Crimeans Who Ushered in the Russians Now Have to Live With Their Choice

[Klemens_Hadwig]

In the West, if you want to wallow in sinfulness, that is your choice. Its called freedom. Let the chips fall where they may. You can’t have free will without the freedom to exercise it. That is a western value that is far superior to the Russian “value” of state approved beating of people to a pulp because you dont like what they are.

Freedom is overrated. Society has experimented with freedom since 1789 and look at the results: more destructive wars, the questioning of the basic fundaments of society, and a moral degeneracy not witnessed since pagan times.

‘This western value that is far superior’
Keep those values in the west. The East has its own values. The moment one does not impose on the other is the moment that we achieve peace. The biggest danger is unwavering belief in an objectively superior ideology over all. Must I recall how Germans once (1920-1945) believed in a certain superiority that needed to be spread around the entire world?

As for the reports relaying the attacks. I would not trust western sources as well as Russian sources. Western sources are plagued with misinformation in the name sensationalism and possibly because of agenda.

In short, keep the East Eastern and likewise keep the west western.

 

[Tbrightson]

Freedom is overrated. .

“If ye love wealth better than liberty,
the tranquility of servitude
better than the animating contest of freedom,
go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or your arms.
Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
May your chains set lightly upon you,
and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”

Samuel Adams

 

[Seamus_L]

Samuel Adams, who never marched in a homosexual pride parade.

 

[Klemens_Hadwig]

“If ye love wealth better than liberty,
the tranquility of servitude
better than the animating contest of freedom,
go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or your arms.
Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
May your chains set lightly upon you,
and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”

Samuel Adams

I prefer the words of the great Prince, Klemens von Metternich, rather than the ramblings of a Freemason/revolutionary.

Fürst Klemens von Metternich-Winneburg:

‘The word “freedom” means for me not a point of departure but a genuine point of arrival. The point of departure is defined by the word “order”. Freedom cannot exist without the concept of order.’

If freedom is to exist, it must arrive from order.
It appears that the liberal revolutionary desires freedom in everything. Furthermore, his enemy is order. Why else would he be a revolutionary.
Society which reverses the sequence will inevitably unravel since it will lack any structure to keep it afloat. If a balance appears to exist, it will naturally suffer from the precedent of liberty in one area necessitating its spread into other areas.

Order and stability trumps immediate freedom.
Society and the collective by far surpass the individual.
This is the reality of human civilisation before the advent of liberalism.

 

[Darryl1958]

It wouldn’t be defensible and that’s why it is false - he hasn’t got this accumulated wealth. A very easy piece of manufactured gossip to discredit Putin, as per your reasons outlined above.

Even from a basic common sense viewpoint when does he get to spend it all, he’s getting on a bit now not much time left to go mad and live it up!

How has he used his lavish wealth over the decades, considering he’s been in the public eye for most of it and working.

There’s even gossip about the Pope being the richest man in the world.

matrixbob.wordpress.com/2012/02/01/the-pope-is-the-richest-man-in-the-world-the-catholic-church-is-the-wealthiest-corporation-on-earth-yet-catholics-starve-to-death/

Nobody says that the pope is the richest man in the world, or at least nobody credible.
Likewise, nobody credible denies the wealth of Putin.
I was much more interested in whether Tomdstone was arguing against the superlative in describing the wealth, or the wealth itself, like the position of some here.

My arguments against him assumed the latter, rather than the former.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Of course there are, but how many of them were photographed at the Maidan protests stating the protesters were ‘right’, or later recorded having phone conversations choosing the coup government officials and a year later their president/prime-minister admitted they "Brokered a Deal to Transition Power in Ukraine”

NONE!

Certainly none that you will cite. But it’s preposterous to believe that no other country encouraged the protesters. It is exactly the function of embassies and stations to promote what they think will be in the best interests of their own nations and regions. The U.S. did not “choose” the present legitimately elected government of Ukraine.

 

[Tbrightson]

. Order and stability trumps immediate freedom. Society and the collective by far surpass the individual.

---

Karl Marx, is that you?

Metternich was a conservative, who favored traditional,** even autocratic**, institutions over what he saw as their radical alternatives, such as democratic systems, if the establishment of the latter meant, as they often did, the violent overthrow of the former.

However, he was an enthusiastic supporter of what was called the Concert of Europe. Metternich wanted stability, not revolution

Yah, I could see why Putler would like this guy…no thanks…

 

[Darryl1958]

Samuel Adams, who never marched in a homosexual pride parade.

For Samuel Adams. who indeed did not march in a gay pride parade, freedom was not overrated.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Keep those values in the west. The East has its own values. .

Yes, as emplified by Lenin, Stalin, Dzerzhinsky, Yagoda, Mao, Putin, Pol Pot, Khomeni, Khameni, Assad, Al-Baghdadi and many others.

 

[Tbrightson]

For Samuel Adams. who indeed did not march in a gay pride parade, freedom was not overrated.

Yes He and his fellow patriots may have disagreed with the views of a gay parade, but would have defended to the death the right for them to have it.

A concept totally lost on some.

 

[Darryl1958]

Yes He and his fellow patriots may have disagreed with the views of a gay parade, but would have defended to the death the right for them to have it.

A concept totally lost on some.

Well, there was not even such a thing as a pride parade before our generation. He never flew a plane either for that matter

The concept is lost on some, but overtly rejected by others who are making their arguments for Russia interfering and annexing territory of its independent neighbors.

 

[Klemens_Hadwig]

. Order and stability trumps immediate freedom. Society and the collective by far surpass the individual.

