Posted by Bob in DC on Mon, 05 May 2014 04:43 | #

Thank you for this report. More like it would be great!

I have been following Ukraine for quite awhile, but there is little trustworthy on-the-ground info.

As always, Enemy #1 is the jew, and its lapdog jewthink race traitors.

Note how often ‘our’ folks think of them as “just another problem”.

RESIST !!!

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 05 May 2014 07:20 | #

Jews are “just another problem”.  Single Jewish Causers are simply people with no analytic capacity.  For the most part, their vision consists in continuing right on with good ole freedom and the American Way

Even, if by some miracle, Jewish ethnic activism in all its forms ceased, yet we would be left with our Abrahamic religion, our Christianity-founded political philosophy (with its bromides of “liberty” and “equality”), the question of capital, the nature of modernity, power elitism, and so forth.  Some of this we cannot reasonably expect to change in the medium-term.  Some we can.

In addition to answering the Jewish Question, to end the declension and commence upon the re-centering of our people will, as a minimum, take the replacement of liberalism and the social conservatisation of society, the replacement of the power elites, the de-Marxification of the middle-class and the de-globalism of the business class, and, most of all, mass repatriation.

Posted by Jon on Mon, 05 May 2014 08:00 | #

Guessedworker:

Jews are “just another problem”.  Single Jewish Causers are simply people with no analytic capacity.

“Single causer” is an epithet often applied to people who hold that the “chosen” are merely a sine qua non.  And highly intelligent, capable, cohesive and organised people who control the finances and major propaganda organs of the ‘West and clearly want us blended into the rest of humanity are not “just another problem”. It is certainly arguable that they are our chief problem.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 05 May 2014 08:03 | #

Look past them at the nature of the thought which conditions the world we inhabit.  There is the real reason Jews and Jewish activism are so ensconsed.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Mon, 05 May 2014 11:45 | #

Shall we blame the pathogen, or the weakness of our immune system?

Yes!

Posted by Thorn on Mon, 05 May 2014 11:54 | #

Things were moving along quite well for white people until cultural-Marxism (a secular ideology!) was forcefully injected into the thought processes of the white collective conscious. The question is why cultural Marxism was created in the first place. The Frankfort School provides many answers. Also, Antonio Gramsci’s work is very instructive as to why white people have devolved and sank into the quagmire of self destruction.

The Ghost of Antonio Gramsci

By Gary DeMar

For a long time American Vision has been calling on Christians to understand that social change comes from the bottom up, not the top down. This does not mean that the top should be ignored. There were converts in “Caesar’s household” (Phil. 4:22). Political involvement is God-ordained and “ministerial” (Rom. 13:1, 4), not redemptive (John 19:15; cf. Acts 17:7). With these principles in mind, more attention should be given to family, church, education, business, law, art, journalism, and entertainment while not ignoring politics.

The Left learned this in the 1960s when their political agenda failed to accomplish their stated goals. Their radical agenda was shot down politically because the majority of Americans still retained a remnant of the older Christian worldview. The Left knew it would be necessary to capture those institutions that shape and mold children who will one day become leaders. Once the heart and mind are captured, everything else follows, including politics. This is a major tactical maneuver that most on the Right did not understand.

Antonio Gramsci’s philosophy for cultural and social change was the model for the new Leftists. Gramsci (1891–1937) considered Christianity to be the “force binding all the classes—peasants and workers and princes and priests and popes and all the rest besides, into a single, homogeneous culture. It was specifically Christian culture, in which individual men and women understood that the most important things about human life transcend the material conditions in which they lived out their mortal lives.”[1] Gramsci broke with Marx and Lenin’s belief that the masses would rise up and overthrow the ruling “superstructure.” No matter how oppressed the working classes might be, their Christian faith would not allow such an overthrow, Gramsci theorized. Marxists taught “that everything valuable in life was within mankind.”[2]

The Christian masses rejected the secular foundation of Marx. Perceptively, Gramsci realized that in the long run what people did not ultimately believe in they would not fight for. Was Gramsci right? “The only Marxist state that existed” in Gramsci’s day “was imposed and maintained by force and by terrorist policies that duplicated and even exceeded the worst facets of Mussolini’s Fascism.”[3] The building of the Berlin Wall was the most visible evidence of Gramsci’s critique of traditional Marxism. Walls had to be built to keep people from escaping the “Workers’ Paradise.” Today, a majority of Americans, including Christians, crave what Gramsci envisioned. Not a shot was fired or a wall built to bring Marxism to America.

While Gramsci was still a committed Marxist and “totally convinced that the material dimension of everything in the universe, including mankind, was the whole of it,”[4] he believed that the road taken by traditional Marxists to “utopia” was one lined with formidable obstacles.

Gramsci began his re-imaging of Marxism by dropping the harsh slogans. “It wouldn’t do to rant about ‘revolution’ and ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ and the ‘Workers’ Paradise.’”[5] Instead, Marxism would have to put on a new face and talk about “national consensus,” “national unity,” and “national pacification.” Sound familiar? The democratic process rather than revolution would be used to bring about the necessary changes. At first, pluralism would be promoted and defended. Further, Marxists would join with other oppressed groups—even if they did not share Marxist ideals—to create a unified coalition of voting power. After building their coalition “they must enter into every civil, cultural and political activity in every nation, patiently leavening them all as thoroughly as yeast leavens bread.”[6]

Even after all of these successes, Gramsci still understood that Christianity remained his biggest obstacle in achieving his newly formulated Marxist goals. He had to strip the mind of any notion of the transcendent—“that there is nothing beyond the matter of this universe. There is nothing in existence that transcends man—his material organism within his material surroundings.”[7]

The pagan notion of the separation of the two realms that has dogged orthodox Christianity since the first century had to be reintroduced.

In the most practical terms, he needed to get individuals and groups in every class and station of life to think about life’s problems without reference to the Christian transcendent, without reference to God and the laws of God. He needed to get them to react with antipathy and positive opposition to any introduction of Christian ideals or the Christian transcendent into the treatment and solution of the problems of modern life.[8]

The here and now must be absolutized and made the reference point for everything we think and do. “Everything must be done in the name of man’s dignity and rights, and in the name of his autonomy and freedom from outside constraint. From the claims and constraints of Christianity, above all.”[9] Has Gramsci been successful? Most definitely. You’ve heard it said:

•What a person does in his private life does not affect his ability to govern.
•It’s just about sex, even if it’s adultery.
•Religion and politics don’t mix.
•You can’t impose your morality on others.
•You can’t legislate morality.

