Join John Adams, world renowned Intl Matchmaker, Thurs nights 8:30 EST for Live Webcasts with FREE Prizes!
And check out Five Reasons why you should attend a FREE Live AFA Seminar! See locations and details.


Scam free! Check out Christian Filipina - Meet Asian women with Christian values! Members screened.
Exclusive book offer! 75% off! How to Meet, Date and Marry Your Filipina Wife



View Active Topics       Latest 100 Topics       View Your Posts       FAQ Topics       Switch to Mobile


Russia was Chosen by God

Discuss culture, living, traveling, relocating, dating or anything related to Russia, Ukraine, or the former Soviet Republics.

Moderators: jamesbond, fschmidt

Postby gsjackson » Tue Aug 26, 2014 5:10 am

Putin's reputed wealth is a matter of conjecture, said conjecture being first raised by the oligarchs (who without question looted the country) he tossed out or into jail. Anti-Putin propaganda is probably the biggest growth industry in the West today. Since everything I've ever seen the guy do or say seems to be rooted in an idealistic vision of Russia's future, and since he first made his bones with the Russian people by tossing Yeltsin-era oligarchs, I'll need to see plenty of solid, persuasive links before I'll believe he's either a thug or a predator on the economy.

Or state the case in your own words. I've seen it just assumed for years, but I've never seen it actually made. I mean, if he's a thug for ruthlessly suppressing savage Wahibbi terrorists in Chechnya, well (a) they had it coming (b) he probably wasn't half as ruthless the U.S. probably would have been with savages within the country's borders, and (c) Chechnya today is one of the most peaceful and loyal parts of Russia.
gsjackson
Experienced Poster
 
Posts: 1471
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2010 2:08 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA USA







Postby Wolfeye » Tue Aug 26, 2014 5:13 am

Tsar- Keep in mind: any of those things can be instituted by an authoritarian leader. On a side-note, look at the term "authority" for a second. If one were to look at the person doing an action as the "author" of that action, then someone having "authority" is more of the concept of a hi-jacking. I've said it before: that situation is most reminiscent of demonic possession, not a parasite leeching off of someone. That idea doesn't really make all that much sense, either- considering that it's the idea of substitution & one person is not the equivalent of another. It's the counterfactual idea of negating that disparity between people- the structure of the situation is that there isn't the same instance of person.

It's more the concept of coercive inducement through prompting. Guilt trips play a big role in that, because some people play on the social consideration that other people have (the "What if a bad guy did that?" style of reasoning: that if bad guy in a different situation did what you did, it would cause a problem... so you're ruining the world & you're hurting everybody else that doesn't deserve it). They're looking to get people to react to their imagination, basically- as if there's an exchange of situation through imagination. This causes a major problem in the justice department, also. The situation functionally works out as "someone is as guilty as someone else could be. so it doesn't matter what you did."

I know self-defense is kind of hard to argue at this point, given that it's imposing a situation on them & cancelling their endeavors, but self-defense really isn't a collaboration with the attacker, anyway. It was never going to be anything other than impasse.
Wolfeye
Experienced Poster
 
Posts: 1138
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 6:18 am

Postby OutWest » Tue Aug 26, 2014 5:41 am

gsjackson wrote:Putin's reputed wealth is a matter of conjecture, said conjecture being first raised by the oligarchs (who without question looted the country) he tossed out or into jail. Anti-Putin propaganda is probably the biggest growth industry in the West today. Since everything I've ever seen the guy do or say seems to be rooted in an idealistic vision of Russia's future, and since he first made his bones with the Russian people by tossing Yeltsin-era oligarchs, I'll need to see plenty of solid, persuasive links before I'll believe he's either a thug or a predator on the economy.

Or state the case in your own words. I've seen it just assumed for years, but I've never seen it actually made. I mean, if he's a thug for ruthlessly suppressing savage Wahibbi terrorists in Chechnya, well (a) they had it coming (b) he probably wasn't half as ruthless the U.S. probably would have been with savages within the country's borders, and (c) Chechnya today is one of the most peaceful and loyal parts of Russia.


No doubt Putin is a nationalist, though he sees himself as some kind of Czar. Journalists and others, Russians such as Garry Kasparov, can attest to the fact that opposing Putin may mean you end up dead. To imply that if you oppose what Putin is doing, you are some kind of Western media dupe is a bit much. Repeatedly in the past though, Putin has made statements that were ignored in the West due to their straight up lack of political correctness. He no doubt has total contempt for Obama, and sees playing Obama as child's play.

His background as a career KGB man, would of course make him suspect. Its a bit like a former KKK man working for a civil rights organization. It seems he opposed Yeltsin era oligarchs WHEN THEY OPPOSED HIM. Otherwise, not so much. That was his deal. Do your business, but DO NOT oppose me.

