[What’s the point in singling out Alexander Parvus, how does it enhance understanding of the Russian revolution?]

You think there were lots of people who played a role like his? Then name some.

Would be interesting to see a discussion of that and how Russians view his work (Archipelago GULAG).

As exaggerated nonsense.
Of course Stalinist terror – the real thing, but when the number of victims of terror is inflated by two orders of magnitude – this is not a historical study but just propaganda nonsense. The praise of collaborationist WWII discreditied this book even more.

The collapse of Christian belief after WWI is an empirical fact. The severe undermining of European societies has resulted as the belief system that underpinned them has withered. One way that Christianity aided European societies was in dealing with hostile outgroups, whether Jews or Muslims. Without Christianity, it is doubtful if there would have been a Reconquista or the Liberation of Greece, for example.

Well, Kholmogorov was also the inventor of the Atomic Orthodoxy concept, so you’re closer that you probably imagined. 🙂

http://s016.radikal.ru/i334/1711/89/0c77e565af18.jpg

What’s there to appreciate about an incompetent loser like Nicholas II?

After reading Dominic Lieven’s biography of Nicholas II (which includes a fair amount of information about other important figures of the time, including Sergei Witte and Pyotr Stolypin), I came
to better appreciate the difficulty of the situation in which Nicholas II found himself. It seems to me that the administration of the Russian Empire had become so complex that no monarch, however competent, could have been an effective autocrat. One way or another, major decision making power was going to have to be delegated. The ultimate question was how to do this without completely destroying Russian society. Even England, which was able to make the transition to a constitutional monarchy at an early and more opportune time, did not escape civil war. It’s not at all clear to me that a “competent winner” of a tsar would have succeeded in making the transition.

Excellent! I once wondered why his works so resonated with and changed me. Decades later, as an internal Christian exile in one of the worlds he critiqued, I now understand why the propition. I also read Shafarevitvh’s book on Chiliastic Socialism, The Socialist Phenomenon I think it was titled, and reviewed it for a publication where I was an editor.

I think it all has begun with 18th C France, Voltaire & Rousseau. Voltaire was seen as the conscience of his generation (the Calas case), while Rousseau was seen as the prophet by Jacobins. Later, Zola was a sort of refurbished Voltaire (Dreyfus affair), and Tolstoy was acclaimed as universal moralist & prophet of non-violence.

The last of these preachers posing as prophets was J.P. Sartre.

So- why writers, and not scientists or visual artists or real philosophers?

I guess because written word has become the dominant medium in past 200 or so years; visual arts & music (except Wagnerian interlude) have dimmed; exact sciences are either incomprehensible to the wider audience or simply dull.

Just, since written word is sinking in front of our eyes, perhaps future “prophets” will be celebrities, airheads like Kardashians & similar refuse…

I think it all has begun with 18th C France, Voltaire & Rousseau. Voltaire was seen as the conscience of his generation (the Calas case), while Rousseau was seen as the prophet by Jacobins. Later, Zola was a sort of refurbished Voltaire (Dreyfus affair), and Tolstoy was acclaimed as universal moralist & prophet of non-violence.

The last of these preachers posing as prophets was J.P. Sartre.

So- why writers, and not scientists or visual artists or real philosophers?

I guess because written word has become the dominant medium in past 200 or so years; visual arts & music (except Wagnerian interlude) have dimmed; exact sciences are either incomprehensible to the wider audience or simply dull.

Just, since written word is sinking in front of our eyes, perhaps future “prophets” will be celebrities, airheads like Kardashians & similar refuse…

Yes Sartre was such a character in France. But Sartre was also a philosopher, and had analytic and intellectual abilities. He was not quite equivalent to the pure storyteller and artist/dreamer/fabulist, writing about affairs which require opposite skillset.

The point overall is very interesting. I think we already see the movement away from novelists, and to actors as being the most prestigious ‘voice’ in politics.

Although you can see still that e.g. J.K. Rowling is now playing an important role in political commentary.

France and Britain weren’t without some responsibility either (none of the great powers was imo, though Russia and Germany were probably the main culprits), but it seems to me there was less enthusiasm for war among elites and educated classes there. The British had to be motivated by the whole issue of Belgium, violation of neutrality and German war crimes…no sane Englishman would have cared about a Balkans war between Austria-Hungary and Serbia. Whereas there were plenty of panslavist nutters in Russia who thought their national honour mandated going to war for Serbia (which was just an unimportant and rather nasty bandit state).

The “motivation” for Britain regarding Belgium was propaganda produced by people in Britain, things like mass rape and killing babies was used to for propaganda, it seems their penchant to produce propaganda to agitate for war has not stopped.

At least in part he delegated it to the wrong kind of people I’d say.

Not in all cases. Stolypin was a winner.

But getting Russia into a World War was an incredible blunder and terminally stupid timing. It would be like China or Russia stumbling into a war against the USA in 2005 or something, rather than in 2025 or later if war were eventually inevitable (hopefully it is not), if nukes did not exist.

Stolypin was a winner.

From what I’ve read (far too little admittedly), you’re right, it’s very unfortunate that Stolypin (who seems to have been a sensible reformer) was murdered. Maybe things would have turned out differently if that hadn’t happened.
In any case, I didn’t want to put down Nicholas too much…on a personal level he was probably a decent man, certainly didn’t deserve his horrible end. I just don’t quite see how his political record can be “appreciated” (his dignity in facing death may be a different matter…but that’s more of a suffering virtue than the kind of active skill necessary for politicians).

I know a lot of commenters here will disagree, but imo Russia’s leadership in 1914 must take a major share of the responsibility for the outbreak of WW1

I don’t know enough to have an opinion, but would be interested in hearing that of others.

For what it’s worth, the impression that I got from reading Lieven’s biography of him is that liberal politicians were much more keen on a war with Germany than was Nicholas himself, and ultimately it was a deal cut between the military and the liberals that forced Nicholas’s abdication. In hindsight, I suspect that if Nicholas is at fault for not stopping the war, then ultimately he would have to be at fault for not crushing the revolution of 1905 and for not avoiding war with Japan in 1904 (for example, he could have accepted the Japanese offer of Manchuria in return for Korea). Unlike the war with Germany, my impression from reading Lieven is that Nicholas was rather enthusiastic about war with Japan.

Another thing that struck me reading Lieven’s book is how similar some of modern Russia’s problems are to those of the late empire, in particular the need to catch up economically or be crushed and to find some way to distribute and transfer power without leading to chaos.

Anyhow, I’m grateful to be a simple person without responsibility for such momentous decisions.

An author of great literature is in essence completely different from a great actor or brilliant musician.

Why? The novelist skill has a lot to do with half-closing the eyes, and allowing yourself to dream and to fantasize, and to make-believe. Although there is an analytical and organization component, involved in the composition of the story.

Acting profession is a similar behaviour at the basis, that allows the person to inhabit another character or setting. But there is little need for the analytical component (as this is organized by the director or writer).

As for novelists writing history. Here there are directly contradicting personalities and skills – and a fabulist, is no substitute for a professionally trained historian, as history is more science than art.

As for all these talented people (whether actors, or even scientists and mathematicians) – they are often extremely mediocre when they were working outside the area of their talent which made them famous.

Generally it is a case of ‘free-riding’. Where the person who built a fame in one area, uses this to trick people into thinking they are expert in some other area (in which they have no real ability).

Sadly, this is very common with artists, who commonly have narcissistic personality disorder, and believe themselves to be a universal genius.

People know this where it is directly impacting them, and you would not want J.K. Rowling – for all her imaginative genius – to perform surgery on you, or trust to walk on a bridge she built.

But somehow when it comes to history, or economics, or even political science – which are almost equally unconnected to story invention – people are still impressed by their fame.

When you find someone with ability in more than one area, it is particularly surprising, but it is not the normal state, and particularly not the normal state for artists.

That’s certainly true, but could you consciously make yourself believe in something just because it’s evolutionarily adaptive?

Of course. If you find that certain assumptions you can’t prove by logic are nevertheless necessary for humans to flourish on this earth, then it’s paradoxically logical to conclude that “reality” on a deeper level indicates the “existence” of these assumptions, in some form.

Of course, you cannot accept this. For cultural revitalization to occur, the older generation of whites simply has to die off. We must wait patiently.

As for the article itself – simply brilliant.

I’m impressed, Anatoly, at the growth in your views. Was not expecting it.

You are still young enough, apparently, to grow, and participate in the coming turn away from the enlightenment death cult and towards health and sanity (and yes, I know you’re still a staunch supporter of technology and all that).

The older generation of whites, the Steve Sailers, John Derbyshires, German Readers, Bardon Karolians, and honestly perhaps the majority of undoubtedly highly intelligent white commenters on this blog, while certainly not bad people, are nevertheless too tainted by the death cult and must quietly die off – God willing peacefully and of natural causes – before any kind of revitalization can occur.

Let us do what we can, and wait patiently.

What’s interesting is that the scientific world view is justified because it’s supposed to lead to flourishing and thriving, and religion and the aesthetic world view is specifically denigrated for not being conducive to flourishing – words like “outdated”, antiquated, Dmitry with his attempt to trivialize aesthetics as “important” but less significant for human flourishing than science, etc – all of this is a rhetorical attempt to suggest science is most conducive to long term human flourishing.

And yet I think keeping human flourishing as the basic metric for judging any world view is absolutely correct – “effectiveness” really is the metric we should use, and instinctively do anyways, which is why science had such rhetorical appeal. Religious and aesthetic people have long railed against “effectiveness” as a barbarism, but this is a misunderstanding I now see.

Only, we must view “total flourishing” as the goal – and not partial flourishing in one realm at the expense of the whole, which it is now clear, leads eventually to the collapse of any kind of flourishing. From this point of view, it is now clear that religion and the aesthetic world view are indispensable to “total flourishing” – and the apparently “useless” is indeed highly useful – a point I believe Victor Hugo made in the opening to one of his novels, I believe Les Miserables.

We have accumulated enough history as a species by this point of the “human experiment” to know that excessively focusing on material flourishing leads to a total collapse of the human endeavor.

Now we must only wait patiently till the last votaries of the old Death Culture fade from the scene, and view them with compassion and pity in the meantime.

I don’t know enough to have an opinion, but would be interested in hearing that of others.

I read a lot about this many years ago but don’t remember enough to have an opinion other than if you want to know who to blame for something but don’t know enough to have an opinion then nine times out of ten your safest bet is it was probably the banks.

I took a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hetman_of_Zaporizhian_Host

Take a look at the portraits.

All of these guys have stupid Russian-looking mustaches and hats until about the time that Russians started LARPing as Westerners.

Mustaches were a Polish thing. Russians traditionally had beards, not mustaches.

Here is Rembrandt’s picture of a Polish nobleman:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2c/Rembrandt_van_Rijn_-_A_Polish_nobleman.jpg/408px-Rembrandt_van_Rijn_-_A_Polish_nobleman.jpg

Another Polish nobleman:

http://enacademic.com/pictures/enwiki/74/Jerzy_Sebastian_Lubomirski.PNG

Here is a Russian boyar wedding from before Russian were LARPing as westerners:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/72/A_Boyar_Wedding_Feast_%28Konstantin_Makovsky%2C_1883%29_Google_Cultural_Institute.jpg/800px-A_Boyar_Wedding_Feast_%28Konstantin_Makovsky%2C_1883%29_Google_Cultural_Institute.jpg

A Russian boyar:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/30/Godfrey_Kneller_-_Portrait_of_P.Potemkin_%281682%2C_Hermitage%29_-_contrast.jpg

Which ones do the Ukrainians look more like?

They also have Russian-type names. Several of them are even named Ivan.

And there is Marco in Italy and Spain. Ivan is very common in Bulgaria and Croatia. Are those peoples Russians also?

Are you sure that Polish guy is not LARPing as European? You do an image search on “szlachta” and you get fellows that look like this, for example:

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/10/0f/6b/100f6b90c83bc3d9fa6b21b6ba5d2ed8.jpg

Not too different from the boyar.

Looks very different.

Polish Szlachta (noble):

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/15/Stanislaw_Antoni_Szczuka_%281652_1654-1710%29.jpg/220px-Stanislaw_Antoni_Szczuka_%281652_1654-1710%29.jpg

http://genealogia.lt/images/szlachta.jpg

Ukrainian Cossack elite (noble):

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/Pavlo_Teterya.jpg

Look pretty much the same. As one would expect – the two groups came from a similar social and politcial world.

Russian boyars:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/Bojaren.jpg

https://c8.alamy.com/comp/DRAJJ3/a-russian-tsar-with-his-boyars-DRAJJ3.jpg

It’s a clear contrast.

There are some Cossacks with beards but the prototype is with mustaches, as with Poles, whereas Russian Boyars had long flowing beards and tall hats (apparently, the taller the hats, the higher the social status).

Your comments usually convey a mixture of defeatism and lack of enthusiasm for the future that I find fairly atypical in younger commenters.

That’s why you sound like you are some kind of middle-aged grumpy German who can only wait hopeless and helpless as his country becomes the ever more powerful centre of the EU multiculti empire.

Maybe you don’t think/feel anything along those lines but it seems to me your comments read like that.

Right, a huge contrast (not.)

And here is another example of a Polish aristocrat:

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a3/10/54/a31054f456c16bcdc0f16bd3b5ede615.jpg

Oops, actually it’s an Ottoman aristocrat. Hard to tell the difference.

Sadly, this is very common with artists, who commonly have narcissistic personality disorder, and believe themselves to be a universal genius.

This is only a commentary on modern western culture, and not inherent to art. Medieval artists were self-effacing, and Chinese artists would meditate to get rid of a sense of self before they began their work.

Stop projecting modern western sickness. Most modern western art is not of universal human significance precisely because it is narcissistic, and only capable of moving to people who are facing the problems of a very specific period in time and place. In 200 years Dostoevsky , for instance, will be forgotten, but gothic cathedrals (should they still exist), Greek temples, and Chinese landscape painting will still be appreciated. Dostoevsky is only relevant to people caught between tradition and modernity – this is not a universal human theme, and as modernity fades as the “failed app” that it is, Dostoevsky will come to seem a curiosity. I myself, as a creature of this time, deeply appreciate Dostoevsky – but I recognize the need to overcome his relevance. (I am merely using him as a stand in for most modern art).

Now we’re back to akshually, the Ukraine was also dominated by Poland.

Facts are facts.

What differentiates England from Germany? Conquest by French-speaking Normans, which brought with it massive influx of French words, among other changes to the society (such as more Scandinavian-style political culture, the parliamentary system is a Nordic thing). Old English looked like German, after Norman conquest the English language does not.

Ukraine experienced the a similar phenomenon due to centuries of Polish rule and settlement. The only difference is that because all three peoples are Slavs Ukrainians are more like Poles and Russians than English are like French or Germans.

Russians didn’t have this. So the two peoples are not the same. OTOH, the natives of Ukraine are not Poles either. They are a people different from those two. This fact doesn’t change whether these people are called Ukrainians, Little Russians, Rusyns, whatever.

So please explain to me your preferred scenario.

It seems usually the work of art itself – with its own interior logic – that contains wisdom though, rather than the artist; and often a novel can be spoiled by self-conscious preaching by authors.

This is very much of the case of Tolstoy, who is best – and conveys stronger moral message – when he lets the creation speak for itself.

Of course, in all this, the artists themselves are often more unwise, selfish and immoral in their own life than the average person, even as the same artists can produce works with the opposite qualities.

It has a lot do with the process and discipline of the work itself forcing the artist to give it (the work) objective qualities. The artist itself can be, and in great art usually is, very different to the work that they manage to produce, and which is often a compensation of all they are not (as when narcissistic womanizer like Puccini, gives the greatest empathy to the situation of female characters in his work).

Just, Dostoevsky as a political publicist & public intellectual is a rather sad spectacle of inadequacy.

Dostoevsky was (in a whole) quite adequate. In this regard, he was the complete opposite of Leo Tolstoy.

A return to religion in some form, not necessarily Christianity, but an appreciation for the numinous and the supernatural that underlies all phenomena and the unseen bonds that units everything (see quantum mechanics), a return to a moral vision and away from mere instrumentalism, a turn away from individualism and towards appreciation for communal life and the rebuilding of social capital in the form of a unifying culture and sense of shared destiny, identity, origin, and purpose, the renewed appreciation for the aesthetic world view, art, poetry, myth, and legend, and the reduction of logic and rationality to important but limited instruments and as not providing unique access to ultimate truth, based on Kant’s demonstration that logic consistently applied ends in absurdity and contradiction, and retaining scientific and technological development but reducing their importance and firmly subordination them to a scale of human values that has total human flourishing as its primary principle, and rejects sacrificing emotional and psychological health to the mere development of our physical abilities.

But this is too great a leap for the older generation of whites to make. They are like Moses staring at a promised land they cannot enter – we must pity them and have compassion for them, and indulge their naive belief in IQ, the supremacy of Jews, and other simplistic materialisms.

Perhaps – but the entire culture discouraged it, and the theory and philosophy of art was entirely different and not conducive to it. You were not meant to express your unique individuality, as the western notion of the genius would have it, nor were you meant to seek novelty, but to empty yourself and become a vehicle for a universal spirit. A highly developed sense of individuality was considered to stand in the way. You were supposed to engage in moral purification before you ever put brush to canvas.

You are right about the problem becoming acute in the 19th century – but that was the culmination of the move towards individual ego, and we have been living since in the demoralizing aftermath, with each decade breaking down some principle of unity and greater purpose and rendering us demoralized atoms, confused, alone, severed from any larger whole – individualists, in short.

If you don’t realise this, you really are an idiot.

That’s kind of harsh. German_reader was asking a serious and thoughtful question which deserved a serious and thoughtful response, not just an insult. Realize that a lot of people out there are going to have exactly the same question. If we don’t have a decent answer for it, we’re going to have a lot of trouble selling White identitarianism to White agnostics/atheists.

Realize that a lot of people out there are going to have exactly the same question.

I know this is just political posturing but if politicians find it useful it must mean that many Germans to whom they try to appeal already found the answer. Not all Germans are cucks. This is a good news but most likely will be defeated on the usual grounds with approving nod from the cucks.

Bavaria orders Christian crosses to be hung at the entrance of ALL government buildings

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5655467/German-state-orders-Christian-crosses-hung-entrance-government-buildings.html#ixzz5DipYBMt1

lol, you’re really gullible, utu.
The thing with the crosses in public buildings is just theatre for the Bavarian state election in fall…it’s completely meaningless. The borders remain open, nobody is turned away or deported, and the CSU isn’t serious about changing this.
I wrote about this already in the Armenia thread (which has already gone completely off-topic because nobody cares about Armenia). Won’t comment on it in this thread anymore, since this should be about Solzhenitsyn.

Well, at least the vampires can’t enter government buildings now.

“the author of two remarkable novels”

What’s the one that isn’t “August 1914”?

You might get a kick out of reading about ‘Sadik Pasha’:

‘Michał Czajkowski (Ukrainian: Mykhailo Chaikovsky; 29 September 1804 – 18 January 1886[1]), also known in Turkey as Mehmet Sadyk Pasha (Turkish: Mehmet Sadık Paşa), was a Polish writer and political émigré of distant Cossack heritage who worked both for the resurrection of Poland and also for the reestablishment of a Cossack state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micha%C5%82_Czajkowski

Since it’s the only way human life can flourish, it will inevitably return – just not for the current generation.

My mistake before was to seperate earthly flourishing from spiritual flourishing – if you do that, then all sorts of nightmare scenarios emerge where the materialists may rule forever and make this world a place of endless dreariness.

What should have been obvious – and what is becoming increasingly obvious, is that earthy thriving is a function of spiritual health. My recent engagement with modern Asian culture has brought this lesson home – the more I dabbled even in Asian pop culture, the more surprised and shocked I was to discover a level of moral and spiritual health that I didn’t think existed in 2018 in modernized countries that are technological powerhouses. The picture is far from perfect, but I was still shocked at how pure and innocent so much of their culture still is, as opposed to our corrosive irony and materialism.

I would not be surprised to find purity and innocence and spiritual health in Yemen, because I thought these things are incompatible with modernity. But I now see that any kind of physical flourishing – whether in Yemen as a healthy organic community that preserves and perpetuates itself – or in Japan, which has adopted technology, depends on spiritual health.

Right now there is an epidemic of ill health in America – obesity, general ill health, anxiety, psychosomatic symptoms of all kinds – I can’t tell you how many apparently healthy people I know who seem to be physically declining in some weird way, who seem to always be complaining about their health, and to have all sorts of strange anxieties.

And this is among the elite striving class here in New York, which is supposed to be healthy (obesity doesn’t exist here, at least). The other day I was just struck by how weird it all was, how I never hear this stuff in other countries, especially Asian ones.

It struck me that our world views may have serious effects on our physical being – materialism may actually lead to physical decline, and I started thinking about how physical flourishing here on earth seems fundamentally connected to healthy spirituality in general, and all sorts of examples started popping into my head….

How can you be truly healthy if you’re ashamed of yourself? Accepting the poz is basically telling yourself that you’re evil and need to die. The body reacts accordingly.

Definitely a lot of truth in that. I also think disconnecting from others – no family or community, even in your mind – may lead to physical decline as well.

People drink a fair amount here in ny, and anecdotally it seems like 50% of the white population smokes, definitely among the hipsters, although I doubt that’s substantiated by official figures (maybe people lie).

But in Japan people binge drink like crazy and smoke a ton, and they’re one of the healthiest countries around. We’re probably a bit too Puritan about this stuff – but really I think you have to look at drinking and smoking as part of a total lifestyle. Japanese work hard and drink hard – somehow that provides balance, even if not optimal, and they stay thin and eat well. And they dont hate themselves. Somehow binge drinking in America leads to serious health issues.

There’s this wonderful Chinese story of the Seven Sages Of The Bamboo Grove, basically Taoist sages who retired from the world and drank like fishes from the afternoon on. Drinking can be a part of spiritual practice, though Talha won’t like to hear it 🙂

There’s something seriously death cultish in the American war on pleasure and obsession with work. But everything must be seen as part of a totality. In another context limiting pleasure may be quite healthy and spiritually necessary.

You have described well the individualist, atomized perspective of the modern despairing westerner, and why our societies are not thriving.

Understanding what a healthy society looks like allows us, as individuals, right now, to try and incorporate this into our lives as much as possible. We may promote our mental health by seeking out entertainment that reflect these values, we may seek out friends who reflect these values, we may attempt to form small communites, we may attempt to incorporate practices and activities that reflect these values into our lives, we may choose not to participate in the general anger and cynicism and work on ourselves morally and spiritually, and we may seek a connection to the larger mystery.

Beyond that, some people see themselves not as atomized individuals but as part of a human chain stretching across generations, and may even be willing to make sacrifices to create a better world for others as well as positively affect the lives of contemporaries – not necessarily in an activist and aggressive way, but subtly, by example, and through personal practice

Clearly, envisioning a healthy and sane society is highly relevant both for our individual wellbeing in the here and now and for helping to fashion, possibly, a better future, and to help others now achieve well being.

You, Dmitry, are a subtle underminer 🙂 And not just from this comment…

a subtle underminer

New and improved Hasbara v. 2.01

• The Ukrainian dialect apparently has a bunch of Polish words
• Galicia is Catholic
• Some Ukrainians refuse to admit they’re Little Russians
• The Ukraine is a lot poorer than Russia
• The only notable cultural achievement of Ukrainians is apparently Carol of the Bells

• politically, Ukrainians prefer plurality (which can become chaotic) whereas Russian instinct is to gravitate towards an autocratic ruler
  *Related: Ukrainian history is heavily based on Cossacks and Cossack uprisings (including rough democratic heritage), Russia on Tsars; Ukraine had a democratic constitution in the early 18th century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Pylyp_Orlyk
  *Ukrainian folk music quite different and more complex, using different instruments
• Carol of the Bells is the only cultural achievement any Westerner such as you has heard of, there is a rich musical tradition
  *Ukrainians much more traditionally moralistic (lower divorce, abortion rates)
  *Ukrainians much more church-going
  *Ukrainians drink a lot but less than do Russians (like Poles); beer is a higher % of consumption
  *Ukrainains historically much more open to the West; Russians antagonistic towards the West (centuries-long pattern)
  *Russians prefer tea over coffee like UK, Ukrainians to a lesser extent (they are like Hungarians)

I like him too but perhaps because, as somebody already wrote here, he is “sly” and “affable.”