The transcendent is no longer a viable reference point in Blue America. All of life is immanent, that is, all that counts is the here and now. Establishment Republicans want to silence Christians. Democrats liberalized the Bible. They pick and choose only those Bible passages that they claim support their statist agenda. Libertarians, like Gramsci, believe “everything must be done in the name of man’s dignity and rights, and in the name of his autonomy and freedom from outside constraint.” America is haunted by the ghost of Antonio Gramsci.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 05 May 2014 14:18 | #

Jimmy, badly formed question.  The correct one is: Shall we blame the open door to our house, or the people who could walk through it?

What do you expect Jews to do if presented with a Judaic faith system and a liberal polity?

Posted by Bob in DC on Mon, 05 May 2014 16:41 | #

The people’s psychological immune deficiency—that which so often invites and enables jew manipulation—must be ameliorated.

The obvious ongoing threats posed by Enemy #1 must be eliminated.

Can these essential tasks possibly be done concurrently, or will concentrating on one or the other be more effective?

One is clear and succinctly defined, whereas the other is a matter of much conjecture.

‘Order’ means just that: we properly order our activities according to our knowledge.

To resist the idea that jews are “just another problem” is not to proffer that there are no others. It is merely to suggest that we do “first things first”.

We must cast the crime syndicate cult from our presence, and all Jews from our realm!

RESIST !!!

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 05 May 2014 17:18 | #

There is no psychological immune deficiency.  MacDonald made a mistake.  He is a psychologist, not a philosopher.  He looked in the structure of the mind for what exists in its thought.  Those who have internalised it and speak from it are not to blame for their suggestibility.  But nothing useful can come of a mistaken beginning.

Posted by Bob in DC on Mon, 05 May 2014 19:03 | #

Lol ... did Kevin MacDonald ever mention ‘psychological immune deficiency’? I wouldn’t know!

What is it? ... Basically:

1. Greed

2. Gullibility

3. The Error of Empathy

The third element is a weakness which Whites are most saddled with, and which ####jews take the most advantage of.

They successfully put the more creative White into the shoes of non-whites, synthesizing White empathy into sympathy—with obvious detrimental results.

RESIST !!!

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 05 May 2014 20:55 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on May 05, 2014, 12:18 PM | #

There is no psychological immune deficiency.  MacDonald made a mistake.  He is a psychologist, not a philosopher.  He looked in the structure of the mind for what exists in its thought.  Those who have internalised it and speak from it are not to blame for their suggestibility.  But nothing useful can come of a mistaken beginning.

That’s a significant point, GW.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 05 May 2014 22:00 | #

Those who have internalised it and speak from it are not to blame for their suggestibility.

How do we explain Diogenes and the cosmopolitanism of Hellenism? Suggestibility?

“Asked where he came from, he answered: ‘I am a citizen of the world (kosmopolitês)’”.

He looked in the structure of the mind for what exists in its thought.

Sympathy and conscience are not of thought…

“As man advances in civilization, and small tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. This point being once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and races.”
― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

WN calls for the extension of social instincts and sympathies to all Europeans. “This point being once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and races.” Are those who internalized WN to blame for their suggestibility?

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 06 May 2014 01:33 | #

Diogenes would appear to have been an attention-seeker and a public nuisance.  Why does this person hold a lesson for us all?

As for sympathy and conscience, these are NOT somehow universalistic in the European nature, but may become partly so in some people owing to that which is received into personality from without.  It is pretty hopeless, imo, for a psychologist to study these matters without correcting for time and place as major influences in personality formation.  It is those influences towards which I am attempting to gesture.

I doubt if Darwin grasped them much either.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 06 May 2014 07:27 | #

Incidentally, how does this crazed universalism of the European Mind square with the evidence for implicit racism?

Posted by wobbly on Wed, 07 May 2014 01:43 | #

Incidentally, how does this crazed universalism of the European Mind square with the evidence for implicit racism?

I don’t think it is an active crazed universalism so much as an indirect side-effect of the reduced level of clannishness.

Humans are a social animal. The strongest force is the force of social conformity. The weakening of the default glue of human society - very close blood kinship - led to the need for a new and different form of social glue based on a mixture of relatedness and foundational ideal and a powerful impulse to **conform** to the foundational ideals they are taught as **children**.

Nationalism was the end product of this process in Europe. America - maybe the level of actual relatedness was too low from the start hence the magnification of the ideal side of the equation: we hold these truths to be self-evident etc, but still mostly for “our posterity”. Either way the ideal part of the equation is in the hands of what is effectively a priesthood and gets passed on from generation to generation.

So how did things change? Did people who were sixty in 1965 change the foundational views they were taught as children or people who were forty in 1965? No. What happened was the foundational ideals **their children** were taught in the schools and cinemas were changed while the adults weren’t paying attention.

Hence the conflict between most people’s instinctive behavior and the learned foundational ideals they were fed when young.

We let our enemies teach our children.

So the crazed part isn’t the universalism. The crazed part is the impulse for social conformity - which isn’t crazed at all and makes perfect sense if you have a benign priesthood. The crazed part comes when this drive for social conformity is combined with a malign priesthood.

 

Posted by Bill on Wed, 07 May 2014 05:37 | #

@ 15

So how did things change? Did people who were sixty in 1965 change the foundational views they were taught as children or people who were forty in 1965? No. What happened was the foundational ideals **their children** were taught in the schools and cinemas were changed while the adults weren’t paying attention.

The influence of Television in every home has been the major contributory factor for the decline of whites.  Surely there is no more powerful tool for brainwashing 100’s of millions of people in the comfort of their own home.

Television became of age by 1960 more or less in tandem with the counter culture revolution.

The wrong people got hold of Television right from the start, they knew the most powerful instrument ever devised for mass hypnotism was the way to go.  Whitey never stood a chance.

Just compare the output of Hollywood from the 1950’s through to the present day.  Hollywood and Television are the same people with the same agenda - same goals.

The influence of Television in shaping people’s opinion is incalculable.

Could television have achieved the transformation we’re talking about on its own?  I dunno.

The left’s long march through the DNA of whites included television - so who knows?