I would withhold final judgement on Putin till I know whether the Russian people and Russian culture are capable of functioning in a democratic style. I have doubts at this point, but I think that is the eventual direction. For many Russians, I think a Czar-like figure is comforting.
OutWest
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 2060
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 7:09 am
Location: Asia/USA

Postby Tsar » Tue Aug 26, 2014 5:51 am

I didn't say that Russia was perfect.

I was pointing out the failure of democracy and republics. All modern dictatorships are also failures. It's that every leader on the planet is either corrupt, almost entirely self-serving, or only cares about looting for their own personal fortune without regards to their country.

Having established these as the relevant criteria, in Book III Chapter 7 Aristotle sets out the six kinds of regimes. The correct regimes are monarchy (rule by one man for the common good), aristocracy (rule by a few for the common good), and polity (rule by the many for the common good); the flawed or deviant regimes are tyranny (rule by one man in his own interest), oligarchy (rule by the few in their own interest), and democracy (rule by the many in their own interest). Aristotle later ranks them in order of goodness, with monarchy the best, aristocracy the next best, then polity, democracy, oligarchy, and tyranny (1289a38). People in Western societies are used to thinking of democracy as a good form of government – maybe the only good form of government – but Aristotle considers it one of the flawed regimes (although it is the least bad of the three) and you should keep that in mind in his discussion of it. You should also keep in mind that by the “common goodâ€￾ Aristotle means the common good of the citizens, and not necessarily all the residents of the city. The women, slaves, and manual laborers are in the city for the good of the citizens.

...

First, however, let us briefly consider with Aristotle one other valid claim to rule. Those who are most virtuous have, Aristotle says, the strongest claim of all to rule. If the city exists for the sake of developing virtue in the citizens, then those who have the most virtue are the most fit to rule; they will rule best, and on behalf of all the citizens, establishing laws that lead others to virtue. However, if one man or a few men of exceptional virtue exist in the regime, we will be outside of politics: “If there is one person so outstanding by his excess of virtue – or a number of persons, though not enough to provide a full complement for the city – that the virtue of all the others and their political capacity is not commensurable…such persons can no longer be regarded as part of the cityâ€￾ (1284a4). It would be wrong for the other people in the city to claim the right to rule over them or share rule with them, just as it would be wrong for people to claim the right to share power with Zeus. The proper thing would be to obey them (1284b28). But this situation is extremely unlikely (1287b40). Instead, cities will be made up of people who are similar and equal, which leads to problems of its own.


...

What does justice require when political power is being distributed? Aristotle says that both groups – the oligarchs and democrats – offer judgments about this, but neither of them gets it right, because “the judgment concerns themselves, and most people are bad judges concerning their own thingsâ€￾

http://www.iep.utm.edu/aris-pol/#SH9c


The world is ruled by tyrants, oligarchs, democratic ideals, plutocrats, and corporations. There are no virtuous leaders. An authoritarian could build a corrupt country or something like a utopia. It all depends on how the power is used, but I would rather live in a good authoritarian system over a good democratic system. No one is ever free is the world and freedom is a myth.

Authoritarian systems could be good or bad. Republics always degenerate into oligarchies which ultimately loot everything from the people into the hands of a few. Every country in the world is an oligarchy and that won't change.

Hitler performed an economic miracle because he had authoritarian power. The tsars like Peter the Great or Alexander II did other good things for Russia. Marcus Aurelias was a philosopher king. Constantine ended the persecution of the Christians in ancient Rome. Not all authoritarians do good, or only do good, but authoritarians that use their power to better their country and all their people are the only ones that can rule effectively and efficiently.

Look at the gridlock, the corruption, how they are bought, how corporations and donors buy candidates, and the media chooses who gets airtime and shown to the voters. It's all the same and anyone that believes democracy exists is a fool and the same for people that believe America is a republic. America is an oligarchy and a banana republic.
Tsar
Experienced Poster
 
Posts: 1832
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 7:40 pm

Postby Jester » Wed Aug 27, 2014 7:17 am

OutWest wrote:
Tsar wrote:A country needs an authoritarian leader to prosper. Democracy and Republicanism are two forms of government that are failures. Whenever a democratic or republic form of government rules a country, the country enters a death spiral. It is no coincidence that the democratic ideals (although those ideals are just an illusion the masses believe. Voting is inherently meaningless) of the West spawned the current state of immorality and corruption that now plagues the world. Democratic ideals always creates an evil society, it may not in the beginning, but over time every country that accepted a democratic or republic form of government turned into a Sodom and Gomorrah of a country. Harlots, whores, thieves, murderers, masculine women, thugs, brutes, and self-serving psychopathic plutocrats compose the large majority of the masses. Homosexuality, fornication, and adultery becomes widespread. Add in the "bread and circuses" as a means of appeasement, which today is the popular entertainment, celebrity gossip, the very rare incidence of a poor or middle class person being risen from poverty and paraded as an example for everyone to see, the one-sided bias media of the West that portrays our nation and our side does no wrong, the popular American sports games, and the increasing violence on television. Instead of solving problems, they try to create more problems as distractions and to profit off the decay.