Marx himself called for revolution against the exploitation of the working class by those above it (19th century bourgeoisie). His final verdict was against order.
However, you should perhaps realise that not all conservatives fit the American brand.
Reactionaries are frequently anti-socialist as well as anti-capitalist.
It appears that the moment Americans find their valued individualism threatened, they blindly throw the Marxist epithet as a final defence. Perhaps you should realise that the liberal ideals of the American and French revolutions have much in common with socialist goals, particularly the ideal of equality.

As to my statement regarding the place of the individual, I will clarify.
Family, society, and the collective outweigh the individual.

This was the reality of human existence before the revolutions. I do not believe that nearly 7000 years of example can be blindly dismissed as ‘Marxist’.

 

[Klemens_Hadwig]

Yes, as emplified by Lenin, Stalin, Dzerzhinsky, Yagoda, Mao, Putin, Pol Pot, Khomeni, Khameni, Assad, Al-Baghdadi and many others.

I could make a list of western monsters, such as the fascists, but I will not play that game. You should realise that the East is older than 1917/1949 and the various revolutionary movements of the XX century. Blindly throwing names, particularly those from disparate movements will not advance the argument.

 

[Klemens_Hadwig]

Well, there was not even such a thing as a pride parade before our generation. He never flew a plane either for that matter

The concept is lost on some, but overtly rejected by others who are making their arguments for Russia interfering and annexing territory of its independent neighbors.

I do not know who coined this but, I think it is useful to remember.

‘Man has no right to sin.’

 

[Klemens_Hadwig]

. Order and stability trumps immediate freedom. Society and the collective by far surpass the individual.

I do not believe that Putin has never mentioned Metternich in any of his words. I do not see where you drew your conclusion. In fact, apart from Kissinger’s writings about the Congress of Vienna, I have never heard a political actually quote Metternich or claim inspiration from him. ( Maybe I am the only student of Metternich’s political thought? ).

However, I would never desire to see such a system in the United States for example. At the same time, I hope that such a system returns to Europe, particularly in those countries that merely ‘adopted’ democracy and the liberal tradition.
In short, I seek a merely the delineation of cultural and political boundaries, a certain détente between the traditional and liberal systems.

There is nothing wrong with order and autocracy. So long as man has food to eat, a shelter, the presence of his family, and finally a Church to pray in, he in essence needs nothing else.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I could make a list of western monsters, such as the fascists, but I will not play that game. You should realise that the East is older that 1917/1949 and the various revolutionary movements of the XX century. Blindly throwing names, particularly those from disparate movements will not advance the argument.

Why not play the game? If you are going to idealize Eastern thought, you should be prepared to defend it in its most significant manifestations. It has not been a pretty picture.

Actually, there is really no difference between “fascism” and “socialism” in any important respect. Both are rule by totalitarian elites. Only the terminology and pretenses are different.

 

[Ridgerunner]

There is nothing wrong with order and autocracy. So long as man has food to eat, a shelter, the presence of his family, and finally a Church to pray in, he in essence needs nothing else.

The problem with autocracy, of course, is that it devours resources, which tends to defeat peoples’ desires to eat, have shelter, and form families. It does so because coercion always requires cadres of enforcers who are higher on the priority list for food, shelter, etc.

And since churches are always an ideology of their own, they often are seen as competitors by autocrats, which is why autocrats of more modern times have suppressed religion.

 

[pepipop]

Nobody says that the pope is the richest man in the world, or at least nobody credible.
Likewise, nobody credible denies the wealth of Putin.
I was much more interested in whether Tomdstone was arguing against the superlative in describing the wealth, or the wealth itself, like the position of some here.

My arguments against him assumed the latter, rather than the former.

Says who? There’s absolutely zero proof, it’s all hearsay.

To be frank, it’s completely ludicrous to believe a person with such commitment and love of his country would stash 200 billion away for himself - for what? He couldn’t spend it all in a 100 lifetimes. Utter madness.

washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/02/20/is-vladimir-putin-hiding-a-200-billion-fortune-and-if-so-does-it-matter/

*Browder was on CNN’s “Fareed Zakaria GPS” to talk about the book last weekend when he threw out an incredible estimate of Putin’s net worth. “I believe that [Putin is worth] $200 billion," Browder said.

As Leonid Bershidsky wrote for Bloomberg View in 2013, most of these numbers can be traced back to one man: Stanislav Belkovsky, a Russian political analyst, who first claimed in 2007 that Putin “controlled” 37 percent of oil company Surgutneftegaz and 4.5 percent of natural gas company Gazprom. If Belkovsky is right, that would certainly make Putin very wealthy. But where’s the proof? Estimates of Putin’s wealth lack even the smallest thread of evidence.

Putin isn’t alone in this situation. Forbes, famous for its listings of the world’s billionaires, makes a point of not including rulers and dictators. But with Russia, it’s an important strategic point to remember. *

 

[Klemens_Hadwig]

The problem with autocracy, of course, is that it devours resources, which tends to defeat peoples’ desires to eat, have shelter, and form families. It does so because coercion always requires cadres of enforcers who are higher on the priority list for food, shelter, etc.

And since churches are always an ideology of their own, they often are seen as competitors by autocrats, which is why autocrats of more modern times have suppressed religion.

I sense that your definition of autocracy maybe different from what I am referring to.
Autocracy simply means rule by one. An autocrat can be quite limited in his absolute capacity, particularly by his advisors, or the precedent of the past.
But, the most important thing is the absence of that detestable practise, democracy.

How does the acquisition of resources by another defeat a person’s desire to eat?

What I merely summarised is that man requires neither political enfranchisement, nor liberty to thrive.

 

[Tbrightson]

However, I would never desire to see such a system in the United States for example. At the same time, I hope that such a system returns to Europe,

Yeah Europe is yearning for the autocratic Naploean, Hapsburgs, Romanovs, the Kaiser Wilhelm, Mussolini, Hitler, Franco,Lenin,Stalin… That all worked out sooooo well…