 

 

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 07 May 2014 08:10 | #

Defenders of MacDonald will no doubt point to his article, “Can Americans Really be Brainwashed?” to note the social conditioning that can redirect implicit racism into explicit liberalism. However, to leave the argument there is to miss an important point. We have been getting a lot of argument at MR that Whites are somehow innately deficient in their ethnocentrism. GW initiated an excellent counter-point that this argument stems from an overly psychological point of view.

While l defend the epoch as having a significant purpose and the Beatles talent in particular (not to mention wishing to redefine the word “left”, postmodernity, etc), when Bill talks of the media at that time turning to a sardonic attitude toward conservatism and tradition, I am immediately reminded of scenes in “A Hard Day’s Night”.

A not particularly funny display of liberal mockery of the older generation (including for having fought in the war):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Nq-GyLrtHc

George is asked to set a trend with “Susan from the right wing party” but flouts her as “a drag”...that “posh bird who gets everything all wrong”...he always turns the sound down on her when she comes on TV and mocks her with rest of the Bealtes:

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

...there is another scene in the movie where one Beatle mocks another for reading a book.

Posted by Bill on Wed, 07 May 2014 10:47 | #

The Beatles.

“A Hard Day’s Night”

It’s been a hard day’s night, and I’d been working like a dog
It’s been a hard day’s night, I should be sleeping like a log
But when I get home to you I find the things that you do
Will make me feel alright

You know I work all day to get you money to buy you things
And it’s worth it just to hear you say you’re going to give me everything
So why on earth should I moan, cos when I get you alone
You know I feel OK

When I’m home everything seems to be right
When I’m home feeling you holding me tight, tight, yeah

It’s been a hard day’s night, and I’d been working like a dog
It’s been a hard day’s night, I should be sleeping like a log
But when I get home to you I find the things that you do
Will make me feel alright owww

So why on earth should I moan, cos when I get you alone
You know I feel OK

When I’m home everything seems to be right
When I’m home feeling you holding me tight, tight, yeah

It’s been a hard day’s night, and I’d been working like a dog
It’s been a hard day’s night, I should be sleeping like a log
But when I get home to you I find the things that you do
Will make me feel alright
You know I feel alright
You know I feel alright

Bill I’ll be back.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 07 May 2014 11:07 | #

But they love you, Bill, and you know that can’t be bad..yeah yeah yeah…..YEAH!

Posted by wobbly on Wed, 07 May 2014 12:53 | #

The wrong people got hold of Television right from the start, they knew the most powerful instrument ever devised for mass hypnotism was the way to go.  Whitey never stood a chance.

If you look at the process of how things changed I don’t think you can come to any other conclusion than the other side targeted the children. Almost no adults were ever turned natural to liberal.

Could television have achieved the transformation we’re talking about on its own?  I dunno.

I don’t think it’s the whole story. You can see the extent of PC influenced thinking running in a cline from north to south in Europe with a peak in Scandinavia so there is a genetic / cultural difference as well imo (which I assume exists because it was important for survival at some point).

I think what’s happened is a combination of that strong drive to build group cohesion around commonly held foundational ideals (as a substitute for clan-based cohesion) and the poisoning of those foundations by a malign priesthood (which includes genuinely universalist liberals as well as tribal nationalists masquerading as liberals).

Hence the segments of the White population who have been the most resistant to PC programming are either the most clannish segments or the segments that most sealed themselves off.

 

Posted by Jon on Wed, 07 May 2014 13:37 | #

Guessedworker: “Jimmy, badly formed question.  The correct one is: Shall we blame the open door to our house, or the people who could walk through it?”

Whom or what to blame is a useless exercise. How about asking instead, what do we do about the people who are occupying our house and how do we convince the members of the family who see no problem with it that it is indeed a problem?

Posted by wobbly on Wed, 07 May 2014 13:59 | #

how do we convince the members of the family who see no problem with it that it is indeed a problem?

Undermine the false priests. You undermine false priests by focusing on their double standards.

It’s not quick but drop by drop it works - like Chinese water torture.

“If they believe diversity is so great why do they all live in all-white areas and send their kids to all-white schools.”

etc

Posted by Bill on Wed, 07 May 2014 14:03 | #

In 1955, a phenomena was born in the world of pop music.

I’ve read the most extraordinary stories (on the Internet) of what lay behind the birth and promotion of the new craze of what was immediately dubbed as - Rock ‘n’ Roll.

It’s a long and circuitous (and yes) incredible story of Sex - Drugs - Rock ‘n’ Roll and how it was promoted and intertwined within the backcloth of those times, namely - The Cold War between the Western Allies and the Soviet Union.

The war of Capitalism versus Communism.

It would be sheer folly of me to attempt to relate this story at length for a whole myriad of reasons, not least because I’m not in the least bit capable of doing so.

I will summarise briefly the bare bones in saying that rock - pop music- drugs - sex is alleged to be the brainchild of the architects of the counter culture revolution and its aims.

Sex - Drugs - Pop music (Rock ‘n’ Roll) was an orchestrated integrated programme of bringing about the degeneration of American (Western ) youth culture .

Now here’s a Youtube interview you have all heard about or seen.  I have no idea whether it’s a fake or otherwise but its content sure is food for thought.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3nXvScRazg 

 

           

Posted by Jon on Thu, 08 May 2014 06:58 | #

The 60s counterculture was steered from the top and for the most part made from whole cloth.

http://www.gnosticmedia.com/DaveMcGowan2-magic-carpet
http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr93.html

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 08 May 2014 07:18 | #

..........
Jon, I’ve already addressed this McGowan guy (he’s a fraud):

http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/a_conspiracy_theory_of_a_conspiracy_theory_to_attack_white_male_dasein 

I’ve read his whole sixties saga… while his conspiracy theorizing is entertaining, his central hypothesis is not true.

Whereas McGowan claims that the hippie movement was contrived, conceived and implemented from the ground-up by the military industrial complex as controlled opposition.

The teenagers of the time were being subject to the Draft and for an unnecessary war at that.

Though midtdasein for White men was a largely unarticulated response to that, it was an authentic motive indeed.

Conspiracy theorists such McGowan serve unwitting to Jewish motives, but not innocently in that he may line his pockets in their interests - which are to blame White men and distract from their authentic motive, a quest for midtdasein (being amidst the class/group).

While much of the sixties stuff was contrived affectation, most of it was harmless expression of that motive of the assertion of White male being.

It has gotten buried in deliberate mis-association by Jews with their Marxist impositions of the times (think of Berkeley as Marxist and San Francisco more as hippie).

Free love (Marcuse), Feminism (Friedan), Black power (various Marxist influences) “civil rights” (Katzenbach, Frankfurter), were not authentic hippie motives.

Were most of the rock stars of the times jerks, inarticulate of the authentic motives that they illustrated? yes..and McGowan is making no great revelation as such…they were mostly privileged, spoiled and hypocritical insiders, what a surprise.

Though in point of defense, it was hard for White men to articulate this motive (Being) for a number of reasons - I guess one reason would be the elusive nature that GW would call attention to, but also, and not the least of which reason for its being difficult to articulate is that it was turning away from top and typical traditional aspirations of masculinity into basic, organic human requirements. It would be brooking much stigma as such. That is why they remain an easy mark, even today, for the disingenuous.

I have noted that he claimed that “For What it’s Worth?’ was taken to be the closest thing to an anti war protest song and that it is not even really a war protest song…therefore the hippies did not really care about the war.” That just goes to show how shoddy his analysis and understanding of the times were. Hair (the emblematic hippie production) is full of anti War protest. Feel-like-I’m-fixin’-to-die-rag (a seminal moment at the culminating event - Woodstock - of the hippies) is clear in that regard as well.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 13 May 2014 14:59 | #

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-27275383

It remains unclear how the fire started on the third floor.

Pictures clearly showed pro-Ukrainians throwing Molotov cocktails towards the floor.

But Serhiy said he saw someone “on the third floor throw a Molotov cocktail through the closed window. However, the glass didn’t break and a fire started inside”.

People struggled to get out of the smoke-filled floor.

One survivor told Russia Today: “We couldn’t go down, we were seeing people from other floors being brought down and then those rioters down there attacked them like a pack of wolves.”

But other eyewitness reports, for example in the Kyiv Post, said pro-Ukrainian activists rescued dozens of people from the burning building.

Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 14 May 2014 10:32 | #

DEATH TO ‘EMANCIPATORY’ POLITICS! (but interesting and apposite article, nonetheless):

Barbarism with a Human Face

Slavoj Žižek

Again and again in television reports on the mass protests in Kiev against the Yanukovich government, we saw images of protesters tearing down statues of Lenin. It was an easy way to demonstrate anger: the statues functioned as a symbol of Soviet oppression, and Putin’s Russia is perceived as continuing the Soviet policy of Russian domination of its neighbours. Bear in mind that it was only in 1956 that Lenin’s statues started to proliferate throughout the Soviet Union: until then, statues of Stalin were much more common. But after Krushchev’s ‘secret’ denunciation of Stalin at the 20th Congress of the Communist Party, Stalin’s statues were replaced en masse by Lenin’s: Lenin was literally a stand-in for Stalin. This was made equally clear by a change made in 1962 to the masthead of Pravda. Until then, at the top left-hand corner of the front page, there had been a drawing of two profiles, Lenin’s and Stalin’s, side by side. Shortly after the 22nd Congress publicly rejected Stalin, his profile wasn’t merely removed but replaced with a second profile of Lenin: now there were two identical Lenins printed side by side. In a way, this weird repetition made Stalin more present in his absence than ever.

There was nonetheless a historical irony in watching Ukrainians tearing down Lenin’s statues as a sign of their will to break with Soviet domination and assert their national sovereignty. The golden era of Ukrainian national identity was not tsarist Russia – where Ukrainian national self-assertion was thwarted – but the first decade of the Soviet Union, when Soviet policy in a Ukraine exhausted by war and famine was ‘indigenisation’. Ukrainian culture and language were revived, and rights to healthcare, education and social security introduced. Indigenisation followed the principles formulated by Lenin in quite unambiguous terms:

The proletariat cannot but fight against the forcible retention of the oppressed nations within the boundaries of a given state, and this is exactly what the struggle for the right of self-determination means. The proletariat must demand the right of political secession for the colonies and for the nations that ‘its own’ nation oppresses. Unless it does this, proletarian internationalism will remain a meaningless phrase; mutual confidence and class solidarity between the workers of the oppressing and oppressed nations will be impossible.

Lenin remained faithful to this position to the end: immediately after the October Revolution, when Rosa Luxembourg argued that small nations should be given full sovereignty only if progressive forces would predominate in the new state, Lenin was in favour of an unconditional right to secede.

In his last struggle against Stalin’s project for a centralised Soviet Union, Lenin again advocated the unconditional right of small nations to secede (in this case, Georgia was at stake), insisting on the full sovereignty of the national entities that composed the Soviet state – no wonder that, on 27 September 1922, in a letter to the Politburo, Stalin accused Lenin of ‘national liberalism’. The direction in which Stalin was already heading is clear from his proposal that the government of Soviet Russia should also be the government of the other five republics (Ukraine, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia):
If the present decision is confirmed by the Central Committee of the RCP, it will not be made public, but communicated to the Central Committees of the Republics for circulation among the Soviet organs, the Central Executive Committees or the Congresses of the Soviets of the said Republics before the convocation of the All-Russian Congress of the Soviets, where it will be declared to be the wish of these Republics.

The interaction of the higher authority, the Central Committee, with its base was thus abolished: the higher authority now simply imposed its will. To add insult to injury, the Central Committee decided what the base would ask the higher authority to enact, as if it were its own wish. In the most conspicuous case, in 1939, the three Baltic states asked to join the Soviet Union, which granted their wish. In all this, Stalin was returning to pre-Revolutionary tsarist policy: Russia’s colonisation of Siberia in the 17th century and Muslim Asia in the 19th was no longer condemned as imperialist expansion, but celebrated for setting these traditional societies on the path of progressive modernisation. Putin’s foreign policy is a clear continuation of the tsarist-Stalinist line. After the Russian Revolution, according to Putin, the Bolsheviks did serious damage to Russia’s interests: ‘The Bolsheviks, for a number of reasons – may God judge them – added large sections of the historical south of Russia to the Republic of Ukraine. This was done with no consideration for the ethnic make-up of the population, and today these areas form the south-east of Ukraine.’

No wonder Stalin’s portraits are on show again at military parades and public celebrations, while Lenin has been obliterated. In an opinion poll carried out in 2008 by the Rossiya TV station, Stalin was voted the third greatest Russian of all time, with half a million votes. Lenin came in a distant sixth. Stalin is celebrated not as a Communist but as a restorer of Russian greatness after Lenin’s anti-patriotic ‘deviation’. Putin recently used the term Novorossiya (‘New Russia’) for the seven south-eastern oblasts of Ukraine, resuscitating a term last used in 1917.