Your hero Putin, the KGB thug, has looted Russia from one end to the other, and is arguably the richest man in the world as a result. It was only as China become less authoritarian that their economy bloomed, and their per capita output is still not as high as democratic Taiwan.
In South America, authoritarian Argentina languishes in default after default and its economy is always in the tank, while they have some of the highest inflation in the world. Democratic Chile, even under a socialist president, still espouses democratic vote, rule of law and property rights. It has by far, the healthiest economy in Latin America and it is by far the least corrupt country in Latin America.
Argentina of course, is just the opposite- hopelessly corrupt.
I think you idealize Russia. Their are a lot of Russians who are pretty amazing. Unfortunately, they are still ruled by thugs. The smartest, most inventive Russians will want to leave as a result, as they know that Putin and Co. can steal all they have anytime they want.

You will not be able to name one dictatorship that now Rivals modern Germany in terms of productivity.


Dictators who have created prosperity:
King David
King Solomon the Wise
Lorenzo Medici
Napoleon
Napoleon III (France)
Mussolini
Hitler
Peron (Argentina)

Machine politicians who have created prosperity
Pericles
Caesar Augustus (Octavian)
FDR
Daley (Chicago)
Jack Kennedy

Machine politicians who have f***ed up an economy:
Kirchners (both)
Bill Clinton

Commies who have slightly improved an economy:
Brezhnev
Deng (China)

Commies who have totally f***ed up an economy:
Lenin
Mao
Castro
Pol Pot

Republicans/Democrats who created prosperity
Washington
Jefferson
Madison
Jackson
Zach Taylor
Gladstone (Britain)
Calvin Coolidge
Ronald Reagan

Republicans/Democrats who f***ed up an economy:
LBJ

Not a rigorous analysis, just off the top of my head, no careful thought here. Just saying that it seems to me that democracy versus dictatorship has little to do with prosperity. It's WHAT the government does or doesnt do, not WHO does it.
Jester
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 7869
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 9:10 am
Location: Chiang Mai Thailand

Postby Tsar » Wed Aug 27, 2014 7:49 am

I guess your somewhat correct in that any government type can be prosperous. I wouldn't exactly say that Ronald Reagan created true prosperity because the wealthy benefited the most by Ronald Reagan's policies and ultimately is said to be one of the Presidents that helped push America towards the current banana republic it is today. I also agree that Lenin completely f***ed up the Russian economy and destroyed their chance at more territorial gains from WWI.

Most of the arts were also funded by dictators. Science was also funded by many dictators (excluding many European monarchs during the period when the Catholic Church was against many scientific research and development).

I'll add George W. Bush and Obama to leaders who have f***ed up an economy. Some would also add Herbert Hoover but I believe he was correct in not stepping in to save anyone. Wall Street and all the banks should have been allowed to go bankrupt and disappear, regardless of how much damage it would do to the financial system or the nation's economy in the short-term.
Tsar
Experienced Poster
 
Posts: 1832
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 7:40 pm

Postby Tsar » Wed Aug 27, 2014 7:52 am

I'll also add Nixon to the list of Presidents that f***ed up an economy. Taking America off the gold peg and allowing it to become pure fiat, allowing America to take more debt than it could repay, and opening up China to American business.
Tsar
Experienced Poster
 
Posts: 1832
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 7:40 pm

Postby Jester » Wed Aug 27, 2014 6:59 pm

Tsar wrote:
I'll also add Nixon to the list of Presidents that f***ed up an economy....and opening up China to American business.



Yeah Nixon and Carter both did that, in phases. Nixon started it, Carter finished it.

Both democratically elected, neither one a dictator or classic machine politician.
Jester
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 7869
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 9:10 am
Location: Chiang Mai Thailand

Postby Jester » Wed Aug 27, 2014 7:09 pm

Tsar wrote:
Most of the arts were also funded by dictators. Science was also funded by many dictators (excluding many European monarchs during the period when the Catholic Church was against many scientific research and development).



What period is that?

Universities were invented by the Catholic Church.

Michelangelo was employed by the Catholic Church.

Galileo was a professor at a Catholic University.

