western Europe for the
> near future.
The most probable interpretation of what's going on, seems to me that
> Am 11.05.22 um 15:46 schrieb KPGH:
>
>> Problem in that regard seems now that if Russia calculates that it
>> could 'wake up' the European masses, it could attempt to do so with a
>> nuclear (tactical) bang.
>
> I don't see any logic in that. I guess the Russians have accepted
> that there is no partnership possible with western Europe for the
> near future.
the US stepped up its attempts to dispose of the putin-government with
enduring sanctions so as to undermine popular support.
For sanctions some sort of pretext is required, and stoking ethnic
divisions in disputed territories seems an obvious choice.
Didn't follow it in any detail, but I suspect that the Russian demand
that a new border between spheres of influence in Europa would be agreed
upon, was really a demand that 'sanctions' (the abuse of the USD as
reserve currency) would end. This was apparently flatly refused.
If Russia wound now be faced with still more sanctions and a prolonged
guerrilla-conflict, it stands to reason that it might try something to
force the situation.
I understand that over the past few years the US and its kiev-regime had
stepped up provocations against the Russian population under its
control. And Russia itself: apparently they even build an assault
rifle based on the American AR15 (the WAC-47) to shoot (soviet) 7.62mm
ammunition -- never mind that direct impingement is allegedly hardly a
good choice for using with this caliber. :-)
In Russia, you are someone if you can stand on your
> own feet. While western aristocrats want to control others. (I
> didn't come up with that, it's from Thierry Meyssan, but
> describes the current situation.)
feet'.
Het varken van Breslau
May 11, 2022, 4:52:08 PM5/11/22
to
state has two kinds of obligation towards its citizens: keep then 'free'
and keep them safe. At a certain point a state cannot do both.
The Ukraine can keep on fighting to keep the country free (whatever that
may be) but in doing so it more and more exposes its citizens to death
and long term economic disaster. For what? For the chimera of NATO
membership? Is it worth it to let all those people be killed for a goal
that with a bit of patience and smart politics could have been attained
anyway?
Of course the Ukraine is a free state and can make its own choices and
decisions. But making your own choices, in freedom, implies that you can
very well make the wrong choices, and I think that is true here.
IMHO, always imho of course.
https://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/debatten/ukraine-krieg-interview-mit-reinhard-merkel-zum-offenen-brief-18005242.html
--
"What a paradox, what a fearful reproach, when the distinction of a
few hundred miles — nay, as many feet or even inches! — can transform
heinous crime to simple unqualified circumstance! (Jack Vance)"
Thomas Heger
May 12, 2022, 2:32:50 AM5/12/22
to
Am 23.04.2022 um 16:33 schrieb Oleg Smirnov:
> Things aren't good, and it's getting worse.
>
https://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/diplomatischer-fauxpas-von-obama-beraterin-nuland-fuck-the-eu-a-952005.html
Der Spruch 'Fuck the EU' stammte von Victoria Nuland und aus der Ukraine.
Die Deutschen danken der USA nachdrücklich für diese Drohung und auch
für das Geld, welches John McCain in die Hand genommen hatte, um die
'Rechten Kräfte' in der Ukraine zu finanzieren.
Genauso dankbar sind wir dafür, dass wir jetzt Waffen in Kriegsgebiete
schicken dürfen und mal wieder gegen die bösen Russen kämpfen können.
Nicht ganz so dankbar sind wir dafür, wass wir jetzt kein Gas mehr aus
Russland kriegen und statt dessen die Gefahr eines Atomkrieges droht.
TH
> Things aren't good, and it's getting worse.
>
https://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/diplomatischer-fauxpas-von-obama-beraterin-nuland-fuck-the-eu-a-952005.html
Der Spruch 'Fuck the EU' stammte von Victoria Nuland und aus der Ukraine.
Die Deutschen danken der USA nachdrücklich für diese Drohung und auch
für das Geld, welches John McCain in die Hand genommen hatte, um die
'Rechten Kräfte' in der Ukraine zu finanzieren.
Genauso dankbar sind wir dafür, dass wir jetzt Waffen in Kriegsgebiete
schicken dürfen und mal wieder gegen die bösen Russen kämpfen können.
Nicht ganz so dankbar sind wir dafür, wass wir jetzt kein Gas mehr aus
Russland kriegen und statt dessen die Gefahr eines Atomkrieges droht.
TH
KPGH
May 12, 2022, 7:41:44 AM5/12/22
to
"Oleg Smirnov" <os...@netc.eu> wrote on Wed 11 May 2022 04:02:28p:
> KPGH, <news:XnsAE94731DA...@144.76.35.252>
>> Markus Schaaf <msc...@elaboris.de> wrote on Wed 11 May 2022
>> 12:31:30a:
>>> Am 10.05.22 um 23:52 schrieb Oleg Smirnov:
>
>>> conquer Russia for its resources. And this conflict is older than
>>> the communist revolution.
>>
>> 'Conquering' implies taking responsibility for what happens next.
>>
>> Installing client governments is more effective as they provide
>> plausible deniability and can be replaced. That was probably what was
>> going in the former USSR until the regime of mr. putin ceased to
>> observe the implied contract with 'the international community' under
>> which it ascended to power.
>
> It would be an exaggeration to interpret the Yeltsyn's
> period as a client government despite that it indulged the
> Atlanticism in some ways (and moreover, until the early 2000s,
> the Atlanticism itself wasn't as self-confident / imperative
> as it became later).
Period was probably transitory. But with the extreme concentration of
> KPGH, <news:XnsAE94731DA...@144.76.35.252>
>> Markus Schaaf <msc...@elaboris.de> wrote on Wed 11 May 2022
>> 12:31:30a:
>>> Am 10.05.22 um 23:52 schrieb Oleg Smirnov:
>
>>> conquer Russia for its resources. And this conflict is older than
>>> the communist revolution.
>>
>> 'Conquering' implies taking responsibility for what happens next.
>>
>> Installing client governments is more effective as they provide
>> plausible deniability and can be replaced. That was probably what was
>> going in the former USSR until the regime of mr. putin ceased to
>> observe the implied contract with 'the international community' under
>> which it ascended to power.
>
> It would be an exaggeration to interpret the Yeltsyn's
> period as a client government despite that it indulged the
> Atlanticism in some ways (and moreover, until the early 2000s,
> the Atlanticism itself wasn't as self-confident / imperative
> as it became later).
control over capital (and with that wealth that was apparently siphoned
off to end up in western financial capitals), Russia seems to have beeen
well on the way to join a host of other client-states with natural
resources.
How exactly it works today I don't know, but I suspect that plutocracy
is still a major problem that stuns many aspects of public life. About
the intentions of mr putin personalty, now or in the past, i have no
opinion. What seems clear to me however, is that the popular support
for the regime is based on that it improved the material welfare of the
population at large.
And that much of what's going on now, might reverse that trend by
spiking the flow of international trade so as tot remove the regime.
> Also it'd be too simple to reduce changes in Russia to
> "regime"'s will or Putin's personal will. Some turning point
> had happened in 1998-99. It was linked with both domestic
> economic crisis <https://is.gd/jg4Fsm> and foreign events
> related to Yougoslavia: the former shook credibility of
> policies associated with "liberal economists" while the latter
> spoiled the image of NATO / "the west" among Russian public.
> Nowadays, among the populace there's an increasing share of
> those who see Russia non-European <https://archive.is/3XLJu>,
> in part due to a desire to distance from modern Europe image.
> Traditionaly, Russia's MFA representatives used to imply some
> European commonality in talks with European counterparts. But
> changes of popular sentiment will demand from them adjusting
> accents.
enforced policies. The notion that only one person is (or can be) in
charge, is primarily used in propaganda to isolate a population from
responsibility for executing policies ordered by a leadership that is
propagandisticaly reduced to one person.
Today 'regime' is often used as the counterpart of 'government' which is
populated with all sort of positive connotations -- even so it means
factually little more then 'a societal body that rules and controls'.
Today, the use of 'regime' in general seems preferably because it is
more neutral and reminds of that any hierarchy has both 'negative' and
'positive' aspects depending of were one is situated with respect to a
regime.
Oleg Smirnov
May 12, 2022, 10:00:46 AM5/12/22
to
Thomas Heger, <news:je3o0e...@mid.individual.net>
This is exactly what the subject of this thread refers to.
> Am 23.04.2022 um 16:33 schrieb Oleg Smirnov:
>> Things aren't good, and it's getting worse.
>>
> https://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/diplomatischer-fauxpas-von-obama-beraterin-nuland-fuck-the-eu-a-952005.html
>
> Der Spruch 'Fuck the EU' stammte von Victoria Nuland und aus der Ukraine.
Exactly.
>> Things aren't good, and it's getting worse.
>>
> https://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/diplomatischer-fauxpas-von-obama-beraterin-nuland-fuck-the-eu-a-952005.html
>
> Der Spruch 'Fuck the EU' stammte von Victoria Nuland und aus der Ukraine.
This is exactly what the subject of this thread refers to.
Oleg Smirnov
May 12, 2022, 10:23:46 AM5/12/22
to
KPGH, <news:XnsAE958B511...@144.76.35.252>
The primary agenda at the time was "in no way enable 'communism'
back", so then policy makers sought to privatize enterprises as
quikly as possible, and topics of social justice and rigorous
law-abiding were considered very secondary. The process was
intensely going on while a system of law enforcement, commercial
arbitration etc hadn't yet been set adequately for the new rules
of the game. It all was extremely traumatic for the society as a
whole. However, the state still had never lost control over key
assets of the statehood to a extent that could allow to consider
it a client government.
> How exactly it works today I don't know, but I suspect that plutocracy
> is still a major problem that stuns many aspects of public life. About
> the intentions of mr putin personalty, now or in the past, i have no
> opinion. What seems clear to me however, is that the popular support
> for the regime is based on that it improved the material welfare of the
> population at large.
>
> And that much of what's going on now, might reverse that trend by
> spiking the flow of international trade so as tot remove the regime.
Certain "plutocracy" exists in Russia. But this topic needs to
be taken with a fair sense of proportion. The unbridled abuse
of plutocracy/kleptocracy wording in the Atlanticist discourse
is not intended to help the Russians to get rid of it, it in
fact intended to create a repulsive image of Russia as a whole.
I can remind, at the very beginning of the unhealthy "western"
zeal to apply "sanctions" to Russia the main logic was so that
if we hurt those depraved kleptocrats within the Putin's inner
circle strongly enough, then a palace coup will be inevitable, -
but these hopes hadn't come true.
I think it works in both directions. Regime can manipulate over
populace through propaganda, but it also has to somehow reckon
with popular sentiment, and the latter can be changing not due
to propaganda only. There are also "inertial" settings acquired
through schooling / inherited from longterm national tradition.
The more stable a nation's recent history was, the more stable
settings are. In this sense, European settings are more stable
against Russia's ones (given the extremely turbulent history of
Russia in the 20th century). On the one hand it's good, it
makes Europe more internally steady, but on the other hand such
an inertia can impair a timely adaptation to external
circumstances (like the rise of Asia and decline of the US).
> "Oleg Smirnov" <os...@netc.eu> wrote on Wed 11 May 2022 04:02:28p:
>> It would be an exaggeration to interpret the Yeltsyn's
>> period as a client government despite that it indulged the
>> Atlanticism in some ways (and moreover, until the early 2000s,
>> the Atlanticism itself wasn't as self-confident / imperative
>> as it became later).
>
> Period was probably transitory. But with the extreme concentration of
> control over capital (and with that wealth that was apparently siphoned
> off to end up in western financial capitals), Russia seems to have beeen
> well on the way to join a host of other client-states with natural
> resources.
There was a lot of confusion / disorder in Russia in the 1990s.
>> It would be an exaggeration to interpret the Yeltsyn's
>> period as a client government despite that it indulged the
>> Atlanticism in some ways (and moreover, until the early 2000s,
>> the Atlanticism itself wasn't as self-confident / imperative
>> as it became later).
>
> Period was probably transitory. But with the extreme concentration of
> control over capital (and with that wealth that was apparently siphoned
> off to end up in western financial capitals), Russia seems to have beeen
> well on the way to join a host of other client-states with natural
> resources.
The primary agenda at the time was "in no way enable 'communism'
back", so then policy makers sought to privatize enterprises as
quikly as possible, and topics of social justice and rigorous
law-abiding were considered very secondary. The process was
intensely going on while a system of law enforcement, commercial
arbitration etc hadn't yet been set adequately for the new rules
of the game. It all was extremely traumatic for the society as a
whole. However, the state still had never lost control over key
assets of the statehood to a extent that could allow to consider
it a client government.
> How exactly it works today I don't know, but I suspect that plutocracy
> is still a major problem that stuns many aspects of public life. About
> the intentions of mr putin personalty, now or in the past, i have no
> opinion. What seems clear to me however, is that the popular support
> for the regime is based on that it improved the material welfare of the
> population at large.
>
> And that much of what's going on now, might reverse that trend by
> spiking the flow of international trade so as tot remove the regime.
be taken with a fair sense of proportion. The unbridled abuse
of plutocracy/kleptocracy wording in the Atlanticist discourse
is not intended to help the Russians to get rid of it, it in
fact intended to create a repulsive image of Russia as a whole.
I can remind, at the very beginning of the unhealthy "western"
zeal to apply "sanctions" to Russia the main logic was so that
if we hurt those depraved kleptocrats within the Putin's inner
circle strongly enough, then a palace coup will be inevitable, -
but these hopes hadn't come true.
populace through propaganda, but it also has to somehow reckon
with popular sentiment, and the latter can be changing not due
to propaganda only. There are also "inertial" settings acquired
through schooling / inherited from longterm national tradition.
The more stable a nation's recent history was, the more stable
settings are. In this sense, European settings are more stable
against Russia's ones (given the extremely turbulent history of
Russia in the 20th century). On the one hand it's good, it
makes Europe more internally steady, but on the other hand such
an inertia can impair a timely adaptation to external
circumstances (like the rise of Asia and decline of the US).
Lyrik
May 12, 2022, 12:18:43 PM5/12/22
to
Den 04-05-2022 kl. 11:31 skrev Oleg Smirnov:
> KPGH, <news:XnsAE8B99FE2...@144.76.35.252>
>> "Oleg Smirnov" <os...@netc.eu> wrote on Sun 01 May 2022 10:20:46p:
>
>>> This brazen lawlessness, under "western" ecouragement and approval,
>>> outraged a part of the Ukrainians as well as many in Russia, so the
>>> Kremlin came into play to help Crimea and Donbas to escape from the
>>> post-coup regime, which eventually led to the hostile situation we
>>> have today.
>>>
>>> European politicians may blame Russia for something, but, for a
>>> start, they need to recognise their own mistakes and misdeeds that
>>> gave start to such destructive developments.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
When Constantinople was the new Rome, it was the center of the world.
But it also had something autocratic about it. the leader was Emperor
(Zar). The autocratic element lies in the orthodox faith. It is his
image we see inside the top of the dome. Western Europe was a more
flexible place. There was the Pope, but there were also princes and kings.
Imperial Constantinople was increasingly despised. We also saw
"today" how Russia started its efforts in Ukraine with a "World War II
lineup". Parts of the military leadership were fired due to the very
large losses.
Now, thankfully, that has changed. The advantages of the Orthodox
faith are "Honesty", innocence, virginity and family feeling. It is
Divine attributes that will eventually win over the lie. The West has
become Protestant and pays homage to lies and propaganda as weapons.
It's not about "Ukraine Wins", but whether we can make you believe that
"Ukraine wins"? War is not won by buying the most expensive weapons, but
by the best morals. The best morality is the truth, not the lie.
jenserik
> KPGH, <news:XnsAE8B99FE2...@144.76.35.252>
>> "Oleg Smirnov" <os...@netc.eu> wrote on Sun 01 May 2022 10:20:46p:
>
>>> This brazen lawlessness, under "western" ecouragement and approval,
>>> outraged a part of the Ukrainians as well as many in Russia, so the
>>> Kremlin came into play to help Crimea and Donbas to escape from the
>>> post-coup regime, which eventually led to the hostile situation we
>>> have today.
>>>
>>> European politicians may blame Russia for something, but, for a
>>> start, they need to recognise their own mistakes and misdeeds that
>>> gave start to such destructive developments.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
When Constantinople was the new Rome, it was the center of the world.
But it also had something autocratic about it. the leader was Emperor
(Zar). The autocratic element lies in the orthodox faith. It is his
image we see inside the top of the dome. Western Europe was a more
flexible place. There was the Pope, but there were also princes and kings.
Imperial Constantinople was increasingly despised. We also saw
"today" how Russia started its efforts in Ukraine with a "World War II
lineup". Parts of the military leadership were fired due to the very
large losses.
Now, thankfully, that has changed. The advantages of the Orthodox
faith are "Honesty", innocence, virginity and family feeling. It is
Divine attributes that will eventually win over the lie. The West has
become Protestant and pays homage to lies and propaganda as weapons.
It's not about "Ukraine Wins", but whether we can make you believe that
"Ukraine wins"? War is not won by buying the most expensive weapons, but
by the best morals. The best morality is the truth, not the lie.
jenserik
KPGH
May 12, 2022, 4:20:12 PM5/12/22
to
sie berechnen dass Deutschland auf Gas verzichten kann wenn Russland
stattdessen Kohlenoxid-freie thermonukleare Heizung liefert?
Markus Schaaf
May 12, 2022, 4:42:08 PM5/12/22
to
Am 12.05.22 um 22:20 schrieb KPGH:
> Entweder sind die Grünen Teil einer neokonservativen Geheimdienst, oder
> sie berechnen dass Deutschland auf Gas verzichten kann wenn Russland
> stattdessen Kohlenoxid-freie thermonukleare Heizung liefert?
Irgendwie bist Du auf dieses nukleare Thema fixiert. :-) Aber ja,
die Grünen hier sind eine Außenstelle der US-Demokraten. Leider
reicht der Horizont einiger deutsche Wähler nicht weiter als
grün=ökologisch.
MfG
> Entweder sind die Grünen Teil einer neokonservativen Geheimdienst, oder
> sie berechnen dass Deutschland auf Gas verzichten kann wenn Russland
> stattdessen Kohlenoxid-freie thermonukleare Heizung liefert?
die Grünen hier sind eine Außenstelle der US-Demokraten. Leider
reicht der Horizont einiger deutsche Wähler nicht weiter als
grün=ökologisch.
MfG
Thomas Heger
May 13, 2022, 2:59:24 AM5/13/22
to
Diese ist eng verwandt mit der 'abiogenen Öltheorie'.
Nach dieser Theorie stammt Erdöl nicht von toten Dinosaueriern, sondern
ist eine bestimmte Fraktion von der Materie, welche die Erde in ihrem
Innern 'erbrütet'.
Die flüssigen und gasförmigen Bestandteile sammeln sich unterhalb der
Erdkruste und bilden dort regelrechte Seen.
Wenn die Erdkruste nun durch das Erdwachstum bricht, dann gelangt das
Erdöl an die Erdoberfläche oder zumindest in die Nähe davon.
Aber da besagte Seen noch mit den Ölquellen verbunden bleiben, füllen
sich die Quellen immer wieder auf, wenn auch nicht immer besonders schnell.
Daher kann man die Öl- und Erdgasquellen öfter leeren und es kommt immer
wieder neues Öl nach.
Aber man kann auch einfach irgendwo in die Erdkruste bohren und kommt
dann mit einer gewissen Wahrscheinlichkeit auf Öl oder Gas, wenn man nur
tief genug bohrt (leider SEHR tief).
Das Erdöl bzw. -gas dient also nicht primär als rarer Rohstoff, sondern
hat geopolitisch die Funktion von Geld.
Es kommt also garnicht so auf das Öl als solches an (da überall
vorhanden), sondern darauf, dass es ein 'commodity' gibt, wofür alle
Geld ausgeben.
Damit sie das auch wirklich tun und um zu entscheiden, wer das Geld
schließlich bekommt, dafür sind dann die Kriege da. Und derzeit kabbeln
sich eben Russen und Amis um das Geld, während Deutschland wohl wieder
das Blut beisteuern soll.
TH
Erika von der Emscher
May 13, 2022, 3:19:34 AM5/13/22
to
Am 13.05.22 um 08:59 Uhr Thomas Heger schrieb:
> Meiner Ansicht nach trifft ja die sogn. 'Growing Earth' Hypothese zu.
Den physikalischen Gesetzen zufolge ist das nicht möglich.
> Diese ist eng verwandt mit der 'abiogenen Öltheorie'.
Dito!
> Nach dieser Theorie stammt Erdöl nicht von toten Dinosaueriern,
Das hat auch keiner behauptet, daß das von den Dinos sei.
Wie komsmt Du da drauf?
Bist Du dumm, oder was?
--
Glückauf!
Erika
> Meiner Ansicht nach trifft ja die sogn. 'Growing Earth' Hypothese zu.
> Diese ist eng verwandt mit der 'abiogenen Öltheorie'.
> Nach dieser Theorie stammt Erdöl nicht von toten Dinosaueriern,
Wie komsmt Du da drauf?
Bist Du dumm, oder was?
--
Glückauf!
Erika
Markus Schaaf
May 13, 2022, 5:13:07 AM5/13/22
to
Am 11.05.22 um 16:02 schrieb Oleg Smirnov:
> It would be an exaggeration to interpret the Yeltsyn's
> period as a client government despite that it indulged the
> Atlanticism in some ways (and moreover, until the early 2000s,
> the Atlanticism itself wasn't as self-confident / imperative
> as it became later).
I think this is the most badly understood part of Anglo-American
politics. They don't need to directly control governments or
people. They have built an economical, political and juridical
framework, that attracts the rich and corrupt. All they need to
do is to support such groups in other countries and they will
embrace all things American. As Warren Buffet put it: "There's
class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class,
that's making war, and we're winning."
BR
> It would be an exaggeration to interpret the Yeltsyn's
> period as a client government despite that it indulged the
> Atlanticism in some ways (and moreover, until the early 2000s,
> the Atlanticism itself wasn't as self-confident / imperative
> as it became later).
politics. They don't need to directly control governments or
people. They have built an economical, political and juridical
framework, that attracts the rich and corrupt. All they need to
do is to support such groups in other countries and they will
embrace all things American. As Warren Buffet put it: "There's
class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class,
that's making war, and we're winning."
BR
KPGH
May 13, 2022, 4:39:41 PM5/13/22
to
rechtfertigen, und das Kiewer Regime anschließend zum Rücktritt
aufgefordert oder gezwungen wird, scheint es mir, dass die derzeitige
NATO-Politik durchaus zu einem (hoffentlich taktischen)
"halb-demonstrativen" Atomschlag führen könnte.
Die derzeitige Nato-Politik scheint auf der im Irak und im Iran
verfolgten zu beruhen: Im Wesentlichen das Aushungern eines Staates,
genauer gesagt seiner Bevölkerung, zur Unterwerfung.
Dabei werden die Prinzipien der gegenseitig zugesicherten Vernichtung
('mutual assured destruction/MAD), die nach dem 2. Weltkrieg zur
Grundlage des Friedens in Europa gehörten, nun völlig außer Acht
gelassen.
Ein Teil des Problems scheint hier zu sein, dass die USA (in Japan)
gezeigt hatten dass sie bereit waren Atomwaffen gegen reale Ziele
einzusetzen. Russland hat das nie getan.
Angesichts der wahrscheinlich unangemessenen, aber sicherlich
aufwieglerischen Kommentare von besonders westeuropäischen Regimen über
den 'Kriegsgewinn' der Ukraine, könnte die russische Führung entscheiden
dass es an der Zeit ist die USA einzuholen?
Markus Schaaf
May 13, 2022, 7:33:22 PM5/13/22
to
Am 13.05.22 um 22:39 schrieb KPGH:
> Wenn Russland nicht einige schnelle Erfolge hat um seine Verluste zu
> rechtfertigen, und das Kiewer Regime anschließend zum Rücktritt
> aufgefordert oder gezwungen wird, scheint es mir, dass die derzeitige
> NATO-Politik durchaus zu einem (hoffentlich taktischen)
> "halb-demonstrativen" Atomschlag führen könnte.
So etwas würde die USA nicht beeindrucken. Ich habe mal vor
kurzem ein altes Video einer wahrscheinlich nuklearen taktischen
Waffe aus dem Jemen rausgesucht. Vielleicht kennst Du es, ca.
2015. Und dieser Krieg (der im Moment in der Ukraine ausgetragen
wird) ist einer zwischen den USA und Russland. In Russland sieht
man das so, Selenski ist ein Niemand und die Europäer sind die
kläffenden Pudel Amerikas. So ungefähr schreiben das auch die
russischen Kommentatoren.
> Ein Teil des Problems scheint hier zu sein, dass die USA (in Japan)
> gezeigt hatten dass sie bereit waren Atomwaffen gegen reale Ziele
> einzusetzen. Russland hat das nie getan.
Das ganze atomare Wettrüsten verdanken wir den Amis. Die UdSSR
hatte bis Ende der 50er Jahre gar keine Atomwaffen. Sie brauchten
die aber unbedingt, weil es konkrete Pläne für einen
amerikanischen atomaren Erstschlag gab.
> Angesichts der wahrscheinlich unangemessenen, aber sicherlich
> aufwieglerischen Kommentare von besonders westeuropäischen Regimen über
> den 'Kriegsgewinn' der Ukraine, könnte die russische Führung entscheiden
> dass es an der Zeit ist die USA einzuholen?
Ich lese in letzter Zeit vornehmlich russische Medien, viel RT,
weil die vergleichsweise ausgewogen berichten. Ich habe nicht den
Eindruck, dass Russland bei seiner "Militäroperation" irgendwie
in Schwierigkeiten wäre. Im Westen werden völlig falsche Theorien
über die russischen Absichten verbreitet, dabei ist Putin immer
sehr direkt diesbezüglich gewesen. Die Verluste sind (verglichen
mit dem, was die Amerikaner so machen) relativ hoch, aber nicht
im "normalen" militärischen Sinn. Da rechnet man 20% als
akzeptabel. Und hier muss man einfach zugeben, dass es der
russischen Führung wichtig ist, die Ukraine nicht als Feind zu
behandeln (nur die Regierung und "Nationalisten"), sondern ruhig
und besonnen vorzugehen, keine großen Bombardements, um die
Zivilisten zu schonen. Leider scheint die ukrainische Regierung
eher das Prinzip der verbrannten Erde und der menschlichen
Schutzschilde zu verfolgen. Für jemanden, der nur westliche
Medien konsumiert, stellt sich das ganz anders dar, aber da ich
zu vielen dieser Stories die Hintergründe kenne, die den
westlichen Lesern und Zuschauern dann verschwiegen werden,
ignoriere ich diese Berichte inzwischen völlig. (Selbst wenn 1%
Wahrheit dran wäre.)
MfG
> Wenn Russland nicht einige schnelle Erfolge hat um seine Verluste zu
> rechtfertigen, und das Kiewer Regime anschließend zum Rücktritt
> aufgefordert oder gezwungen wird, scheint es mir, dass die derzeitige
> NATO-Politik durchaus zu einem (hoffentlich taktischen)
> "halb-demonstrativen" Atomschlag führen könnte.
kurzem ein altes Video einer wahrscheinlich nuklearen taktischen
Waffe aus dem Jemen rausgesucht. Vielleicht kennst Du es, ca.
2015. Und dieser Krieg (der im Moment in der Ukraine ausgetragen
wird) ist einer zwischen den USA und Russland. In Russland sieht
man das so, Selenski ist ein Niemand und die Europäer sind die
kläffenden Pudel Amerikas. So ungefähr schreiben das auch die
russischen Kommentatoren.
> Ein Teil des Problems scheint hier zu sein, dass die USA (in Japan)
> gezeigt hatten dass sie bereit waren Atomwaffen gegen reale Ziele
> einzusetzen. Russland hat das nie getan.
hatte bis Ende der 50er Jahre gar keine Atomwaffen. Sie brauchten
die aber unbedingt, weil es konkrete Pläne für einen
amerikanischen atomaren Erstschlag gab.
> Angesichts der wahrscheinlich unangemessenen, aber sicherlich
> aufwieglerischen Kommentare von besonders westeuropäischen Regimen über
> den 'Kriegsgewinn' der Ukraine, könnte die russische Führung entscheiden
> dass es an der Zeit ist die USA einzuholen?
weil die vergleichsweise ausgewogen berichten. Ich habe nicht den
Eindruck, dass Russland bei seiner "Militäroperation" irgendwie
in Schwierigkeiten wäre. Im Westen werden völlig falsche Theorien
über die russischen Absichten verbreitet, dabei ist Putin immer
sehr direkt diesbezüglich gewesen. Die Verluste sind (verglichen
mit dem, was die Amerikaner so machen) relativ hoch, aber nicht
im "normalen" militärischen Sinn. Da rechnet man 20% als
akzeptabel. Und hier muss man einfach zugeben, dass es der
russischen Führung wichtig ist, die Ukraine nicht als Feind zu
behandeln (nur die Regierung und "Nationalisten"), sondern ruhig
und besonnen vorzugehen, keine großen Bombardements, um die
Zivilisten zu schonen. Leider scheint die ukrainische Regierung
eher das Prinzip der verbrannten Erde und der menschlichen
Schutzschilde zu verfolgen. Für jemanden, der nur westliche
Medien konsumiert, stellt sich das ganz anders dar, aber da ich
zu vielen dieser Stories die Hintergründe kenne, die den
westlichen Lesern und Zuschauern dann verschwiegen werden,
ignoriere ich diese Berichte inzwischen völlig. (Selbst wenn 1%
Wahrheit dran wäre.)
MfG
Markus Schaaf
May 13, 2022, 7:41:40 PM5/13/22
to
Am 14.05.22 um 01:32 schrieb Markus Schaaf:
> akzeptabel. Und hier muss man einfach zugeben, dass es der
> russischen Führung wichtig ist, die Ukraine nicht als Feind zu
> behandeln (nur die Regierung und "Nationalisten"), sondern ruhig
> und besonnen vorzugehen, keine großen Bombardements, um die
> Zivilisten zu schonen.
Was man im Westen vermutlich auch nicht weiß: In den "befreiten"
Gebieten rückt sofort der russische Katastrophenschutz an, es
werden Hilfsgüter verteilt und die zivile Infrastruktur
repariert. Nach glaubhaften Berichten ist ein großer Teil der
Bevölkerung dankbar für die Anwesenheit der Russen und wünscht
sich keine Rückkehr unter ukrainische Herrschaft.
MfG
> akzeptabel. Und hier muss man einfach zugeben, dass es der
> russischen Führung wichtig ist, die Ukraine nicht als Feind zu
> behandeln (nur die Regierung und "Nationalisten"), sondern ruhig
> und besonnen vorzugehen, keine großen Bombardements, um die
> Zivilisten zu schonen.
Gebieten rückt sofort der russische Katastrophenschutz an, es
werden Hilfsgüter verteilt und die zivile Infrastruktur
repariert. Nach glaubhaften Berichten ist ein großer Teil der
Bevölkerung dankbar für die Anwesenheit der Russen und wünscht
sich keine Rückkehr unter ukrainische Herrschaft.
MfG
Oleg Smirnov
May 14, 2022, 10:29:02 AM5/14/22
to
Markus Schaaf, <news:t5l7f0$m9p$1...@dont-email.me>
And in order to make the network of such groups functional some
ideological substantiation is necessary, - and the pro-democracy
agenda provides the substantiation.
In Russia, quite many of those who were initially sincerely
liberal-minded, friendly toward America / West, started changing
their mind since late 1990s because, by the time, many managed to
notice that the Atlanticism abuses righteous slogans for purposes
far from democracy as such.
In 2000s, policies of the Putin's government began to noticeably
deviate from the "liberal-progressive orthodoxy" prevailing in
the "western world", which caused a growing flow of negativity
towards Russia in the MSM (while, in turn, Putin had spoken the
known Munich speech), and some more notable issues happened.
In 2010s, and especially since the ugly Ukraine-2014 coup, the
ideological pro-democracy /pro-freedom /pro-progress lure became
increasingly bankrupt in Russia. The Atlanticist agents (or
"agents") here began to speak out from a simpler, much more frank
position: "Russia will have to comply to the America-led order
because it's poor/weak and has no chance against the Atlanticist
powers". I.e. "democracy" itself is no longer the primary point.
However, the Atlanticist agitprop still exploits the pro-freedom
pro-democracy slogans in their narratives intended to promote a
justification of hostile policies towards Russia among regular
people in the US and Europe, and some quite a large part of the
public accepts this. In European - and not only - countries some
groups/persons acting within this framework may be more disguised
as something else. In Europe, there's also another quite a large
part of people for whom "we" (the West) vs. "them" (Russia) is
enough in a tribalist sense regardless of any values. And at the
bottom line the confrontational settings make regular life worse
anyway, not only in Russia but in Europe too.
ideological substantiation is necessary, - and the pro-democracy
agenda provides the substantiation.
In Russia, quite many of those who were initially sincerely
liberal-minded, friendly toward America / West, started changing
their mind since late 1990s because, by the time, many managed to
notice that the Atlanticism abuses righteous slogans for purposes
far from democracy as such.
In 2000s, policies of the Putin's government began to noticeably
deviate from the "liberal-progressive orthodoxy" prevailing in
the "western world", which caused a growing flow of negativity
towards Russia in the MSM (while, in turn, Putin had spoken the
known Munich speech), and some more notable issues happened.
In 2010s, and especially since the ugly Ukraine-2014 coup, the
ideological pro-democracy /pro-freedom /pro-progress lure became
increasingly bankrupt in Russia. The Atlanticist agents (or
"agents") here began to speak out from a simpler, much more frank
position: "Russia will have to comply to the America-led order
because it's poor/weak and has no chance against the Atlanticist
powers". I.e. "democracy" itself is no longer the primary point.
However, the Atlanticist agitprop still exploits the pro-freedom
pro-democracy slogans in their narratives intended to promote a
justification of hostile policies towards Russia among regular
people in the US and Europe, and some quite a large part of the
public accepts this. In European - and not only - countries some
groups/persons acting within this framework may be more disguised
as something else. In Europe, there's also another quite a large
part of people for whom "we" (the West) vs. "them" (Russia) is
enough in a tribalist sense regardless of any values. And at the
bottom line the confrontational settings make regular life worse
anyway, not only in Russia but in Europe too.
KPGH
May 14, 2022, 1:08:13 PM5/14/22
to
On 2022-05-14 01:32, Markus Schaaf wrote:
> Am 13.05.22 um 22:39 schrieb KPGH:
>
>> Wenn Russland nicht einige schnelle Erfolge hat um seine Verluste zu
>> rechtfertigen, und das Kiewer Regime anschließend zum Rücktritt
>> aufgefordert oder gezwungen wird, scheint es mir, dass die derzeitige
>> NATO-Politik durchaus zu einem (hoffentlich taktischen)
>> "halb-demonstrativen" Atomschlag führen könnte.
>
> So etwas würde die USA nicht beeindrucken. Ich habe mal vor kurzem ein
> altes Video einer wahrscheinlich nuklearen taktischen Waffe aus dem
> Jemen rausgesucht. Vielleicht kennst Du es, ca. 2015. Und dieser Krieg
> (der im Moment in der Ukraine ausgetragen wird) ist einer zwischen den
> USA und Russland. In Russland sieht man das so, Selenski ist ein
> Niemand und die Europäer sind die kläffenden Pudel Amerikas. So
> ungefähr schreiben das auch die russischen Kommentatoren.
Nicht nur russische Kommentatoren. Die Wahrheit könnte sein dass dieser
> Am 13.05.22 um 22:39 schrieb KPGH:
>
>> Wenn Russland nicht einige schnelle Erfolge hat um seine Verluste zu
>> rechtfertigen, und das Kiewer Regime anschließend zum Rücktritt
>> aufgefordert oder gezwungen wird, scheint es mir, dass die derzeitige
>> NATO-Politik durchaus zu einem (hoffentlich taktischen)
>> "halb-demonstrativen" Atomschlag führen könnte.
>
> So etwas würde die USA nicht beeindrucken. Ich habe mal vor kurzem ein
> altes Video einer wahrscheinlich nuklearen taktischen Waffe aus dem
> Jemen rausgesucht. Vielleicht kennst Du es, ca. 2015. Und dieser Krieg
> (der im Moment in der Ukraine ausgetragen wird) ist einer zwischen den
> USA und Russland. In Russland sieht man das so, Selenski ist ein
> Niemand und die Europäer sind die kläffenden Pudel Amerikas. So
> ungefähr schreiben das auch die russischen Kommentatoren.
TV-Präsident (angeblich komplett mit Briefkastenfirmen und
Offshore-Konten) gekauft und bezahlt wurde. Soweit ich weiß, ging seine
Popularität schnell zurück nachdem seine neue "Antikorruptionspolitik"
auf die Probe gestellt worden war. Ich nehme an, dass das Ausmaß der
Verschärfung der Spannungen mit Russland durchaus darauf abzielen
könnte, den Beginn offener (kinetischer) Feindseligkeiten mit dem Abgang
von Bundeskanzlerin Merkel zusammenfallen zu lassen.
Mir scheint dass irgendwo während der Clinton-Administration der
kontinentaleuropäische "rote Adel", angepriesen als "Sozialdemokraten"
die bis dahin die Aufgabe hatten die europäischen Klassenunterschiede
unter einem paternalistischen Schleier aufrechtzuerhalten, grünes Licht
bekommen haben als 'Neoliberalen' ihre Taschen auf den Finanzmärkten zu
füllen. Das heißt, unter der Bedingung dass sie auch das "nächste
amerikanische Zeitalter" als Neokonservativen annehmen würden.
Nach dem Machtantritt von Herrn Puntin schien die deutsche SD ein
kleines Problem mit dem neokonservativen Teil gehabt zu haben, da dies
bedeuten würde lukrative Jobs und Einkommen die mit Russland verbunden
sind, loss zu lassen. Angesichts der plötzlichen und eher schlecht
durchdachten Wende in der deutschen Politik, ist es also nicht ganz
auszuschließen dass marodierende Sozialdemokraten unlängst freundlich
an ihre Pflicht als Neokonservativen gemahnt wurden? :-)
Das ändert jedoch nicht viel an der zugrunde liegenden Dynamik. Eine
Schwierigkeit bei Klientenstaaten, in denen politische Eliten in ihren
Positionen weitgehend von einer großen externen Macht abhängen, besteht
darin, dass die Führung umso mehr von der Bevölkerung entfremdet wird,
je mehr sie unter Druck gesetzt wird den Befehlen der externen Macht zu
folgen von der sie abhängig sind.
Es ist wahrscheinlich wahr, dass sich die US-Öffentlichkeit nicht um
einen einzigen taktischen Streik gegen eine militärische Installation in
der Ukraine kümmert. Und der US-Bundesstaat würde es wahrscheinlich
verwenden um das Verfolgen eines Proxy-Kriegs weiter zu rechtfertigen.
Aber für die europäische Öffentlichkeit wäre ein "big bang" etwas näher
an der Heimat, und das könnte die europäischen Klienten-Regierung dazu
zwingen die Streithetorik anzupassen. Das wiederum könnte die USA dazu
zwingen sich direkter in einen bisherigen Proxy-Konflikt zu verwickeln.
Und dahinter würde sich die Aussicht auf einen strategischen nuklearen
Austausch abgeben. Und diese Aussicht könnte in den US
Antikriegsdemonstrationen wirklich fördern.
>> Ein Teil des Problems scheint hier zu sein, dass die USA (in Japan)
>> gezeigt hatten dass sie bereit waren Atomwaffen gegen reale Ziele
>> einzusetzen. Russland hat das nie getan.
>
> Das ganze atomare Wettrüsten verdanken wir den Amis. Die UdSSR hatte
> bis Ende der 50er Jahre gar keine Atomwaffen. Sie brauchten die aber
> unbedingt, weil es konkrete Pläne für einen amerikanischen atomaren
> Erstschlag gab.
eine Waffe erfunden wurde, sie benötigen um ein Gleichgewicht
aufrechtzuerhalten.
>> Angesichts der wahrscheinlich unangemessenen, aber sicherlich
>> aufwieglerischen Kommentare von besonders westeuropäischen Regimen
>> über den 'Kriegsgewinn' der Ukraine, könnte die russische Führung
>> entscheiden dass es an der Zeit ist die USA einzuholen?
>
> Ich lese in letzter Zeit vornehmlich russische Medien, viel RT, weil
> die vergleichsweise ausgewogen berichten. Ich habe nicht den Eindruck,
> dass Russland bei seiner "Militäroperation" irgendwie in
> Schwierigkeiten wäre. Im Westen werden völlig falsche Theorien über
> die russischen Absichten verbreitet, dabei ist Putin immer sehr direkt
> diesbezüglich gewesen.
oft den Keiser Report zum Vergnügen angesehen. Die Strategie war
offenbar westliche Narrativen entgegenzuwirken mit etwas glaubwürdigen
Argumenten. Also anstatt direkt russische Narrativen zu fördern. Das
ist wahrscheinlich der Grund warum europäische Regierungen Angst davor
haben. 'Neutral' schien etwas übertrieben. :-)
Markus Schaaf
May 14, 2022, 1:56:38 PM5/14/22
to
Am 14.05.22 um 19:08 schrieb KPGH:
> Mir scheint dass irgendwo während der Clinton-Administration der
> kontinentaleuropäische "rote Adel", angepriesen als "Sozialdemokraten"
> die bis dahin die Aufgabe hatten die europäischen Klassenunterschiede
> unter einem paternalistischen Schleier aufrechtzuerhalten, grünes Licht
> bekommen haben als 'Neoliberalen' ihre Taschen auf den Finanzmärkten zu
> füllen. Das heißt, unter der Bedingung dass sie auch das "nächste
> amerikanische Zeitalter" als Neokonservativen annehmen würden.
Wahrscheinlich müsste man Parteikarriere machen, um zu verstehen,
was da intern hinter verschlossenen Türen wirklich passiert. Wie
schon geschrieben, glaube ich gar nicht an so eine direkte
Beeinflussung. (Außer vielleicht wenn es zufällig bequem ist,
Frau Merkel war wohl erpressbar, es gibt da einige Indizien.
Stichwort: Rosenholz-Dateien)
Außerdem waren die Sozialdemokraten immer schon ein bürgerliches
Projekt, um die Arbeiter von den Kommunisten fernzuhalten.
> Bin Mir Nick Sicher. Die Tatsache scheint dass alle Parteien, sobald
> eine Waffe erfunden wurde, sie benötigen um ein Gleichgewicht
> aufrechtzuerhalten.
Ja natürlich. Wer heute keine Atomwaffen hat, wird früher oder
später überfallen.
> Ich sehe RT im Moment nicht an, weil es einen Proxy erfordert. Ich habe
> oft den Keiser Report zum Vergnügen angesehen. Die Strategie war
> offenbar westliche Narrativen entgegenzuwirken mit etwas glaubwürdigen
> Argumenten. Also anstatt direkt russische Narrativen zu fördern. Das
> ist wahrscheinlich der Grund warum europäische Regierungen Angst davor
> haben. 'Neutral' schien etwas übertrieben. :-)
Das TV-Programm ist nicht mein Geschmack. Ich lese die Website.
Da muss man nur einen freien DNS-Resolver einstellen. Und von
neutral schrieb ich nichts. Die Russen machen Propaganda durch
Auslassung. Aber sie lügen nicht direkt. Hängt sicher auch von
der Sprache ab. Auf der deutschen Website schrieben/schreiben ein
paar interessante Gastautoren.
MfG
> Mir scheint dass irgendwo während der Clinton-Administration der
> kontinentaleuropäische "rote Adel", angepriesen als "Sozialdemokraten"
> die bis dahin die Aufgabe hatten die europäischen Klassenunterschiede
> unter einem paternalistischen Schleier aufrechtzuerhalten, grünes Licht
> bekommen haben als 'Neoliberalen' ihre Taschen auf den Finanzmärkten zu
> füllen. Das heißt, unter der Bedingung dass sie auch das "nächste
> amerikanische Zeitalter" als Neokonservativen annehmen würden.
was da intern hinter verschlossenen Türen wirklich passiert. Wie
schon geschrieben, glaube ich gar nicht an so eine direkte
Beeinflussung. (Außer vielleicht wenn es zufällig bequem ist,
Frau Merkel war wohl erpressbar, es gibt da einige Indizien.
Stichwort: Rosenholz-Dateien)
Außerdem waren die Sozialdemokraten immer schon ein bürgerliches
Projekt, um die Arbeiter von den Kommunisten fernzuhalten.
> Bin Mir Nick Sicher. Die Tatsache scheint dass alle Parteien, sobald
> eine Waffe erfunden wurde, sie benötigen um ein Gleichgewicht
> aufrechtzuerhalten.
später überfallen.