But the Leninist undercurrent, though repressed, persisted in the Communist underground opposition to Stalin. Long before Solzhenitsyn, as Christopher Hitchens wrote in 2011, ‘the crucial questions about the Gulag were being asked by left oppositionists, from Boris Souvarine to Victor Serge to C.L.R. James, in real time and at great peril. Those courageous and prescient heretics have been somewhat written out of history (they expected far worse than that, and often received it).’ This internal dissent was a natural part of the Communist movement, in clear contrast to fascism. ‘There were no dissidents in the Nazi Party,’ Hitchens went on, ‘risking their lives on the proposition that the Führer had betrayed the true essence of National Socialism.’ Precisely because of this tension at the heart of the Communist movement, the most dangerous place to be at the time of the 1930s purges was at the top of the nomenklatura: in the space of a couple of years, 80 per cent of the Central Committee and the Red Army leadership were shot. Another sign of dissent could be detected in the last days of ‘really existing socialism’, when protesting crowds sang official songs, including national anthems, to remind the powers of their unfulfilled promises. In the GDR, by contrast, between the early 1970s and 1989, to sing the national anthem in public was a criminal offence: its words (‘Deutschland einig Vaterland’, ‘Germany, the united Fatherland’) didn’t fit with the idea of East Germany as a new socialist nation.

The resurgence of Russian nationalism has caused certain historical events to be rewritten. A recent biopic, Andrei Kravchuk’s Admiral, celebrates the life of Aleksandr Kolchak, the White commander who governed Siberia between 1918 and 1920. But it’s worth remembering the totalitarian potential, as well as the outright brutality, of the White counter-revolutionary forces during this period. Had the Whites won the Civil War, Hitchens writes, ‘the common word for fascism would have been a Russian one, not an Italian one … Major General William Graves, who commanded the American Expeditionary Force during the 1918 invasion of Siberia (an event thoroughly airbrushed from all American textbooks), wrote in his memoirs about the pervasive, lethal anti-Semitism that dominated the Russian right wing and added: “I doubt if history will show any country in the world during the last fifty years where murder could be committed so safely, and with less danger of punishment, than in Siberia during the reign of Admiral Kolchak.”’

The entire European neo-fascist right (in Hungary, France, Italy, Serbia) firmly supports Russia in the ongoing Ukrainian crisis, giving the lie to the official Russian presentation of the Crimean referendum as a choice between Russian democracy and Ukrainian fascism. The events in Ukraine – the massive protests that toppled Yanukovich and his gang – should be understood as a defence against the dark legacy resuscitated by Putin. The protests were triggered by the Ukrainian government’s decision to prioritise good relations with Russia over the integration of Ukraine into the European Union. Predictably, many anti-imperialist leftists reacted to the news by patronising the Ukrainians: how deluded they are still to idealise Europe, not to be able to see that joining the EU would just make Ukraine an economic colony of Western Europe, sooner or later to go the same way as Greece. In fact, Ukrainians are far from blind about the reality of the EU. They are fully aware of its troubles and disparities: their message is simply that their own situation is much worse. Europe may have problems, but they are a rich man’s problems.

Should we, then, simply support the Ukrainian side in the conflict? There is a ‘Leninist’ reason to do so. In Lenin’s very last writings, long after he renounced the utopia of State and Revolution, he explored the idea of a modest, ‘realistic’ project for Bolshevism. Because of the economic underdevelopment and cultural backwardness of the Russian masses, he argues, there is no way for Russia to ‘pass directly to socialism’: all that Soviet power can do is to combine the moderate politics of ‘state capitalism’ with the intense cultural education of the peasant masses – not the brainwashing of propaganda, but a patient, gradual imposition of civilised standards. Facts and figures revealed ‘what a vast amount of urgent spadework we still have to do to reach the standard of an ordinary West European civilised country … We must bear in mind the semi-Asiatic ignorance from which we have not yet extricated ourselves.’ Can we think of the Ukrainian protesters’ reference to Europe as a sign that their goal, too, is ‘to reach the standard of an ordinary Western European civilised country’?

But here things quickly get complicated. What, exactly, does the ‘Europe’ the Ukrainian protesters are referring to stand for? It can’t be reduced to a single idea: it spans nationalist and even fascist elements but extends also to the idea of what Etienne Balibar calls égaliberté, freedom-in-equality, the unique contribution of Europe to the global political imaginary, even if it is in practice today mostly betrayed by European institutions and citizens themselves. Between these two poles, there is also a naive trust in the value of European liberal-democratic capitalism. Europe can see in the Ukrainian protests its own best and worst sides, its emancipatory universalism as well as its dark xenophobia.

Let’s begin with the dark xenophobia. The Ukrainian nationalist right is one instance of what is going on today from the Balkans to Scandinavia, from the US to Israel, from Central Africa to India: ethnic and religious passions are exploding, and Enlightenment values receding. These passions have always been there, lurking; what’s new is the outright shamelessness of their display. Imagine a society which has fully integrated into itself the great modern axioms of freedom, equality, the right to education and healthcare for all its members, and in which racism and sexism have been rendered unacceptable and ridiculous. But then imagine that, step by step, although the society continues to pay lip service to these axioms, they are de facto deprived of their substance. Here is an example from very recent European history: in the summer of 2012, Viktor Orbán, the right-wing Hungarian prime minister, declared that a new economic system was needed in Central Europe. ‘Let us hope,’ he said, ‘that God will help us and we will not have to invent a new type of political system instead of democracy that would need to be introduced for the sake of economic survival … Co-operation is a question of force, not of intention. Perhaps there are countries where things don’t work that way, for example in the Scandinavian countries, but such a half-Asiatic rag-tag people as we are can unite only if there is force.’

The irony of these words wasn’t lost on some old Hungarian dissidents: when the Soviet army moved into Budapest to crush the 1956 uprising, the message repeatedly sent by the beleaguered Hungarian leaders to the West was that they were defending Europe against the Asiatic communists. Now, after the collapse of communism, the Christian-conservative government paints as its main enemy the multicultural consumerist liberal democracy for which today’s Western Europe stands. Orbán has already expressed his sympathy for ‘capitalism with Asian values’; if the European pressure on Orbán continues, we can easily imagine him sending a message to the East: ‘We are defending Asia here!’

 

Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 14 May 2014 10:33 | #

cntd.

Today’s anti-immigrant populism has replaced direct barbarism with a barbarism that has a human face. It enacts a regression from the Christian ethic of ‘love thy neighbour’ back to the pagan privileging of the tribe over the barbarian Other. Even as it represents itself as a defence of Christian values, it is in fact the greatest threat to the Christian legacy. ‘Men who begin to fight the Church for the sake of freedom and humanity,’ G.K. Chesterton wrote a hundred years ago, ‘end by flinging away freedom and humanity if only they may fight the Church … The secularists have not wrecked divine things; but the secularists have wrecked secular things, if that is any comfort to them.’ Doesn’t the same hold for the advocates of religion too? Fanatical defenders of religion start out attacking contemporary secular culture; it’s no surprise when they end up forsaking any meaningful religious experience.

In a similar way, many liberal warriors are so eager to fight anti-democratic fundamentalism that they end up flinging away freedom and democracy if only they may fight terror. The ‘terrorists’ may be ready to wreck this world for love of another, but the warriors on terror are just as ready to wreck their own democratic world out of hatred for the Muslim other. Some of them love human dignity so much that they are ready to legalise torture to defend it. The defenders of Europe against the immigrant threat are doing much the same. In their zeal to protect the Judeo-Christian legacy, they are ready to forsake what is most important in that legacy. The anti-immigrant defenders of Europe, not the notional crowds of immigrants waiting to invade it, are the true threat to Europe.

One of the signs of this regression is a request often heard on the new European right for a more ‘balanced’ view of the two ‘extremisms’, the right and the left. We are repeatedly told that one should treat the extreme left (communism) the same way that Europe after the Second World War treated the extreme right (the defeated fascists). But in reality there is no balance here: the equation of fascism and communism secretly privileges fascism. Thus the right are heard to argue that fascism copied communism: before becoming a fascist, Mussolini was a socialist; Hitler, too, was a National Socialist; concentration camps and genocidal violence were features of the Soviet Union a decade before Nazis resorted to them; the annihilation of the Jews has a clear precedent in the annihilation of the class enemy, etc. The point of these arguments is to assert that a moderate fascism was a justified response to the communist threat (a point made long ago by Ernst Nolte in his defence of Heidegger’s involvement with Nazism). In Slovenia, the right is advocating the rehabilitation of the anti-communist Home Guard which fought the partisans during the Second World War: they made the difficult choice to collaborate with the Nazis in order to thwart the much greater evil of communism.

Mainstream liberals tell us that when basic democratic values are under threat from ethnic or religious fundamentalists, we should unite behind the liberal-democratic agenda, save what can be saved, and put aside dreams of more radical social transformation. But there is a fatal flaw in this call for solidarity: it ignores the way in which liberalism and fundamentalism are caught in a vicious cycle. It is the aggressive attempt to export liberal permissiveness that causes fundamentalism to fight back vehemently and assert itself. When we hear today’s politicians offering us a choice between liberal freedom and fundamentalist oppression, and triumphantly asking the rhetorical question, ‘Do you want women to be excluded from public life and deprived of their rights? Do you want every critic of religion to be put to death?’, what should make us suspicious is the very self-evidence of the answer: who would want that? The problem is that liberal universalism has long since lost its innocence. What Max Horkheimer said about capitalism and fascism in the 1930s applies in a different context today: those who don’t want to criticise liberal democracy should also keep quiet about religious fundamentalism.

What of the fate of the liberal-democratic capitalist European dream in Ukraine? It isn’t clear what awaits Ukraine within the EU. I’ve often mentioned a well-known joke from the last decade of the Soviet Union, but it couldn’t be more apposite. Rabinovitch, a Jew, wants to emigrate. The bureaucrat at the emigration office asks him why, and Rabinovitch answers: ‘Two reasons. The first is that I’m afraid the Communists will lose power in the Soviet Union, and the new power will put all the blame for the Communists’ crimes on us, the Jews.’ ‘But this is pure nonsense,’ the bureaucrat interrupts, ‘nothing can change in the Soviet Union, the power of the Communists will last for ever!’ ‘Well,’ Rabinovitch replies, ‘that’s my second reason.’ Imagine the equivalent exchange between a Ukrainian and an EU administrator. The Ukrainian complains: ‘There are two reasons we are panicking here in Ukraine. First, we’re afraid that under Russian pressure the EU will abandon us and let our economy collapse.’ The EU administrator interrupts: ‘But you can trust us, we won’t abandon you. In fact, we’ll make sure we take charge of your country and tell you what to do!’ ‘Well,’ the Ukrainian replies, ‘that’s my second reason.’ The issue isn’t whether Ukraine is worthy of Europe, and good enough to enter the EU, but whether today’s Europe can meet the aspirations of the Ukrainians. If Ukraine ends up with a mixture of ethnic fundamentalism and liberal capitalism, with oligarchs pulling the strings, it will be as European as Russia (or Hungary) is today. (Too little attention is drawn to the role played by the various groups of oligarchs – the ‘pro-Russian’ ones and the ‘pro-Western’ ones – in the events in Ukraine.)

Some political commentators claim that the EU hasn’t given Ukraine enough support in its conflict with Russia, that the EU response to the Russian occupation and annexation of Crimea was half-hearted. But there is another kind of support which has been even more conspicuously absent: the proposal of any feasible strategy for breaking the deadlock. Europe will be in no position to offer such a strategy until it renews its pledge to the emancipatory core of its history. Only by leaving behind the decaying corpse of the old Europe can we keep the European legacy of égaliberté alive. It is not the Ukrainians who should learn from Europe: Europe has to learn to live up to the dream that motivated the protesters on the Maidan. The lesson that frightened liberals should learn is that only a more radical left can save what is worth saving in the liberal legacy today.

The Maidan protesters were heroes, but the true fight – the fight for what the new Ukraine will be – begins now, and it will be much tougher than the fight against Putin’s intervention. A new and riskier heroism will be needed. It has been shown already by those Russians who oppose the nationalist passion of their own country and denounce it as a tool of power. It’s time for the basic solidarity of Ukrainians and Russians to be asserted, and the very terms of the conflict rejected. The next step is a public display of fraternity, with organisational networks established between Ukrainian political activists and the Russian opposition to Putin’s regime. This may sound utopian, but it is only such thinking that can confer on the protests a truly emancipatory dimension. Otherwise, we will be left with a conflict of nationalist passions manipulated by oligarchs. Such geopolitical games are of no interest whatever to authentic emancipatory politics.

