On the other hand, in Turkey it is a crime to assert that the events of 1915-1916 in Anatolia constitute an Ottoman genocide against the Armenians.
And now comes Russia. Holodomor is the Ukrainian term for the devastating famine in 1933 that killed millions of Ukrainians. Although billed as the time a “terrible humanitarian tragedy” by Stalin’s apologists, it has long been accepted by historians as a calculated strategy by the Soviet regime to break the back of Ukrainian national resistance.Russia, however, isn’t buying it. Tuan Jim, who sent us the tip for this story, included this comment:
Am I the only one who sees parallels between Russia’s justification here and Turkey’s justifications for denying the Armenian genocide?
Here’s the article from Itar-Tass:
Russia Blocks Ukrainian Famine-Genocide Resolution
UNITED NATIONS, December 19 (Itar-Tass) — Russia blocked Ukraine-initiated UN resolution claiming Holodomor in the Soviet Union in early 1930s was famine-genocide aimed against Ukrainians, rather than a common tragedy of many nations in the country.
“We succeeded to block the inclusion of the item into the agenda of the current UN General Assembly,” Russian Ambassador to the United Nations Vitaly Churkin said on Thursday, adding the United States and Great Britain backed the Ukrainian motion, which “ended in nothing.”
Note that the Russian gas pipeline into the Europe seems to have paid off diplomatically. The Russians are convincing “explainers”:
- - - - - - - - -
Churkin said Russian representatives were active in explaining the history of Holodomor to foreign partners. As a result, nine EU countries did not sign the Ukrainian declaration, although “EU members usually act in a consolidated manner”, according to Churkin.
“An overwhelming majority supported the Russian position,” the ambassador said.
He described the Ukrainian initiative to portray Holodomor as genocide against Ukrainians as “an attempt to sow mistrust and hostility between the Russians and Ukrainians. We have a common past and the famine in the ‘30s hit not only Ukraine. Therefore, we (Russia) do not plan to apologize and call it genocide,” he said.
There is ample historical evidence to support the assertion that the Ukrainian famine was a deliberate act. It was the result of a calculated policy by the Politburo to destroy resistance to collectivization among the small landholders and the peasantry, and to force the entire rural population into the kolkhozy (the collective farms), where many of them starved to death.
The only argument against calling the Holodomor a genocide is the claim that it was directed at a class — the kulaks and other remaining “reactionary” landowners — and not an ethnic group. The fact that many people died of starvation in Kazakhstan and other SSRs, as well as in Russia proper, is adduced to support this thesis.
But the bulk of the victims were in the Ukraine. Ukrainian national resistance to collectivization was strong, and millions of Ukrainians died as a result of Stalin’s deliberate actions.
Call it what you will, the Holodomor was a man-made monstrosity whose scope matched and possibly exceeded the Holocaust of the Jews.
25 comments:
"He described the Ukrainian initiative to portray Holodomor as genocide against Ukrainians as “an attempt to sow mistrust and hostility between the Russians and Ukrainians. We have a common past and the famine in the ‘30s hit not only Ukraine. Therefore, we (Russia) do not plan to apologize [As Russians] and call it genocide,” he said."
There's nothing so contemporary as history.
We quibbled the other day about terms, on the difference between genocide and democide. Genocide is killing the body, democide is to kill the mind. The mind is reformable, the body is not. The Soviet Ukraine famine was not genocide because the Bolsheviks do not regard the body as a barrier to the realisation of the Utopia (in sharp contrast to the Nazis). Rather it was democide, an attempt at killing national consciousness. Diversity training with famine.
But there is nothing so contemporary as history and this question is the entirely contemporary one of Ukraine's independence. They can't call it democide because the Soviet's are gone. Calling it genocide means it can be presented as a race war, and so fuel anti-Russian feeling for the cause of Ukrainian independence and NATO/EU membership.
If Ukrainian's like being Ukrainian it is in their interests to not join the EU or NATO.
Wrestling with ruthless russia on their own is not in their interest either.
One can see clearly how the R. identify themselves with their bolshevik past.
Russia is losing right now its only pride - being totally unprepared to tackle with the crisis. Desaudification of Russia? More conspiration theories?..."US did it on purpose"? See the myth of Putin dying - melting away. Oh yes - one strong leader is exactly what they needed, the countless sheep is clueless.
I don't have a problem with the Holodomor being labeled as genocide. But there's a lot of politics involved in this. Ukrainian nationalists want to distance themselves from Russia and join the EU and NATO and they are using the Holodomor to gain Western sympathy and to blacken Russia's image, even though most of the main players in the Holodomor were not ethnic Russians. How convenient for the Left that the famine is now being blamed on Russia rather than the communists who ran the Soviet Union.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Stalin also kill lots of his own people (that is, people living in Russia proper) as well? Of course the Holodomor was a horrendous thing and was intended to break Ukrainian resistance, but I would say in this specific labeling it as a genocide, Ukraine seeks much more than that. There's more to this than meets the eye. Yushchenko has made it a crime for anyone to deny that the Holodomor was genocide. My question is where does it stop? What is to stop Yushchenko (or any leader, for that matter) from making it against the law to disagree with him on anything? That is why I disagree with specifically outlawing Holocaust denial the way Europe does. I abhor Holocaust deniers, but I also believe that people do have the right to express their views, however wrong or offensive said views may be.
The aspect brought up by Avery Bullard, of how these things regularly become twisted to suit a leftist/liberal political agenda, is an important one. This makes this case comparable to how USA refused to join the ICC. Or how VB refused to sign the declaration against anti-Semitism, which painted any opposition to EU multiculturalism and mass immigration as anti-Semitism. Whatever you do, don't let the leftists and Western liberals trap you.
Another aspect, however, is that Russia and Putin, in general, could have been critical vis-a-vis the Soviet Union and Stalin in a way they haven't been. For a Westerner, self-criticism and guilt is the air we breathe, so this cannot be understood. (We even invent fake stories, like anthropogenic global warming, so that we can feel more cosy guilt together). Human groups and societies always "improve" the stories of their past, even if there's something there that is beyond the pale. And it is clearly better to avoid wallowing in guilt over ones past. At least Russia avoids that trap, which is the worst one, and the one that the suicidal West has buried itself completely in. Germany is the country that has (been force to) gone farthest, and in condemning and turning away from its past completely it has killed its soul. We see many countries who have to deal with similar pasts, e.g. China with Mao.
I am disappointed with some attitudes from Russia about their past. Acceptance is fine, but any tendency toward denial or celebration make me cringe. Same with China about Mao. But nevertheless, the most important thing is to avoid succumbing under guilt (as the West) and to always maintain a good story about one's country, and both Russia and China succeed in that. However, the country that succeeds best, in the sort of balance I would like to see, is Italy, and their relation to Mussolini. They are not wallowing in guilt over him, they even celebrate him to some degree, but nothing that makes me cringe. A very healthy balance. But an easy one since Mussolini essentially was a good guy. But come to think of it, Russia has a very similar balance. The difference is that Stalin was so much much worse than Mussolini. But the need for a good national story remains the same in both cases.
Another aspect is the comparison between Turkey and Russia which is made in the article. I think the comparison is superficial and unfair. Turkey has been continuing genocide and ethnic cleansing ever since the Armenian genocide, while Russia is do nothing of the kind. In Turkey you get shot or sent to jail for bringing up the Armenian genocide, in Russia there is free speech and a free press, criticizing the government, e.g. here. So for every attitude about the Soviet Union or Stalin I mentioned above, which I find shady, there is the opposite opinion represented and voiced in Russia. The debate and the regime criticism is much more open and vital in Russia than it is in the West.
The way Tim Juan compares Russia with Turkey makes me think of the Europeans I have discussed with who compare the USA with Iran, since both have the death penalty. This is also a superficial and clueless comparison. An issue is seen through a very narrow ideological prism, and all reality is excluded from the picture. But this is common procedure nowadays. In the end all countries, which do not submit to the most extreme and deranged Enlightenment slogans, become one and the same: Turkey, Russia, USA and Iran, all the same (only Sweden is perfect :-)
I think Russia is better off than most countries for speaking relatively openly about the issues and having an open debate climate. They do not reach Italy's excellent standard of course, but is better off than e.g. Israel. As it has been pointed out by Benny Morris, Israel is a country which is built on ethnic cleansing. But instead of talking about it and accepting it, Israel is in complete denial about it. Morris points out that it's the same with USA. There are two countries in this world who would not have been able to exist at all without virtually complete ethnic cleansing of the previous population, and those are USA and Israel. But maybe it's better in their cases that they are deeply in denial about it, since otherwise they would be destroyed under massive guilt (well they are anyway aren't they?)
I haven't yet declared which cases of ethnic cleansing etc. that I supported and which I didn't, since I have been focusing on the issue of truthfulness about the past, and "improvements" of the national narrative. But for the record these are my positions: I'm really fine with the one Israel did, well done indeed! The American one can be discussed, but it's all far back in the past, so who cares really? The Turks should be ethnically cleansed themselves. And the Soviet mass starvations were a horror, but it was Communists murdering free farmers. So it was not genocide but yet another case of utopiacide, quite as the utopiacide of the West against its own people (follow the trail of Danny the Red and you'll know where the utopiacides are currently going on).
This newstory is completely illogical and politically motivated imo. Why is it that this story and movement comes out when there are Ukrainian nationalists that are trying to distance themselves from Russia, and join the EU and Nato. They're also doing things like changing historical agreements they had with Russia which were celebrated as holidays into days of reflection of the loss of Ukrainian sovereignty. The fact is that both of these people are Slavic, have deep historical roots, are the same religion and the fact that they're right next to each other doesn't seem to deter the Ukrainian nationalists from trying to antagonize Russia as much as possible. Just a few months ago when the Ecumenical Orthodox Patriarch visited Kiev, the president of Ukraine was asking for his blessing to establish a new Ukrainian Orthodox Church. The length that these nationalists go to seems to have no bounds and their original backers, the CIA and people like George Soros who brought these people to power are rubbing their hands in glee at the moment.
Turkey on the other hand is centuries behind Russia in minority rights and freedom of expression. To be a minority living in Turkey today is to live in a nightmare. Besides Christians who are having their places of worship confiscated and are facing daily harassment, other minorities like Shiite Muslims are in the same boat surprisingly. Shiites are scared to death to let the word out that they're Shiite, lest they lose their jobs, or face discrimination in education government or any other area.
This is a bit OffT but aren't anyone going to write about the riots in Malmö, Sweden? Perhaps something for CS, HRC or Fjordman to take on?
Any thoughts that Russia is new and improved over their Soviet past, are entirely mistaken.
Putin speaks on the occasion of The Day Of Security Officers.
"The Day of Security Officers is marked annually on December 20, a day when in 1917 Bolshevik rulers created the CheKa secret police to suppress their foes. After a string of transformations, the Cheka became the KGB."
Separating the Soviet past, from the current Russia, is a fool's errand.
With the constraints placed on political free speech, both in the media, and from private citizens, shows Russia to be the same old bad, bad bear.
Well, that famine did happen, and I would easily qualify it as a genocide. However it was not exclusive to Ukraine. Many other regions had starvations as well and it would be unfair to blame it on "Russians" once Russians back then were just one of the peoples of the "Communist Nation" and were subrepresented in the Soviet Union's rulling positions.
Also, as Baron said, the famine was more severe in Ukraine. Indeed, I'd even say that THE Communists directed their attacks (the famine) particularly to Ukraine rather than to other regions of the country. That is because today's Ukraine had a bigger Tradition of freedom than Russia proper.
But I would say that it was directed AT Ukraine and not at Ukrainians. Ukraine is a region, like the South of the United States. To say that such an ethnic diverse area as the South of the United States is "attacked" with the purpose to destroy only blacks or only whites or only Mexicans is nonesense.
And Ukraine - or at least part of it - was traditionally ethnically diverse if not proeminently Russian (at least the South and East).
In fact, up untill the XVII century what today is South and East Ukraine (the Russophile half of Ukraine) was not Europe. It was ruled by the muslim Cannate of Crimea; The people who lived there were of Mongolian extraction and not Europeans; They were vassals of the Ottoman Turks when they were in their hights and the Crimean Tatars most productive activity was to raid and eslave (and export) the Slavic Christian Europeans next to them, both Russians and Ukrainians; They raided to such an extent that the area became sparsely populated.
Then, I believe under Catherine the Great, the (Northern) Russians (St. Petresburg, Moscow, Novgorod and such) went to war against the Crimean Tatars which caused a lot of destruction. Evidently the Tatars lost and Russians colonisers were sent to colonise Eastern and Southern Ukraine. To them were granted more liberties than in the North (you know this History with the creation of America proper, and, that icon, the West, the "faróeste" with all its "cobóiadas"). Many Ukrainians came as well from Kyev and such, but the Ukrainians considered themselves to be Russians, just an inferior type, like rednecks or rural Europeans.
It was this region that suffered more with the famine, it was not a genocide against Ukrainians, it was a genocide against LIBERTY in the region of Ukraine, because Ukraine used to be no more than geographical distinct area, no more.
To say that it was against Ukrainians it's the same as to say that the Katrina was Nature's genocide directed to blacks.
I think the Ukrainian establishment is abusing a little with this story.
P.S. - Sorry for the terrible English.
Russia this Russia that, So many words. The people in Kremlin are the kind who did it: KGB.
You look at the wolf and you do not see him. Foolish. But you can see the islamic wolf. Strange optics.
Czechmade,
Strange optics, indeed.
No2liberals,
Any thoughts that Russia is new and improved over their Soviet past, are entirely mistaken.
Well, for example Solzhenitsyn didn't agree with you there. And I think he had a much better idea of what he was talking about.
Just to name one example, the Soviet Union was a dogmatic and oppressive atheist system. While today's Russia has its identity deeply gathered around the Orthodox Church, with the blessing of all levels of the society. Nothing new here? Seriously? One would have to be quiet a hardcore atheist type oneself not to see any difference at all here (or are you going to tell me how religion is an opium for the people?)
Putin speaks on the occasion of The Day Of Security Officers.
This article is just a long line of spurious spin. Taking the side of "non-governmental organizations" and "rights campaigners". I have no idea why someone calling himself "no2liberals" is so eager to stand on the side of NGOs and "rights campaigners".
And you take Oleg Shchedrov spin and put it in quotes, as if Putin had said it. But well, he didn't:
No2liberlas quoted Oleg Shchedrov:
The Day of Security Officers is marked annually on December 20, a day when in 1917 Bolshevik rulers created the CheKa secret police to suppress their foes. After a string of transformations, the Cheka became the KGB.
OK, so if its the same day? You would accept no less than a virtual French revolution, overhauling every expression of culture that existed before?
Makes me think of Nelson Mandela. Other ANC people claimed that every little symbol that existed simultaneously with the Apartheid system was an expression of racism. For example the springbok which was used as the symbol of the South African rugby team. Mandela, quite rightly, found this ridiculous, so the next rugby game he went there with a springbok t-shirt on. End of discussion :-)
Separating the Soviet past, from the current Russia, is a fool's errand.
I guess you think Solzhenitsyn is a fool.
With the constraints placed on political free speech, both in the media, and from private citizens, shows Russia to be the same old bad, bad bear.
The sort of spurious spin presented by you and Oleg Shchedrov is presented on a daily basis in the Russian press. I have already provided you with an example from the Moscow Times. This might make you conclude that it verifies how you are right. But if you actually think for a moment, this shows Russia indeed has a free press, i.e. how you are wrong.
Here's the article from the Moscow Times again. And there's a lot more where that one came from.
Czechmade,
You look at the wolf and you do not see him. Foolish. But you can see the islamic wolf. Strange optics.
You won't find anyone, who left the matrix of cold war dogmatism about Russia, that think that Russia is a sheep. The whole point among the growing number of people (who are now the majority of the commenters here) who see something vital and refreshing in Russia of today, is that, unlike with the West, there's nothing sheep-like about Russia. So we look at Russia with clear eyes, and unlike others we are not looking for a sheep. But no, I don't see Russia as a wolf, it looks more like a fox to me.
I think that you and the other people who categorically fear and dislike Russia do not really listen to what the rest of us are saying. You just repeat over and over, how Russia is evil, exactly like the USSR, etc. You seem to think that you simply repeating so over and over constitute proof for it being so. And each and all of you I have found hate and fear any incarnation of Russia just as much: Tsarist, Soviet or contemporary. You are simply against Russia and Russians, period.
So you cry wolf? Russia is a wolf in your view? Surely it's got teeth. But why do you call wolf about Russia? How is Russia a major threat to you, or any threat at all at this point? Pay attention to the true wolves in sheep clothing instead, like the EU politburo (with Danny the Red) bullying Vaclav Klaus in the heart of Prague.
This is the truly strange optics. The people here who see the Islamic wolf and who see how the Western MSM systematically lies about issues such as immigration, crime and multiculturalism. But who swallow everything written about Russia in Western MSM hook, line and sinker. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me. As they say. But these people let themselves be fooled a thousand times by the MSM, even though they should have known better. That's a lot of shame they have accumulated.
What you read about Russia in Western media is mostly a web of lies and distortions. Not that there are not issues -- there are. But the fact is that these issue relate to the Russian people as such. Unlike in the West there is no disconnect between the people and the government. Putin and Medvedev have the highest approval rating in the whole white world. No2liberalsm Czechmade and their kind try to frame the issue as procedural technicalities: lack of free press, lack of democracy, etc. But they are easily proven wrong. The Russian government is effectively an expression of the views of the Russian people. So the essence of what Czechmade and No2liberals is for is the replacement of the Russian people (something which reminds me of what's ongoing in the West today).
But I think that even more than being blind to what's actually happening in Russia, Czechmade, No2liberals, etc., have a problem at a much deeper level. They are stuck in an old narrative. Yes they can see how the West has gone bad, but they haven't grasped how deeply and haven't internalized the full extent of it. They haven't seen that every official expression of the West is our worst enemy, our primary enemy. So they are still stuck in an old narrative, where the West is still the hero. From this platform they still animate old cold war dogmatism about Russia.
These people haven't understood the danger of ideology. Probably because they are so ideological themselves. Anyone who sets equivalence between Tsarist, Soviet and contemporary Russia hasn't understood much. If the USSR made you hate Russians as such, you haven't learned anything from history. We see the same in how Nazism made people end up hating Germans. Nothing learned there either.
People who are driven by ideology themselves miss how Russia is not at all acting ideologically today. Instead she's acting traditionally and pragmatically. The big power that is acting ideologically (with and agenda of pushing their ideology around the world) is America. This is the wolf that is not only able to hurt you (and more than anyone else), but also prepared and inclined to do so. Ask the Serbs! This is the wolf to fear, along with its mini-me, the EU.
Conservative Swede,
You remain unconvincing, to me.
There are far too many examples of the Russian government forbidding news agencies from reporting certain news.
I had hoped Russia would follow a different path, after '92, but they are falling into old habits.
No2liberals,
There are far too many examples of the Russian government forbidding news agencies from reporting certain news.
If there are so many examples, you should be able to bring up one, instead of just making a sweeping statement.
I had hoped Russia would follow a different path, after '92, but they are falling into old habits.
Old habits? State atheism, Gulag? Really?
What makes you different from a leftist claiming that the USA and Iran are exactly the same since both have the death penalty? You pick up the idea from the Western MSM (seriously you shouldn't be trusting them as you do!) how Russia does not comply with your ideal of free speech, and from there you derive that they are just the same as the old USSR, and how anyone that has seen a change is "entirely mistaken". How is your method of assessment any less superficial then the average leftist's?
"The Russian government is effectively an expression of the views of the Russian people".
It reminds me of a South Italian teenaged communist, she suddenly said to me that "Ocalan is the voice of the Kurdish people".
Conswede, Conswede, you reach some leftist heights.
I do not have to follow Western propaganda, I read and understand Russian. So I can study their ahadith, Sira, Quran in original.
They repeat their old narrative and I get accused to repeat some old narrative. I never said "USSSR is exactly..." etc. It is also non-sensical to draw parallels from Germans. I tend to enjoy them, however I do what they do - I see the differences within Germany. it is proGerman, not antiGerman.
"Russia" does not exist politically. I try to disconnect you from this chimera. Study Kremlin first. Study the traditional dhimmi reaction of the R.-people buying again the greatness of the unpolitical instant Einheitsbrei "R."
Russia this Russia that. It is a wrong approach. You get trapped with one label. You get stuck.
The idea that something bad will bring something good is really "revolutionary" in a very conservative sense...of some marxists...
The marxism was meant to cover the old orthodox gist, now the orthodox gist is meant to cover the old communist gist. Hmmm. Our task is to dig more in the orthodox church to see what comes out - traditionally not a "free Russian man"! Probably a very "free" tzar at the cost of an anonymous mouzhik in the pampa...sorry - stepp.
Czechmade,
"Russia" does not exist politically.
What you write is nonsensical. As usually.
Conservative Swede,
You are obviously convinced with your sources of information, which to me appear to be agenda driven.
I don't sit on a computer and practice being verbose, I read and learn.
I'm not convinced that you do.
If I feel like it, and if I have some time, later, I can pull up several things, including videos, that support my factual claim that the Russian government is stifling political free speech. Or you can do it yourself. Either way, your mind is made up that, for whatever reason, none of which seem plausible to me, contemporary Russia is a positive force.
I see it as an authoritarian, boorish, enemy to the free world.
I mean, honestly, if you can spin the current Russian administration holding a pre-holiday ceremony in honor of the secret police, and not see the old bear, then you can spin anything.
Enjoy political life in Russia - move with your few friends to the wilderness. Call each other MP.
No2liberals,
If I feel like it, and if I have some time, later, I can pull up several things, including videos, that support my factual claim that the Russian government is stifling political free speech.
Do it and we can discuss the specific cases. Your sweeping statements do not lead anywhere. I think e.g. that it is good that radical jihadist publications are illegal in Russia, Do you agree, or is this unacceptable to you?
I mean, honestly, if you can spin the current Russian administration holding a pre-holiday ceremony in honor of the secret police, and not see the old bear, then you can spin anything.
Another sweeping statement... "old bear". Describe what you see instead. Do you see state atheism, Gulags, five year plans, or do you not? And how old is our Russian bear? Is the Tsarist Russia the same bad old bear as the USSR in your mind?
It's sort of ironic how you only come up with sweeping statements and innuendos and at the same time accuses others of doing spins.
Conservative Swede,
Well, now, it really doesn't matter what I say does it?
You are obviously a devotee of Russia, for whatever reason, and unwilling to consider anyone else's view. Actually, you are quite a bore on this subject.
Since the Kremlin controls all the media there, how do we know the gulag isn't back in full operation? Probably not, critics of Russia just seem to fall over dead, in the strangest places.
Between the evil nexus of the vorovskoy mir, and the old KGB occupying positions in the current Russian government, nothing much has changed.
For Heavens Sake, the Russian National Anthem is the former USSR National Anthem. How's that for no connection?
You wanted one item? Fine, this one was easy to find, I have shared it with many, and even linked it here once. Sorry you missed it, or ignored it, or whatever.
First, the statement attached to the video.
"March 2005
Putin's censorship of the media has led to the re-emergence of Soviet style propaganda in Russia. Journalists telling the truth are literally risking their lives.
"I've written my will. I'm getting my children used to the idea that at any moment they might be left without me," states journalist Anna Politkovskaya. Her reports from Chechnya have constantly contradicted the official line, making her deeply unpopular with the Kremlin. "Since Vladimir Putin became President, propaganda and censorship have re-emerged," complains editor Oleg Panfilov. During the Beslan siege, Russian networks were banned from mentioning the hostage takers demands and ordered to claim they were international terrorists not Chechen rebels. In the wake of Beslan, even tighter controls are planned. The FSB are lobbying for a complete ban on reporting terrorist acts. "Then, if people are killed, there'd be no impact, no stress, no outcome favourable to the terrorists," explains Pavel Pozhigaylo, Deputy Head of the Information Policy Committee."
Putin's Media War. The embed is disabled(imagine that), so if it doesn't work, go to youtube and type in the title.
Since I am feeling generous, here is a bonus video, just for you.
Russia's War Against Journalists and the Truth.
Spin this any way you wish.
Oh, and Ruck the Fussian government.
"For Heavens Sake, the Russian National Anthem is the former USSR National Anthem."
That is really strange, indeed. It raises some suspicions. However that means little. For instance my local hymn: It started as a popular song written and directed to a popular theatre. The music was "popular!" It's like Britney Spears creating the American hymn. Worst, it was directed to make the people hate the Brittish, because they gave us Congo, we gave Congo to the Belgians and then claimed the English territories between Congo and South Africa. Then, the English therethened us with an ultimate and we lost much territory. The main lyrics were:
"To weapons! To weapons!
Over the land, over the sea
To weapons! To weapons!
For the fatherland we shall fight,
Against the Britishh we shall, we will march (over them)!"
The artistic arena was leftist and as such republican; The people liked the song and started to put their problems on the King's shoulder.
With the advent of the Republic, it became the National Anthem with a minor alteration, "Brittish" chanhed to "Cannons" because the Brits were our greatest ally.
This suevived anything, from a fascist dictatorship to some very close to the USSR governments, to this government of EU's subjects.
This is just a case on how a hymn is so... meaningless. I would however never say this about a flag.
No2liberals,
Since the Kremlin controls all the media there, how do we know the gulag isn't back in full operation?
This sentence alone summarizes how your comments are completely out of proportion when it comes to Russia, and are nothing but an expression of your overblown negative emotions about Russia. You make a whole hen from any feather you find.
I can tell you in a very simple way how we can know that the Gulag is no longer in operation; even less in "full operation" as you say. Russians travel freely abroad. A system with prison camps like Gulag can only work in a country with closed borders. It becomes pretty pointless with these sort of oppressive camps, if people can just leave the country. Also, people from around the world can travel freely around Russia. So it would become pretty hard to hide these camps.
But I'm sure you will find some conspiracy theory sort of explanation how the devious Russians manage to uphold a fake image of how Russians can travel freely abroad, and foreigners can travel freely in Russia, while it in reality still is a closed country, old Stalinism style, with Gulag and all. I'm sure you'll find a way to jigsaw such a narrative. After all, even the Flat Earth Society manages to uphold a story that they manage to believe in themselves.
People like you will have to ignore a long range of blatant facts to being able to uphold your myths.
Regarding the videos you linked. The general picture of how TV is much in government control, while printed media is free, is the same that I have.
However, the people who speak in these clips are coming from a class of people, who are the most notorious liars in the history of mankind, better known as journalists. Or more specifically: journalists with a cause; a cause of enlightenment (i.e. leftist/liberal) ideals. To understand their mentality you could think of them as belonging to a specific cult with a special mentality; of people having had a certain religious epiphany. These people will always tear down any society where they reside, and act traitorously against it.
Notice how they all paint anything happening in the Beslan incident as the Russian government's fault. Any person who died in Beslan is the fault of the Russian authorities and Putin. No blame at all is put on the Islamic thugs. In fact this class of people effectively support the Islamic thugs.
In the West this class of people are in the driving seat of the rule of the countries, submerging us in a web of lies, directing us toward self-destruction. In Russia they feel entitled to the same prominent role, but are denied it. This is why I don't believe in all these stories of hundreds of killed journalists. This adds up to hundreds of stories, simply based on statements by this class of people, claiming that: i) a colleague of their died under "mysterious" circumstances (such as: a whole plane was crashed just to killed this or that unknown journalist), and ii) implying that "Putin did it".
This is taken at face value by the Western journalists (who are all infallibly from the same class of people), and reported immediately as truth in the West. It seems to me that any case of a journalist dying of any cause at all can be spun as "Putin killed him". The way to investigate the credibility of such claims is to look closer at specific cases. And so I have in a number of cases. And in none of the cases is it anything close to how its reported in the West. As I already reminded you -- and as you should already know from how immigration issues, crime etc. is reported here -- the people reporting such stories in the West come from this class of people who are the most notorious liars in the history of mankind. And these Western journalists hate Russia, simply since journalists-with-a-cause are not treated as the royalties they think they deserve to be, there.
Having said that. Yes, Russia is a more brutal society then the West. Oligarchs and mafias are in action, and people do get shot for stepping on their toes. And I'm positive that there are a whole number of journalists who have been killed in this way too. It's just that they way the story is told by people, who think that the Gulag might still be in "full operation", just doesn't make sense. And there's a whole number of ways in which it doesn't make sense.
These sort of claims of how Putin killed 30 journalists every year since 1992 do not impress me, as long as I have not been able to find even one single case which upon closer investigation still makes it at all likely that Putin was behind, or even that the person was killed at all. The people who claim that Putin is behind killing a whole company of journalists, will have to bring up ONE case, at least a single one case, where the evidence suggest so and do not fall apart upon closer investigation. It's not that I cannot imagine how Putin would kill a single journalist, I certainly can. I expect any politician to being able of that. The point here is instead that the people who claim that Putin regularly have journalists killed, that he's behind killing hundreds of them, that this is one of the most characteristic features of the media situation in Russia, they will have to (for starters) to being able to come up with at least one case, where upon closer investigation it is at least likely that: i) the person was actually killed, and ii) that Putin was behind it. I'm naturally not asking for a case where it can be proved that Putin is behind (I don't expect we'd find that). But a case where it looks like a likely and best possible explanation, and at least cannot easily be excluded (e.g. because the person does not seem to have been killed at all).
Merry Christmas to you all!
So this is my challenge, for all of you who claim that Putin is behind killing hordes of journalists:
Go through the cases you have, then pick your best case, and I will have a closer look at that in a fair and balanced way. Just pick one case. Listing hundreds of names that Putin supposedly killed since 1992 does not lead us anywhere. Pick just one case, that you think hold water. With one case we are able to look at depth on it. It will naturally have to be a case where there is at least some public material, preferably more than minimal. Just one case - but you choose which.
It will be very interesting to see what comes up.
And hey, choose carefully!
Post a Comment