Basically all educated Ukrainians studied with Jesuits – another contrast between Ukraine and Russia.

there was a white slave trade out of Crimea for hundreds of years so it’s not surprising if Turkish aristos ended up looking east European.

* politically, Ukrainians prefer plurality (which can become chaotic) whereas Russian instinct is to gravitate towards an autocratic ruler
*Related: Ukrainian history is heavily based on Cossacks and Cossack uprisings (including rough democratic heritage), Russia on Tsars; Ukraine had a democratic constitution in the early 18th century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Pylyp_Orlyk
*Ukrainian folk music quite different and more complex, using different instruments
* Carol of the Bells is the only cultural achievement any Westerner such as you has heard of, there is a rich musical tradition
*Ukrainians much more traditionally moralistic (lower divorce, abortion rates)
*Ukrainians much more church-going
*Ukrainians drink a lot but less than do Russians (like Poles); beer is a higher % of consumption
*Ukrainains historically much more open to the West; Russians antagonistic towards the West (centuries-long pattern)
*Russians prefer tea over coffee like UK, Ukrainians to a lesser extent (they are like Hungarians)

hahaha! Difficult to know where to start with a post that is lies from start-to-finish….particularly when it;s some fucked in the head troll-bot on some algorith to spend 12 hours on here again , writing 250000 words of pre-prorammed garbage….but that is the point of a retard as yourself…to waste the time of serious people by swamping the board with imbecilic attention-whoring garbage

*Related: Ukrainian history is heavily based on Cossacks and Cossack uprisings (including rough democratic heritage), Russia on Tsars; Ukraine had a democratic constitution in the early 18th century:

Cossacks are also associated with Russia however, and Novgorod had a republic for 300 years.

Constitutions were also a big fad in the 18th century. Could’ve happened to Russia as well if they’d suffered from a pozzed Tsar or serious internal revolt. It’s not like Prussia wanted to grant a constitution for instance, yet it did anyway.

*Ukrainians drink a lot but less than do Russians (like Poles); beer is a higher % of consumption

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_alcohol_consumption_per_capita

If these data are correct there is not much difference. This is also from 2010 and Russian consumption has dropped since then owing to anti-alcohol measures.

Poland’s consumption is also quite high as well.

*Ukrainains historically much more open to the West; Russians antagonistic towards the West (centuries-long pattern)

Russian elites have been trying to Westernize on and off for three centuries.

Recent Russian antagonism towards the West is based on our own hostile behavior.

*Russians prefer tea over coffee like UK, Ukrainians to a lesser extent (they are like Hungarians)

What do the Hungarians do? Perhaps the Magyar Miracle can chip in.

There is an interesting difference in between Russia and the UK on tea. Russians I believe take their tea with lemon juice, whereas the UK takes their tea with cream.

Personally I drink coffee and tea as they’re both great. 🙂

I have to again compliment you on your polite demeanor in answering me, which is likely not easy given the subject matter and my own belligerence. Certainly an improvement over Mr. Hack and his love of punitive psychiatry.

If the choice were German instead of Russian I could understand of course. Probably many “Ukrainians” actually think this is an option based on EU fantasies.

My feeling as well. I think that most pro-EU svidomites want to join the EU in order to move to an affluent European country. Germany would be their top destination. There they can rejoice in poz and export its most exotic expressions to Ukraine as the latest European trends.

In 50 years, Ukrainians will be nigger-loving Russophobes, unless they don’t prevail in Donbass, which they won’t, thankfully.

I think of Ukraine as I think of Bavaria in the past: a Germanic people with separatist tendencies who nevertheless remained within the unified German nation. Ukraine could have a regional identity, whose preservation would be wayyy more guaranteed within Russia than under Western rule.

You can keep in a mental image of a healthy society – sure, this can be enjoyable game to think about, which people have done throughout history (literary genre of utopia).*

But then to use the mental image, to put present commentators point of view, including yourself and some others, as a some product of the sick society, because it is very distant from the mental image.

As someone talks about religion, Indians, etc, I expected some reply that atman is not touched by such superficial things as society.

I don’t have such extreme views myself – but for something I prefer, the viewpoint and even practice of Epicurus* can be followed today, no more or less than in his own time, or just as many thousand years into the future.

–

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia

• https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Epicurus

Clearly, envisioning a healthy and sane society is highly relevant both for our individual wellbeing in the here and now and for helping to fashion, possibly, a better future, and to help others now achieve well being.

You, Dmitry, are a subtle underminer 🙂 And not just from this comment…

I will take it as a compliment.

It reminds of my mother, who has dreamed about the new kitchen. And we had installed the new kitchen, and a few days later already talking about a bathroom. Eventually installed a
new bathroom, and then the next day already about the need to have new paint on the walls. And “when everything is right I’ll be happy, we can invite people over”, but as some distant things always pushed into the future.

It also reminds, when I read people on the urban forums – ‘the city still looks terrible, but just wait another a few more years, after the new pavements, etc, and we can enjoy it’, etc, etc. Probably just the kind of attitude that will attract the devil to kill you before it happens, as not make advantage of the present is one of the greatest sins.

Of course, in politics this kind of devaluing of present for future that never comes, is too common.

Actually there is a Japanese fairy story this kind of attitude reminds me of, and which has sent a chill down my spine when I read it because it is a danger for my own personality type – of the boy who loses his youth in a kind of dream under the sea. But I won’t say more about this story.

They are more marginal and Russia and associated with regions that border Ukraine. In Ukraine Cossacks actually produced a state.

Sure. That said haven’t Cossacks themselves long been pro-Russian?

This was a dead end – Russia (that is, Moscow) destroyed Novgorod and scattered its people. Had Novgorod survived it probably would have been its own nation , a fusion of Rus and Scandinavia.

The Cossack states were also dead ends for the same reason. All of the East Slavic peoples ended up becoming part of the Russian Empire. Novgorod was simply conquered earlier, and it was part of of the RSFSR and is part of the Russian Federation.

If not for the Russian Revolution and Lenin’s nationalities policies there wouldn’t be a Ukrainian state today, and speakers of the Ukrainian dialect would be down to a dwindling population of old people.

There were other Russian states as well such as Smolensk, Chernigov, Ryazan, etc.

They were inspired by Classical works and products of Western/Jesuit educations. Russia didn’t have that, so a bunch of Russians would not have come up with a constitution involving separation of powers and limited government in the early 18th century. Generations of Jesuit education separate Ukraine from Russia.

Did Orthodox Ukrainians receive a Jesuit education?

Religious differences are important, but it’s worth pointing out that both Germany and the Netherlands are religiously divided. Even England and France have respective Catholic and Protestant minorities.

The constitution fetish of the 17th through 19th centuries was the result of the Enlightenment.

The ancients did not have constitutions as we understand them, though the concept of constitutional law was first explained by Aristotle.

A rich body of constitutional law developed during the middle ages, especially in the Holy Roman Empire, but this constitutional law was the product of centuries of bargaining and not something created out of whole cloth like the 17th, 18th, and 19th century constitutions liberals fetishized.

And Russia absolutely had such ideas floating around. Catherine the Great corresponded with Voltaire after all and the Russian nobility spoke French. There were also many Westerners working in the Russian Empire, and the Baltic German nobility was prominent in the the Russian Empire since at least the Treaty of Nystad.

The Northern Society had as its goal the establishment of a British-style constitutional monarchy in Russia, and Alexander I had liberal political views early in his reign.

Along those lines, Ukrainians developed their own baroque architecture:

http://archithusiast.blogspot.com/2012/02/ukrainian-baroque-style.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Baroque

(Russians borrowed from this)

This is interesting and pretty, but to me as a Westerner just all looks Russian.

In Ukraine it’s more natural and grassroots. In Russia some elite liberals in Moscow vote for pro-Western parties. In Ukraine the majority of ethnic Ukrainians do. Proto-Ukrainians were more antagonistic towards Mongols than Russians were. Conversely, whenever some invader came through Ukraine from the West many Ukrainians were happy to join them.

Russians had very positive opinions of the West in the 90s and much of the 00s as well. Karlin has documented this in his blog. Vladimir Putin even tried to join NATO in 2000, and he has stated his goal is a common economic space from Lisbon to Vladivostok. Consistent American hostility is the reason this has gone nowhere.

Ukrainians also elected the Party of the Regions (with support from the Crimea and the Donets Basin of course).

A number of Russians also defected to the Germans during WW2, most infamously Vlasov.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-297-1704-10%2C_Nordfrankreich%2C_Angehörige_der_Wlassow-Armee_Recolored.jpg

Drinking can be a part of spiritual practice, though Talha won’t like to hear it

Actually, I agree with you in principle here. There is a reason why the Sufi poetry from Persia and the Levant (at times North Africa as well) often uses the metaphor of the tavern and wine and drunkenness when talking about profound spiritual matters and experiential knowledge of the Divine. They may not have been drinkers themselves (though some definitely were before they repented and became awliya), but they found intoxication and loss of faculties and intellect to be a suitable analogy for when one is experiencing and recognizing the annihilatory nature of oneself. It was definitely not completely sound, but that is how it is with the “taste” of spiritual states, you can only describe them by means of other tastes – like you might describe one fruit tasting like another.

Peace.

They are more marginal and Russia and associated with regions that border Ukraine. In Ukraine Cossacks actually produced a state.

Sure. That said haven’t Cossacks themselves long been pro-Russian?

Not the Ukrainian ones.

“This was a dead end – Russia (that is, Moscow) destroyed Novgorod and scattered its people. Had Novgorod survived it probably would have been its own nation , a fusion of Rus and Scandinavia.”

The Cossack states were also dead ends for the same reason.

It was different. Novgorod was destroyed and its people scattered and deported. Ukraine was subjugated but the natives stayed around, remembered what their ancestors had been up to. Ukraine was more like Poland after Poland was taken over. If it had been given the Novgorod treatment we wouldn’t be arguing anything now.

All of the East Slavic peoples ended up becoming part of the Russian Empire.

Other than Galicians (about 10% of Ukrainians).

If not for the Russian Revolution and Lenin’s nationalities policies there wouldn’t be a Ukrainian state today, and speakers of the Ukrainian dialect would be down to a dwindling population of old people.

Doubtful, percentage of Ukrainian speakers (again, Ukrainian is no more a dialect of Russian than Dutch is a dialect of German, and less so than Swedish a dialect of Danish) weren’t declining under the Tsars, who due to 1905 were allowing the Ukrainian language again. As for no Ukrainian state – possible. Ukraine might have ended up like Catalonia. But it would not have been fully assimilated.

Did Orthodox Ukrainians receive a Jesuit education?

Yes. There were Jesuit schools in Ukraine where Ukrainian elites studied; many but not all converted to Catholicism. Furthermore, the main Orthodox academic institution in Kiev was modeled on the Jesuit schools (even using Latin and Polish as languages of instruction). Russia didn’t have that.

A rich body of constitutional law developed during the middle ages, especially in the Holy Roman Empire, but this constitutional law was the product of centuries of bargaining

Correct, and Ukraine being part of Poland participated in all if this. Russia was separate from it.

And Russia absolutely had such ideas floating around. Catherine the Great corresponded with Voltaire after all and the Russian nobility spoke French.

And this was about 60 years after Ukraine’s constitution. Such ideas were new to Russia but had been floating around in Ukraine since the 17th century. The Northern Society was in the 19th century. A difference between Ukraine and Russia is that Ukraine was part of Europe a couple centuries earlier than was Russia.

Another difference: private property. Russian peasants tended to join collective mirs, Ukrainians to have their own farms. Stolyopjn’s reforms had more effect in Ukraine than in Russia, there was more village capitalism. This emphasis on private property reflects a more Western culture.

Russians had very positive opinions of the West in the 90s and much of the 00s as well

In Russia there has always been at most ambivalence towards the West. Westernizers vs. Slavophils. Communism was an attempt at modernization that didn’t follow Western norms. In Ukraine not so.

Vlasov was captured unwillingly, first.

Excellent and informative. Thank you for the translation.

One more point:

Ukrainians also elected the Party of the Regions (with support from the Crimea and the Donets Basin of course).

He lost the ethnic Ukrainian vote. no Crimea and no Donetsk Basin and no Yanukovich victory.

You’re not a mossad project – you’re just a perfect product of modern fatalism, despair, anomie, and decline, and it’s attendant bizarre Jew worship, and the mild, affable, politely ironic attitude that you share with Sailer suggests a certain lethargy and creeping death, and a naturally slavish attitude.

We must pity you, indulge you, and patiently await the gentle demise of your kind, when revitalization can begin.

With a hill billy nationalism and convoluted spin of history, pro-Bandera Galicia-Volhyn Ukrainians are renown for being quite xenophobic towards a range of others. That mindset has extended within elements of the Ukrainian diaspora and in varying parts of Ukraine outside of Galicia and Volhyn.

Ukrainians thinking more long my lines have observed this as have others.

Many Russians have an internationalist view that wasn’t the result of Communism. Russians have historically accepted many non-Russians who showed a friendliness and loyalty towards them. Many of those stating an ethnic Russian background readily and proudly reference being of other backgrounds as well.

Russia has reached out to the West. The current Russian apprehension with the West is a quite understandable response to the anti-Russian biases that have influenced many in the West.

Thru the centuries, Russia has experienced democratic trappings – something that was (as a rarity) brought up in a recent WaPo oped-ed that JRL ran.

So much for the sugar coated svidomite stereotyping.

For sure.

In the former Ukrainian SSR, Cossacks tend to be among the more pro-Russian of elements in that former Soviet republic.

I’ve yet to run into a Catholic or Greek Catholic Cossack.

My goal is to flourish right now, this moment, not merely dream of a starry eyed future. However, I also want to create a better future. To do both, I must understand how the current order – intellectual, social, and physical – is failing me

With all due respect you have been writing about your better future dream and how you must study the current order to understand how it is failing you for months and months and months and months.

Answer the question of exactly how the current order is failing you, in what ways… in ten sentences–no more—and I will tell you why.

The united kingdom falling apart no longer is theoretical.
UK is England, Scotland and Wales, and, still, N Ireland, Ulster.

Many thanks for this article, and would love to see the rest of it.

@What’s the point in singling out Alexander Parvus…

A few details of his bio, carefully concealed, gleaned from Wikipedia (of course there are more scholarly writings* would show you the point and why his name is so strenuously avoided:

“Alexander Lvovich Parvus born Israel Lazarevich Gelfand (1867-1924), was a writer, historian, Marxist Revolutionary and a Senior Member of the Social Democratic Party of Germany…
Israel Lazarevich Gelfand was born to an ethnic Jewish family on September 8, 1867 in the shtetl of Berazino, Russian Empire, now part of Belarus…
in the fall of 1888 Gelfand enrolled at the University of Basel, where he studied political economy…
Alienated from the backwardness of agrarian Russia and the limited political horizons there, Gelfand moved to Germany, joined the Social Democratic Party and befriended German revolutionary Rosa Luxemburg…
In 1900, he met Vladimir Lenin for the first time, in Munich, each admiring the other’s theoretical works. Parvus encouraged Lenin to begin publishing his revolutionary paper Iskra…
Parvus’ attempts to become a German citizen proved fruitless…
However, German counter-intelligence had penetrated part of the socialist revolutionary network and upon reading his writing in the socialist press during the Russo-Japanese War, found Parvus had predicted that Russia would lose the war, resulting in unrest and revolution. When this proved to be the case, Parvus’ prestige among his socialist and other German comrades increased. Thus, German intelligence soon estimated he would be useful in efforts against the Russian Empire.
During this time he developed the concept of using a foreign war to provoke an internal revolt within a country. It was at this time that Parvus revived, from Karl Marx, the concept-strategy of “permanent revolution”. He communicated this philosophy to Trotsky who then further expanded and developed it. There were broad discussions on the questions of “permanent revolution” within the social democratic movement in the period leading up to 1917. The method was eventually adopted by Vladimir Lenin and the Bolsheviks in Lenin’s April Theses in 1917…
[After the 1905 revolution] Parvus moved to Istanbul in Turkey, where he lived for five years. There he set up an arms trading company which profited handsomely during the Balkan War. He became the financial and political advisor of the Young Turks. In 1912 he was made editor of Turk Yurdu, their daily newspaper. He worked closely with the triumvirs known as the Three Pashas – Enver, Talat and Cemal – and Finance Minister Djavid Bey. His firm dealt with the deliveries of foodstuffs for the Turkish army and he was a business partner of the Krupp concern, of Vickers Limited, and of the famous arms dealer Basil Zaharov. Arms dealings with Vickers Limited at war time gave basis to the theory that Alexander Parvus was also a British intelligence asset…
While in Turkey, Parvus became close with German ambassador Hans Freiherr von Wangenheim who was known to be partial to establishing revolutionary fifth columns among the allies. Consequently, Parvus offered his plan via Baron von Wangenheim to the German General Staff: the paralyzing of Russia via general strike, financed by the German government. Von Wangenheim sent Parvus to Berlin where the latter arrived on the 6 March 1915 and presented a 20-page plan titled A preparation of massive political strikes in Russia to the German government…
Parvus’ detailed plan recommended the division of Russia by sponsoring the Bolshevik faction of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party, encouraging ethnic separatists in various Russian regions, and supporting various writers whose criticism of Tsarism continued during wartime. Basing himself on his 1905 experiences, Parvus theorised that the division of Russia and its loss in the First World War was the best way to bring about a socialist revolution…
Parvus placed his bets on Lenin, as the latter was not only a radical but willing to accept the sponsorship of the Tsar’s wartime enemy, Germany. The two met in Bern in May 1915 and agreed to collaboration through their organizations, though Lenin remained very careful never to get associated with Parvus in public. There is no certain proof that they ever met face to face again, although there are indications that such a meeting may well have occurred on April 13, 1917 during Lenin’s stop-over in Stockholm…
German intelligence set up Parvus’ financial network via offshore operations in Copenhagen, setting up relays for German money to get to Russia via fake financial transactions between front organizations. A large part of the transactions of these companies were genuine, but those served to bury the transfer of money to the Bolsheviks, a strategy made feasible by the weak and overburdened fiscal and customs offices in Scandinavia, which were inadequate for the booming black market in these countries during the war…
After the October Revolution in Russia for obvious political reasons his role was denied and he himself vilified. This continued during Joseph Stalin’s era and sometimes had anti-semitic overtones to it”.

• “Alexander Helphand-Parvus–Russian Revolutionary and German Patriot”, by Heinz Schurer, in The Russian Review, Vol. 18, No. 4 (Oct., 1959), pp. 313-331

If I have to answer in under ten words, it would be “lack of “religion”, broadly understood”.

Everything else I’ve been writing about for months is just details.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn-A good white man.

Let’s hope Martyanov will comment on this piece

Kholmogorov is a sort of Dugin 2.0 with no systemic education, he dropped out of MSU in a year then went to study to some religious Madras which he also didn’t finish, IIRC. So, to comment on some tertiary, not even secondary, pretentious pseudo-“intellectual”? Again, Gabriel Charmez comes to mind. In general, Kholmogorov is a classic representative of a lost generation of amateurs of 1990s which tried to put on themselves a mantle of “thinkers” in 1990s-early 2000s only to be exposed, most of them, as frauds. But, in general, shady opportunist with developed vernacular to BS uncritical and even less educated than him followers. So, what’s to comment on a demagogue?

Sorry, but your obsessive/compulsive form of Ukrainaphobia (and make no doubt about it, you are definitely a Ukrainaphobe), requires drastic measures. It’s too bad that you haven’t taken the cure yet, as I see that you’re still spouting off your nonsensical bigotry. 🙁

As part of my ongoing campaign against the existence of the Ukraine I have consulted Wikipedia.

Sure, it will be painful in the beginning, but think of the remedial benefits that await you: no more sleepless nights or nights fraught with dreams of Bandera or Shevchenko torturing your sorry ass with a pitchfork crowned with a sharp, nasty tryzub. Set yourself free, man! 🙂

their short-lived “state” was the equivalent of a modern Libya (various gang of Cossacks waged a constant war with each other

Modern Libya isn’t known for its literacy, schools, and architecture.

Cossack State was.

Tomorrow, Sailer will come out with another post urging us to accept Jews as our natural masters, and fatalistically telling us we are limited by IQ and effort cannot help us – all with unfailingly polite irony and affability. For all his great virtues, this kind of thing (and much more) can no longer be seen as anything other than a severe obstacle in the way of cultural revitalization.

Probably you have noticed that not so long ago they have rolled out another artillery piece and the barrage only intensified. I mean Jordan Peterson. Young and youngish men on the right are swallowing it like pelican swallows fish. Or have you ever fed ducks by throwing them bread into a pond?

Simply untrue

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/vladimir-putin-guru-solzhenitsyn-115088

That’s very true. Vox Day (who I do not like) eviscerated Peterson today on his blog, and wrote a short masterpiece on the myth of Jewish IQ. Everyone interested in the issue should read it.

It’s subtle subversion. Sailer for instance will write a post on how the nyt should look into the question of Jewish privilege…then the next how the nyt has the smartest writers and Jewish wealth has the same causes as white wealth. It’s subtle subversion – you establish credibility and position yourself as on my side, then subtly introduce messages that undermine me. That’s how it’s done.

It’s crazy that so few can see what’s going on. Peterson is so obviously dishonest about this issue. It really does seem that this generation of older white men who grew up during the age of unrivalled Jewish supremacy need to gently die off…

So, what’s to comment on a demagogue?

Don’t hold back, tell us what you really think 😉

I suspect though that German reader was more interested on your take on Solzhenitsyn himself than on the author of this piece. It seems that Solzhenitsyn polarises opinion among those who live or lived in the former Soviet Union. I, too, would value your opinion, if you have the time.

Parvus marks how the Western powers and Turkey were all using revolutionaries to try to destroy Russia, long before WW1. Parvus worked for the Germans government, as well as for German Communists. He was the most important non-Turkish player among the Young Turks. He almost certainly also worked for British secret service. Parvus is a perfect example of the International Jew who hates seemingly every Gentile nation that arose out of Christendom. That Russia came to be the most despised, most by a huge degree, before the late 19th century is telling. International Jews were not involved in major activities to ruin the British Empire or the USA, nor the Ottoman Empire.

What happened to Russia is what all Leftists want to happen to all white Gentile lands and their peoples. Knowing Parvus is very important to grasping how it came to be, and who were the ones promoting it.

Nicholas II is a lesson, the best lesson, that the Left, like its father Satan, lies all the time and delights most in lying people into hating the people and institutions and ideas that can save them from Leftist horrors. Nicholas II is a type of martyr.

“…Jordan B. Peterson, one of the Alt Right’s intellectual darlings….”

Jordan Peterson (JP) is MOST CERTAINLY NOT right wing. However, that stated, I will most certainly agree that JP is ‘alt right’ for that is merely a facade for liberalism (classical British that is, as JP defines himself).
JP, Alex Jones, Paul Joseph Watson, Breitbart, Gavin McInnes, Lauren Southern, Faith Goldy, Stefan Molyneux, Paul Ruben, Stephen Crowder, Tommy Robinson, Douglas Murray, Pamela Gellar, Richard Spencer, Milo Yiannopolous, Sargon of Akkad…..and the rest of the ‘alt right’ ARE NOT right wing, but liberals. And in all reality a liberal is someone who is MORE left wing leaning than right.
Every one of the aforementioned is virulently anti nationalist, pro immigration, pro LGBTQ, pro multiracialism, pro diversity…the list goes on and on. Where they disagree with the left is on freedom of speech, transgender issues, feminism and Islam. Then again, all are Zionist lickspittles, rallying the west to go to war against Islam to protect Israel, with the exception of Molyneux.

My Russian friend told me, to understand Russia, read:

Leto Gospodne, Ivan Smelyov.

Tough one, though, very colloquial Russian.

“The British had to be motivated by the whole issue of Belgium, violation of neutrality and German war crimes”
The British were highly motivated to go to war against Germany because of the latter’ s commercial success that was clearly putting British products within and outside the British Empire at the defensive. Tsar Nicholas was a person of limited capacities for statesmanship who had every reason to stay out of the war as the Stolypin reforms were getting Russia on the right path of economic revival despite the latter’ s assassination by the Jewish son of one of the wealthiest traders in Saint Petersburg. France was highly motivated by a desire for revenge for the loss of Alsace Lorraine. The Germans were too confident of the Schlieffen plan but had no choice but to resist the pincer movement around them by Russia and France. All were the victims of the international bankers who created the Federal Reserve in 1913 to be able to finance the coming war through fiat money.

British commoners enlisted en masse because of Germany’s commercial success?

Modern Libya isn’t known for its literacy, schools, and architecture.

Actually, prior to being liberated in 2011 Libya had the highest literacy rate in Africa apart from South Africa, and the highest “Human Development Index” in Africa.

Correct. The guy I was responding to was making an analogy to post-intervention Libya.

they seem unconcerned about the question of religious truth

There is no “truth” in a religious truth.

A nationalist could be supportive of religion if he believed that the religion was “good” for his people.

AaronB,

In America the young are always ready to give to those who are older than themselves the full benefits of their inexperience.

Oscar Wilde

If you’re not American, I dub you an honorable one, for lack of better words. You remind me of myself when I was younger. I wish you the best, insufferable one.

One could interpret Christianity as a parable for human nature and reconcile it with Nationalism. That there exist forbidden knowledge you are better off not knowing (Garden of Eden), that humans are prone to scapegoating (Jesus died for our sins), and that we consume/bring down the best of us or self-cannibalize (communion).

It’s a way to teach important lessons to people without them having to understand those lessons explicitly.

On the other hand I think pride is not a vice but rather a virtue, modern Christians seem to think Pride being a vice is THE most important thing in Christianity. The western Christian church seems to have trouble maintaining itself.

And the opinion of a talented artist

I think that you are missing the point or the value. Artists, almost by definition, have a different perspective. You need to look at their description or work to gain a different, could I say, more complete understanding.

It seems funny to have a nation supporting Christianity as an institution and nobody goes to church.

LARPing religion seems dorky

Not really. You might remember from my comments that I have said that I have considered “faking it” because of the estrangement.

what is suitable, for a sober political leadership,

Definition!

And where in the fuck have you found it.

Thanks for documenting your irrelevancy.

considered “faking it” because of the estrangement.

Well, like I said…”but, if it works…”

It’s still dorky though from where I’m standing and seems a bit cowardly in not standing up to your convictions. I couldn’t imagine faking a religion I didn’t believe in unless they were going to put a bullet in my head – and even then I might think of taking the more commendable road of refusing to play along.

The West was pagan, then Christian, then post-Christian and now “plays one on TV” is being suggested. I guess we’ll see if this kind of cognitive dissonance will fly in the long run.

I can tell you that in our tradition; insincerely pretending to be a Muslim (which is called a munafiq) for the worldly benefits it accrues is actually the worst form of disbelief…
“Indeed, the hypocrites (munafiqun) will be in the lowest depths of the Fire – and never will you find for them a helper.” (4:145)

But everyone’s got their own rules to play by.

Peace.

I’m not sure it’s completely accurate, but it certainly helped in the calculation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSI5LkRGOKg

Peace.

Everyone’s a critic.

Peace.

No need to insult people. Btw, “German reader” is a shy zionist.
Back to Christianity, this is a stake through the vampire hearts of the zionized US congresspeople of a supposedly ‘Christian’ persuasion:
“Moscow, once a center of global Communism is rapidly transforming into a Vatican, or if you will, a Mecca of Conservatism. It is precisely here where the strongest redoubt that defends the image of mankind in its traditional Christian interpretation is now located.”

He’s prone to emphasizing selective cherry picks that distort actuality, while fitting his preferred takes.

Pugachev’s uprising wasn’t for an early day Ukrainian nationalism. If anything, he sought to replace the existing Russian government with himself.

That might’ve been very true of Mazepa as well. In any event Pugachev and Mazepa eventually failed, largely on account of most Cossacks opposing opposing them, as has been historically accepted.

“…mostly data driven listing the percentage of politburu, camp kommandants, cheka etc who were Jewish.”
— Guess this is what made “Dmitri” think that Solzhenitsyn is “an artist rather than a historian.” Hard to face the data that contradict the ideas of “eternal victimhood,” “the most moral” and such. See this new bill by South Carolina legislature: https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/43923/
http://www.datelinecarolina.org/story/35202460/anti-semitism-bill-faces-criticism-over-freedom-of-speech

You keep repeating BS that has been already debunked. Mazepa and Vyhovksy lost for the generally accepted reason that they didn’t have majority support among the folks they purported to represent.

Khmelnytsky opposed Polish imperialism, which included a stated opposition to the further imposition of the Greek Catholic denomination favored by Poland. This led him to eventually allying with Russia. His reported latter day differences with Russia didn’t lead to the territory in his domain opposing Russia en masse.

Once again, Russia had democratic trappings, more so than you suggest in an inaccurate manner.

I’ll add more on that in a bit.

You obviously have a grudge against Solzhenitsyn. First, you made a confession that you had not read his book, then you immediately proceeded to slander the DOCUMENTARY.
Unlike you, Alexander Solzhenitsyn has open access to the state archives. Unlike your Jewish dislike of everything Russian, Alexander Solzhenitsyn was devoted to Russia unconditionally… This is why he was sent to GULAG. — For being honest.
What is your degree of courage, “Dmitry?” — Enough to spill your doubts (uninformed) about the late author?

Sartre was more an “intellectual” than philosopher. I tried to read his “Being & Nothingness”

Yeah, reading Nekrasov can radiate one’s brain into the raisin. After, however, Age of Consent Letter I only experience desire to wash hands after touching anything by these “intellectual” characters. Pedophilia, of course, being a very very “intellectual” thing. It is the same as “intellectual signalling” by reading Lolita and praising it as a remarkable work of literature and I read it in both Russian and English. I guess I am not “sophisticated” enough.

Old Hollywood types (Mae West, Bogart, Spencer Tracy, Gary Cooper, Clara Bow, Clark Gable,..) mostly refrained from pontificating on politics & life in the universe. Unlike De Niro, Leo Di Caprio, Clooney, Streep, .. who pretend to have an informed opinion about, well, everything.

In past 5000 years of human civilization, this is the first time clowns & other entertainers pose as sages & oracles.

Today we have journalists and philosophers planning military operations, we have sociologists and political scientists “analyzing” target acquisition protocols in cruise missiles, in the end, we have cashier machine operators consulting on military-intelligence matters and all this is a full blown mainstream. So, why not ignorant uneducated “stars” and other artsy types have their opinion (promoted no less by media) on such issues as atmospheric sciences or aerospace? It is well-know fact that in Hollywood, in the breaks between shooting movies pretending to be someone else and socializing in the “exclusive” clubs, all Hollywood stars dedicate all their efforts in studying Theory of Operations, differential equations and radio-electronics. Somehow, I think, we can be grateful to all those “intellectuals” such as Sartre for such state of the affairs.

Well, he did, he called on the US to attack the USSR, and then realized how this would look in the eyes of Russians and tried to deny it.
“The Grain Between the Millstones:” “My God, I was not calling for war, the US press distorted it, but that’s how it reached our compatriots … Try to prove them otherwise now.” (The New World, 1999, N 2, p. 83).
A liar is always a liar, even when he denies his lies.

Where did Solzhenitsyn call on the US to attack the USSR?

PS. Shifting of the goalposts from calling on the US to nuke the USSR is duly noted.

Dostoevsky the novelist, however, is not quite in Tolstoy’s league. Close but not quite.

Here we disagree. I guess this is something temperamental. Surely, there is no way to “prove” who is greater. They both are among supreme writers, along Shakespeare, Dante & others.

Tolstoy was & is admired by many “colleagues” who came after him, but Dostoevsky’s progeny is significantly larger. Authors who considered him to be on the top (not excluding Tolstoy) are: Stefan Zweig, Kafka, Thomas Mann, E.M. Forster, Joyce, Freud, V. Woolf, Proust, Camus, Hamsun, Henry Miller, Faulkner, Coetzee, John Updike, William Gaddis, G. Garcia Marquez, Philip Roth, Saul Bellow, ..

Those who expressed disdain or thought he was overrated: Conrad, Hesse, D.H. Lawrence, Nabokov,..

I happen to agree with the 1st group.

The whole issue is nicely summed up in George Steiner’s: Tolstoy or Dostoevsky?

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51GtIWixYAL._SX311_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

Right in that video you posted. Nobody is as blind as someone who does not want to see. Similarly, nobody is as deaf as someone who does not want to hear. Your deafness duly noted. Why am I not surprised?

You also have a cranky side to you, in addition to not successfully refuting anything that I said.

Btw, “German reader” is a shy zionist.

God help me, I do love this comment section.

Yeah I’m looking for that piece, as well as a cogent follow-up to it from a friend. JRL posted the article in question. If I’m not mistaken, it appeared within the past 12 months.

Wait – you mean people drink Earl Grey without milk? What kind of monsters are they??!!

Being originally from Pakistan, I can’t see milk-less tea as anything but a heresy!!!

moved production of their tea to Poland for the lower wages

At least they didn’t move it to Bangladesh…

Peace.

I find this argument pointless. They are very different. However, both Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky are so close to the top of world literature, that it makes no difference. I’d put Bulgakov and possibly Sholokhov (for “Quietly Flows the Don”) in the same league.

Getting back to this article, Solzhenitsyn is nowhere near either of them. He is way below even the second-tier Russian writers (like Gogol), in my view even below the third tier (say, Turgenev, who was mocked by Dostoyevsky). When I was younger and dumber I read a lot of Solzhenitsyn’s stuff. The only thing I really liked is “One day in the life of Ivan Denisovich”, but even compared to that Shalamov’s description of camps is better. Maybe because Shalamov rings true, whereas I could never get rid of the feeling that Solzhenitsyn is false through and through.

Excellent. More, more!

Once again, where exactly is the call to attack – let alone nuke – the USSR? As in, Solzhenitsyn explicitly saying that (as opposed to sovoks projecting it).

Second, given your claims, I took the trouble of locating the the entire speech on the Internet.

And the results were hilarious. The video is even more blatantly propagandistic than I thought.

1. It dishonestly splices together two very separate parts of the speech [highlighted in bold] to give the impression (to sovoks, not normal people) that Solzhenitsyn was calling on the US to nuke the USSR.

2. Solzhenitsyn said the exact opposite of what sovoks claim he said: “After my first address, as always, there were some superficial comments in the newspapers which did not really get to the essence. One of them was as follows: that I came here with an appeal to the United States to liberate us from communism. Anyone who has at all followed what I have said and written these many years; first in the Soviet Union and now in the West; will know that I’ve always said the exact opposite. I have appealed to my own countrymen – those whose courage has failed at difficult moments, and who have looked imploringly to the West – and urged them: “Don’t wait for assistance, and don’t ask for it; we must stand on our own feet. The West has enough troubles without us. If they support us, many thanks. But to ask for it, to appeal for it – never.“

3. Just a note that sovoks have trawled all of Solzhenitsyn’s work and speeches for evidence of his Russophobia. And this stitched-up crap is apparently one of the most damning examples they have found. LOL.

At one time there was no comparison between the strength of the USSR and yours. Then it became equal to yours. Now, as all recognize, it is becoming superior to yours. Perhaps today the ratio is just greater than equal, but soon it will be 2 to 1 , then 3 to 1. Finally it will be 5 to 1.

I’m not a specialist in this area, and you’re not specialists either, I suppose, but this can hardly be accidental. I think that if the armaments they had before were enough, they would not have driven things further. There must be some reason for it. With such a nuclear superiority it will be possible to block the use of your weapons, and on some unlucky morning they will declare: “Attention. We’re marching our troops to Europe, and if you make a move, we will annihilate you.” And this ratio of 3 to 1, or 5 to 1 will have its effect: you will not make a move. Indeed, theoreticians will be found to say, “If only we can have that blessed silence . . .”

To make a comparison with chess, this is like two players who are sitting at a chess board, one of whom has a tremendously high opinion of himself and a rather low opinion of his opponent. He thinks that he will, of course, outplay his opponent. He thinks he is so clever, so calculating, so inventive, that he will certainly win. He sits there, he calculates his moves. With these two knights he will make four forks. He can hardly wait for his opponent to move. He’s squirming on his chair out of happiness. He takes off his glasses, wipes them, and puts them back on again. He doesn’t even admit the possibility that his opponent may be more clever. He doesn’t even see that his pawns are being taken one after the other and that his castle is under threat. It all seems to him.. “Aha, that’s what we’ll do. We’ll set Moscow, Peking, Pyongyang, Hanoi one against the other.”

But what a joke! No one will do any such thing! In the meantime, you’ve been outplayed in West Berlin; you’ve been very skillfully outplayed in Portugal. In the Near East you’re being outplayed. One shouldn’t have such a low opinion of one’s opponent.

… [many other things] …

I understand, I sense that you’re tired. You’re fatigued, but you have not yet really suffered the terrible trials of the 20th century which have rained down on the old continent. You’re tired, but not as tired as we are, lying crushed to the ground for 60 years. You’re tired, but the Communists who want to destroy your system aren’t tired; they’re not tired at all.
I understand that this is the most unfavorable time to come to this country and to make this sort of address. But if it were a favorable time, if it were an appropriate time, there wouldn’t be any need for me to speak.

Precisely because this is the worst possible time I have come to tell you about our experience over there. If our experience in the East could flow over to you by itself, it wouldn’t be necessary for me to assume the unpleasant and inappropriate role of orator. I am a writer, and I would prefer to sit and write books. But a concentration of world evil, of hatred for humanity is taking place and it is fully determined to destroy your society. Must you wait until it comes with a crowbar to break through your borders, until the young men of America have to fall defending the borders of their continent?

After my first address, as always, there were some superficial comments in the newspapers which did not really get to the essence. One of them was as follows: that I came here with an appeal to the United States to liberate us from communism. Anyone who has at all followed what I have said and written these many years; first in the Soviet Union and now in the West; will know that I’ve always said the exact opposite. I have appealed to my own countrymen – those whose courage has failed at difficult moments, and who have looked imploringly to the West – and urged them: “Don’t wait for assistance, and don’t ask for it; we must stand on our own feet. The West has enough troubles without us. If they support us, many thanks. But to ask for it, to appeal for it – never.”

I said the last time that two processes are occurring in the world today. One is a process of spiritual liberation in the USSR and in the other Communist countries.

The second is the assistance being extended by the West to the Communist rulers, a process of concessions, of detente, of yielding whole countries.

And I only said: “‘Remember, we have to pull ourselves up – but if you defend us you also defend your own future.” We are slaves there from birth. We are born slaves. I’m not young anymore, and I myself was born a slave; this is even more true for those who are younger. We are slaves, but we are striving for freedom. You, however, were born free. If so, then why do you help our slave owners?

Once again, where exactly is the call to attack – let alone nuke – the USSR? As in, Solzhenitsyn explicitly saying that (as opposed to sovoks projecting it).

Karlin, you are an article. Yes, video, of course, lies. The sounds and visual spectrum we are experiencing are all in our imagination. Call Youtube urgently. One liar admires the other, classic.

That’s really interesting, thanks.
I know very little about Shalamov (don’t know really much Solzhenitsyn either tbh), my impression is he’s not that well-known in Western countries (though that may have changed somewhat in recent years, I’ve certainly seen him mentioned in German/Swiss newspapers). It seems to me that he was politically quite different from Solzhenitsyn (if I understand correctly he was originally arrested for left-wing oppositionism), does this relate to present-day political fault lines among Russians in some way?

Max Hastings notes that if WW I was fought in 1916, as opposed to 1914, the outcome on the eastern front and Russia’s fate might’ve been very different. He’s not alone in that belief.

Max Hastings is a journalist, his opinion isn’t worth much.
I don’t quite get your point…is it that war in 1914 was a disastrous idea for Russia?

Not really. You might remember from my comments that I have said that I have considered “faking it” because of the estrangement.

Christ said “the truth will set you free” and iffen amended it only slightly to “the white lie will set you free”.

I’ll just state my opinion (after all, literary discussion is not what this thread is about).

However, both Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky are so close to the top of world literature, that it makes no difference. I’d put Bulgakov and possibly Sholokhov (for “Quietly Flows the Don”) in the same league.

Bulgakov & Sholokhov are good writers, but they’re not even close. The only 20th C writer who belongs to the “supreme” category is Marcel Proust. I was glad to see that Forster and George Steiner were of the same opinion.

Getting back to this article, Solzhenitsyn is nowhere near either of them. He is way below even the second-tier Russian writers (like Gogol), in my view even below the third tier (say, Turgenev, who was mocked by Dostoyevsky).

These things are hard to compare. Solzhenitsyn is an impressive writer in the vein of 19th C tradition, in his two novels (The First Circle, Cancer Ward)- vivid characterization, love story, satire etc., despite occasional clumsiness. Of course, he is not a modernist (high or post-) & he’s plainly inferior to great 20th C authors like Mann or Conrad. Just, his work remains highly readable & will be considered, I think, close to realist 20th C novelists like Martin Du Gard.

TGA is a political pamphlet containing gems, but as a whole- I’ve read it long time ago- it is formless & artless. Most critics argue about authenticity of this or that detail. In the long run, this seems to be of secondary importance.

Solzhenitsyn as a political writer (or “prophet”) is not great; but, he’s rather good as a classical novelist.

The only thing I really liked is “One day in the life of Ivan Denisovich”, but even compared to that Shalamov’s description of camps is better. Maybe because Shalamov rings true, whereas I could never get rid of the feeling that Solzhenitsyn is false through and through.

Shalamov’s “Kolyma Tales” seem to me greater achievement in the field of “ccamp literature”, but Solzhenitsyn has more to offer in his novels.

Documentary value is not the issue here.

Well yes, but as AK has pointed out, the two sections cited in that video clip don’t really belong together.
From today’s perspective it looks pretty alarmist though, with the differences and tensions between different communist states (most notably the Soviet Union and China) downplayed and the fiction of a global communist threat resurrected, as if it still was 1950. That wasn’t an accurate perception of reality even at the time of the speech.

With this comment you showed that you are pos a bad loser. Karlin clearly demonstrated that you believe in some made up fantasy for reasons unknown. Yes, unknown, because you are intelligent enough to be able to recognize when you are in error. Yet in this case you refuse to correct it. That’s why I call you pos because I had higher expectations form you. GFY. You will be considered as pos from now on.

Well yes, Thomas Weber is a cretinous establishment propagandist (his book about Hitler is also supposedly very bad). But Max Hastings does propaganda as well imo.

Russia was undergoing a modern military expansion. No WW I in 1914 and 1915, would’ve likely put Russia in a stronger position.

Yes, but that’s kind of a banal observation…I still don’t really get your point. Yes, if the war had come a few years later, Russia would have been better prepared. But Russia’s elites were deluded enough to stumble into war in 1914, so all those “what ifs?” don’t really matter.

There’s a reason Musk wants to get to mars so bad…….

If you can read Russian, I suggest you read any of the “Kolyma stories” by Shalamov (or all of them, better yet) and Solzhenitsyn’s “One day…”. You’d be struck by unpretentiousness of Shalamov’s prose, as opposed to rather contrived Solzhenytsin’s narrative. I don’t know whether this quality of prose is apparent in English, I read both in Russian. Then if you compare their biographies, Shalamov spent his time in the regular camps, whereas Solzhenitsyn only was in VIP ones, which made many people believe that he was NKVD/MGB/KGB informer, both before and after his arrest. BTW, the name “solzhenitsyn” has a Russian root “solgat”, which means to tell a lie (a lie is “lozh” in Russian, you call a liar “lzhets”). As Russian saying has it, the God marks scum.

Think about the kid at school who made up all kinds of stories and entertaining exaggerations. This is the kind of character which may become a novelist or story teller when they are older.

Again, it’s the opposite of the personality you would look for in accuracy or to be a documenter. As an entertainer, yes.

what is suitable, for a sober political leadership,

Definition!

And where in the fuck have you found it.

Well, now – Putin is relatively relaxed/sober character, not a typical artist or novelist. And equally, you will not see any crazy on unpredictable things happening with this leadership.

I think that you are missing the point or the value. Artists, almost by definition, have a different perspective. You need to look at their description or work to gain a different, could I say, more complete understanding.

As expressed within the field where they have some talent or ability. But outside this area, it’s often incredibly ‘trite’ and inadequate people.

Just as I’m sure Versace has better perspective than all of us combined about women’s dresses. But this does not mean I will treat him as an expert, if he gives me some opinions on politics or science.

It can be even more specific. Beethoven created extremely mathematically complex music – yet, on mathematics? – he could not add up basic arithmetic.

The longer series of articles would be welcome.

I see another possible source of misunderstanding –

It is true that realizing atman means you are impervious to pain of any kind. This does not, however, imply social disintetest, nor that others pain is immaterial to you. The one who has realized atman does not see himself as an individual, but as one with the world. Even if he felt indifferent to sofail conditions, he has compassion for others, and sees himself as at one with them. Which amounts to social interest, just of a different kind than westerners are used to.

He will certainly want society to cultivate compassion and religion, though he may be indifferent to slavery, hierarchy, classes, poverty, and the like.

But materialists cannot understand this kind of social concern.

Yes, unknown, because you are intelligent enough to be able to recognize when you are in error

Spare me your pathetic condescension. Call me a fool–from you it will be a compliment. If you need a Q-tip to clear your ears–get to the nearest grocery store. May help to hear what is on Youtube documentary.

It seems to me that he was politically quite different from Solzhenitsyn (if I understand correctly he was originally arrested for left-wing oppositionism

Yes, he left this note in his diaries: “No bitch from “progressive humanity” should be allowed near my archive. I forbid writer Solzhenitsyn and all those having thoughts similar to his have acquaintance with my archive.” He and Solzhenitsyn were opposites of political “spectrum”, if one may say so, albeit to consider Solzhenitsyn as a “realist” in any aspect of politics, other than self-serving opportunist, is impossible for anyone even with rudimentary knowledge of Russia’s history and literature. Shalamov also highly readable, if not terrifying, in his almost detached documentary style which puts Kolyma Stories in the league of its own in all so called GULAG (lagernaya literatura).

does this relate to present-day political fault lines among Russians in some way?

Not really and that’s what makes Karlin’s “posts” so detached from Russia’s realities: political, economic, cultural, not to speak of geopolitical and military. Such as this propagation of a second-rate “thinker” Kholmogorov, who is nothing more than media-manipulator. As per Solzhenitsyn–local ideological so called “anti-Sovetchiks” (many of them–genuine Russophobes) will continue to ignore an embarrassing ignoring of Solzhenitsyn’s death and funeral (barely attended in accordance to reports of several major Russian TV networks in 2008) by overwhelming majority of Russians. So much for “prophet” and self-proclaimed “consciousness of Russia”. But Solzh got unlucky, archives were open and real historians emerged exactly the time he got back to Russia after missing on the whole two generations of Russians who do not really care about his fantasies. If not for Putin he would have been completely excluded from Russia’s public schools literature curriculum, maybe with the exception of Matrenin Dvor.

If I have to answer in under ten words, it would be “lack of “religion”, broadly understood”.

I think this pretty much sums up the malaise that is destroying the West.

But where is God to be found??

I know. If you have to ask you are in trouble.

he has compassion for others, and sees himself as at one with them

Good point. Long time ago I read about some Zen practitioner who realized that just doing Zen is not enough. It is not the same for Japanese and say Americans. They bring completely different attitude and goals to the practice. When interviewed after the Zen retreat from Americans you could hear “I, I, I, me, me ,me” like for example I became aware of my needs” while from Japanese it was more about awareness of other people about being mindful of others.

This may indicate that spiritual awakening will do no good. Once people are lost they are lost forever. And the process begins early in life and then it is only reinforced even if you try to go on some spiritual path because it will all about your own ass.

iffen amended it only slightly to “the white lie will set you free”.

iffen has observed that the truth will set you free from many friends.

Proust bores me to death. I have to confess, though, I don’t know enough French to read the original. If I had to name writers of the highest caliber in the twentieth century, I’d name Joyce and Faulkner. Again, that may be because I read the originals, in English I have no trouble reading anything, from La Morte d’Arhtur to modern stuff. However, I liked Thomas Mann, even though I don’t read German.

Shalamov is not just documentary, his stories are exquisitely written. Another thing that irks me in Solzhenitsyn is that he attempts to be like Tolstoy (especially noticeable in “August 2014”; I was put off by that and did not read the other books in that series), reminding me of the French story about a frog that tried to become as large as a bull.

Very, very true. I have practically stopped reading western books on eastern religions, because they tend to extract the religion from its total matrix, and analyze it on its own, producing an extremely false picture.

A zen practice that develops compassion in a Japanese context, may develop ego in a western context.

Context is all, totality is all – the analytical approach fails us here.

You cannot import these religions into the west as standalones – we can learn from them, and we can seek to understand them in their contexts, but if you truly want to practice zen you must engage with wider Japanese culture – learn the language, go live there, have Japanese friends. Immerse yourself. It’s a total, communal thing.

This also speaks to the primacy of communal life – it is literally impossible to be a genuine Buddhist if you are engaged in social life in America, read the newspapers, etc Too many psychic pulls against it. Impossible.

This is why I say community is crucial , and larger cultural support is crucial.

You may have a point, sadly, that once a culture is gone, it is lost, it cannot be reconstructed analytically on an individual basis, for yourself – at best we can provide conditions for a new culture to grow organically. One such condition is a renewal of community – this will fertilize then soil for a spiritual awakening. It cannot be done alone.

Glad to know you aren’t beholden to someone on account of their having the historian designation.

Like I said concerning Russia’s fate, Hastings isn’t the only one making the observation about the 1914 start of WW I, relative to if the war happened later, or if Russia didn’t attack into Germany as early as it did at the start of the war in 1914.

There’s the view of not saying “if” when it comes to history. Yet, many are tempted to do so notwithstanding.

The study of history is important – noting my reference to what Stalin might’ve very well learned from Russia’s WW I and 1905 Japanese war experiences.

The USSR developed a strong force in the Far-east (where Zhukov was stationed), which led to its late 1930s victory over Japan. There’s the well premised opinion that Stalin was cautious to not go to war with Germany at an earlier stage on account of what happened to Russia in WW I.

Solzhenitsyn is that he attempts to be like Tolstoy (especially noticeable in “August 2014”; I was put off by that

His last wife was quite explicit in one of her interviews that he thought himself as a heir to Dostoevsky. I almost choked, of course, upon hearing this. Tell me about megalomania after that. But grandiose statements and gestures were always a part of his MO.

It has nothing to do with his WW I experience but everything to do with what he stated in his February 4, 1931 piece. Stalin: “We are 50 or 100 years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this distance in 10 years. Either we do it, or we shall go under”. He was buying time to the very end. Both purges (albeit they were overemphasized in the West) and institutional transformation of the Red Army played a huge role in him not to confront Germany.

Vintage Sovok. Pre-Soviet Russia wasn’t so comparatively backwards as many on the left are prone to exaggerate. I’m glad to encounter Soviet reared Russians who acknowledge this reality, which explains why the tricolor and two headed eagle have been readopted by post-Soviet Russia.

Of course WW I and the Russian Civil War took a heavy toll on Russia. For accuracy sake, that aspect shouldn’t be used to try to legitimize the before the revolution, there was nothing BS.

Stalin’s officer corps purges did hamper the Red Army’s ability for a certain period. We saw how clumsy the Finnish campaign was carried out. Stalin apparently thought he could just send a large number of raw recruits to achieve victory. That kind of flippant thinking led to many more deaths than what was otherwise necessary to ensure Soviet strategic interests.

On the other hand at around the same time, the Japanese were taken more seriously than the Finns on account of Russia’s 1905 experience with Japan. Concerning the Far-east, I suspect that Soviet forces father away from the Kremlin were better protected from the foolish purges.

Now that the Commemoration of 100 years of the murder of Czar Nicholas and his family approaches and hundreds of thousands of pilgrims are expected in Yekaterinburg, you will see an increase in denunciations of the ‘incompetence, weakness, bloodthirstiness’ and what you have it and of justifications for his ‘deserved’ demise.

Shalamov was a Trotskyst and that’s why he was so much pumped up by the Trotsko-infested ‘West’ lefties.

Like all talented and honest people, Shalamov is bigger than any labels you stick on him. Solzhenitsyn isn’t.

It’s more even than just that..religions teach that a person of “light” tends to attract resentment and hatred, at least initially, because he makes people uncomfortable, but he is ultimately embraced by the community.

I am sure Solzhenitsyn will eventually be embraced by Russians. But it is common for saints to have a rough time of it, at least initially.

Shalamovs work is important, but lacking a moral dimension

You obviously didn’t read Shalamov. You know all those his musings about the necessity of Destruction of Carthage and all that jazz. Obviously portraying Urki’s and criminal world for what it was, especially their fake “attachments” to mother(s) or a fall of such people as former Opera singer, among many others. Or the last battle of Pugachov. Sure, no moral dimension whatsoever, wink-wink.

Did you notice that saints are not the only kind of people having rough time of it? This fate is shared by traitors, fools, thieves, murderers, rapists, etc.

The Gulag Archipelago was “An Experiment in Literary Investigation “.
Shalamov stories are a ‘work of fiction’.

“My writing is no more about camps that St-Exupéry’s is about the sky or Melville’s, about the sea. My stories are basically advice to an individual on how to act in a crowd… [To be] not just further to the left than the left, but also more real than reality itself. For blood to be true and nameless.”

“The complete set of Kolyma Tales is based on two areas: personal experiences and fictional accounts of stories heard. He attempted to mix fact and fiction, which leads to the book being something of a historical novel. The style used is similar to Chekhov’s, in which a story is told objectively and leaves the readers to make their own interpretations. Often brutal and shocking, the matter-of-fact style makes them appear more hard-hitting than using a sensationalist style. The stories are based around the life of the prisoners (political or professional) in the camp and their relations with the officials. We find accounts of prisoners who have become totally dispassionate, insane under the barbaric conditions, unemotionally murderous and suicidal” (Wikipedia – The Kolyma Tales).

There are in no way more ‘documentary’ than The Gulag.

I have read some, but perhaps not enough. Maybe I should read more.

This fate is shared by traitors, fools, thieves, murderers, rapists, etc.

Perhaps, although many get away with it, and are sometimes rewarded with power and money. But it is hardly surprising that such people should have a hard time of it.

That saints tend to attract the same treatment is a sad commentartary on the human race.

We may recall Khalhin-Gol, have you heard of it? As per purges–recall who was in charge of military at Far East and why was he persecuted.

I made reference to it. Two of the leading Soviet commanders of that campaign against Japan, Yakov Smushkevich and Grigori Shtern, were later purged (murdered), just before the Nazi attack on the USSR. Georgi Zhukov was also there in a lead role. Smushkevich and Shtern were later rehabilitated, along with quite a few other victims of Stalin’s purges, that very much included the Soviet officer corps.

For me and others, Sovok is used to describe overly Soviet nostalgic folks, whose trait includes a generally negative image of pre-Soviet Russia, which in turn is used as a basis to warrant the Soviet legacy.

I’ve been seeing an attempt in the English speaking world to elevate Shalamov.

It is so obvious and so simple. In Shalamov there was no god, no hope, he was more modern, he was not pointing fingers at perpetrators. It was just existential. People suffer and let me show how they behave when they do. That’s all. For them Solzhenitsyn is dangerous because he tries to explain and he gives hope which might be his gravest offense. They will laugh at his 19 c. literary naivety and silly belief in god and idiotic belief in the greatness of Russia.

It was unavoidable that his beliefs had to come to clash with the so-caled liberal modernity and the Jews who are the most effective midwives of this modernity, so then the accusation of anti-semitism were bound to come.

Shalamov is so much safer. His work may lead to possible worship of non-transcendental suffering like Holocaust but in the case of Gulags it will never be elevated to this level because the victims were possibly deserving, after all they were punished by the most progressive state on Earth, which means the victims are non-deserving of apotheosis unlike them Jews.

I would not be surprised if they discovered soon that Shalamov was also very much in favor of LBGT rights or even that he was closeted and persecuted homosexual himself. That would be perfect. Even Martyanov would love it with his fetish of long and hard Russian missiles.

which prompted Trifonov to quit his research into the author.

Quite strong in this one, the poz is…

Peace.

He was in the camps for YEARS.
The negative comments are hysterical.
Not one person in this thread would make a pimple on
Solzhenitsyn’s ass.

It is documented and Shalamov warned about him willing to steal) half of GULAG Archipelago

Source please.

American officers aren’t Sovoks for obvious reasons, but pretty much all of them past O-5 (and honestly, perhaps O-3) are worthless.

Glantz of course is an excellent historian.

Putin generally is not on the same level and in same conditions to critisized Lenin or Stalin. Telling that Great Patriotic war was won without the person who was in charge of the country and under whose leadership Soviet Russia built industrial and military foundation that led to victory is a sign of huge prejudice and lack of clear logical thinking. So, people were just coming together and going out there to fight Germans? After original army was obliterated people somehow were coming themselves together, organizing themselves into divisions, armies, armies groups, industries all moved by themselves from Ukraine to Urals, reserves armies organized by themselves, plans for Moscow contra offensive and reserves from far east were just moving without top leadership and other things were being done by people? What about 1990-1993 events when people in peaceful condition could have squashed those internal enemies in a blink of an eye and yet they were paralyzed unable to act? How come?

For me and others, Sovok is used to describe overly Soviet nostalgic folks, whose trait includes a generally negative image of pre-Soviet Russia, which in turn is used as a basis to warrant the Soviet legacy.

Maybe Sovok works for you this way, but reality is–Sovok as a term was born in Soviet times inside what today is defined as Liberasnya and Kreakls of profoundly pro-Western orientation–most of this orientation being built around so called “sacral knowledge”, much of it having to do with knowing Western consumer brands and emulating West’s consumer patterns. Most people, as it is largely the case, in those circles were badly educated and uncultured, as it is the case, for example with their modern off-springs (see modern Russian “liberasnya”) but they needed a signal, an indicator of their desired superiority and what is called “vnesistemnost'”, thus they smeared a very complex society with a sweepingly general term Sovok. While Sovok has a lot to do with actual Soviet system and values it promoted, Sovok is a profoundly Russophobic meme which was direct reference to primarily non-urban Soviet population which was primarily first-second generation out of villages and who lacked a superficial refinement while espousing many values one way or another ascribed to Soviet “system”. In fact, the whole layer of Soviet/Russian literature which goes under the moniker of “Pochevenichestvo”, from Shukshin, to Balashov to, drum roll, some Solzhenitsyn’s pieces, among many others is, in essence, the anthology of Sovok, from its inception to very modern times. In more appropriate, more educated and truly cultured framework–Sovok is a pejorative term for historic massive movement of Russian people from villages to urban centers and of their modernization (with partial Westernization) which went under Soviet rule.

One of the demonstrations of Sovok which will make Solzhenitsyn turn, yet again, in his coffin (it happens every year) is coming on May 9. I am not talking about the parade, I am talking about what follows it–Immortal Regiment march. Moscow alone expects 1 million people, millions more will be marching all over Russia from Vladivostok to St. Petersburg. This gives all those Western “historians” and local Russian fringe elements the opportunity to provide their mental excrement in their media but also see real Russia–yes under red flags and with photos of those Sovoks, such as my grandfathers killed on the fronts of Great Patriotic War. Pay attention, if you will, to a pronounced huge number of youth in those columns–young people all over with portraits of their great grand fathers and mothers. Sovok-s, Sir. Historic memory is bitch, ain’t it?

That’s the favorite fairy tale of people who refuse to separate flies from cutlets for ideological reasons. They can’t acknowledge that Stalin’s leadership made a decisive contribution to the victory of the USSR over Nazi Germany. These people will never acknowledge that 2×2=4, so arguing with them is useless.
They cannot get it into their self-disabled heads that the same person can be a skilled leader at tough times and a bloody dictator. The same applies to the US president Roosevelt: his government interned all Japanese (which was a crime against humanity by modern standards), encouraged the development of the A-bomb, which would have been used against Japanese civilians under him (another huge crime), if he did not die just in time, and lead the US to victory in WWII. In fact, Churchill also has quite a few skeletons in his closet (his love of hard liquor is the most innocent of these, as compared to genocide of people in British colonies). But despite their crimes all three should be credited with defeating the regimes of even greater criminals, Hitler and Japanese militarists. These people see the world in black and white, willfully ignoring that these two colors exist only in their distorted views, whereas the real world is in many shades of gray.

These people see the world in black and white,

It is in many respects a defining feature of Western, especially American, so called “humanities” education which is almost entirely, with some exceptions, ideologically-driven by narratives. In “exceptional” nation it becomes simply grotesque in misrepresentation of not only Soviet/Russian, but global in general, history. It is a Manichean view of the world and in many respects it is defined by ignorance of warfare, the nature of military power, its application and consequences, and it is also defined by desperate desire to be, indeed, “exceptional”. Today, in 2018 we all, with the exception of ignorant hacks and fanatics, have an overwhelming, simply over the top, evidence of a complete corruption of the whole field of history, especially military one, and of academic integrity in US so called “experdom”. Obviously, there are some notable exceptions, they always exist, but the result, as this proverbial Clausewitzian “soundest criterion”, is for everyone to see. Yet, these very people still apply models, methods and approaches which are directly responsible for the unmitigated disaster and collapse in the progress which contemporary West has become. But then again, it is difficult to explain to ignorant that they are the part of the problem in the world where militant incompetence rules. Marahovsky wrote an excellent piece on that–dopamine “knowledge”:

https://um.plus/2018/04/04/knowlegde/

I translated some part of it:

In the foundation of the operations of a mass of (internet) resources which feed themselves on a “smart information”—is the same principle of a “Dopamine Noose”, as it is in the foundation of the social networks. Average, non-intellectual consumer who gets hooked on them (social networks), nudges his smartphone in anticipation of views and likes (since Dopamin—is not a hormone of a pleasure but of anticipation of a pleasure). An intellectual consumer, however, is hooked on the anticipation of a Knowledge Which Gives an Advantage. This victim is subconsciously convinced that by consuming cheerful pop-narratives about latest discoveries and achievements of technology he (or she) is joining elite inhabitants of the planet, who are superior to other proverbial 95% of population. …In actuality, the industry of Actual Knowledge makes its own consumers much more vulnerable to manipulations than it is the case with the “grey majority”. The latter, at least, has a good idea of the range of own actual awareness. It also doesn’t have well-established psychological mechanism which allows this majority to believe in own ability to instantly figure out the issue of any complexity.

Reminds of anything? 😉

Why the hysterics?
Have you (or your relative) lived through the GULAG as a prisoner?
Was it the “200 Hundred Years Together” that has enraged you so much against Solzhenitsyn?

Things appear as shades of gray when the context is dim. Stalin’s dictatorial power certainly gave Russia a vast human resources that could be spent. A populist government certainly may have capitulated. However the purges in the military leading up to that created his own necessity. He put out a fire , lit by his own cigar, with everyone else’s drink. Not the sort of guest I would invite a second time.

Putin is definitely learning but time often is of great importance. Let’s see how things will go. Doing right things but slowly might not be enough as well. Lenin often was saying delay is like death. Often acting rushly has bad consequences too. Russia has no room however for mistakes of 80-90s proportions and status quo is also deadly long term. There must be breakthrough leading to real long term uptrend including demographic one which depends a lot upon what Putin will be doing in the next 6 years.

I don’t dispute that some Sovoks are anti-Russian.

Unfairly disparaging pre-Soviet Russia, while being overly glorious about the USSR is a Sovok attribute.

Lenin often was saying delay is like death.

Lenin was going for the political power. Remember his: we must say that the most important question for Bolsheviks is the question of political power (c). Putin has it, in fact he also enjoys a massive popular support–so in this case he, I think, having secured Russia proper from the attack, has some time. How much? I don’t know. Only he and Security Council know. Can Chemezov be new PM? I would hope so but will see, hopefully, soon.

Agree

Was it the “200 Hundred Years Together” that has enraged you so much against Solzhenitsyn?

I think you have misinterpreted his comment, unless I am mistaken it is strongly in support of Solzenhitsyn.

You are not a reliable source.

You are not a reliable source.

I read it, I read it. I know I am not–stop reading me.

Your reply to this set of comments explains what your critics at these threads have said of you:

http://www.unz.com/akarlin/prophet-solzhenitsyn/#comment-2306218

Yes, it was ‘200 years’ that filled the cup of anti-Solzhenitsyn rage, which started with his Harvard Speech. The rage grew stronger and stronger from the moment when Solzhenitsyn dared to say that the ordeals of the Russians are not exclusively the feat of Stalin, who ‘betrayed the pure and noble revolution’ of the darlings of the ‘Left’ and anti-tsarist ‘liberals’ of the ‘West’, Lenin-Trotsky, but those hallowed figures were the very initiators of those ordeals. Actually Solzhenitsyn was less critical of Stalin than the Trotsko-infested ‘left’ and ‘liberals’ would want to believe.
And yes, to answer your curly question, I had more than one relative who lived through the Communist prisons, and I had myself the dubious privilege to live in their shadow.
But I really wonder what did you understand of my ‘hysterics’. Nothing could have suggested you that I am ‘enraged’ against Solzhenitsyn. On the contrary. Try to read more attentively what people write.

Isn’t it obvious?

A true scientist knows that when the evidence contradicts the theory, you throw away the theory and try to come up with a better one. Most people are not trained as scientists, so in the same situation they simply pretend that the evidence does not exist and cling to their pet theories.
I don’t know what Putin would do. Right now he has a harsh choice: go with the oligarchs and doom the country, or go with the country and doom the oligarchs. I wish him to have the courage for the second option (and chuck the deal he made in 2000: remember, he came from Yeltsin’s gang of thieves who did not give a hoot about Russia). But, being a scientist, I would wait for the evidence.

Your reply to this set of comments explains what your critics at these threads have said of you:

Is this post addressed to me?

tsars government was too nice with the peasant trash

In what respect were the peasants “trash”?

“In 1906-1907, the government spent 128 329 000 rubles for the help to peasants (from crop failure) in 12 provinces (the center of the country). During this time the population of provinces bought vodka for the sum of 130 505 000 rubles, i.e. for 2 176 000 more that sum which peasants received from the government as the help”

http://www.polit.ru/article/2010/12/10/consumlevel/#

These “people” in majority were total scum .

No, on account of my not being a mind reader, in conjunction with my surmising that what you’re suggesting is off the mark.

And some anonymous critics of my sorry ass on a public discussion board of some fringe blogger explains dry statistics and facts of pre-revolutionary Russia exactly how? Since this discussion goes nowhere, just FYI. I don’t expect some illiterate hack as Kholmogorov to learn anything, nor Karlin face the music but just in case. Here is Military-Statistical Digest of Russian Army from 1912. See page. 141, graph: literate–speaks for anyone with even rudimentary ideas about basic military organization, which is not expected from majority of “critics” here.

http://istmat.info/files/uploads/33580/voen._stat._ezh._1912_-5.pdf

Just to give you some idea after that, the number of truly literate, not as it was defined in Russian, in German Army at that time was 99.7%, in French 95.7%, Dutch–99%. So, to quote you:

You’re cherry picking a bit in a sovok way.

Absolutely, using verified hard cold data from Russia’s own Imperial General Staff’s Mobilization Department and Military-Statistical Sheets. But then again–it is a massive task to explain to all kinds of modern uneducated hipsters with no academic background or life, let alone military, experiences what Combined Index of National Capability is, or, for that matter what at least, simple as hell, Dyadic technological relation (advantage) of opposing forces is. I already posted data of war materiel production for WW I. You may start easily plugging in all data across the WW I military-technological board

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-9hOL9_7NF0g/WuVQOGiiQCI/AAAAAAAABkk/ZvSzmhbK5nwdowQlBaF7jKtnjnSV2wtKACLcBGAs/s1600/DiadicTechAdvantage.jpg

I am not even going into serious review of operational factors which suddenly begin to get all those funny coefficients of both deterministic and, especially, stochastic nature which begin to account for effectiveness of force in which education and intellect (and morale) play one of the most decisive factors in achieving objectives. So, is it “cherry picking” in a “Sovok way” of stating the fact of Russian Army being semi-literate? In reality only about quarter of it was truly literate. So, you don’t have to reply to me about my “cherry picking”, unlike most of my “critics” here I know how Tsushima syndrome lived through Soviet Navy, because for any Soviet naval officer Tsushima was both shame and pain. But never mind–humiliation of Russia and of her Baltic Squadron in one of the most lop-sided naval battles in history is “cherry picking” in a “Sovok way”.

Very informative, thank you. Have you by chance looked into a somewhat similar character vis-à-vis the Hapsburgs played by Thomas Masaryk? I have not been able to get this level of detail.

On a 48 Hours investigation, when investigators asked a person who personally knew a con artist sociopath who had murdered his fiancee – “Who was this guy?”- she responded: “I don’t know -he would make up these stories and tell her a lie – he was confident that he had been chosen by God to be her blessing and light – and then tried to – pretend in his mind only- that he actually was what he reasoned he was. Because he was a sociopath and lacked character to begin with -he was forced to develop technique of seduction – that he backed with Holy scriptures to “prove” it. And since most people are imbeciles to begin with – she believed him. And thus he got away not only with murder but with piling the bull shit high and deep.

.

The sequestration of Solzhenitsyn documentary “Two Hundred Years Together” has made the West vulnerable to the machinations of neo-Bolsheviks (ziocons).
See the triumphal union of ziocons and Banderites in Ukraine. https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/04/30/can-done-paul-craig-roberts/
“From mid-February 2014, the demonstrations [in Kiev] descended into deadly violence, which was later found to have been the work of provocateurs associated with the ultra-nationalist and actual Ukrainian fascists serving as ‘self-defence’ units. When EU foreign ministers rushed to Kiev to mediate and avoid further bloodshed, US Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt instead negotiated with the co-founder of the fascist party of independent Ukraine and commander of its militia, Andriy Parubiy, on the modalities of removing Yanukovych by force. …
Andriy Parubiy was a co-founder of the Neo-Nazi Social-National Party of Ukraine (SNPU), otherwise known as Svoboda. And his deputy, Dmytro Yarosh, is the leader of a party called the Right Sector which flies the old flag of the Ukrainian Nazi collaborators at its rallies.
The Svoboda party has tapped into Nazi symbolism including the “wolf’s angel“ rune, which resembles a swastika and was worn by members of the Waffen-SS, a panzer division that was declared a criminal organization at Nuremberg. A report from Tel-Aviv University describes the Svoboda party as “an extremist, right-wing, nationalist organization which emphasizes its identification with the ideology of German National Socialism.” https://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-hughes/the-neo-nazi-question-in_b_4938747.html
“The hacked e-mails of NATO commander General Breedlove furthermore reveal that US advisers were directly involved in getting the coup government to respond with maximum force to the uprising in the eastern provinces…”
— Where are the Holocaustians when they are sorely needed? How about making some “righteous” noises about the Jewish Nuland-Kagan and Pyatt and the whole Kagans clan?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/02/neo-nazi-groups-recruit-britons-to-fight-in-ukraine
https://larouchepac.com/20150227/obama-nuland-and-parubiy-push-eurasian-war
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yX4fA0E5j_4

Israel has been committing war crimes by attacking the sovereign state of Syria. But this is not enough for the “most moral” and “most victimized;” the Jewish state is making sure (via the neo-Bolshevik emissaries in the Fifth Column of Israel-firsters in the US) that the US dedicates dime & limb to “protecting” the supremacist warmonger, that is, to slaughtering more among the Jewish State’ neighbours: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-05-01/us-officials-israel-preparing-war-iran-seeking-us-support
— They, the ziocons and zionists, are indeed happy when “seizing their neighbors’ infants and dashing them against the rocks.”
What are the accumulated counts of the wars for Israel? – some 4 million dead human beings of all ages? — No, that’s not enough for the Moldovan, Polish, and Ukrainian thugs in Israel and their American brethren. Expect more squealing and more killing from the “holocaustians.” They hate Persia. They hate Syria. They hate Russia. The US is next for the unbounded hatred from the “chosen.”
And where is the voice of the 52 major American Jewish Organizations? It seems that they approve the slaughter in the Middle East and the banderization of Ukraine.

There are excerpts from the book in English on the web. The book – authored by a Nobel pr writer – is famously still not translated and is obscured by (((them))). It is simply a gathering of historical fact, not a novel. (actually S researched them when writing The Red Wheel, and considered them too worthy to be left aside.)

It took awhile to coalesce my thoughts and polish them, but here my rebuttal:

https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2018/04/30/beware-the-perception/

That said, I do hope you arrange to translate the work –