25 April

Vol. 36 No. 9 · 8 May 2014

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 17 Jul 2014 07:41 | #

иса: I was watching UKRAINIAN TV YESTERDAY evening

daniel sienkiewicz: tell me about it and I will read your message when I can

иса: and they told that Russia would start the war July 15

daniel sienkiewicz: (:|

иса: Crazy people

daniel sienkiewicz: indeed

there is a lot of money to be made with war.

It is a Jew harvest.

иса: They are prepareing for the war here

daniel sienkiewicz: It is almost too disgusting to believe

иса: It`s true

daniel sienkiewicz: maybe some cooperative business endeavors would help; surrounding food, water and energy sources

to give us independence from corrupt powers

иса: Daniel…they are crazy

I do not understand where they get such information

They try to scare people

daniel sienkiewicz: Its probably a Mossad disinformation campaign

remember their motto: “wage war by deception”

иса: They mobilize men in the army

daniel sienkiewicz: and…the Latin question, “cui bono?” ..who benefits?

иса: Daniel…it`s so hard to watch such things on TV

daniel sienkiewicz: :(

иса: My parents say that Ukrainians got crazy

daniel sienkiewicz: what changed?

иса: not all

but most of them

People do not understand the situation

They think that Russia wants their lands

their cities and towns

daniel sienkiewicz: But Russia probably will take the eastern provinces, won’t they?

иса: of course, no

if Ukraine will not start a war

Many of them say stupid things about Russia

daniel sienkiewicz: So, if a lot of Ukrainians have changed, it must be that some information (propaganda) has changed.

If Victoria Nuland is spending 5 billion dollars, a lot of that is going to go to anti Russian propaganda..

иса: Old people (side) for Russia

They say that jews and America did it in Ukraine

daniel sienkiewicz: and that’s true.

иса: but young people do not understand it

they blame Russia in all their problems

daniel sienkiewicz: Putin took the side of Syria..he took the side of Iran

The JewUSA wants to punish him.

their money, media, political control is powerful

иса: It`s clear but Ukrainians do not understand it

daniel sienkiewicz: Its unfortunate

I wonder what might be done

иса: I do not see people from Russia in the place where my parents live

daniel sienkiewicz: were they there before?

have they left in fear?

иса: They are afraid of coming there though their parents live there

daniel sienkiewicz: wow

иса: They live in Russia but their parents live in Ukraine

like my case

But this summer they do not come here

daniel sienkiewicz: I understand

and I guess they are right to be afraid.

иса: You cannot see the cars from Russia

It`s so sad to watch such situation here

daniel sienkiewicz: It’s all so Jewish.. such standard Jewish operating procedure: divide and conquer

иса: yes

daniel sienkiewicz: I think one thing that makes it hard
is that people who are closely related are not always more friendly to one another

sometimes they naturally fight more

if they do not have “parental” intervention.

иса: some are but some not

daniel sienkiewicz: yes..but.

but it is complicated

and it is a question that I want to take up here at Majority Rights.

to discuss it with Dr. Lister and maybe Frank Salter -

he is the one who is famous for “E.G.I”

иса: ????

daniel sienkiewicz: Ethnic genetic interests

иса: aha

daniel sienkiewicz: it is a scientific study of genetic interests

which proves, for example, that “diversity” does not make for a friendly nation..

but of course, a conflicted one.

иса: so, we`ll see

daniel sienkiewicz: but Jewish interests, of course, are always pushing “diversity”

as if it is good in itself.

иса: I hate Jews

daniel sienkiewicz: you are right to do so.

but try not to be too emotional about it.

try to stay rational.

That is one big advantage that I have with regard to Jews.

I don’t know why, but I don’t have strong emotions with regard to them.

.. only for moments, when I talk to them, and I realize vividly how screwed up they can be.

.. but it passes.

иса: good

daniel sienkiewicz: but when and if I talk to them, I find it follows a pattern

I can talk to them easily at first..then I find that I can’t stand them.

That is why I never dated a Jewish woman.

Maybe some of them are pretty, but..

talk to them and that is out the window.

I don’t really know what to do about providing alternative information, propaganda to counter the war mongering stuff that Ukrainians are now being fed.

but there should be efforts on that score.

Narratives emphasizing that Ukrainian and Russian conflict is not in their mutual interest (cui bono? war is a Jew harvest).

иса: I hope that everything will be ok

but to say such things on TV is so stupid

daniel sienkiewicz: you’ll feel better if you try and encourage people to try a little bit to put out the alternative narrative.

many people look to the Internet now, not TV

иса: no….It`s a bit dangerous for me to do it here

daniel sienkiewicz: I believe it.

I guess its almost like Belarus now.

иса: I do not want any complications here

daniel sienkiewicz: Belarus was/is very dangerous in that way

you must be careful what you say and how you are perceived

иса: I do not know about Belarus but here the situation is not good

daniel sienkiewicz: :(

иса: I want to go back to Russia

daniel sienkiewicz: I guess you mean sooner than you had planned..

but it was brave of you to go to Urkaine at all this year.

иса: Now I do not have any plans but I know one thing I will not travel in Ukraine this summer

daniel sienkiewicz: Its bad. But on the other hand, good to spend more time with your parents.

иса: my parents are ok

they are very brave people

daniel sienkiewicz:

иса: they say what they think

they say that Ukraine should manage all its problem itself

not to blame Russia

daniel sienkiewicz: good

иса: They were so surprised to hear the news about the war with Russia

daniel sienkiewicz: is the announcement official?

иса: they said that Russia was not going to do such things

they said about it yesterday evening on TV

daniel sienkiewicz: well, I am not too sure that Russia would not take the eastern provinces of Ukraine myself

as they took Crimea

I mean, not that I think it was unwarranted.

иса: There was no other variant for Russia

daniel sienkiewicz: of course, regarding Crimea there was no other variant.

As long as Ukraine can one day be a sovereign nation, being a little smaller is not the worst thing.

I do not think Russia taking the eastern provinces would be worth a war either..

even though that would be a bit unfair to Ukraine

at least in my understanding..

those provinces were emptied of Ukrainians by the “Holodomor”

and then Russians moved in.

but..

I see the Holodomor as a Jewish crime

not really a Russian one.

иса: Daniel…Russia do not need Ukrainian lands

daniel sienkiewicz: ok.

иса: it has itself enough

daniel sienkiewicz: but there might be some strategic industry and minerals there, or just that they want buffering..and for these industries not to fall into the hands of their enemies..

that is, it could be “geopolitical strategy” by Putin

and not necessarily wrong

as strategy on the grand chess board.

иса: Daniel…Russia doesn`t want any war

daniel sienkiewicz: because that is what Brzezinksi is doing.

Russia doesn’t want war

but Israel DOES

иса: I know it

daniel sienkiewicz: and they are engaging in brinksmanship strategies that Putin has been effectively countering.

that is why they are so angry with him and Russia

иса: They try to envolve Russia into the war

daniel sienkiewicz: yes.

war “makes sense” for Israel
they have so much money, so much munitions..

иса: but not for Russian people

daniel sienkiewicz: so many “enemies” who will die in war

иса: Putin is a normal man

daniel sienkiewicz: war makes sense for nobody but for Israel and Jews.

иса: HE DOES HIS BEST

daniel sienkiewicz: it is good for nobody but Jews and cut-throat international corporations

I think normal people in the west understand Putin.

they realize he is not the problem.

иса: I hope for it

So, today is July 15

daniel sienkiewicz: Among the normal White nationalist community its sure (he is a civic nationalist, not really a White nationalist, but not exactly against us either – proximately in our interests).

some Nazis do not like him. But they are Nazis. They are not normal.

иса: and there is no war between Russia and Ukraine

Shame on Ukrainian TV

daniel sienkiewicz: It is not Ukrainian TV

it is Jewish TV

иса: But Ukrainians should have their own point of view

daniel sienkiewicz: It is hard when they are a poor nation and they can be bribed by Jewish money.

Ukrainians should have their own point of view?

what about Americans?

Jews are 2 or 3 percent of the population there

and their point of view is ALL encompassing

иса: Americans like eating

daniel sienkiewicz: ..not all Americans are stupid, bad people.

иса: they are not good at many things

daniel sienkiewicz: it is not the point.

the point is

that Jewish interests have been able to take over America

why should it be surprising that they would wield power in Ukraine?

and in fact, they took over Russia for a time

with the Bolshevik Revolution

and still have a lot of power there.

They control London/England

why should they not be difficult for Ukrainians too?

The London Square Mile is the economic center of the world.

Its all Jewsh.

“Give me control over the money supply and I care not who makes the laws” - Mayer Amschel Rothschild

иса: :(

ok…

I`m a bit tired of it

daniel sienkiewicz: I understand. sorry

but the point is..I think its the safest and best way is to address the way people are talking, to avoid deadly Russian/Ukrainian conflict.

Ok, I’m going out now

talk to you later

say hi to your mum and dad..

bye for now (wave)

иса: bye for now
(wave)

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 21 Jul 2014 17:42 | #

daniel sienkiewicz: how’s it going? what do you think of the plane being downed?
иса: I think, we should wait for the rezults of experts
But I do not believe Ukraine
daniel sienkiewicz: what are they saying?
иса: that Russia is guilty in everything
daniel sienkiewicz: I don’t know a lot about it, but from what I do know, it may be an Israeli false flag.
they have done it before.
иса: Russian people say the same
I mean a false flag
daniel sienkiewicz: Did you ever hear the story of the USS Liberty?
иса: Yes, yesterday
daniel sienkiewicz: right.
in 1967 a clearly marked US battleship was attacked by Israel
иса: It was a special programme on Russian TV
daniel sienkiewicz: they wanted to sink it and blame it on Egypt
there is no doubt about it.
though at the time, President Johnson tried to cover it up.

nothing else besides an accident really makes sense of this event of the plane being downed.
and an accident does not make a great deal of sense if it is true that the plane was deliberately diverted into that air space
why would Ukraine do it?
why would Russia do it?
it makes no sense.
but for Israel to do it, does make sense.
иса: :(
but they blame Russia in everything
daniel sienkiewicz: that’s the idea.
“wage war by deception”
иса: yes
daniel sienkiewicz: and you still have these cold war dinosaurs in Brzezinski and John McCain
иса: :(
daniel sienkiewicz: Dick Cheney
these guys are not Jews, but they are perfect tools for the Jews.
Of course I am concerned about the sovereignty of the nations between Russia and Germany
but those concerns are being used in this case, by Israel/USA
..........
иса: the weather is not good
it rains every day
daniel sienkiewicz: lucky you
dog weather here
иса: we would like more sun
daniel sienkiewicz: (sun)
here you are
terrible anti Russian rhetoric on news coming out of the US
иса: yes
daniel sienkiewicz: one news reader said that Putin was not a part of the civilized world because he would not allow other investigators.
absurd
and then some stupid lady from American RT did another one of these phoney protests by quitting RT on the air.
that’s the third one to do that corny trick.
so “offended” by Russia’s actions in Ukraine.
иса: You cannot imagine what they say here about Russia and Putin
иса: I`m tired of everything
daniel sienkiewicz: this is ridiculous..just a year ago they were not saying anything like that
it is so obviously orchestrated propaganda
иса: It`s hard to see such things ...but we shall see
daniel sienkiewicz: some say that the Israelis are trying to distract from what they are doing in Gaza
..to the Palestinians
иса: I know
daniel sienkiewicz: you are great
риса: I watched about it on TV
daniel sienkiewicz: seems they are having good stuff on Russian TV
which channel talked about The US Liberty?
иса: YES
daniel sienkiewicz: that is a Very big development
иса: Russia 24 hours
daniel sienkiewicz: aha
иса: they broadcast about everything
daniel sienkiewicz: good
now, for that Putin deserves A LOT of credit.
he is the one who took Russian control of Russia
my hats off to him.
he is a cool customer
иса: I respect him very much
daniel sienkiewicz:
иса:
You know I`m so sorry of that plane
иса: they talk too much about those events
иса: Why don`t they talk about people who are killed everyday in Ukraine ?
daniel sienkiewicz: because they want attention on that which may create war
иса: I think so
daniel sienkiewicz: yes

Posted by Lurker on Tue, 22 Jul 2014 02:07 | #

This is something I’ve posted umpteen times across Disqus:

Why would Putin/Russia/rebels want a Malaysian airline shot down?

Phase 1> Shoot down Malaysian Airliner.

Phase 2> Vilification in the world’s media.

Phase 3> ?

Phase 4> Russian success!

Would anyone care to explain what Phase 3 might be?

It’s based on this South Park joke.