So what period are you referring to?
Jester
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 7869
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 9:10 am
Location: Chiang Mai Thailand

Postby Tsar » Thu Aug 28, 2014 1:13 am

Jester wrote:
Tsar wrote:
Most of the arts were also funded by dictators. Science was also funded by many dictators (excluding many European monarchs during the period when the Catholic Church was against many scientific research and development).



What period is that?

Universities were invented by the Catholic Church.

Michelangelo was employed by the Catholic Church.

Galileo was a professor at a Catholic University.

So what period are you referring to?


The Catholic Church did fund many arts and many of the arts in Europe post-Roman Empire were indeed created by the Catholic Church. They also helped contribute to science. At the time the Catholic Church had great influence in Europe and were on level with aristocrats and sometime the power of the popes rivaled or surpassed kings. Tithings were widely practiced.

Both the European monarchies and Catholic Church helped contribute to advancements in the arts and sciences. Both can be called absolute monarchies, with the monarchies hereditary and the pope basically a elected theocratic monarch by the cardinals that were like aristocrats in those times.

Going back to the Catholic Church, during some periods they didn't want certain inventions or discoveries revealed. An example is that one of the beliefs was the sun revolved around the Earth, they didn't want Galileo to share the discovery that the Earth revolved around the sun because that was not in agreement with their teaching at the time. It was only during some periods or moments they didn't really want certain scientific inventions.

In some cases, science does lead to a decrease in morals like we now see like contraception and abortion. If those two relatively modern discoveries didn't happen, then women wouldn't be as much of whores, harlots, and sluts as they are now. Then there's the issue of GMO foods that are toxic and harmful. It takes an authoritarian leader to ultimately control the people and enforce morals. Some scientific inventions shouldn't be allowed for the greater good but most science is usually a benefit to the greater good.
Tsar
Experienced Poster
 
Posts: 1832
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 7:40 pm

Postby Tsar » Thu Aug 28, 2014 2:07 am

Republics and democracies eventually deteriorate into oligarchies that ultimately cut the arts first and then either cut science or limit the advancements to the elites only and withhold the progress of science to increase profits. Some studies indicate that many inventions and discoveries have been suppressed, that the pentagon and US military is withholding technology 100 years ahead of current technology, and corporations have 20-50 years of new technology stored up. All to keep earning more money and pilfer the wealth of people.

Plutocrats ultimately don't care who is in power, they can go anywhere and have no vested interest in any one country. They can easily invest in any other country to escape and continue the cycle of migration, assimilating, pilfering, then pilfering by profiteering off the collapse of the new country, then moving on to migrate to another country.

Mayer Amschel Rothschild said "Let me issue and control a Nation's money and I care not who makes its laws." That sums up the current plutocrats and oligarchs. The Rothschilds control the money supply along with the fellow plutocratic elites, and corporations basically mint money and earn a record profit at the expense of progress and the people.
Tsar
Experienced Poster
 
Posts: 1832
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 7:40 pm

Postby Wolfeye » Thu Aug 28, 2014 3:16 am

Ever wonder what all of this is to provide? It certainly doesn't seem like these people are worried about being homeless or starving. What is all this to support?
Wolfeye
Experienced Poster
 
Posts: 1138
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 6:18 am

Postby ladislav » Thu Aug 28, 2014 3:58 am

Russia has a melancholy underbelly that keeps it down. It also has very corrupt people who keep everybody down. Thievery all across the government; in Russian fortune favors those who steal.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3I4q-WwFGQ[/youtube]

How can we win if we are so easy to sell and buy. How can we prosper if the president is so high and everyone steals.

This is a different view:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHcmLuFHgw0[/youtube]
A brain is a terrible thing to wash!
ladislav
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 3578
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 6:30 pm

Postby gsjackson » Thu Aug 28, 2014 7:17 am

Yeah, well maybe someday someone will make the case against Putin's Russia with a fact or two, but I'm not holding my breath.

The second of the two videos above implies that anti-Semitism is a major force in Russia, and that the current government in Ukraine is fighting against this evil on behalf of humankind. That's kind of surprising, given that a substantial portion of the regime in Ukraine consists of Nazis. That's NAZI'S, as in Hitler supporters, professional anti-semites. For true.

But no reason to suppose this issue will ever be anything but a fact-free zone. The propagandists have had it covered like a glove for months.
gsjackson
Experienced Poster
 
Posts: 1471
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2010 2:08 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA USA

Postby Jester » Thu Aug 28, 2014 8:33 pm

ladislav wrote:
Russia has a melancholy underbelly that keeps it down....

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3I4q-WwFGQ[/youtube]



Well I still the melancholy folk songs....
Jester
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 7869
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 9:10 am
Location: Chiang Mai Thailand

Previous

Return to Russia, Ukraine, Former Soviet Republics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest