When I recall the Cold War, I think:
- I'm glad we won
- And I'm glad it's over
But, apparently, lots of people look forward to another ideological struggle with Russia, this time over Russia's recent law restricting the dissemination of "gay propaganda" among children. The New York Times is particularly offended, what with gay propaganda comprising so much of its daily output. Thus, with zero sense of irony, the NYT's two top World stories tonight are:
World »
Gays In Russia Find No Haven, Despite Support From The West
Tell Us About Your Experiences Being Gay In Russia / Быть Геем В России: Расскажите О Вашем Личном Опыте
Posts
126 comments:
Russia: America! Your government spends billions of dollars to spy on you! You are not free!
American Public: Rabble?
America: But Russia stops gays from delivering pro-gay propaganda to children! Won't somebody please think of the children?
American Public: Rabble! Rabble! Rabble!
Russia: /facepalm
Maybe The Times has decided that they're not going to get caught neglecting another atrocity, like they did when Walter Duranty failed to notice a little famine.
Why do the powers at be insist that we be at odds with Russia. They could be a great ally. In my experience I have found Russians to be charming, lovely, hearty civilized people. Then again, the powers that be also insist that we sneer at the French - another highly civilized people we could cooperate with and learn from.
and, just coincidentally, the focus by the liberal establishment on gay rights helps keep the focus off of populist economics issues, such as healthcare, wages, workers' rights, progressive taxation, labor supply vs labor demand, the cost of living, etc.
But I guess both the liberal and conservative establishment kinda like that, and their rich political donors kinda like that, too. Just a coincidence, though.
The Times is behind the times on this issue. The Canadians have been all over it for quite some time. Star Trek's "Mr. Sulu" has been criss-crossing Canada at Warp 3 pitching the hare-brained idea of moving the Sochi olympics to Vancouver. And Foreign Minister John Baird has been all over the Russians about this law and there is some support in Canada for sanctions against Russia or at least against the Sochi olympics.
Fabrication of the martyrs is the first step in every political campaign.
The great persecution of the gays in the U.S. during my lifetime didn't happen. But, the gay propagandists have been remarkably successful at selling the myth.
Please recite after me:
The AIDS epidemic was caused by President Reagan, who was a real mean guy who enjoyed watching gays wither away and die.
I don't think America is the problem here. Russia is getting more stupid and macho for each year. They don't want freedom, they want a strong leader who can tell them what to do.
Is the State Dept. funding these gay groups, like they did Pussy Riot?
Maybe The Times has decided that they're not going to get caught neglecting another atrocity, like they did when Walter Duranty failed to notice a little famine.
Due to the Snowden Affair we're going to see a smear campaign against Russia and Putin. Or more accurately, they're going to cover the atrocities rather than covering them up.
Curious what's the Jewish population in Russia these days?
NYT could find some real victims of state repression in Russia-but wouldn't be interested and probably would think that prison is the best place for them:
Russian political prisoners
(...)
An approximate number of Russian Nationalists imprisoned during the last decade is around two thousand. Most of them are young Russians, convicted under the notorious Article 282 of the Penal Code (“incitement to racial hatred,” also colloquially known as the ‘Russian Article’ or ‘hatespeech’), usually in aftermath of conflicts with Central Asians or Caucasians.
(...)
Another Russian officer, the late colonel and Hero of Russia Yuri Budanov [murdered in 2011 by Chechen killers], can also be considered a political prisoner. His criminal case was in our opinion trumped-up under apparent pressure from Chechen extremists. The case is full of ethnic hatred toward Russians.
In 2005 two Russian public activists from Moscow, Vladimir Vlasov and Mikhail Klevachov, were first arrested and then sentenced to long prison terms (18 and 20 years, respectively). In the absence of any direct evidence they were charged with an attempt to blow up a Moscow-Grozny passenger train on June 12, 2005. As in the Arakcheev-Khudyakov affair, the accused were initially acquitted by jury trial, but the acquittal was repelled by the Supreme Court on the formal pretext of an out-of-courtroom contact between a jury member and a member of defense team (the jury member simply asked the attorney for the directions to the courtroom).
At the same time, reprisals began against journalists and editors of Russian patriotic newspapers. In 2006, a criminal case was opened against the editor of “Moskovskie Vorota” [Moscow Gates] newspaper (city of Obninsk in Kaluga oblast), father-of-seven Igor Kulebyakin. He was accused of ‘incitement of hatred’ (articles 280, 282 of the Penal Code). He was arrested but then released under a written pledge not to leave town for the period of trial. Over the course of the trial additional accusations of “establishing an extremist group” have been put forward by prosecution. After the accusatory bias of the judges and their partiality became apparent, Kulebyakin fled. Since then he is on the wanted list in Russia.
Russian patriotic journalists have been targeted for political prosecution. In 2012, Aleksandr Dzikovitsky, the editor of newspaper “Kazachiy Vzglyad” [The Cossack’s Opinion] was sentenced to one year in prison for ‘incitement of hatred’ (articles 280, 282). In Chita, the trial of the editor of the newspaper “Russkoye Zabaikalye” [Russian Trans-Baikal Region] Aleksandr Yaremenko was underway for several years until the period of limitation for the ‘crime’ — newspaper article publication — had expired and the case was dropped. In Novosibirsk, the journalist of the newspaper “Otchisna” [Fatherland] Victor Novikov was similarly persecuted in 2007.
(...)
- See more at: http://therebel.org/society/675515-russian-political-prisoners-in-the-russian-federation#sthash.hL4a3DY8.dpuf
The only issue with Russia is that they are the only nation that was or is an existential military threat to the United States.
That said, the Cold War is over. China and eventually India will play an increasingly large role. Russia and Eastern Orthodox churches are in demographic decline, as are Western Christian churches. Both face the threat of Islam.
I see Russia willing to fight this new Cold War, but this time they will be on the side of God against the atheist Americans. Things could get really interesting if Russia makes a play to be the leader of the Christian world. They wouldn't have to work too hard to push the U.S. into low level civil war.
The left will fight Russia. The neo-cons will fight Russia. The Randians will bring about detente, but will not bring Russia and America closer. Only the old Right can do that, and unless something crazy happens, they aren't going to see power anytime soon.
The elites don't like Russia because it is resisting Multiculturalism. This is just one angle of it.
And yes, they would love to start a war in which the remaining White people on the planet killed each other.
I don't know why we can't admit how much animosity our elites have towards regular White people. It's a gut level Hate.
Garry Gasparov, chess grandmaster, was beaten up in police van for appearing in opposing party rally. That is todays Russia for you.
Putin himself sayd that the collapse of USSR was the biggest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20 century.
Lots of americans seem to like Putins heavy regulatory policy, for order and whatnot. If that kind of state comes to USA, you deserve every last bit of it.
In the post-WWII Soviet Union homosexuality was officially considered a mental disorder. I'm sure that was one of the motivating factors for the original cold war too, at least in its later stages. The USSR consistently represented the socially conservative side in that conflict. There was no porn, drugs or prostitution on its territory until the breakup.
Thirty years, it was the nomenklutura who were the godless communists, now it's our own elite who champions worldwide atheistic materialism.
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
I'm curious about the real cause of the gay fascination at the Times especially. Is it a case of 'people are policy' and a few years ago the gays basically took over the newsroom in the way you would suspect or is it just non-gays enjoying a puritanical moral crusade against heretics? The former explanation seems more realistic to me but I have no way of knowing whether its the case.
"Dissemination of gay propaganda".
Bit of an unfortunate choice ot words there.
The 1980's really are not that long ago. In that decade a similar law was introduced in Britain.
The West does not only have a very strange set of post-christian religious beliefs. It also keeps moving the goal posts. The rest of the world simply can't keep up with our changing definitions of what is and is not acceptable.
And what percentage of NYT writers and reporters are themselves LGBTQMIAPDLOLPLPLTH? There's a reason that gay and immigration are the two biggest issues in the world to the NYT right now: It's own staff, and Carlos Slim.
"Anonymous said...
Why do the powers at be insist that we be at odds with Russia."
Because of the ethnic background of a large and vocal fraction of the foreign policy establishment.
Why do the powers at be insist that we be at odds with Russia.
Russians have to be eternally punished for their historical sin of antisemitism.
"A Working Class American said...
But I guess both the liberal and conservative establishment kinda like that, and their rich political donors kinda like that, too. Just a coincidence, though."
You are partly right - it serves both purposes. But you are insinuating that the only reason that the gay agenda is being pushed on us is to hide the campaign of class warfare. It is not. They genuinely want to destroy western civilization. They WANT to spread the evil and morally debased notion that a society can and should be thoroughly gayed-up. They WANT to corrupt society - rendering their abnormality "normal" by fiat.
Not everything is about money, young man.
"Anonymous said...
Maybe The Times has decided that they're not going to get caught neglecting another atrocity, like they did when Walter Duranty failed to notice a little famine."
That's funny. Tell me another one.
Why do the powers at be insist that we be at odds with Russia.
Putin/Rusians not under Bolshiviks = Cossacks and the Czar.. and guess who doesn't like them?
Also Putin to some extend stopped the looting of russia by the people who hate and fear the cossacks.
also, russia is stopping us from carpet bombing Syria and Iran, which is just like releasing the cossacks on the shetl
you have to remember many Scots Irish, even ones in elite positions are only one or two generations removed from the sheltle which is like you and I have a grandfather from the 13th century.
The Russians have reason to mistrust us. When they were most vulnerable and opened up to us, we mistreated them and lied to them with the likes of Andrei Scheifler and his bud Larry Summers.
When you are at your weakest you certainly do not expect people who are ostensibly coming to your aid to cheat you. That is a low low low move.
Add to that the holier-than-thou attitude we(or our elites) have towards the Russians and it certainty seems the Rus are not acting unreasonably towards their lying, conniving much bigger brother in the YT world.
But also historically the Russkies won WW2 in Europe, clearly they took the punches, they did 90% of the fighting. We were bystanders in a fight to the finish and jumped in the ring at the last moment. 22 million Russians dead, 11 million Germans dead and how many Americans...300,000...say that again?...and we go on about the War in Europe. Give me a break. The Russkies have reasons to see us as blowhards with a lot of money.
Lastly our opinion makers who are members of a 'Specific Minority Who Must Never Be Named Under Threat of Eternal Damnation'(Jim Goad) never ever forgive anyone and they figure the Russians screwed them out of their communist Utopia with the advent of Unkie Joe Stalin. This vengeful group holds a grudge forever. The only way the Russians will be forgiven is if they disappear.... like wasps.
The Russians have been sentenced to bad press...forever.
It's interesting how the generally more pro-gay US has a higher birthrate than the generally less pro-gay Russia.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114143/oprah-lied-harvard
Gone with the Wind?
No, Arrived with the Winfrey.
Opie's Scarlett O'Hara moment.
Tomorrow will be another day.
Winfrey combines the precious privilege of southern belle-ism with faux-maternal-warmth of the mammy with the heavy gravy of victimology.
The purse in Switzerland moment was indicative of Oprahism. She travels around the world looking for things which 99.99% of people can't afford but throws fits over a small incident. And yrs ago, she howled and bitched because a French store would not stay open late to accommodate her. Victim Queen. Obama is no different. Product of privilege and people kissing his ass, but he recalls long long ago when he was confronted with the great terrible indignity of some white women locking their car doors. OH MY!
They bitch about tiny and weeny instances of 'racial profiling' but then profile all of white society--America and Europe--for their 'traumas'.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/09/the_liberal_dark_side_egypt_morsy
Pinochet was bad because he overthrew a democratically elected regime, even if it was communist. Egyptian military is good because it overthrew a democratically elected regime because it was Islamist.
More. German military was bad because it did not overthrow the democratically elected regime of Hitler.
America, from democratic politics to demographic politics.
Egypt once used to be rather liberalish, but the rural Muslim types had more children, so it became more conservative.
Democracy only truly works in a homogeneous state. The main focus becomes ideas and policies. But with diversity, groups tend to think tribally, and demography trumps democracy, or democracy becomes about demography.
Diversity can made be into a homogeneity--more or less--, as with the waspization of ethnic whites or the vast-majority-mestizo-ization of Mexicans, but otherwise, it's deeply problematic for issue-oriented democratic politics.
On absolutely unrelated topic:
Steven Pinker published the article:
http://www.newrepublic.com/node/114127/print
"Science Is Not Your Enemy.
An impassioned plea to neglected novelists, embattled professors, and tenure-less historians"
It is about the freedom of scientific inquiry from political correctness, beside other things.
I (F.r.) have also my personal inquiry.
Most respectful of Mr. Sailer,
your Florida resident.
Another Sailerian insight. Linked and riffed on here:
http://ex-army.blogspot.com/2013/08/miss-cold-war.html
"I don't think America is the problem here."
Gays are not the victims of genocide in Russia, not as far as I know. That being so, I don't think it's any of our business to stick our noses into how Russians view gay sex and what they assuredly see down the road, a demand for "gay" marriage in Russia and a continuing effort to show same sex parents as the same ideal as opposite sex parents. Yeah, I still think "gay" marriage is an oxymoron. Most sensible people do too.
Have you heard the latest from my friendly, gay state? There's a bill in the state senate that would require medical insurance companies in the state to provide coverage for "infertility treatments" for gay couples.
Yes, we really ARE that wasted, that effete, that damn silly and stupid as a society.
Next, I suppose some gay man will want usto pay for science to develop a functioning uterus for either him or his partner. Then, won't it be fun also (and oh, so fair and humane) when a lesbian will want us to foot the bill (either through a tax subsidy for family formation or through the rising costs of Obamacare medical coverage) to build her a working penis with working sperm and all.
Won't we all be so enlightened?
A society has reached the beginning of the end when such foolishness is tolerated.
Let me get this straight:the Democrats are gonna start thermonuclear WWW3 because Pussy Galore was arrested for urinating in a Russian Orthodox Christian Church-you know the place where Russia's most precious resource is baptized?
There may very well be a direct road from the legalization of homosexual marriage and allowing homosexuals in the Boy Scouts to the extinction of the human species in a nuclear war instigated by Hillary Clinton.
Bill Blizzard and his Men
The winds of change do shift. Once upon a time in America, the Progressives, e.g., the folks at the NYT, used to love Russia when it was a conduit for their beloved global revolution predicated on Western, i.e., Marxist, theories of economics. The fact that the U.S.S.R was a murderous regime and that Marx's economic (and associated deterministic historical philosophy) ideas did not, in point of fact, work very well or have much predictive power, was of secondary concern. At least, the time for apologias for the predation of party elites, endemic spying, a complete lack of any substantive rights before the law, summary executions, show trials, mass starvation, and Gulags is over. Right?
What is amusing, though, is the idea that current Western elites really think, or believe, that Russians care one Ruble about the cultural war that is being waged in the West, namely: "Sodomy, it's the Ginchiest!"
The elite cannot be oblivious to the fact that Russia is an entirely different Culture that clearly finds Western Civilization's obsession with sodomy to be on one level hilarious (and if you know Russians they probably get a good laugh) and, at the same, time offensive and a form of Culture warfare. The whole "shaming" tactic that worked on South Africa - which was, at the end of the day, the product of Western Culture, and subject to same weakness of its late Civilization, is not a tactic that will work here - because it has no resonance in the typical Russian soul.
I mean, Russian Culture appears on some level to be Western, but Petrian Russia was always an illusion; a thin layer over a feudal society that viewed the world through the "WE" as opposed to the Western "I." I cannot claim to be a close enough observer to say what Russia will become after the deprivations of the Communist era, but I cannot help but think that, despite low birth rates and other signs of dysfunction and decline, Spengler might have had a point that it has not yet run the course of its Cultural destiny.
So I need to draw on anecdotal experience re: the Russian character. When I was kid, the local refugee group started to bring in Russian religious refugees who, I guess, were ostensibly Jewish, but, really, most of them just said that to get the hell out. And who can blame them. Case in point, we'll call him: Mikhail (he had a real name like a character in a Dostoyevsky novel). Mikhail came over, I think, in his teens, had an accent, and never got the full benefit of our indoctrination centers, colloquially known as public schools.
Anyway, at a party one time Mikhail decides to call out 10 or so guys from the High School from the other side of town. Sounds nuts. But he was a black belt from a real dojo and, unlike most of us in the suburban bubble we lived in, probably fought every damn day growing up, and continued to do so, with less regularity, when he got stateside. He was tough, but also very self aware, if somewhat crude, often drunk, and, if you knew him, a very warm guy. He had some American mannerisms, but really was the product of a different Culture.
Anyway - he took them all on and lost. But the other guys settled for an Educational Beat Down, so he lived to fight another day. The point is that Russia is run by guys like him. There are lots of Mikhails and Vladamirs. And their way of looking at the world, how they view themselves, how they view space and time, it is not ours. There Will is not our Will.
And here is the deal: OUR ELITES KNOW THIS. As such, the NYT's stories are aimed at shaping the thoughts (or preventing them) of the average American subject (as NYT calls the tune that the mass media plays) with the secondary benefit of allowing true believers to bask in the warm, sensuous glow of self righteous hate, hate, hate.
Therefore, it is not so much the desire for a new Cold War - but rather an extension of the a Cold War that we are facing now, here at home, in the West.
Why do the powers at be insist that we be at odds with Russia. They could be a great ally. In my experience I have found Russians to be charming, lovely, hearty civilized people.
Because their is an historical animosity between the Russians and "Scots-Irish".
I don't think America is the problem here. Russia is getting more stupid and macho for each year. They don't want freedom, they want a strong leader who can tell them what to do.
I don't think Americans want freedom either. They keep getting more stupid each year electing those who want to replace them and allowing their government to ever increase its encroachment upon their rights.
"We have always been at war with The Straight Christians"
Anonymous said...
Why do the powers at be insist that we be at odds with Russia. They could be a great ally. In my experience I have found Russians to be charming, lovely, hearty civilized people. Then again, the powers that be also insist that we sneer at the French - another highly civilized people we could cooperate with and learn from.
Russia: Cossacks
France: Dreyfus
Steve, I wonder, have we really been that much better off as a people for winning the cold war?
Post-Stalinist Russia has never done anything as destructive to the Russian people as western governments have been doing with a sense of glee and moral righteousness.
Yea, maybe if we lost the cold war there wouldn't be as many flavors of ice cream to choose from, but we might have been blessed with sane immigration and cultural policy under a U.A.S.R.
Russians seem to have come out of communism a lot better than how Americans came out of the cultural revolution.
How far for the US fall that Russia is on the correct side of reality about anything.
from brad pitt, comes a new epic adventure....
world war G
summer 2014.
I see this fitting in more with the "gays are the new favorite minority" thing than any Cold War II thing. For instance, black people in Russia and Eastern Europe (the few who are there, anyway) have been treated horribly for a long time. (The KKK is a joke here, but over there are actual neo-Nazis.) Where has the uproar about that been?
From the NYT article:
“Something that shocked me about Russia,” Mr. Leno told the president. “Suddenly, homosexuality is against the law. I mean, this seems like Germany: Let’s round up the Jews. Let’s round up the gays. Let’s round up the blacks. I mean, it starts with that.”
Really? Seriously? Does the NWO crowd all go to the same school where they are indoctrinated to pull out the same old tired quotes? The propaganda in the West is just so effective. All the right people are in the right positions saying all the right things all the time.
And it's all so over the top. Always on the attack. Never taking a rest. Leno invoking fears of government sponsored mass killings over some lame law in Russia. Always aiming to nuclear blast the psychology of the white masses. All the other tribes just ignore this junk - except they are quick to grasp how effective it is against whites - so they start using it themselves. The cycle continues.
"I don't think America is the problem here. Russia is getting more stupid and macho for each year. They don't want freedom, they want a strong leader who can tell them what to do."
Way to grasp the Russian political situation with such clarity - wow such depth.
In the West on the other hand we have less macho people being ruled by "democratic" governments whose number one mission is to off their own people via mass demographic transformations. Beside that little fact it's all working out great in the West. At least the gays are happy for now. So progressive, so superior.. the rest of the world are just a bunch of macho dimwits.
"The Times is behind the times on this issue. The Canadians have been all over it for quite some time. Star Trek's "Mr. Sulu" has been criss-crossing Canada at Warp 3 pitching the hare-brained idea of moving the Sochi olympics to Vancouver. And Foreign Minister John Baird has been all over the Russians about this law and there is some support in Canada for sanctions against Russia or at least against the Sochi olympics."
HA. Oh, that'll really show 'em!As if the world gives a damn if Canadians participate in the Olys.
Why do the powers at be insist that we be at odds with Russia. They could be a great ally.
Yes. Instead of making an alliance with Russian against Islam and China, we facilitated the looting of its treasure and encircled it by admitting Warsaw Pact nations into NATO.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/race-and-the-right/
A major component of the US propaganda war against the Nazis was the accusation that they were homosexual. You won't see this portrayed in Hollywood's movies, of course, anymore than you'll see portrayals of the Holomodor that occurred in near-by Ukraine just prior to the Nazi rise to power. There are, however, some Jews who, during the waning years of "The Greatest Generation" kept this propaganda alive up until very recently for their benefit.
As with so much else about American society, if the society that went to war against Nazi Germany had been given a choice between that and going to war against current American society, they clearly would have chosen the latter.
http://mediahistoryproject.org/
"Victim Queen"
Queen Victimia. Victimian Era where the great taboo isn't sex but facts about race.
@Just Another Guy,
very interesting perspective, and for me raises the question why these Russians you speak of don't make a new Monte Python industry out of ridiculing the new western idolatry of poofterism. Wouldn't it be something to see a new worldwide channel doing nothing but making fun of gays and their NY-LA acolytes? Somewhere in Russia there must be a Jon Stewart lookalike.
Is Cuba finally off the hook for its homo policy?
And why did US give weapons to anti-gay Muslim radicals in Libya? Well, they like to stick things up people's butts, so maybe they're hononary gays.
Politics is not about policy. My guess is, the NYT is taking a stand that is locally popular among their demographic, with little thought given to what effect it will have (very little) on our long-term relations with Russia. Certainly Putin isn't going to lose much sleep over whether the NYT's editors like him or not. The NYT wants to be seen to be on the right side of this issue here at home.
A secondary possibiltiy is that this issue is being raised as part of the "lets all get mad at Russia" campaign that comes out of their giving Snowden asylum. There does seem to be a push from the administration in this direction, probably with about as much sense as the "freedom fries" idiocy of a few years back. (The only think more depressing than the low quality of our propaganda is the fact that it works.).
Glitzkrieg?
Asshole Riot.
fondatori said, "I'm curious about the real cause of the gay fascination at the Times especially. Is it a case of 'people are policy' and a few years ago the gays basically took over the newsroom in the way you would suspect or is it just non-gays enjoying a puritanical moral crusade against heretics? The former explanation seems more realistic to me but I have no way of knowing whether its the case."
Was wondering the same thing--like you, I've no way of knowing and like you, I suspect the former, gays in some positions of power and influence.
I am going to start calling Russian salad dressing "Liberty salad dressing" or "Gay salad dressing."
Scratch that last one. Make it just "Liberty salad dressing."
Anyone who gets between us and the oil is evil. US foreign policy loses a significant amount of its mysteriousness when this razor is applied.
http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/23751/56/
Smart women would rather read than breed.
I guess this is true in the animal world too. Dumb animals like rabbits breed a lot more than smart ones like bears and cats.
Dumb people are bigger slaves to impulse and drives. They see food, they wanna eat. They feel horny, they wanna hump.
Smart people have more self-control and show greater intellectual interest, so they'd rather read and write books than breed.
A major component of the US propaganda war against the Nazis was the accusation that they were homosexual. You won't see this portrayed in Hollywood's movies, of course, anymore than you'll see portrayals of the Holomodor that occurred in near-by Ukraine just prior to the Nazi rise to power. There are, however, some Jews who, during the waning years of "The Greatest Generation" kept this propaganda alive up until very recently for their benefit.
The Brownshirt leadership was queer:
Ernie Rohm
Ernst Julius Günther Röhm (28 November 1887 – 2 July 1934) was a German officer in the Bavarian Army and later an early Nazi leader. He was a co-founder of the Sturmabteilung ("Storm Battalion"; SA),[1] the Nazi Party militia, and later was its commander. In 1934, as part of the Night of the Long Knives, he was executed on Adolf Hitler's orders as a potential rival.
...
Under Röhm, the SA also often took the side of workers in strikes and other labor disputes, attacking strikebreakers and supporting picket lines. SA intimidation contributed to the rise of the Nazis and the violent suppression of left-wing parties during electoral campaigns, but its reputation for street violence and heavy drinking was a hindrance, as was the open homosexuality of Röhm and other SA leaders such as his deputy Edmund Heines.[4][5] One American journalist would later write, "[Röhm's] chiefs, men of the rank of Gruppenfuehrer or Obergruppenfuehrer, commanding units of several hundred thousand Storm Troopers, were almost without exception homosexuals. Indeed, unless a Storm Troop officer were homosexual, he had no chance of advancement."[6] In 1931, the Münchener Post, a Social Democratic newspaper, obtained and published Röhm's letters to a friend discussing his homosexual affairs.
...
This horrified the army, with its traditions going back to Frederick the Great. The army officer corps viewed the SA as a brawling mob of undisciplined street fighters, and were also concerned by the pervasiveness of homosexuality and "corrupt morals" within the ranks of the SA. Further, reports of a huge cache of weapons in the hands of SA members raised further concern among the Reichswehr leadership.[7] Not surprisingly, the entire officer corps opposed Röhm's proposal, insisting that discipline and honor would vanish if the SA gained control; but Röhm and the SA would settle for nothing less.
...
In an attempt to erase Röhm from German history, all known copies of the 1933 propaganda film Der Sieg des Glaubens (Victory of Faith), in which Röhm appeared, were ordered destroyed in 1934. Der Sieg des Glaubens was long thought to have been lost until a single copy was found in storage in Britain in the 1990s. The 1935 film Triumph des Willens (Triumph of Will), produced in 1934, showed the new Nazi hierarchy, with the SS as the Nazis' premier uniformed paramilitary group and Röhm replaced by Victor Lutze as the far less powerful new head of the SA
"Anyway, at a party one time Mikhail decides to call out 10 or so guys from the High School from the other side of town. Sounds nuts. But he was a black belt from a real dojo and, unlike most of us in the suburban bubble we lived in, probably fought every damn day growing up, and continued to do so, with less regularity, when he got stateside. He was tough, but also very self aware, if somewhat crude, often drunk, and, if you knew him, a very warm guy. He had some American mannerisms, but really was the product of a different Culture.
Anyway - he took them all on and lost. But the other guys settled for an Educational Beat Down, so he lived to fight another day. The point is that Russia is run by guys like him. There are lots of Mikhails and Vladamirs. And their way of looking at the world, how they view themselves, how they view space and time, it is not ours. There Will is not our Will."
^ Good Story.
US propaganda war against the Nazis was the accusation that they were homosexual
they were the forerunner of the nazi party was founded in a munich gaybar called 'the saugsage' and a few years ago a rabbi wrote a book with a theory that nazi persuction of jews was because the OT condemned homosexuality and thus, when Europe became Christian, the pagan man-boi /spartan love became taboo - and the nazi's wanted to bring it back. There is actually still a sub-WN movement that espouses the spartan 'ideal' - one guy occasional posts on some right wing sites like alt right..
How many post-WWII far right European politicians have been gay, like Haider, who accidentally drove off an Alp after a few too many drinks at a gay bar?
The Imperial German high command during the First World War had a noticeable gay tinge, too.
It's probably related to the Greece v. Rome distinction in upper class educational philosophy. The Germans and Brits idolized the Greeks, while French and Italians idolized the Romans. An Italian lady in "Brideshead Revisited" points out that "romantic friendship" was much more common among Brits and Germans than among Italians.
We don't know where gayness comes from; maybe it's parasites, maybe it's genetic, maybe it's uterine environment - who knows? It is almost certainly not learned behavior, because there are just too many physical characteristics that go with it - finger length, sibilant "s", hair whorl , etc.
The poor gays need a place to be - it is a shame that the monasteries are gone, they were a place where the self selected non-breeders could have meaningful, eusocial lives. Religious fervor, needed to restore and sustain such institutions, is lost and gone forever. The Russians have made a sort of a don't-ask-don't-tell compromise. The Times is having a hissy-fit. All they are doing is giving a livestyle an "R" rating. Big freakin deal. We didn't boycott the Olympics in China and I bet they are less tolerant of gay subject matter.
No Way Out starring Kevin Costner mid 80s had a gay guy as Gene Hackmans character aide as chief villain.
Last time mainstream media had a gay villain. Even McCarthys gay aid was made into a noble victim by Tony Kushner.
This discussion of gay Nazis reminds me of that occasionally hilarious British WWII comedy set in France, "Allo Allo." Here's Lieutenant Gruber, the barely-closeted gay German officer (played by the [almost aptonymic?] American actor Guy Siner):
http://images2.fanpop.com/image/photos/8900000/Gruber-allo-allo-bbc-sitcom-8985743-1537-1053.jpg
Thanks for recounting the "Nazi's are gay." WW II propaganda. Notice, if you will, the context-sensitive spin that is placed on this bit of history:
When talking to modern day conservatives, or WW II era man-on-the-street, the story is that Hitler killed guys like Ernst Röhm, not because he was purging the ranks of gays, but because he was a "rival" (presumably a rival gay). (See Mr. Davenport's Wikipedia quotes above.)
When talking to modern day liberals, the story is that Hitler killed guys like Ernst Röhm because of the purge of gays from the Nazi party as part of the general persecution of gays. (that link, also, to Wikipedia)
This sort of nimble portrayal of factual matters is symptomatic of spin control on factual accounts, ie: propganda.
But what is most interesting here is not whether the Nazis were or were not reasonably characterized as "gay" but that WW II America would gladly have gone to war against 2013 America rather than Nazi Germany.
Here's a get rich quick scheme: Write a screen-play about a young Hitler who just can't come to terms with his homosexuality and, because of his self-loathing suppression of his healthy need for manlove, causes the senseless murder and killing of tens of millions.
Its sure to get a massive budget. Skim a few percent off the top and reeeetiirrre.
It's interesting how the generally more pro-gay US has a higher birthrate than the generally less pro-gay Russia.
US birthrates are driven largely by Hispanics and other minorities.
Ethnic Russian birthrates have been improving. See here:
http://darussophile.com/
"In the post-WWII Soviet Union homosexuality was officially considered a mental disorder."
It was considered a mental disorder by the American Psychiatric Association until 1973.
Nazis were okay with Lesbians.
"Even McCarthys gay aid was made into a noble victim by Tony Kushner."
What? Roy Cohn was the chief villain of Angels in America.
What percentage of Nazi leadership was gay I have no idea, but the flamboyant Nazi uniforms must have contributed to the "gay tinge". Straight men can't get away with wearing knee-high leather boots these days, unless they are riding horses. Leather dusters are tough to pull off too.
>a few years ago the gays basically took over the [NYT] newsroom<
This goes way back. I remember that in early 1995 Limbaugh was calling the paper "the New York GAY Times," because he said every second story in it was about anti-homosexual prejudice.
>No Way Out starring Kevin Costner mid 80s [was the] last time mainstream media had a gay villain<
Well, Mel Gibson's "Braveheart" (1995) portrayed the evil king's son as an unlikeable homosexual whose lover's murder was treated in a cartoonish way. There was some controversy around that at the time but of course it didn't hurt the film.
"WW II America would gladly have gone to war against 2013 America rather than Nazi Germany."
Gad, that is a great quote. Here's Ernst Röhm in a graphic, by the way:
Röhm
>Write a screen-play about a young Hitler who just can't come to terms with his homosexuality [leading to] the killing of tens of millions.[...] Its sure to get a massive budget. Skim a few percent off the top and reeeetiirrre.<
I can't find this on Kickstarter!!!!
This horrified the army, with its traditions going back to Frederick the Great. The army officer corps viewed the SA as a brawling mob of undisciplined street fighters, and were also concerned by the pervasiveness of homosexuality and "corrupt morals" within the ranks of the SA
"Traditions going back to" Freddy der Grosse?
Frederick the Great
Frederick II (German: Friedrich II.; 24 January 1712 – 17 August 1786) was King in Prussia (1740–1786) of the Hohenzollern dynasty.[1] He is best known for his brilliance in military campaigning and organization of Prussian armies. He became known as Frederick the Great (Friedrich der Große) and was nicknamed Der Alte Fritz ("Old Fritz"). He was a grandson of George I of Great Britain, and also a nephew of George II.
...
Sexuality[edit source | editbeta]
Many historians have considered whether Frederick the Great was homosexual or bisexual (and perhaps possibly celibate), and his relationship with Hans Hermann von Katte was widely speculated in the Prussian court to be romantic.[8] After Katte's execution by Frederick's father, Frederick was forced to marry Elisabeth Christine of Brunswick-Bevern, with whom he had no children. He immediately separated from his wife when Frederick William I died in 1740. In later years, Frederick would pay his wife formal visits only once a year.[73]
Frederick spent much of his time at Sanssouci, his favourite residence in Potsdam. The grounds there included a Friendship Temple (built as a memorial to his favourite sister, Wilhelmine), and celebrating the homoerotic attachments of Greek Antiquity, decorated with portraits of Orestes and Pylades, among others.
...
Other historians disagree on the nature of Frederick's sexuality, saying that Frederick's writings indicate that he simply had greater priorities than women. The French professor Dieudonné Thiébault declared that Frederick had mistresses at Neuruppin.[76] In 2011, an unpublished erotic poem by Frederick was discovered amongst his letters; it was written, according to correspondence with Voltaire, in response to an Italian friend's contention that northern Europeans were not as passionate as southern Europeans.[77] Frederick's physician, Johann Georg Ritter von Zimmermann, claimed that the king let rumors of homosexuality appear to be true in order to avoid the public knowing that his genitalia were harmed by "a cruel surgical operation" to save his life from an unnamed venereal disease.[78] Historian Christopher Clark concludes Frederick "may well have abstained from sexual acts with anyone of either sex after his accession to the throne, and possibly even before. But if he did not do it, he certainly talked about it; the conversation of the inner court circle around him was peppered with homoerotic banter."[79]
If a fellow was a homosexual Nazi, he was vexed by decisions, decisions. Join the SA or try for the SS?
Either way, one got to make new friends and wear such hip, glamorous uniforms!
Example: Elk Ebers' This Was the SA poster.
Why am I rambling on about erotic preferences of some German National Socialists?
Because I resent nicey-nice Progressive peepul always depicting homosexuals as angelic victims of oppression.
"It was considered a mental disorder by the American Psychiatric Association until 1973."
Homosexuality was legalized in Russia in 1993, under Yeltsin.
"Whenever I hear a news report of a neo-nazi group in Russia, I assume that the reporter is an idiot. Given the loss of life that Russians suffered in WWII, and the Nazi's animosity towards Slavs, I cannot imagine Russians romanticizing the Nazi movement."
As far as the MSM is concerned, any display of nationalism and love of your people is akin to being a Nazi.
Moscow and Saint Petersburg have active local nationalist groups that do street patrols in which they destroy illegal stalls and beat up Caucasians and Turks who are raping Russian women and selling drugs. Not the same as being a Nazi.
http://www.twincities.com/crime/ci_23829526/st-paul-man-19-charged-east-side-beating
Good thing he didn't have a gun. He might have murdered some of these black 'children'.
And since he walked into where they were, he must have been racially profiling them.
Lets talk about Nazis, more Nazis. Lets talk about what they wore, whether they were fudge packers, and their official policy towards slavs on the cranial size-homosexual-fashion basis of Nazi GENOCIDAL policies.
Then, and only then, will we win the respect of the Jews, who are the ultimate arbiters of all knowledge and moral judgement relating to Nazism.
And remember, unlike most history, Nazis get worse with time. I mean Nazi hate is like a wine fine: more potent in its HATE every year.
So lets always talk about, so we can also keep that mental block running 24/7 in every White American:
"You know, I really agree with Sailer and everything, but......its a slippery slope, and what's next, the holocaust?"
Whether or not we "won" the Cold War is open to debate. Pyrrhic, probably.
Russia and most of the ex-Soviet republics have much more important issues to deal with than post-modern luxuries such as LGBT rights/studies. People like Oprah can talk of those things, but a normal family from a small village in the ex-USSR do(es)n't give a crap.
Those folks would rather have a stable country, decent work, basic needs satisfied; to be left alone and unmolested by foreign idealists.
US-sponsored NGOs constantly advising idealists to disrupt local government and social order order doesn't much help.
"Whenever I hear a news report of a neo-nazi group in Russia, I assume that the reporter is an idiot. Given the loss of life that Russians suffered in WWII, and the Nazi's animosity towards Slavs, I cannot imagine Russians romanticizing the Nazi movement."
But there are quasi-Nazi groups in Russia. Yes, it makes no sense for any Russian to be romanticizing Nazis, but some ignoramus clowns--and there are plenty of those in Russia--just like the whole skinhead thing and see quasi-Nazism as a way to act tough.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uh21SUL2yw
http://www.soiledsinema.com/2010/11/luna-park.html?zx=ab60d208a6577505
BLACK HUNDRED is an interesting book on the subject.
http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/0060183365
Also during Soviet rule, some disgruntled youths naturally rebelled by putting on the Nazi bad boy act.
But then, plenty of youths in capitalist nations adopted Marxism and even Maoism in the 1960s.
As if the world gives a damn if Canadians participate in the Olys.
They topped the medal count at the last winter games.
Last I heard, China still isn't particularly gay-friendly, but the MSM hardly says anything about it. They weren't talking about boycotting the Beijing olympics because of it.
Also our friend Schumer is also getting involved, calling Putin a "bully".
It's all about who whom...
Perhaps it's the start of a propaganda campaign about how Russian gays are persecuted and thus should be allowed to leave the country and immigrate to the US. They might qualify for refugee status.
Social services, government housing might be available for refugees fleeing persecution.
I have my doubts that a new Congress for Sexual Freedom will produce a magazine as good as Encounter.
Lets talk about Nazis, more Nazis.
OK.
I had a good buddy
ooBecause the powers that be are
(largely) Jewish and they don't like Russians.
So that means YOU don't get to like them either, you uppity Goy!"
Sharon and Netanyahus relations with Putin and Russia are considerably better than Obama or Bush's
Russian goys dont care much for Jews as they associate with the robber barons and plutocrats who made off with Russia resources in the 90s.
As well as the various communist apparatchiks.
Very well, now please admit Hindu nationalists in India are justified in persecuting Christians because about zero number of them fought the British and indeed collaborated wholeheartedly in implementing their rule
Thank you
Let's be clear on this. The new legislation bans pro-gay propaganda accessible to children, which in effect could ban many kinds of pro-gay public demonstrations.
Violators are fined, the maximum fine being about $30,000 for an organization, $1250 for a public official, and $125 for an ordinary citizen. In other words, for most people the punishment is roughly equivalent to a jaywalking ticket.
In my country, Canada, *anti-gay* propaganda can get you, de facto, a much harsher punishment, as I'm sure most of you know.
Cennbeorc
The problem with Russia and Russian history was the Orthodox church which always played footsie with authority in power,no matter cruel and oppressive.This includes the Tatars and communists as well. This is due to the inherent fatalism in the Orthodox theology.This has certain advantages, it has made the average Russian quite stoic and has an ability to bear the most extreme hardships of every nature with touching dignity.But it does not inspire him to fight the powers to be ,that comes purely from temporal authority and religious systems which are more pro active such as Catholicism and Evangelical Protestants both of whom were instrumental in defeating communism while Orthodox church was AWOL.
OTOH the Orthodox tradition gave rise to probably the best choral tradition in the World.
Its very difficult not be moved by Polyushka Polye
Lebanon
- "Let's you and him fight."
Iraq
- "Let's you and him fight."
Syria
- "Let's you and him fight."
America, black vs white
- "Let's you and him fight."
America and Russia
- "Let's you and him fight."
USG is a rogue state so with a bit of luck this will backfire and make all the sensible people more pro-russian.
"like Haider, who accidentally drove off an Alp after a few too many drinks at a gay bar"
A most convenient accident, to be sure.
btw, what happened to Barnaby Jack?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23467411
After the fall of the Soviet Union people from the USG, Wall St., IMF, World Bank etc were sent to Russia supposedly to help them set up a free market economy.
Instead they looted the entire country. In particular they stole most of Russia's vast mineral wealth and gave to the now famous oligarchs. Putin has clawed some of it back - not much but some - hence the latent hostility to Putin just waiting for a cause to hang it on.
Like with most things at the NYT they point and splutter in one direction to distract people from what's happening in the opposite direction.
.
"How many post-WWII far right European politicians have been gay, like Haider, who accidentally drove off an Alp after a few too many drinks at a gay bar?"
They're attracted by the uniforms i think.
.
"A society has reached the beginning of the end when such foolishness is tolerated."
Destroy the family, Destroy the nation.
Also possibly quite literally as promiscuity is a petrie dish for new bugs - hence all the cultural barriers against promiscuity in almost every culture in history.
.
"We don't know where gayness comes from; maybe it's parasites, maybe it's genetic, maybe it's uterine environment - who knows? It is almost certainly not learned behavior"
The primary problem with teaching about homosexuality in schools isn't the homosexuality aspect in itself imo; it's that as part of trying to make homosexuality tolerated homosexuals have pushed an "anything goes" sexual morality.
I'm liberal on such things in theory but in practise i don't think the human body is designed for it and sooner or later an anything goes sexual morality will create a superbug.
.
"Russians have to be eternally punished for their historical sin of antisemitism."
You'd think 30 million would be enough.
Although if their life had zero moral weight then killing 30 million wouldn't count as any revenge at all. Then again if their life had zero moral weight then killing all of them - or none - would have the same weight as 30 million.
So seeing as it doesn't make any difference why not make it none?
(Well none apart from the 30 million.)
But also historically the Russkies won WW2 in Europe, clearly they took the punches, they did 90% of the fighting. We were bystanders in a fight to the finish and jumped in the ring at the last moment. 22 million Russians dead, 11 million Germans dead and how many Americans...300,000...say that again?...and we go on about the War in Europe.
Without the blank check to invade the West handed over by Stalin via the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, there might not have been a WWII. Ultimately, the Russians had it coming - they dug a hole that killed tens of millions of Central and Western Europeans, as well as Asians. The fact that Russia actually survived the war that it made possible is proof that there is no justice in this world. This isn't even counting the 100K GI's that the Russians killed via their support (training, money and weaponry) of Communist proxies in Asia.
It seems to me that Russia is quite tolerant of homosexuals, they are on russian TV all the time.
Steve, isn´t the fact that Russia is still he bad guy proof that the cold war wasn´t about ideology? That the main factors for the US/USSR old rivalry was about power and oil, mostly?
And as such, the rivalry lives on. With Russia now no longer being socialist, or even progressive, and the US now being to the left of its old enemy?
Jim/David:
It's been done. Though kickstarter is a more, er, formal way of raising money than they used to fund Springtime For Hitler.
"With Russia now no longer being socialist, or even progressive, and the US now being to the left of its old enemy?"
The Soviet Union was to the left of the US before WWII. At that time US media and government were sympathetic to it. Stalin made a turn towards Russian nationalism (yes, he wasn't Russian, but stranger things have happened) and social conservatism around the time of WWII. That was the cause of the Cold War. During the entirety of the 1945 - 1990 period the USSR led the socially conservative side in the Cold War. The US led the socially liberal side. Homosexuality was illegal in the USSR until the very end. There was no porn, drugs or prostitution in the USSR at that time either. Both Stalin and Khruschov openly mocked abstract "art", Khruschov in terms that connected it with buggery, with perversion. The 1960s revolution happened in Russia in the 1990s, after the fall of the USSR.
Yes, Western liberals once supported Soviet Communism, but that was BEFORE the war, when the USSR was still leftist. They did not support the Soviet Union after the war, because the Soviet Union was no longer liberal or leftist after the war.
BB753, to answer your question more directly, yes, the Cold War was about ideology. In the West it was about imposing socially liberal ideology on the East. When Putin makes small steps towards conservatism now, he (and everyone in Russia, his supporters and opponents) sees this as steps backwards, to (late) Soviet times. Would he like a full return? That I don't know.
"The Soviet Union was to the left of the US before WWII. At that time US media and government were sympathetic to it. Stalin made a turn towards Russian nationalism (yes, he wasn't Russian, but stranger things have happened) and social conservatism around the time of WWII. That was the cause of the Cold War."
Let's not get carried away here. In the 60s, even most American liberals were no fans of homo stuff.
And Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe was criminal. And the system was totalitarian.
"Steve, isn´t the fact that Russia is still he bad guy proof that the cold war wasn´t about ideology? That the main factors for the US/USSR old rivalry was about power and oil, mostly?"
It was largely about ideology then, and it is still about ideology.
It used to be communist totalitarianism vs democratic capitalism.
Now that communism is gone, now it's about American-dominated globalism vs nationalism, and Russia is the the great national power that refuses to kneel before Jewish-homo-led globalism.
Some thoughts on Steve's attitude to the Cold War:
Perhaps he knows that the West represented the leftist side in it, but is OK with that. It was his side after all, and he's nothing if not patriotic. This is complicated by the fact that leftism is, in theory, against all patriotism and in practice very much against American patriotism. Can a victory for leftism also be a victory for American patriotism? Who knows, maybe Steve thinks that the answer to that question is yes.
There is also the possibility that Steve doesn't know that the West represented the leftist side, or doesn't want to know it. He was more impressionable during the Cold War (i.e. in his youth) than he is now. His dad was involved in the Cold War effort. Perhaps that precludes any objective look at that issue. Everyone has his blind spots. I'm sure I have lots of them myself.
"
Very well, now please admit Hindu nationalists in India are justified in persecuting Christians because about zero number of them fought the British and indeed collaborated wholeheartedly in implementing their rule" - that is a specious comparison, you'd be better off comparing what happened to British loyalists during the American revolution if we want to be universalist and fair and all that(they were driven out of the country and had their property seized, but were ultimately allowed to repatriate and had property returned to them).
That said ethnic reprisals are a fact of life in the 3rd world.
So? America is to be a cross of Idiocracy & The Birdcage?
"Let's not get carried away here. In the 60s, even most American liberals were no fans of homo stuff.
And Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe was criminal. And the system was totalitarian."
It went far beyond the homo stuff. Radical feminism, lax standards in schooling, casual clothing, long hair, short skirts, drugs, porn, gratuitous violence on TV and in real life - all of those things and more arrived in Russia in the 1990s, not in the 1960s.
If you think that not replacing the native peoples of Eastern Europe with third-worlders is criminal, then I guess you'd think that the Soviet occupation of that region was criminal. Under the Soviet occupation they were not being replaced. They were also shielded from lefty influences of the type that I listed above. To some that's no doubt criminal.
Yes, Western liberals once supported Soviet Communism, but that was BEFORE the war, when the USSR was still leftist. They did not support the Soviet Union after the war, because the Soviet Union was no longer liberal or leftist after the war.
Actually, many continued to support the USSR long after the war. Many did not realise the USSR was not what they thought it was and obviously liberals did not care back then about most of today's leftist social issues. It's not as if the liberals loved McCarthyism. As late the 1980s many liberals sided with the USSR but, like anti-anti Jihadists under Dubya, it was more out of hatred for their conservative fellow countrymen than a love of the Soviets.
Steve, isn´t the fact that Russia is still he bad guy proof that the cold war wasn´t about ideology?
John Lukacs, a Hungarian emigre, makes a good argument for that view in A New History of the Cold War.
It went far beyond the homo stuff. Radical feminism, lax standards in schooling, casual clothing, long hair, short skirts, drugs, porn, gratuitous violence on TV and in real life
The Americans into that stuff hated Cold Warriors like Nixon and Reagan.
If you think that not replacing the native peoples of Eastern Europe with third-worlders is criminal, then I guess you'd think that the Soviet occupation of that region was criminal.
Now you're just trolling.
"Now you're just trolling."
That's not an argument. There was no third-world immigration into Eastern Europe until the 1990s. It started afterwards. Do you have any arguments against these assertions? If not, then you're the one who's trolling.
The Americans into that stuff hated Cold Warriors like Nixon and Reagan."
But Kennedy, Johnson and Carter were also Cold Warriors. If there was a difference in degree, I don't know which way it would go. While in power, Nixon signed arms control treaties with Brezhnev.
Actually, many continued to support the USSR after the war.
I disagree with the word "many" there. After the war US conservatives could correctly accuse US liberals of having supported the USSR in the 1920s and 1930s, back when the USSR was liberal. After 1946 Communism became a dirty word in the West, so there was political capital to be grabbed by people who had never been Communist, not even when Communism was cool. And of course it was in the interests of these conservatives to claim that 1930s Communists continued to support the USSR after 1946. They didn't. The labels had switched. How could anyone have supported both Trotsky and Stalin? They were opposites and one had killed the other.
It was in US conservatives' interests to claim that 1930s US Communists still supported the USSR after 1946, but it was not actually true.
Wow, disappointed that Steve put in one of my comments but not the follow-up, presumably because the second one didn't fit his narrative.
AnonymousTroll: There was no third-world immigration into Eastern Europe until the 1990s. It started afterwards. Do you have any arguments against these assertions? If not, then you're the one who's trolling.
Neither the Anonymous who said the Soviet occupation was "criminal" nor I claimed there was third world immigration into Eastern Europe. D'oh!
Here's what he said: And Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe was criminal. And the system was totalitarian.
See, he did not claim there was race replacement under the Soviets. He was saying the occupation was criminal for other reasons yet you went on to say: If you think that not replacing the native peoples of Eastern Europe with third-worlders is criminal, then I guess you'd think that the Soviet occupation of that region was criminal.
Ignoring his statement you strongly imply that because there was no race replacement therefore the Soviet occupation was not criminal. And then you said:
Under the Soviet occupation they were not being replaced. They were also shielded from lefty influences of the type that I listed above. To some that's no doubt criminal.
Again you imply that anyone disagreeing with Soviet military occupation supports "being replaced" along with social leftism. Troll.
Actually, now that I think of it the Soviets did indeed flood one part of their old empire with immigrants: the Baltics.
Russians have always had some presence in the three Baltic states but as part of a policy of Russification after WW2 the government sent tens of thousands of Russians to the Baltics. They weren't Third World immigrants but they have been a troublesome minority nonetheless and allegedly responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime in the Baltics.
"Whiskey said...
No Way Out starring Kevin Costner mid 80s had a gay guy as Gene Hackmans character aide as chief villain.
Last time mainstream media had a gay villain."
You're fogetting the homosexual cabal that Oliver Stone made responsible for the assassination of Kennedy in JFK (1991). Stone is kind of an old-fashioned macho lefty; he doesn't seem to like homosexuals much. But that may well have been the last time that homosexuals were shown in a decidedly negative light.
"Anonymous Dr Van Nostrand said...
Sharon and Netanyahus relations with Putin and Russia are considerably better than Obama or Bush's."
Good cop, bad cop?
No Way Out starring Kevin Costner mid 80s had a gay guy as Gene Hackmans character aide as chief villain.
Surely he was based on McCarthy's Cohn.
Very well, now please admit Hindu nationalists in India are justified in persecuting Christians because about zero number of them fought the British and indeed collaborated wholeheartedly in implementing their rule
And British Christians had little to do with the British Empire's presence in India. Once again, if the British subjects of the Empire are responsible for what it did, why aren't the Indian subjects of the same Empire similarly responsible?
You're fogetting the homosexual cabal that Oliver Stone made responsible for the assassination of Kennedy in JFK (1991). Stone is kind of an old-fashioned macho lefty; he doesn't seem to like homosexuals much. "
His Alexander seemed to revel in homo or rather bisexuality.He went of his way to insert a charged with scene with the Bactrian Roxanna,apart from Hephastasion.
This may have annoyed gay groups who wish to claim pretty much every classical and Renaissance figure as their own but there is so much gaywashing of history they can do
Very well, now please admit Hindu nationalists in India are justified in persecuting Christians because about zero number of them fought the British and indeed collaborated wholeheartedly in implementing their rule" - that is a specious comparison, you'd be better off comparing what happened to British loyalists during the American revolution if we want to be universalist and fair and all that(they were driven out of the country and had their property seized, but were ultimately allowed to repatriate and had property returned to them)."
I think you are very confused. First off, I never justified any type of persecution of Indian Christians.I was just using the perverse logic of Christian anti semites to its logical end albeit in other countries.
Secondly, the British may have ruled Indians but Indians were not British unlike the Americans who were of that ethnicity.
Hence it was not so much a blood and soil nationalistic struggle at heart but an ideological one.
The Americans treated the royalists roughly therefore cant really be chalked upto ethnic or religious bigotry.
Finally, we are talking about religions (Christians,Jews) not ethnicities ,please dont get them intertwined.Indian Christians are mostly converts from Hindus. Jews ,yes often have an ethnic component to them-Semites and all that but often not-blonde Jews,black Jews,Arab looking Jews etc
And British Christians had little to do with the British Empire's presence in India. "
Au contraire! Indian Christians remained loyal to the very end.They provided administrative,beaureacratic,academic support for the British empire in India. And in the earlier days,military support(the East India company soldiers in mid to early 1800s were Tamil Anglicans who served heroically in Burma,Afghanistan,Central India and Wellingtons wars against Marathas and Tipu Sultan)
Once again, if the British subjects of the Empire are responsible for what it did, why aren't the Indian subjects of the same Empire similarly responsible?"
Firstly I dont hold the current British peoples responsible for transgressions of the British Empire.Yes I believe in karma,but in these cases,I leave it up to God as we have made temporal peace with the UK.
In every country, people who take up arms to fight an oppressor are a minority.Indians are no exception.
This is not due to lack of trying as many imagine.
I must say the British were very prudent in their balanced use of their Achilles and Ulysses amongst their midst. The British were not lacking in courage and military ability however they realized the use of propaganda and how it can become a self fulfilling prophecy. While Indians were not exactly mild mannered pacifists (this stereotype is a recent vintage going back to Gandhi in 1920s),they did turn into them due to British machinations
It has to be remembered the British were originally a trading company. And their militias were composed of local soldiers or "sepoys" as they were called.
Most Indians (or Hindus rather) were providing the finishing touches to the Mughal Empire and hence were distracted to deal with the British who anyway at the time seemed benign.
The first people to enlist as sepoy were south Indians who helped the British squash other south Indians rebellions themselves mutinied and after it was quelled with great difficulty,the British disarmed the great swaths of south Indian peoples accustomed to carrying arms,as non martial
Then they recruited instead among Bengal and North Central India regions and they rebelled ,again defeated with considerable difficulty.Now these lot were disarmed and now called non martial.
Finally the Sikhs and Gurkhas who were not so much defeated but co opted into the Empire and they retain their "martial" status to this day in Indian and British militaries.While south and North Central Indians are derided as unfit for military duty implicity even today.They are still under represented in the military and Bollywood celebrates northwestern fighting types rather than them
While in reality, central and southern India have a longer and more glorious military history than these Johnny come latelys such as Sikhs and Gurkhas to the fighting game!
>No Way Out starring Kevin Costner mid 80s [was the] last time mainstream media had a gay villain<
No chance! The last mainstream media movie to have a gay villain was "300". Remember the black Persian king that Leonides chucked his spear at, and narrowly missed, managing only to breaking his giant nose necklace? Yep, zuper gheeey.
"He was saying the occupation was criminal for other reasons..."
How do you know it was for other reasons? He didn't state any reasons himself. I guessed a couple. You've guessed that my guesses were wrong. That's all that happened here.
Do you think that the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe was more criminal than the US occupation of Western Europe? If so, why? I've already stated why I think that the US occupation of Western Europe was the more criminal one: race replacement and leftism. If you hold a different view, please state why.
Again you imply that anyone disagreeing with Soviet military occupation supports "being replaced" along with social leftism.
Well, in practice that's what happened. Once the Soviet occupation ended, smut, drugs and race repacement started in Eastern Europe. They haven't yet advanced to the same stage as in Western Europe, but they've moved in that direction.
Actually, now that I think of it the Soviets did indeed flood one part of their old empire with immigrants: the Baltics.
This is true. But, since the Baltic states are tiny, the scope is incomparable to the flooding of Western Europe in the same period with third-worlders. There is at least an order of magnitude's worth of difference there. And there was no smut.
I have nothng against the Baltic peoples. I sympathize with their desire for continuity. It was threatened during the Soviet period. Western governments did much more of that, on a larger scale, at the same time.
"...tens of thousands of Russians to the Baltics."
I mean, that says it all. Tens of thousands! It was bad policy, but it was also uncharacteristic and limited. The settling of northern Kazakstan with Russians and Ukrainians (the Virgin Lands Campaign) was larger in scope, but northern Kazakhstan was empty when it started. And that's about it. The typical post-WWII Soviet policy towards population movements was discouragement. Why? Because such movements tend to lead to ethnic tensions.
Pinochet was bad because he overthrew a democratically elected regime, even if it was communist. Egyptian military is good because it overthrew a democratically elected regime because it was Islamist."
You are mixing two breeds of watchers here. The same who hate Pinochet are not neccesarily people who love the Egyptian military.
Obama for one ,doesnt care for Pinochet or the Egyptian military.
Dont forget the Turkish military, the bastion of "secularism" which regularly ousted any sitting PM when he got too cozy with the Islamists until Erdogan who was elected on his watered down Islamist platform.
More. German military was bad because it did not overthrow the democratically elected regime of Hitler. "
Well not entirely, you had those Valkyrie folk
Post a Comment