> Ich sehe RT im Moment nicht an, weil es einen Proxy erfordert. Ich habe
> oft den Keiser Report zum Vergnügen angesehen. Die Strategie war
> offenbar westliche Narrativen entgegenzuwirken mit etwas glaubwürdigen
> Argumenten. Also anstatt direkt russische Narrativen zu fördern. Das
> ist wahrscheinlich der Grund warum europäische Regierungen Angst davor
> haben. 'Neutral' schien etwas übertrieben. :-)
Da muss man nur einen freien DNS-Resolver einstellen. Und von
neutral schrieb ich nichts. Die Russen machen Propaganda durch
Auslassung. Aber sie lügen nicht direkt. Hängt sicher auch von
der Sprache ab. Auf der deutschen Website schrieben/schreiben ein
paar interessante Gastautoren.
MfG
KPGH
May 16, 2022, 7:33:14 AM5/16/22
to
Markus Schaaf <msc...@elaboris.de> wrote on Sat 14 May 2022 07:56:12p:
> Am 14.05.22 um 19:08 schrieb KPGH:
>
>> Mir scheint dass irgendwo während der Clinton-Administration der
> Am 14.05.22 um 19:08 schrieb KPGH:
>
>> kontinentaleuropäische "rote Adel", angepriesen als
>> "Sozialdemokraten" die bis dahin die Aufgabe hatten die europäischen
>> Klassenunterschiede unter einem paternalistischen Schleier
>> aufrechtzuerhalten, grünes Licht bekommen haben als 'Neoliberalen'
>> ihre Taschen auf den Finanzmärkten zu füllen. Das heißt, unter der
>> Bedingung dass sie auch das "nächste amerikanische Zeitalter" als
>> Neokonservativen annehmen würden.
>
> Wahrscheinlich müsste man Parteikarriere machen, um zu verstehen,
> was da intern hinter verschlossenen Türen wirklich passiert. Wie
> schon geschrieben, glaube ich gar nicht an so eine direkte
> Beeinflussung. (Außer vielleicht wenn es zufällig bequem ist,
> Frau Merkel war wohl erpressbar, es gibt da einige Indizien.
> Stichwort: Rosenholz-Dateien)
>
> Außerdem waren die Sozialdemokraten immer schon ein bürgerliches
> Stichwort: Rosenholz-Dateien)
>
> Projekt, um die Arbeiter von den Kommunisten fernzuhalten.
Aus den US Federalist Papers (free translation): Wenn Menschen Engel
wären, keine Regierung wäre notwendig. Wenn Engel die Menschen regieren
würden, weder äußerlich noch interne Kontrollen der Regierung wären
notwendig. Bei der Umrahmung von a Regierung, die von Menschen über
Menschen verwaltet werden soll, die Große Die Schwierigkeit liegt darin:
Sie müssen zuerst die Regierung in die Lage versetzen, zu kontrollieren
die Regierten; und in der nächsten Stelle zwingen, sich selbst zu
kontrollieren. Die Abhängigkeit von den Menschen ist zweifellos die
primäre Kontrolle über die Regierung; aber die Erfahrung hat die
Menschheit die Notwendigkeit von zusätzlichen Vorsichtsmaßnahmen
gelehrt.
In weiten Teilen der Welt und insbesondere in Europa scheint
'Demokratie' die Form einer parasitären Krankheit angenommen zu haben,
bei der 'usätzlichen Vorsichtsmaßnahmen', die zur Errichtung und
Aufrechterhaltung einer stabilen Republik notwendig sind, nicht nur
ignoriert sondern als „antidemokratisch“ verleumdet werden.
Eine Demokratie ist per Definition eine Mediokratie, da davon
ausgegangen wird dass alle Meinungen das gleiche Gewicht haben. Es ist
auch eine 'Tyrannei der Mehrheit' da der (schlecht definierte)
'Volkswille' per Definition den Gerechten zugeschrieben wird.
Eine Demokratie kann daher leicht sowohl durch interne und externe
exclusieven Interessen manipuliert werden, die sowohl die öffentliche
Aufmerksamkeit durch Massenmedien als auch die öffentliche Stimmung
kontrollieren, indem sie insbesondere Finanzströme manipulieren: Private
Gefühle von Mehrheiten werden meist von Wahrnehmungen privater
Interessen bestimmt -- und nicht von großen Visionen einer 'besseren
Welt'. :-)
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2KeCQm4-PE>
Markus Schaaf
May 16, 2022, 7:52:29 AM5/16/22
to
Am 16.05.22 um 13:33 schrieb KPGH:
> In weiten Teilen der Welt und insbesondere in Europa scheint
> 'Demokratie' die Form einer parasitären Krankheit angenommen zu haben,
> bei der 'usätzlichen Vorsichtsmaßnahmen', die zur Errichtung und
> Aufrechterhaltung einer stabilen Republik notwendig sind, nicht nur
> ignoriert sondern als „antidemokratisch“ verleumdet werden.
Ja. mir ist nur nicht klar, ob sich das die letzten Jahrzehnte
geändert hat, oder nur von mir anders wahrgenommen wird.
Wahrscheinlich letzteres.
> Private
> Gefühle von Mehrheiten werden meist von Wahrnehmungen privater
> Interessen bestimmt -- und nicht von großen Visionen einer 'besseren
> Welt'. :-)
Das möchte man glauben, jedoch ist die Realität inzwischen
anders. Die junge Generation versagt universal, sogar bei der
Vertretung ihrer eigenen Interessen. Wir haben eine unheilige
Allianz der Versager, sowohl dekadente Millionärskinder, als auch
Kinder der unteren Mittelschicht, die nicht einmal imstande sind,
ihr eigenes Leben zu kontrollieren, und sich deshalb gerne auf
unlösbare Aufgaben wie "die Rettung des Klimas" zu konzentrieren,
um von der Unfähigkeit (auch) andere Aufgaben zu bewältigen,
abzulenken.
MfG
> In weiten Teilen der Welt und insbesondere in Europa scheint
> 'Demokratie' die Form einer parasitären Krankheit angenommen zu haben,
> bei der 'usätzlichen Vorsichtsmaßnahmen', die zur Errichtung und
> Aufrechterhaltung einer stabilen Republik notwendig sind, nicht nur
> ignoriert sondern als „antidemokratisch“ verleumdet werden.
geändert hat, oder nur von mir anders wahrgenommen wird.
Wahrscheinlich letzteres.
> Private
> Gefühle von Mehrheiten werden meist von Wahrnehmungen privater
> Interessen bestimmt -- und nicht von großen Visionen einer 'besseren
> Welt'. :-)
anders. Die junge Generation versagt universal, sogar bei der
Vertretung ihrer eigenen Interessen. Wir haben eine unheilige
Allianz der Versager, sowohl dekadente Millionärskinder, als auch
Kinder der unteren Mittelschicht, die nicht einmal imstande sind,
ihr eigenes Leben zu kontrollieren, und sich deshalb gerne auf
unlösbare Aufgaben wie "die Rettung des Klimas" zu konzentrieren,
um von der Unfähigkeit (auch) andere Aufgaben zu bewältigen,
abzulenken.
MfG
KPGH
May 17, 2022, 7:40:21 AM5/17/22
to
On 2022-05-16 13:52, Markus Schaaf wrote:
> Am 16.05.22 um 13:33 schrieb KPGH:
> Am 16.05.22 um 13:33 schrieb KPGH:
>> Private
>> Gefühle von Mehrheiten werden meist von Wahrnehmungen privater
>> Interessen bestimmt -- und nicht von großen Visionen einer 'besseren
>> Welt'. :-)
>
> Das möchte man glauben, jedoch ist die Realität inzwischen anders. Die
> junge Generation versagt universal, sogar bei der Vertretung ihrer
> eigenen Interessen. Wir haben eine unheilige Allianz der Versager,
> sowohl dekadente Millionärskinder, als auch Kinder der unteren
> Mittelschicht, die nicht einmal imstande sind, ihr eigenes Leben zu
> kontrollieren, und sich deshalb gerne auf unlösbare Aufgaben wie "die
> Rettung des Klimas" zu konzentrieren, um von der Unfähigkeit (auch)
> andere Aufgaben zu bewältigen, abzulenken.
Soweit ich weiß, geht es exklusiven Burschenschaften, in denen jüngere
>> Gefühle von Mehrheiten werden meist von Wahrnehmungen privater
>> Interessen bestimmt -- und nicht von großen Visionen einer 'besseren
>> Welt'. :-)
>
> Das möchte man glauben, jedoch ist die Realität inzwischen anders. Die
> junge Generation versagt universal, sogar bei der Vertretung ihrer
> eigenen Interessen. Wir haben eine unheilige Allianz der Versager,
> sowohl dekadente Millionärskinder, als auch Kinder der unteren
> Mittelschicht, die nicht einmal imstande sind, ihr eigenes Leben zu
> kontrollieren, und sich deshalb gerne auf unlösbare Aufgaben wie "die
> Rettung des Klimas" zu konzentrieren, um von der Unfähigkeit (auch)
> andere Aufgaben zu bewältigen, abzulenken.
Mitglieder von Eliten mit einer realistischen Perspektive in Bezug auf
die Aufrechterhaltung privilegierter Positionen über Generationen
Netzwerke aufbauen, gut.
Die Zunahme des „Geschwätzes“ über Politik, Wirtschaft und Finanzen ist
wahrscheinlich das Ergebnis einer Verdichtung der Mittelschichten, die
mit der Zunahme der Vermögensunterschiede einhergeht.
Vermögensunterschiede führen dazu, dass die realistischen Chancen auf
wirtschaftlichen Aufstieg für die meisten Angehörigen der Mittelschicht
sinken, was wiederum zu einer Zunahme der Risikobereitschaft und des
damit verbundenen (oftmals uninformierten) Geschwätzes insbesondere bei
jungen Menschen führt.
The increase in 'chatter' about politics, economics and finance, is
probably the result of a compression of middle-classes associated with
the increase in differentials in wealth. differentials in wealth result
in a decrease in realistic chances for economic advancement for most
members of middle classes, which in turn leads to an increase in
risk-taking and associated (often uninformed) chatter among especially
the young.
Dies bedeutet jedoch nicht unbedingt eine Zunahme irrationalen
Verhaltens. Wenn eine Situation riskanter oder verzweifelter wird, kann
mehr (sogar blinde) Risikobereitschaft die optimale Wahl sein um (im
Durchschnitt) Schäden zu minimieren.
Und gerade in Europa scheinen die Aufstiegschancen für die meisten
Angehörigen der Mittelschicht wie Steine zu sinken.
Während beispielsweise in den USA die Inflation nun zu einem
Aufwärtsdruck auf die Löhne zu führen scheint, scheint sie in Europa
dazu genutzt zu werden, Reallöhne und Renten und dergleichen immer
offener zu unterdrücken. Und ein Krieg um aus westlicher Sicht nichts
Lebenswichtiges, scheint in dieser Hinsicht verdächtig günstig um den
Prozess zu erleichtern? :-)
In 1992 bemerkte die US-Bush-Administration in einem durchgesickerten
Entwurf: "Wir müssen versuchen, die Entstehung von
Sicherheitsvereinbarungen nur für Europa zu verhindern, die die Nato
untergraben würden."
Vielleicht ist es an der Zeit zu erkennen, dass die sozialen und
wirtschaftlichen Beziehungen in Europa nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg
realpolitisch nie viel mehr als eine Luxusversion der südamerikanischen
Beziehungen (monroe doctrine) waren. Und dass es bei diesem Luxus nicht
um irgendeine besondere atlantische Beziehung ging, sondern darum, dass
Europa im Wettbewerb mit dem kommunistischen Osten an vorderster Front
stand. Nicht mehr...
Thomas Heger
May 18, 2022, 2:24:13 AM5/18/22
to
Am 06.05.2022 um 17:33 schrieb Lyrik:
> Den 30-04-2022 kl. 07:24 skrev Oleg Smirnov:
>
> The world you live in looks different than you think. The United States
> is constantly lying and constantly inventing new lies. They regret
> nothing and never look back. They ignored Russian interests, but they
> did so on purpose. They cultivate neoconservative and neoliberalist
> advisers. One of them is Victoria Nuland's husband "Robert Kagan" who is
> a Neo Liberalist. He wants capitalism set free to shape the world in his
> image. He says in all seriousness: Maybe we should sacrifice Ukraine so
> we can understand what democracy is? There are crazy people who should
> not be followed. You can not reform them.
Actually the CIA has funded the right wing movement in the Ukraine in
the 1950th.
At least John McCain and Barbara Nuland were involved in the 'Maidan'
and subsequent nationalistic unrest.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93eyhO8VTdg
But McCain lied.
TH
> Den 30-04-2022 kl. 07:24 skrev Oleg Smirnov:
>
> The world you live in looks different than you think. The United States
> is constantly lying and constantly inventing new lies. They regret
> nothing and never look back. They ignored Russian interests, but they
> did so on purpose. They cultivate neoconservative and neoliberalist
> advisers. One of them is Victoria Nuland's husband "Robert Kagan" who is
> a Neo Liberalist. He wants capitalism set free to shape the world in his
> image. He says in all seriousness: Maybe we should sacrifice Ukraine so
> we can understand what democracy is? There are crazy people who should
> not be followed. You can not reform them.
Actually the CIA has funded the right wing movement in the Ukraine in
the 1950th.
At least John McCain and Barbara Nuland were involved in the 'Maidan'
and subsequent nationalistic unrest.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93eyhO8VTdg
But McCain lied.
TH
Fritz
May 18, 2022, 3:05:22 AM5/18/22
to
On 23.04.22 near 16:33, Oleg Smirnov suggested:
> non-destructive way to sort out communal issues on the basis of prevailing
> popular interest with due respect to minorities.
>
> The "western" delusion is so that anything "pro-western" must be labeled
> "democratic" automatically, and here is the root of the evil, which inter
> alia makes things worse for you.
In de.talk.tagesgeschehen wird DEUTSCH geschrieben!
In de.talk.tagesgeschehen GERMAN is written!
Dans de. talk.tagesgeschehen, on écrit EN ALLEMAND !
I de.talk.tagesgeschehen står der DEUTSCH!
In de.talk.tagesgeschehen staat DUITS!
..........
fup2 de.talk.tagesgeschehen
--
Fritz
Ironie, Satire, Farce, Sarkasmus, Zynismus, Persiflage, Tragikomödie,
Veräppelung, Verballhornung keinesfalls ausgeschlossen ....
ARM RISC is better
> Things aren't good, and it's getting worse.
>
> Democracy is not about "geopolitical" orientation, it's about civil and
>
> non-destructive way to sort out communal issues on the basis of prevailing
> popular interest with due respect to minorities.
>
> The "western" delusion is so that anything "pro-western" must be labeled
> "democratic" automatically, and here is the root of the evil, which inter
> alia makes things worse for you.
In de.talk.tagesgeschehen wird DEUTSCH geschrieben!
In de.talk.tagesgeschehen GERMAN is written!
Dans de. talk.tagesgeschehen, on écrit EN ALLEMAND !
I de.talk.tagesgeschehen står der DEUTSCH!
In de.talk.tagesgeschehen staat DUITS!
..........
fup2 de.talk.tagesgeschehen
--
Fritz
Ironie, Satire, Farce, Sarkasmus, Zynismus, Persiflage, Tragikomödie,
Veräppelung, Verballhornung keinesfalls ausgeschlossen ....
ARM RISC is better
Fritz
May 18, 2022, 3:07:37 AM5/18/22
to
On 13.05.22 near 09:19, Erika von der Emscher suggested:
> Am 13.05.22 um 08:59 Uhr Thomas Heger schrieb:
>
>
>> Meiner Ansicht nach trifft ja die sogn. 'Growing Earth' Hypothese zu.
> Den physikalischen Gesetzen zufolge ist das nicht möglich.
>
>> Diese ist eng verwandt mit der 'abiogenen Öltheorie'.
> Dito!
>
>> Nach dieser Theorie stammt Erdöl nicht von toten Dinosaueriern,
> Das hat auch keiner behauptet, daß das von den Dinos sei.
>
> Wie komsmt Du da drauf?
Heger'sche wirre Crackpot Thesen!
>
>
>> Meiner Ansicht nach trifft ja die sogn. 'Growing Earth' Hypothese zu.
> Den physikalischen Gesetzen zufolge ist das nicht möglich.
>
>> Diese ist eng verwandt mit der 'abiogenen Öltheorie'.
> Dito!
>
>> Nach dieser Theorie stammt Erdöl nicht von toten Dinosaueriern,
> Das hat auch keiner behauptet, daß das von den Dinos sei.
>
> Wie komsmt Du da drauf?
Thomas Heger
May 19, 2022, 3:51:58 AM5/19/22
to
'Eliten' gegen die 'middle class'.
Der Krieg nannte sich 'Sozialismus' und wurde angezettelt von
(hauptsächlich) Britischen Aristokraten.
Die 'middle class' wurde anderweitig auch 'Bürgertum' oder
'Kapitalisten' genannt.
Als 'Krieger' wurden speziell ausgewählte Menschen aus den unteren
Schichten ausgbildet, wie etwa ein gewisser 'Stalin', der eigentlich
Bankräuber aus Georgien war.
Aber gekämpft gegen die Russische und Ukrainische 'middle class' hat er
schon und mehr Menschen umgebracht als je ein Mensch zuvor.
https://www.abebooks.de/9780473120733/Stalins-British-Training-Greg-Hallett-0473120739/plp
Für die US-Mittelschicht haben sie sich andere Konzepte ausgedacht.
Dazu gehörten etwa die Hippies und bestimmte Drogen.
Und jetzt werden die yuppies eben mit wissenschaftlichem Schwachsinn um
Geld und Lebenszeit gebracht.
...
TH
KPGH
May 19, 2022, 7:20:19 AM5/19/22
to
Ich erinnere mich, dass im 19. Jahrhundert einige plutokratische
Familien aus den USA, die unter dem demokratischen System der USA keinen
(formellen) Aristokratenstatus erlangen konnten, nach Großbritannien
zogen und in die Aristokratie einheirateten oder sich dort auf andere
Weise aristokratische Referenzen erwarben.
Ich denke Winston Churchill war das Ergebnis einer solchen Vereinigung.
Aber vielleicht hatte der britische Elitismus etwas mit der Richtung zu
tun, die der Nationalsozialismus (in seinen späteren Stadien) einschlug?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/17/nazis-based-their-elite-schools-on-top-british-private-schools
> Für die US-Mittelschicht haben sie sich andere Konzepte ausgedacht.
>
> Dazu gehörten etwa die Hippies und bestimmte Drogen.
>
> Und jetzt werden die yuppies eben mit wissenschaftlichem Schwachsinn
> um Geld und Lebenszeit gebracht.
war, das westliche Kontinentaleuropa in so etwas wie ein
amerikanisch-britisches Protektorat zu verwandeln. Damals hatten die USA
offenbar nichts davon, denn in Europa waren kommunistische Parteien
bereits populär.
Aber nachdem der Kommunismus keine Bedrohung mehr war, wurde eine solche
europäische Ordnung offenbar attraktiver für die USA.
Außer natürlich, dass Großbritannien seine "besondere Beziehung" zu den
USA vergessen konnte, und sich seiner Position in der geopolitischen
Ordnung anpassen musste.
Ein großes Problem in Europa scheint heute zu sein, dass viele lokale
Eliten versuchen, privilegierte Positionen zu zementieren, indem sie den
Begriff der "nationalen Souveränität" propagieren. Das Problem dabei
ist, dass es für kleine Staaten so etwas wie Souveränität nicht gibt,
weil sie nur als Satelliten großer Staaten einen formal unabhängigen
Status behalten können.
Dies erklärt wahrscheinlich, warum der Wahn lokaler nationaler Größe in
Europa nach dem Untergang der UdSSR stärker wurde.
Mit der Divergenz der geopolitischen Interessen zwischen Europa und den
USA wurde die Notwendigkeit einer europäischen Föderal isierung, aus der
Perspektive des Wohlergehens der Bevölkerung, akuter.
Aber mit einer echten Föderalisierung würde eine neue föderale
Verwaltungsebene entstehen, die mit den lokalen Eliten konkurrieren
würde.
Und dem scheint eine Koalition lokaler regionaler Eliten und echter
geopolitischer Akteure jetzt entgegenzutreten, indem sie Lehen als
lebensfähige Staaten in der entstehenden geopolitischen Arena
präsentiert...
Thomas Heger
May 20, 2022, 2:55:55 AM5/20/22
to
Am 19.05.2022 um 13:20 schrieb KPGH:
>> Es gibt seit der Mitte des 19ten Jhdts. eine Art Krieg der sogn.
>> 'Eliten' gegen die 'middle class'.
>>
>> Der Krieg nannte sich 'Sozialismus' und wurde angezettelt von
>> (hauptsächlich) Britischen Aristokraten.
>>
>> Die 'middle class' wurde anderweitig auch 'Bürgertum' oder
>> 'Kapitalisten' genannt.
>>
>> Als 'Krieger' wurden speziell ausgewählte Menschen aus den unteren
>> Schichten ausgbildet, wie etwa ein gewisser 'Stalin', der eigentlich
>> Bankräuber aus Georgien war.
>>
>> Aber gekämpft gegen die Russische und Ukrainische 'middle class' hat
>> er schon und mehr Menschen umgebracht als je ein Mensch zuvor.
>>
>> https://www.abebooks.de/9780473120733/Stalins-British-Training-Greg-Hal
>> lett-0473120739/plp
>
> Ich bin mir nicht sicher, ob Stalin wirklich Kitchener hieß. :-)
Kitchener war noch mal jemand anderes, auf den Welt auch gerne
>> Es gibt seit der Mitte des 19ten Jhdts. eine Art Krieg der sogn.
>> 'Eliten' gegen die 'middle class'.
>>
>> Der Krieg nannte sich 'Sozialismus' und wurde angezettelt von
>> (hauptsächlich) Britischen Aristokraten.
>>
>> Die 'middle class' wurde anderweitig auch 'Bürgertum' oder
>> 'Kapitalisten' genannt.
>>
>> Als 'Krieger' wurden speziell ausgewählte Menschen aus den unteren
>> Schichten ausgbildet, wie etwa ein gewisser 'Stalin', der eigentlich
>> Bankräuber aus Georgien war.
>>
>> Aber gekämpft gegen die Russische und Ukrainische 'middle class' hat
>> er schon und mehr Menschen umgebracht als je ein Mensch zuvor.
>>
>> https://www.abebooks.de/9780473120733/Stalins-British-Training-Greg-Hal
>> lett-0473120739/plp
>
> Ich bin mir nicht sicher, ob Stalin wirklich Kitchener hieß. :-)
verzichtet hätte.
Stalin hieße eigentlich Jossif Djugashvilli und stammte aus Georgien.
> Ich erinnere mich, dass im 19. Jahrhundert einige plutokratische
> Familien aus den USA, die unter dem demokratischen System der USA keinen
> (formellen) Aristokratenstatus erlangen konnten, nach Großbritannien
> zogen und in die Aristokratie einheirateten oder sich dort auf andere
> Weise aristokratische Referenzen erwarben.
>
> Ich denke Winston Churchill war das Ergebnis einer solchen Vereinigung.
'eingeheiratet'.
Winstons Vater war (wahrscheinlich) 'Bertie the Swinger' und spätere
König von England.
Der hatte so viele Freundinnen, dass der Öffentlichkeit gelegentlich die
Übersicht abhanden kam.
Jenny Jerome gehörte jedenfalls auch dazu und heraus kam das kleine
Monster namens Winston.
> Aber vielleicht hatte der britische Elitismus etwas mit der Richtung zu
> tun, die der Nationalsozialismus (in seinen späteren Stadien) einschlug?
man auch als 'Eugenics' kennt.
Eugenics ist sozusagen 'wissenschaftlicher Elitismus', basierend auf dem
Unfug, den ein gewisser Darwin mal verzapft hat.
> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/17/nazis-based-their-elite-schools-on-top-british-private-schools
>
>> Für die US-Mittelschicht haben sie sich andere Konzepte ausgedacht.
>>
>> Dazu gehörten etwa die Hippies und bestimmte Drogen.
>>
>> Und jetzt werden die yuppies eben mit wissenschaftlichem Schwachsinn
>> um Geld und Lebenszeit gebracht.
>
> Ich erinnere mich, dass Churchill nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg bestrebt
> war, das westliche Kontinentaleuropa in so etwas wie ein
> amerikanisch-britisches Protektorat zu verwandeln. Damals hatten die USA
> offenbar nichts davon, denn in Europa waren kommunistische Parteien
> bereits populär.
wurde ihr Gold weggenommen, dafür durften sie in den Krieg ziehen, um
die Interessen ihrer Oberschicht militärisch durchzusetzen.
> Aber nachdem der Kommunismus keine Bedrohung mehr war, wurde eine solche
> europäische Ordnung offenbar attraktiver für die USA.
Elite herrscht und der Rest sind rechtlose Arbeitssklaven.
> Außer natürlich, dass Großbritannien seine "besondere Beziehung" zu den
> USA vergessen konnte, und sich seiner Position in der geopolitischen
> Ordnung anpassen musste.
Genaugenommen natürlich nicht 'die Briten', sondern die Eigentümer einer
Corporation, die unter dem Namen 'United States of America' registriert ist.
> Ein großes Problem in Europa scheint heute zu sein, dass viele lokale
> Eliten versuchen, privilegierte Positionen zu zementieren, indem sie den
> Begriff der "nationalen Souveränität" propagieren. Das Problem dabei
> ist, dass es für kleine Staaten so etwas wie Souveränität nicht gibt,
> weil sie nur als Satelliten großer Staaten einen formal unabhängigen
> Status behalten können.
anzuerkennen.
Aber dank überlegener Waffentechnologie wird das bald ein Ende haben.
> Dies erklärt wahrscheinlich, warum der Wahn lokaler nationaler Größe in
> Europa nach dem Untergang der UdSSR stärker wurde.
Unabhängigkeit'.
...
TH
Erika Ciesla
May 20, 2022, 6:32:29 AM5/20/22
to
Am 19.05.22 um 13:20 Uhr KPGH schrieb:
Sozialismus ist ein Teil der Arbeiterbewegung!
👋️ 𝓔𝓻𝓲𝓴𝓪 𝓒𝓲𝓮𝓼𝓵𝓪 😀️
--
💙💛 Слава Україні
> Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote on Thu 19 May 2022 09:51:53a:
>> Am 17.05.2022 um 13:40 schrieb KPGH:
>>> On 2022-05-16 13:52, Markus Schaaf wrote:
>>>> Am 16.05.22 um 13:33 schrieb KPGH:
>> Am 17.05.2022 um 13:40 schrieb KPGH:
>>> On 2022-05-16 13:52, Markus Schaaf wrote:
>>>> Am 16.05.22 um 13:33 schrieb KPGH:
>> Es gibt seit der Mitte des 19ten Jhdts. eine Art Krieg der sogn.
>> 'Eliten' gegen die 'middle class'.
>>
>> Der Krieg nannte sich 'Sozialismus' und wurde angezettelt von
>> (hauptsächlich) Britischen Aristokraten.
Nein, Du Idi, das ist nicht der Sozialismus!
>> 'Eliten' gegen die 'middle class'.
>>
>> Der Krieg nannte sich 'Sozialismus' und wurde angezettelt von
>> (hauptsächlich) Britischen Aristokraten.
Sozialismus ist ein Teil der Arbeiterbewegung!
👋️ 𝓔𝓻𝓲𝓴𝓪 𝓒𝓲𝓮𝓼𝓵𝓪 😀️
--
💙💛 Слава Україні
KPGH
May 20, 2022, 9:34:09 AM5/20/22
to
Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote on Fri 20 May 2022 08:55:52a:
> Am 19.05.2022 um 13:20 schrieb KPGH:
>
>>> Es gibt seit der Mitte des 19ten Jhdts. eine Art Krieg der sogn.
>>> 'Eliten' gegen die 'middle class'.
>>>
>>> Der Krieg nannte sich 'Sozialismus' und wurde angezettelt von
>>> (hauptsächlich) Britischen Aristokraten.
>>>
>>> Die 'middle class' wurde anderweitig auch 'Bürgertum' oder
>>> 'Kapitalisten' genannt.
>>>
>>> Als 'Krieger' wurden speziell ausgewählte Menschen aus den unteren
>>> Schichten ausgbildet, wie etwa ein gewisser 'Stalin', der eigentlich
>>> Bankräuber aus Georgien war.
>>>
>>> Aber gekämpft gegen die Russische und Ukrainische 'middle class' hat
>>> er schon und mehr Menschen umgebracht als je ein Mensch zuvor.
>>>
>>> https://www.abebooks.de/9780473120733/Stalins-British-Training-Greg-H
>>> al lett-0473120739/plp
>>
>> Ich bin mir nicht sicher, ob Stalin wirklich Kitchener hieß. :-)
>
> Kitchener war noch mal jemand anderes, auf den Welt auch gerne
> verzichtet hätte.
>
> Stalin hieße eigentlich Jossif Djugashvilli und stammte aus Georgien.
Die Verwendung von Pseudonymen war nicht ungewöhnlich.
> Am 19.05.2022 um 13:20 schrieb KPGH:
>
>>> Es gibt seit der Mitte des 19ten Jhdts. eine Art Krieg der sogn.
>>> 'Eliten' gegen die 'middle class'.
>>>
>>> Der Krieg nannte sich 'Sozialismus' und wurde angezettelt von
>>> (hauptsächlich) Britischen Aristokraten.
>>>
>>> Die 'middle class' wurde anderweitig auch 'Bürgertum' oder
>>> 'Kapitalisten' genannt.
>>>
>>> Als 'Krieger' wurden speziell ausgewählte Menschen aus den unteren
>>> Schichten ausgbildet, wie etwa ein gewisser 'Stalin', der eigentlich
>>> Bankräuber aus Georgien war.
>>>
>>> Aber gekämpft gegen die Russische und Ukrainische 'middle class' hat
>>> er schon und mehr Menschen umgebracht als je ein Mensch zuvor.
>>>
>>> https://www.abebooks.de/9780473120733/Stalins-British-Training-Greg-H
>>> al lett-0473120739/plp
>>
>> Ich bin mir nicht sicher, ob Stalin wirklich Kitchener hieß. :-)
>
> Kitchener war noch mal jemand anderes, auf den Welt auch gerne
> verzichtet hätte.
>
> Stalin hieße eigentlich Jossif Djugashvilli und stammte aus Georgien.
Der Punkt war, dass der Vorschlag, dass Dinge oft anders aussehen als
sie wirklich sind, im Allgemeinen richtig erscheint. Daher bleibt
Wachsamkeit immer geboten.
Aber die Annahme oder Andeutung von Zusammenhängen, für die es keinerlei
Hinweise gibt, kann nur dazu dienen, die Wachsamkeit zu unterminieren.
Es dient dann meist dazu, die vorherrschende Propaganda
aufrechtzuerhalten, indem es plausible alternative Narrative mit
unglaubwürdigen verschleiert die als Verschwörungstheorie, Diffamierung
oder Hassreden abgetan werden können.
...
>> Aber vielleicht hatte der britische Elitismus etwas mit der Richtung
>> zu tun, die der Nationalsozialismus (in seinen späteren Stadien)
>> einschlug?
>
>
> Falsch, der Nationalsozialismus ist die Deutsche Version von etwas,
> das man auch als 'Eugenics' kennt.
>
> Eugenics ist sozusagen 'wissenschaftlicher Elitismus', basierend auf
> dem Unfug, den ein gewisser Darwin mal verzapft hat.
selektiv züchten sollte, um sich selbst zu verbessern. Als solches hatte
es wenig mit Nationalsozialismus zu tun. Es ist umstritten, nicht weil
es unvernünftig ist, sondern weil es leicht zu Missbrauch führen kann,
da die Eliten kontrollieren, was als 'besser' gilt.
Ich verstehe, dass Eugenik sowohl in den USA als auch in Großbritannien
unter einem beträchtlichen Teil der Eliten beliebt war und in der
Propaganda eingesetzt wurde, um die scheiternden unteren Mittelschichten
zu verärgern, indem die Armen für ihre Not verantwortlich gemacht
wurden. Ich erinnere mich dass offen eugenische Programme
(Zwangssterilisation usw.) zumindest in Schweden lange nach dem 2.
Weltkrieg weitergingen.
Im Kontext der Oligarchie bedeutet „besser“ in Bezug auf Eugenik
beispielsweise alle Nachkommen von Mitgliedern der Elite, und in anderen
Fällen Arbeiter, die gerade klug genug sind, um die Industrie am Laufen
zu halten, aber nicht klug genug, um sich selbst zu verbessern, indem
sie Eliten beseitigen die in erster Linie von ihrer Arbeit profitieren.
Multikulturalismus, also der selektive Import fremder Arme in die lokale
Arbeiterklasse ohne das primäre Ziel, einen gemeinsamen
Gesellschaftsvertrag zum Nutzen aller aufrechtzuerhalten oder zu
etablieren, scheint heute eine größere Gefahr für denselben Zweck zu
sein als die (zu Recht) immer umstrittene Eugenik.
Der Nationalsozialismus schien seine extreme Politik vor allem mit einem
sozialen und wirtschaftlichen Ausnahmezustand gerechtfertigt zu haben,
der ihn überhaupt erst an die Macht brachte. Wahrscheinlich nicht viel
anders als die Roosevelt-Administration in den USA.
Ein wesentlicher Unterschied bestand wohl darin, dass das
konstitutionelle System der Checks and Balances in den USA, das als
Gegengewicht zu einer starken Exekutive fungierte, unter Druck geriet
aber überlebte. Anders als in Deutschland wo es das gar nicht gab.
Und dann gab es noch den Vertrag von Versailles...
Thomas Heger
May 21, 2022, 4:55:03 AM5/21/22
to
Am 20.05.2022 um 12:32 schrieb Erika Ciesla:
>
>>> Es gibt seit der Mitte des 19ten Jhdts. eine Art Krieg der sogn.
>>> 'Eliten' gegen die 'middle class'.
>>>
>>> Der Krieg nannte sich 'Sozialismus' und wurde angezettelt von
>>> (hauptsächlich) Britischen Aristokraten.
>
> Nein, Du Idi, das ist nicht der Sozialismus!
>
> Sozialismus ist ein Teil der Arbeiterbewegung!
>
Die einzige wirkliche Arbeiterbewegung im hiesigen Sozialismus war die
>
>>> Es gibt seit der Mitte des 19ten Jhdts. eine Art Krieg der sogn.
>>> 'Eliten' gegen die 'middle class'.
>>>
>>> Der Krieg nannte sich 'Sozialismus' und wurde angezettelt von
>>> (hauptsächlich) Britischen Aristokraten.
>
> Nein, Du Idi, das ist nicht der Sozialismus!
>
> Sozialismus ist ein Teil der Arbeiterbewegung!
>
Flucht.
TH
Thomas Heger
Jun 6, 2022, 3:22:37 AM6/6/22
to
Am 11.05.2022 um 00:31 schrieb Markus Schaaf:
> Am 10.05.22 um 23:52 schrieb Oleg Smirnov:
>
>> Talk is cheap, and time will likely better tell how it will turn
>> out, and since I've no access to any insider info etc I'm mainly
>> talking about ethical and ideological issues here. It doesn't look
>> like Europe might indifinitely keep face with regard to the roots
>> of the current situation, sooner or later it will have to lose it.
>> There's a necessity to critically reassess the 2014 regime change
>> and the bogus narratives developed in connection with it.
>
> In international context ethics and ideology are useless. It's all about
> power and strategy. In the end, history is written by the winners.
This was Churchill's stupid idiology.
But Brits will find out, most likely the hard way, that Churchill was
wrong and bad dodings byte you where it hurts, once you do not expect it.
Churchill was in my oppinion one of the worst political criminals of all
of human history and had more innocant blood at his hands than the next
ten depots combined.
E.g. he sent many thousand Australians to their death in Gallipoly,
without gaining a single yard.
He was also supposed to have trained 'Stalin' (at that time 'Koba', the
bank robber from Georgia), hence gets a multi-million head count from
that sucker to his personal death list, too.
He was also assumed to have manipulated food supplies in India, which
caused millions of people dying in a famine.
And so forth.
The only contender of his title was actually 'Mao', who killed more
Chineese.
...
TH
> Am 10.05.22 um 23:52 schrieb Oleg Smirnov:
>
>> Talk is cheap, and time will likely better tell how it will turn
>> out, and since I've no access to any insider info etc I'm mainly
>> talking about ethical and ideological issues here. It doesn't look
>> like Europe might indifinitely keep face with regard to the roots
>> of the current situation, sooner or later it will have to lose it.
>> There's a necessity to critically reassess the 2014 regime change
>> and the bogus narratives developed in connection with it.
>
> In international context ethics and ideology are useless. It's all about
> power and strategy. In the end, history is written by the winners.
This was Churchill's stupid idiology.
But Brits will find out, most likely the hard way, that Churchill was
wrong and bad dodings byte you where it hurts, once you do not expect it.
Churchill was in my oppinion one of the worst political criminals of all
of human history and had more innocant blood at his hands than the next
ten depots combined.
E.g. he sent many thousand Australians to their death in Gallipoly,
without gaining a single yard.
He was also supposed to have trained 'Stalin' (at that time 'Koba', the
bank robber from Georgia), hence gets a multi-million head count from
that sucker to his personal death list, too.
He was also assumed to have manipulated food supplies in India, which
caused millions of people dying in a famine.
And so forth.
The only contender of his title was actually 'Mao', who killed more
Chineese.
...
TH
Erika Ciesla
Jun 6, 2022, 5:26:38 AM6/6/22
to
Am 06.06.22 um 09:22 Uhr Thomas Heger schrieb:
Hauptsach is, die ham den scheiß Faschismus terminiert.
🅲
--
💙💛 Слава Україні
> Am 11.05.2022 um 00:31 schrieb Markus Schaaf:
>> Am 10.05.22 um 23:52 schrieb Oleg Smirnov:
>> Am 10.05.22 um 23:52 schrieb Oleg Smirnov:
> This was Churchill's stupid idiology.
Is egal!
Hauptsach is, die ham den scheiß Faschismus terminiert.
🅲
--
💙💛 Слава Україні
KPGH
Jun 6, 2022, 8:26:01 AM6/6/22
to
Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote on Mon 06 Jun 2022 09:22:32a:
> Am 11.05.2022 um 00:31 schrieb Markus Schaaf:
>> Am 10.05.22 um 23:52 schrieb Oleg Smirnov:
>>
>>> Talk is cheap, and time will likely better tell how it will turn
>>> out, and since I've no access to any insider info etc I'm mainly
>>> talking about ethical and ideological issues here. It doesn't look
>>> like Europe might indifinitely keep face with regard to the roots
>>> of the current situation, sooner or later it will have to lose it.
>>> There's a necessity to critically reassess the 2014 regime change
>>> and the bogus narratives developed in connection with it.
>>
>> In international context ethics and ideology are useless. It's all
>> about power and strategy. In the end, history is written by the
>> winners.
>
> This was Churchill's stupid idiology.
On this count the outlook of Churchill's was probably right.
> Am 11.05.2022 um 00:31 schrieb Markus Schaaf:
>> Am 10.05.22 um 23:52 schrieb Oleg Smirnov:
>>
>>> Talk is cheap, and time will likely better tell how it will turn
>>> out, and since I've no access to any insider info etc I'm mainly
>>> talking about ethical and ideological issues here. It doesn't look
>>> like Europe might indifinitely keep face with regard to the roots
>>> of the current situation, sooner or later it will have to lose it.
>>> There's a necessity to critically reassess the 2014 regime change
>>> and the bogus narratives developed in connection with it.
>>
>> In international context ethics and ideology are useless. It's all
>> about power and strategy. In the end, history is written by the
>> winners.
>
> This was Churchill's stupid idiology.
Where he was manifestly wrong, was in the (ostensible) believe that
geopolitical stability is best preserved by one dominating power -- in
this instance first the British empire and after WW2 a coalition of the
UK and US?
Here there's probably more to learn from the founders of the US who
(like Machiavelli) seem to have been on guard whenever one party became
too dominant while claiming to represent 'the good of the people'. :-)
Schabracken-Dompteur
Jun 6, 2022, 9:02:31 AM6/6/22
to
a...@xyz.invalid (die allwissende Monnemer Universalkoryphaee
und 'Nazi'-Profilerin Erika Ciesla mit dem Buchstabentauschsyndrom:
<http://al.howardknight.net/?&MSGI=%3Cbu3ok...@mid.individual.net%3E>
AKA 'plonky tonk woman' oder 'Schnatterliese' froente ihrem Hobby:
<http://debeste.de/upload2/v/8226b00c88955d2cc7189bd75da96e679955.mp4>
>> This was Churchill's stupid idiology.
>
> Is egal!
Stupide muessen zusammenhalten, wa, Drotze?
Vergiss nicht, um Vergebung zu bitten fuer Deine Verleumdungen, alte Drotze
(<http://reusenet.froehlich.priv.at/posting.php?msgid=%3CFhq9...@tipota.de%3E>):
<http://al.howardknight.net/?&MSGI=%3Ci1j4p...@mid.individual.net%3E>
--
Du haettest vielleicht gerne was gegen Juden (zum Beispiel Zyklon-B),
aber die Zeit ist abgelaufen.
[Schnatterliese Erika Ciesla pflegt ihr Drecksnaturell mit Unterstellungen:
<http://al.howardknight.net/?&MSGI=%3Caupu6...@mid.individual.net%3E>]
> Ich stampfe nicht, Du stampfst, ich habe einfach nur Recht.
> Ist es meine Schuld, wenn ihr mir intellektuell nicht gewachsen seid?
> Warum sollte ich nachgeben, wenn ich Recht habe?
<https://eulenspiegelblog.files.wordpress.com/2018/06/meinungsbildung_modern.jpg>
-> das Wahrheitsministerium raet: <http://www.hinterfotz.de/boese.html> <-
und immer nur ARD+ZDF gucken: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2l2kNQhtlQ>
und 'Nazi'-Profilerin Erika Ciesla mit dem Buchstabentauschsyndrom:
<http://al.howardknight.net/?&MSGI=%3Cbu3ok...@mid.individual.net%3E>
AKA 'plonky tonk woman' oder 'Schnatterliese' froente ihrem Hobby:
<http://debeste.de/upload2/v/8226b00c88955d2cc7189bd75da96e679955.mp4>
>> This was Churchill's stupid idiology.
>
> Is egal!
Vergiss nicht, um Vergebung zu bitten fuer Deine Verleumdungen, alte Drotze
(<http://reusenet.froehlich.priv.at/posting.php?msgid=%3CFhq9...@tipota.de%3E>):
<http://al.howardknight.net/?&MSGI=%3Ci1j4p...@mid.individual.net%3E>
--
Du haettest vielleicht gerne was gegen Juden (zum Beispiel Zyklon-B),
aber die Zeit ist abgelaufen.
[Schnatterliese Erika Ciesla pflegt ihr Drecksnaturell mit Unterstellungen:
<http://al.howardknight.net/?&MSGI=%3Caupu6...@mid.individual.net%3E>]
> Ich stampfe nicht, Du stampfst, ich habe einfach nur Recht.
> Ist es meine Schuld, wenn ihr mir intellektuell nicht gewachsen seid?
> Warum sollte ich nachgeben, wenn ich Recht habe?
<https://eulenspiegelblog.files.wordpress.com/2018/06/meinungsbildung_modern.jpg>
-> das Wahrheitsministerium raet: <http://www.hinterfotz.de/boese.html> <-
und immer nur ARD+ZDF gucken: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2l2kNQhtlQ>
Thomas Heger
Jun 7, 2022, 2:30:52 AM6/7/22
to
Am 06.06.2022 um 11:26 schrieb Erika Ciesla:
> Am 06.06.22 um 09:22 Uhr Thomas Heger schrieb:
>> Am 11.05.2022 um 00:31 schrieb Markus Schaaf:
>>> Am 10.05.22 um 23:52 schrieb Oleg Smirnov:
>
>> This was Churchill's stupid idiology.
>
> Is egal!
>
> Hauptsach is, die ham den scheiß Faschismus terminiert.
Churchill hatte noch eine andere Nichte, außer Hitlers Freundin Unity
> Am 06.06.22 um 09:22 Uhr Thomas Heger schrieb:
>> Am 11.05.2022 um 00:31 schrieb Markus Schaaf:
>>> Am 10.05.22 um 23:52 schrieb Oleg Smirnov:
>
>> This was Churchill's stupid idiology.
>
> Is egal!
>
> Hauptsach is, die ham den scheiß Faschismus terminiert.
Mitford, die sich einen prominenten Faschisten geangelt hatte.
Das war Unities Schwester Diana. Die hatte den Führer der BUF ('British
Union of Fascists') Sir Oswald Mosley geheiratet.
Das wird wahrscheinlich nicht ohne Billigung von Onkel Winston möglich
gewesen sein, weswegen wir dem auch keinen Wunsch unterstellen können,
den Faschismus zu terminieren.
Die Hochzeit fand übrigens in Berlin statt, auf Schwanenwerder bei einem
Herrn Goebbels zuhause.
(Ich würde immer noch gerne wissen, ob Churchill auch da war, wie ich
aber vermute.)
TH
Thomas Heger
Jun 7, 2022, 2:43:07 AM6/7/22
to
Am 06.06.2022 um 14:25 schrieb KPGH:
> Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote on Mon 06 Jun 2022 09:22:32a:
>
>> Am 11.05.2022 um 00:31 schrieb Markus Schaaf:
>>> Am 10.05.22 um 23:52 schrieb Oleg Smirnov:
>>>
>>>> Talk is cheap, and time will likely better tell how it will turn
>>>> out, and since I've no access to any insider info etc I'm mainly
>>>> talking about ethical and ideological issues here. It doesn't look
>>>> like Europe might indifinitely keep face with regard to the roots
>>>> of the current situation, sooner or later it will have to lose it.
>>>> There's a necessity to critically reassess the 2014 regime change
>>>> and the bogus narratives developed in connection with it.
>>>
>>> In international context ethics and ideology are useless. It's all
>>> about power and strategy. In the end, history is written by the
>>> winners.
>>
>> This was Churchill's stupid idiology.
>
> On this count the outlook of Churchill's was probably right.
This was just wishful thinking by Churchill, but was wrong.
> Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote on Mon 06 Jun 2022 09:22:32a:
>
>> Am 11.05.2022 um 00:31 schrieb Markus Schaaf:
>>> Am 10.05.22 um 23:52 schrieb Oleg Smirnov:
>>>
>>>> Talk is cheap, and time will likely better tell how it will turn
>>>> out, and since I've no access to any insider info etc I'm mainly
>>>> talking about ethical and ideological issues here. It doesn't look
>>>> like Europe might indifinitely keep face with regard to the roots
>>>> of the current situation, sooner or later it will have to lose it.
>>>> There's a necessity to critically reassess the 2014 regime change
>>>> and the bogus narratives developed in connection with it.
>>>
>>> In international context ethics and ideology are useless. It's all
>>> about power and strategy. In the end, history is written by the
>>> winners.
>>
>> This was Churchill's stupid idiology.
>
> On this count the outlook of Churchill's was probably right.
History is not (only) written by the victors (in a certain conflict),
because suppression of truth requires power and the relations of power
can change over time.
Since people can pick any topic from the past at any time in the future,
only stability of power could eventually hinder reevaluation of former
events.
But since power of the parties changes over time, a future reevaluation
cannot be prevented.
> Where he was manifestly wrong, was in the (ostensible) believe that
> geopolitical stability is best preserved by one dominating power -- in
> this instance first the British empire and after WW2 a coalition of the
> UK and US?
>
> Here there's probably more to learn from the founders of the US who
> (like Machiavelli) seem to have been on guard whenever one party became
> too dominant while claiming to represent 'the good of the people'. :-)
>
E.g. we had the so called 'cold war', but cooperations between USA and SU.
For instance the Soviet army invaded Germany in american built tanks
(plus a few from the UK).
So, politics was 'smoke and mirrors' mainly and we were lied to big time.
The main victims of this are actually the american citizens themselves,
why the scheme must stem from non-american sources.
TH
KPGH
Jun 7, 2022, 2:58:48 PM6/7/22
to
unless they have some reason to expect to benefit form invoking these.
European parasitic politics today are IMHO mostly about making
populations sacrifice for interests that are alien to them by presenting
inappropriate narratives laced with nostalgia around a doctered version
of history.
>> Where he was manifestly wrong, was in the (ostensible) believe that
>> geopolitical stability is best preserved by one dominating power --
>> in this instance first the British empire and after WW2 a coalition
>> of the UK and US?
>>
>> Here there's probably more to learn from the founders of the US who
>> (like Machiavelli) seem to have been on guard whenever one party
>> became too dominant while claiming to represent 'the good of the
>> people'. :-)
>
> 'To play both sides' is aparrently a method used behind the scenes.
the welfare of their offspring up to the second degree. After that, it's
mostly self-interest that drives cooperation. That means that
cooperation is typically at least in part conditional.
Individual European countries seem now too small to be players in a
geostrategic arena, and the primary reason for obstructing European
federalization was probably that local/national elites refused (and
refuse) to let go of privileges.
A major problem in Europa today thus seems that comparative little
european states are presented to the population as extended families. In
this narrative the 'European commission' etc. is a commission of parents
that decide what's best for the children under their control.
It seems a local parasitic project that is now infiltrated by real
geopolitical players from all sites while local politicians keep on
babbling about 'international justice' and the like -- meaning a fading
pax americana from which they expected protection from the 1990ties for
the next 100 years? :-)
Oleg Smirnov
Jun 8, 2022, 12:58:57 AM6/8/22
to
KPGH, <news:XnsAEAE92D22...@144.76.35.252>
some one dominating power then the ideologists of this power
tend to promote the narrative that the common stability is best
preserved by one dominating power (the notorious Pax Foobarica
concept).
The original Pax Romana was functional for a while, and such a
model implied a culturally-economically indisputable strong-
superior formation supplemented with neighboring "barbarians".
Chinese area, before the 17th century, also fit to this model
(although, throughout its history, there vere many periods when
there were two or more competitive states within the area).
Those were known regional paxes, although the both saw their
selves, innerly, as the very center of the universe, surrounded
by surely non-comparable / minor formations.
Popular historical interpretations of Pax Britannica are so
that it's supposed to be global rather than regional. Still, in
fact, the British power was not sufficiently dominating to call
it 'pax' in real sense. It was not properly dominating over
mainland Europe and even less over Russia.
Still, if you accept the popular concept that the Great Britain
"adopted the role of a global policeman" in the 19th century,
then the GB shall to be seen responsible (and held accountable)
for the disastrous eventual outcome of its "global policing".
The WW1, WW2 undermined Europe. There were some nearer causes
for the WWs, but on a wider time scale one can see such events
as a natural eventual result of "Pax Britannica".
The current Ukraine-related situation is, in its essense, a
contunuation of the WW2. In turn, the WW1 made arrangements for
the WW2, while, in turn, the Crimean War in the mid-19 century
left disbalances that gave prerequisites to the WW1. It looks
like one and the same long-term trend of destruction of Europe.
The post-imperial UK still remains a restless conflictogenic
actor, mainly through cheerleading and scheming (while being
attached to the US), and the "Pax Americana" has inherited some
generic features of the predecessor, but a qualitative update
is that America today (versus the 19th century Britain) enjoys
more dominance over mainland Europe, while it's rapidly losing
influence over rising Asia.
...
The below is what it looks like from the Asian perspective.
| The long-held fear across Asia of a reckless militaristic
| empire .. is quickly being replaced by a new realisation and
| awakening .. This is a tipping point, as formerly colonised
| populations around the world - subservient through centuries
| of indoctrination - are now beginning to see the emperor with
| no clothes on .. The world, and especially a fast-growing
| Asia, needs to appreciate the rapid and fundamental shifts in
| the global order arising from the US' toxic domestic
| situation .. It is time for the world, perhaps led by the
| large nations of Asia, to demilitarise the world of the
| American Military Industrial Complex .. It will need to start
| with a revolution of the mind among Asian leaders, including
| the complete rejection of their subservience to the US and
| its Western alliance .. <https://tinyurl.com/2a9a53ts>
> Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote on Mon 06 Jun 2022 09:22:32a:
>> Am 11.05.2022 um 00:31 schrieb Markus Schaaf:
>>> Am 10.05.22 um 23:52 schrieb Oleg Smirnov:
>> Am 11.05.2022 um 00:31 schrieb Markus Schaaf:
>>> Am 10.05.22 um 23:52 schrieb Oleg Smirnov:
>>>> There's a necessity to critically reassess the 2014 regime change
>>>> and the bogus narratives developed in connection with it.
>>>
>>> In international context ethics and ideology are useless. It's all
>>> about power and strategy. In the end, history is written by the
>>> winners.
>>
>> This was Churchill's stupid idiology.
>
> On this count the outlook of Churchill's was probably right.
>
> Where he was manifestly wrong, was in the (ostensible) believe that
> geopolitical stability is best preserved by one dominating power -- in
> this instance first the British empire and after WW2 a coalition of the
> UK and US?
>
> Here there's probably more to learn from the founders of the US who
> (like Machiavelli) seem to have been on guard whenever one party became
> too dominant while claiming to represent 'the good of the people'. :-)
One might consider the issue from the opposite end: if there is
>>>> and the bogus narratives developed in connection with it.
>>>
>>> In international context ethics and ideology are useless. It's all
>>> about power and strategy. In the end, history is written by the
>>> winners.
>>
>> This was Churchill's stupid idiology.
>
> On this count the outlook of Churchill's was probably right.
>
> Where he was manifestly wrong, was in the (ostensible) believe that
> geopolitical stability is best preserved by one dominating power -- in
> this instance first the British empire and after WW2 a coalition of the
> UK and US?
>
> Here there's probably more to learn from the founders of the US who
> (like Machiavelli) seem to have been on guard whenever one party became
> too dominant while claiming to represent 'the good of the people'. :-)
some one dominating power then the ideologists of this power
tend to promote the narrative that the common stability is best
preserved by one dominating power (the notorious Pax Foobarica
concept).
The original Pax Romana was functional for a while, and such a
model implied a culturally-economically indisputable strong-
superior formation supplemented with neighboring "barbarians".
Chinese area, before the 17th century, also fit to this model
(although, throughout its history, there vere many periods when
there were two or more competitive states within the area).
Those were known regional paxes, although the both saw their
selves, innerly, as the very center of the universe, surrounded
by surely non-comparable / minor formations.
Popular historical interpretations of Pax Britannica are so
that it's supposed to be global rather than regional. Still, in
fact, the British power was not sufficiently dominating to call
it 'pax' in real sense. It was not properly dominating over
mainland Europe and even less over Russia.
Still, if you accept the popular concept that the Great Britain
"adopted the role of a global policeman" in the 19th century,
then the GB shall to be seen responsible (and held accountable)
for the disastrous eventual outcome of its "global policing".
The WW1, WW2 undermined Europe. There were some nearer causes
for the WWs, but on a wider time scale one can see such events
as a natural eventual result of "Pax Britannica".
The current Ukraine-related situation is, in its essense, a
contunuation of the WW2. In turn, the WW1 made arrangements for
the WW2, while, in turn, the Crimean War in the mid-19 century
left disbalances that gave prerequisites to the WW1. It looks
like one and the same long-term trend of destruction of Europe.
The post-imperial UK still remains a restless conflictogenic
actor, mainly through cheerleading and scheming (while being
attached to the US), and the "Pax Americana" has inherited some
generic features of the predecessor, but a qualitative update
is that America today (versus the 19th century Britain) enjoys
more dominance over mainland Europe, while it's rapidly losing
influence over rising Asia.
...
The below is what it looks like from the Asian perspective.
| The long-held fear across Asia of a reckless militaristic
| empire .. is quickly being replaced by a new realisation and
| awakening .. This is a tipping point, as formerly colonised
| populations around the world - subservient through centuries
| of indoctrination - are now beginning to see the emperor with
| no clothes on .. The world, and especially a fast-growing
| Asia, needs to appreciate the rapid and fundamental shifts in
| the global order arising from the US' toxic domestic
| situation .. It is time for the world, perhaps led by the
| large nations of Asia, to demilitarise the world of the
| American Military Industrial Complex .. It will need to start
| with a revolution of the mind among Asian leaders, including
| the complete rejection of their subservience to the US and
| its Western alliance .. <https://tinyurl.com/2a9a53ts>
Oleg Smirnov
Jun 8, 2022, 1:09:06 AM6/8/22
to
Erika Ciesla, <news:jg5vic...@mid.individual.net>
of the European fascism, due to which negative consequences
may be.
> Am 06.06.22 um 09:22 Uhr Thomas Heger schrieb:
>> Am 11.05.2022 um 00:31 schrieb Markus Schaaf:
>>> Am 10.05.22 um 23:52 schrieb Oleg Smirnov:
>
>> This was Churchill's stupid idiology.
>
> Is egal!
>
> Hauptsach is, die ham den scheiß Faschismus terminiert.
The EU's support for the Kiev regime is a resurrection
>> Am 11.05.2022 um 00:31 schrieb Markus Schaaf:
>>> Am 10.05.22 um 23:52 schrieb Oleg Smirnov:
>
>> This was Churchill's stupid idiology.
>
> Is egal!
>
> Hauptsach is, die ham den scheiß Faschismus terminiert.
of the European fascism, due to which negative consequences
may be.
Thomas Heger
Jun 8, 2022, 3:31:23 AM6/8/22
to
In former times disinformation was much less sophisticated than today.
So, same intentions generated simpler plots in the 19th or early 20th
century, comparted to today.
It is also far easier to reevalute a plot, where all participants are
long gone, than a similar plot today.
This is so, because current secrets are usually defended, while the
deeds of our forfathers are often not protected anymore.
For instance have a look at this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPoR8ca1J_Q
> European parasitic politics today are IMHO mostly about making
> populations sacrifice for interests that are alien to them by presenting
> inappropriate narratives laced with nostalgia around a doctered version
> of history.
>>> Where he was manifestly wrong, was in the (ostensible) believe that
>>> geopolitical stability is best preserved by one dominating power --
>>> in this instance first the British empire and after WW2 a coalition
>>> of the UK and US?
>>>
>>> Here there's probably more to learn from the founders of the US who
>>> (like Machiavelli) seem to have been on guard whenever one party
>>> became too dominant while claiming to represent 'the good of the
>>> people'. :-)
>>
>> 'To play both sides' is aparrently a method used behind the scenes.
>
> Evidence I am aware of suggest that people typically truly care about
> the welfare of their offspring up to the second degree. After that, it's
> mostly self-interest that drives cooperation. That means that
> cooperation is typically at least in part conditional.
But self-interest is often based on a certain status quo, which hidden
agendas attempt to overthrow.
...
TH
Thomas Heger
Jun 10, 2022, 2:10:08 AM6/10/22
to
This country is actually based on the leadership of only one single party.
This is not an acceptable model for any western society and not even for
China itself.
So, expansion of China would trigger a counter-reaction from all the
democracies around the globe, including Europe and the USA.
For this reason a democratic development in China is a prerequisite for
expansion of Chineese influece.
But this is very dangerous and difficult, as many transformations of
this kind had shown in the past.
That's why a 'One World Government' under Chineese leadership is
impossible now.
More likely is a separation of global power into a small number of very
large blocks.
TH
KPGH
Jun 10, 2022, 11:09:19 AM6/10/22
to
between the major victors, was that the US, unlike the USSR, was
hampered by Britain and France with rearranging its zone under a kind of
Monroe doctrine. Both still aspired to having some sort of independent
role in geopolitical affairs.
Especially Churchill was probably a problem as he apparently proposed
that the US and UK would basically run (and exploit) a continental
European Union like the US runs South America from behind a veil of
sovereign statelets depended on a central puppet-master for security.
Given the opposition to such a scheme in much of continental Europe and
especially in France that more or less claimed to be among the victors
of WW2, combined with the sympathy of lager cohorts of the population
with the (public perceptions of the) communist system as an alternative,
the US might have mitigated centrifugal tendencies (risk of revolution
and/of WW3) by allowing the reestablishment of superficial 'sovereign
democracies' in Europe under (to a large extent) 'de-nazified' former
local ('national') pre-WW2 elites -- that is, former elites that were
useful to the US.
(I suppose the USSR did probably more or less the same, but unlike the
US apparently discarded members of former elites like empty vodka
bottles once they outlived their usefulness. Apparently 'rediscovering
crimes' in the US only took off later to endorse what Norman Finkelstein
labeled 'the holocaust-industry' -- a narrative apparently designed to
morally isolate one group of victims as more significant than others.)
The price-tag that came with the policy, was probably primarily the
Marshall Plan that was designed to stop the intra-european bickering
about the payment of reparations that was a primary source of discontent
after WW1, and to avoid enduring wide-spread poverty that could trigger
communist takeovers.
European elites apparently abused the success of the arrangement by,
instead of 'spread the wealth', entrenching their privileges with
instituting the 'welfare state'. A paternalistic construct designed to
suppress the accumulation of wealth among the general population which
in turn could eventually have resulted in more equality of opportunity
because ordinary citizens (with positive equity; real property and
assets free of debt) would have been less depended on agencies
conditionally distributing money and services according to ('left')
'need' or ('right')'market conditions'. ('Need' and 'market
conditions' of course determined by the same agencies or shadowy
networks behind these.)
During the cold war, the US could (even if it wanted to) probably not do
much about this, as that would would expose the construct beneath the
relationship between 'sovereign democracies'. So, the US probably ended
up with most of the military bill of the 'free world', while elites in
many of its front-line satellite-states spend income on keeping the
population happy (but poor and hence dependent) with hand-outs.
After the demise of the USSR, and with it the end an ideological
competition since WW1, the balance in that relationship changed
radically.
I suppose that after the establishment of an European union as a viable
geopolitical entity was apparently sabotaged, many local European elites
found themselves in a situation in which they essentially had
to tell the truth and (belatedly) resign part of their privileges so as
to establish a viable independent union, or take orders almost
unconditionally. And taking orders is what they apparently did.
Something somewhat similar seem to have been going on in the far east at
the end of the nineties when elites of client-states were confronted
with radically changed geopolitical circumstances. There too this seem
to have resulted an endeavor to establish authoritarian regimes styled
'democratic' by virtue of perceived and manipulated majorities that are
than used to justify increasing repression of (perceived) minorities.
One could ask if today's unaccountable western authoritarianism is much
more than 'the continuation of democracy by other means'? :-)
..
> The below is what it looks like from the Asian perspective.
>
>| The long-held fear across Asia of a reckless militaristic
>| empire .. is quickly being replaced by a new realisation and
>| awakening .. This is a tipping point, as formerly colonised
>| populations around the world - subservient through centuries
>| of indoctrination - are now beginning to see the emperor with
>| no clothes on .. The world, and especially a fast-growing
>| Asia, needs to appreciate the rapid and fundamental shifts in
>| the global order arising from the US' toxic domestic
>| situation .. It is time for the world, perhaps led by the
>| large nations of Asia, to demilitarise the world of the
>| American Military Industrial Complex .. It will need to start
>| with a revolution of the mind among Asian leaders, including
>| the complete rejection of their subservience to the US and
>| its Western alliance .. <https://tinyurl.com/2a9a53ts>
the rise of the west was so far little more than an anomaly. And may
remain so if its decline cannot be arrested: "...Here numberless and
needless places, enormous salaries, pensions, perquisites, bribes,
groundless quarrels, foolish expeditions, false accounts or no accounts,
contracts and jobs, devour all revenue and produce continual necessity
in the midst of natural plenty. I apprehend therefore that to unite us
intimately will only be to corrupt and poison us also: It seems like
Mezentius coupling and binding together the dead and the living..." :-)
https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/benjamin-franklin-to-joseph-galloway/
Thomas Heger
Jun 11, 2022, 1:50:25 AM6/11/22
to
world in total does not act along a single line.
Instead of simple relations, seen from a certain perspective, we have a
multitude of interdependent relations, which are subject to changes in
time and to feed-back loops, which we cannot control.
Also the definitions of groups like 'elite' changes over time, because
the foundation of the elite status could change, too.
For instance oil as a commodity could be devalued entirely, if cheaper
replacements for oil as source of energy can be found.
In such a scenario the elite based on oil would need other resources, to
maintain their status.
Also colonies as source of wealth and power are no longer a possible
path to such a status, because the former colonies are becoming more
independent over time.
Another source of status is actually the military.
But wars a getting out of fashion, too.
So, over the years, the 'cards' are shuffeled and new people build new
elites and base their status on other foundations, which do not even
know today.
What is most likely not possible, therefore, that is to extrapolate
former developments into the future. Instead of such expectations,
something entirely different will happen, but we don't know yet, how
that will look like.
TH
KPGH
Jun 11, 2022, 6:57:55 AM6/11/22
to
Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote on Sat 11 Jun 2022 07:50:20a:
...
>> I suppose that after the establishment of an European union as a
>> viable geopolitical entity was apparently sabotaged, many local
>> European elites found themselves in a situation in which they
>> essentially had to tell the truth and (belatedly) resign part of
>> their privileges so as to establish a viable independent union, or
>> take orders almost unconditionally. And taking orders is what they
>> apparently did. Something somewhat similar seem to have been going on
>> in the far east at the end of the nineties when elites of
>> client-states were confronted with radically changed geopolitical
>> circumstances. There too this seem to have resulted an endeavor to
>> establish authoritarian regimes styled 'democratic' by virtue of
>> perceived and manipulated majorities that are than used to justify
>> increasing repression of (perceived) minorities. One could ask if
>> today's unaccountable western authoritarianism is much more than 'the
>> continuation of democracy by other means'? :-)
>>
>
> 'Linear' geopolitical strategies are most likely wrong, because the
> world in total does not act along a single line.
>
> Instead of simple relations, seen from a certain perspective, we have
> a multitude of interdependent relations, which are subject to changes
> in time and to feed-back loops, which we cannot control.
Without specification 'we' is devoid of meaning. Populism is probably
mostly about deluding public perceptions about social-economic
categorizations and how they do, could, or should interact.
Behind both diplomatic or kinetic competition are usual competing
narratives of which one can become dominant. That does however not mean
that the 'truthfulness' (in terms of logic) of competing narratives is
determined by the outcome of strive.
> Also the definitions of groups like 'elite' changes over time, because
> the foundation of the elite status could change, too.
That doesn't change the distinct nature (and interrests) of an elite
group at any moment.
> For instance oil as a commodity could be devalued entirely, if cheaper
> replacements for oil as source of energy can be found.
>
> In such a scenario the elite based on oil would need other resources,
> to maintain their status.
>
> Also colonies as source of wealth and power are no longer a possible
> path to such a status, because the former colonies are becoming more
> independent over time.
>
> Another source of status is actually the military.
>
> But wars a getting out of fashion, too.
The later remains to be seen.
Machiavelli: "when every province is replete with inhabitants who can
neither obtain a livelihood nor move elsewhere since all other places
are occupied and full up, and when the craftiness and malignity of man
has gone as far as it can go, the world must be purged in one of these
three ways": pestilences, floods and famines.
Today 'the craftiness and malignity of man' seems once more in stern
competition with 'the three ways'. :-)
What might be different is that the nature of the competition has grown
larger in scale over time, and this time seems largely global.
> So, over the years, the 'cards' are shuffeled and new people build new
> elites and base their status on other foundations, which do not even
> know today.
>
> What is most likely not possible, therefore, that is to extrapolate
> former developments into the future. Instead of such expectations,
> something entirely different will happen, but we don't know yet, how
> that will look like.
The essential conditions of life are clearly dominated by entropy. That
is, over a long enough time period, life is always in decline at all
levels. Competition between both individuals and cohorts is what
determines the rate of decline at the particularly level.
The idea that somehow mankind can escape its basic condition, was
probably mostly the purview of religion that was more recently joined by
'democracy' as a justification for enforcing conformity on the basis of
suppositions declared to be truth.
The Federalist Papers on the danger of democracy in this respect: "If
men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to
govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would
be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men
over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the
government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to
control itself.
A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the
government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary
precautions."
...
>> I suppose that after the establishment of an European union as a
>> viable geopolitical entity was apparently sabotaged, many local
>> European elites found themselves in a situation in which they
>> essentially had to tell the truth and (belatedly) resign part of
>> their privileges so as to establish a viable independent union, or
>> take orders almost unconditionally. And taking orders is what they
>> apparently did. Something somewhat similar seem to have been going on
>> in the far east at the end of the nineties when elites of
>> client-states were confronted with radically changed geopolitical
>> circumstances. There too this seem to have resulted an endeavor to
>> establish authoritarian regimes styled 'democratic' by virtue of
>> perceived and manipulated majorities that are than used to justify
>> increasing repression of (perceived) minorities. One could ask if
>> today's unaccountable western authoritarianism is much more than 'the
>> continuation of democracy by other means'? :-)
>>
>
> 'Linear' geopolitical strategies are most likely wrong, because the
> world in total does not act along a single line.
>
> Instead of simple relations, seen from a certain perspective, we have
> a multitude of interdependent relations, which are subject to changes
> in time and to feed-back loops, which we cannot control.
mostly about deluding public perceptions about social-economic
categorizations and how they do, could, or should interact.
Behind both diplomatic or kinetic competition are usual competing
narratives of which one can become dominant. That does however not mean
that the 'truthfulness' (in terms of logic) of competing narratives is
determined by the outcome of strive.
> Also the definitions of groups like 'elite' changes over time, because
> the foundation of the elite status could change, too.
group at any moment.
> For instance oil as a commodity could be devalued entirely, if cheaper
> replacements for oil as source of energy can be found.
>
> In such a scenario the elite based on oil would need other resources,
> to maintain their status.
>
> Also colonies as source of wealth and power are no longer a possible
> path to such a status, because the former colonies are becoming more
> independent over time.
>
> Another source of status is actually the military.
>
> But wars a getting out of fashion, too.
Machiavelli: "when every province is replete with inhabitants who can
neither obtain a livelihood nor move elsewhere since all other places
are occupied and full up, and when the craftiness and malignity of man
has gone as far as it can go, the world must be purged in one of these
three ways": pestilences, floods and famines.
Today 'the craftiness and malignity of man' seems once more in stern
competition with 'the three ways'. :-)
What might be different is that the nature of the competition has grown
larger in scale over time, and this time seems largely global.
> So, over the years, the 'cards' are shuffeled and new people build new
> elites and base their status on other foundations, which do not even
> know today.
>
> What is most likely not possible, therefore, that is to extrapolate
> former developments into the future. Instead of such expectations,
> something entirely different will happen, but we don't know yet, how
> that will look like.
is, over a long enough time period, life is always in decline at all
levels. Competition between both individuals and cohorts is what
determines the rate of decline at the particularly level.
The idea that somehow mankind can escape its basic condition, was
probably mostly the purview of religion that was more recently joined by
'democracy' as a justification for enforcing conformity on the basis of
suppositions declared to be truth.
The Federalist Papers on the danger of democracy in this respect: "If
men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to
govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would
be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men
over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the
government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to
control itself.
A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the
government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary
precautions."
Thomas Heger
Jun 12, 2022, 2:31:54 AM6/12/22
to
Am 11.06.2022 um 12:57 schrieb KPGH:
>> 'Linear' geopolitical strategies are most likely wrong, because the
>> world in total does not act along a single line.
>>
>> Instead of simple relations, seen from a certain perspective, we have
>> a multitude of interdependent relations, which are subject to changes
>> in time and to feed-back loops, which we cannot control.
>
> Without specification 'we' is devoid of meaning. Populism is probably
> mostly about deluding public perceptions about social-economic
> categorizations and how they do, could, or should interact.
Well, in this case I meant 'pluralis majestatis' with 'we'. That could
>> 'Linear' geopolitical strategies are most likely wrong, because the
>> world in total does not act along a single line.
>>
>> Instead of simple relations, seen from a certain perspective, we have
>> a multitude of interdependent relations, which are subject to changes
>> in time and to feed-back loops, which we cannot control.
>
> Without specification 'we' is devoid of meaning. Populism is probably
> mostly about deluding public perceptions about social-economic
> categorizations and how they do, could, or should interact.
be replaced with 'I' (or 'you').
> Behind both diplomatic or kinetic competition are usual competing
> narratives of which one can become dominant. That does however not mean
> that the 'truthfulness' (in terms of logic) of competing narratives is
> determined by the outcome of strive.
impact can possibly be.
But we simply do not know, how people will behave in the future, because
we do not know, how the future will look like.
We have some ideas and certain events and developments are in fact
predictable. But overall we know too little about what will happen in
the future, to make good predictions about the distribution of political
power in the future.
>> Also the definitions of groups like 'elite' changes over time, because
>> the foundation of the elite status could change, too.
>
> That doesn't change the distinct nature (and interrests) of an elite
> group at any moment.
the specific status changes over time.
For instance changing values of commodities would change the income of
certain groups and enhence the position of other groups, who do not
depend on income from that commodity.
Now its hard to predict, which developments occur in the future, because
we cannot predict, when certain inventions occur and how they look like.
Such inventions could eventually 'shuffle the cards' and turn society
upside down.
Most likely the current elite will try to dominate future developments,
too. But there is no guarantee, that this will be successful.
>> For instance oil as a commodity could be devalued entirely, if cheaper
>> replacements for oil as source of energy can be found.
>>
>> In such a scenario the elite based on oil would need other resources,
>> to maintain their status.
>>
>> Also colonies as source of wealth and power are no longer a possible
>> path to such a status, because the former colonies are becoming more
>> independent over time.
>>
>> Another source of status is actually the military.
>>
>> But wars a getting out of fashion, too.
>
> The later remains to be seen.
>
> Machiavelli: "when every province is replete with inhabitants who can
> neither obtain a livelihood nor move elsewhere since all other places
> are occupied and full up, and when the craftiness and malignity of man
> has gone as far as it can go, the world must be purged in one of these
> three ways": pestilences, floods and famines.
ago and there is no need to assume, that the world today behaves similar
to the world of Machiavelli's time.
> Today 'the craftiness and malignity of man' seems once more in stern
> competition with 'the three ways'. :-)
>
> What might be different is that the nature of the competition has grown
> larger in scale over time, and this time seems largely global.
>> So, over the years, the 'cards' are shuffeled and new people build new
>> elites and base their status on other foundations, which do not even
>> know today.
>>
>> What is most likely not possible, therefore, that is to extrapolate
>> former developments into the future. Instead of such expectations,
>> something entirely different will happen, but we don't know yet, how
>> that will look like.
>
> The essential conditions of life are clearly dominated by entropy. That
> is, over a long enough time period, life is always in decline at all
> levels. Competition between both individuals and cohorts is what
> determines the rate of decline at the particularly level.
But entropy is a possible subject to change, too.
Simply clean up your environment.
TH
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages