Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Photos from the protests in Israel

Protests in Israel, huge, massive, incredible, totally unreported by the media as they are not even taking place. How big are Israeli protests? They are same as if 10 million people demonstrated in Moscow.  The CIA paid "opposition" in Russia rarely gathers 100 people for its demonstrations, never mind millions, but those puny laughable theatrics attract massive media attention while massive demonstrations in Israel, miraculously, go on unnoticed. Here are some incredible photos from Israel which the media does not (do not) show you.

http://cryptome.org/info/israel-protest/israel-protest.htm

On Magnitsky, dissidents and Syria

The US is upset about Magnitsky (Magnitski), a scummy lowlife that died in custody in the Russian Federation. In fact the haughty Fourth Reich even introduced visa sanctions on Russian officials while meek and timid Russia Federation does not possess the testicles to respond in kind or in better   by say kicking Coca Cola and Ford out of the country.  One has to remember though that in the United States thousands of innocents are murdered every year in police custody and the official count is over 650. Now the US government and the state department is apparently not bothered by the deaths of  thousands of its citizens in the police custody, but is shocked, just shocked, at the  demise of a single treasonous lowlife that was in employ of Wall Street interests and died of natural causes while in police custody in the Russian Federation.

For the few last weeks the media in the United States and its vassal states went on an offensive against Syrian president, "the tyrant" Assad,  who allegedly  might have mistreated some of the armed thugs who were sent to destabilize Syria and kill its citizens.

Now in the context of incredible uproar over death of a single treasonous lowlife (a Russian citizen kept  Russian police custody on charges of serious crimes) or how President Assad mistreats armed gangs on the rampage,  I am puzzled because I remember the way how the United States government dealt with its own dissidents and their families at Waco, Texas.  It barbecued, roasted alive, 74 men, women and children although the victims did not threaten anyone, did not steal billions and did not go out to kill people. Read this and watch the documentary clip. However vicious inhuman murder of 74 men and women (who were burned alive to the accompaniment of recorded screams of rabbits being slaughtered) is nothing compared to death of one despicable lowlife like Magnitsky. 




On 20th century Russo-Polish relations

Putin was wrong, criminally wrong, to apologize or say sorry for Katyn events after the plane-load of Russophobes crashed near Smolensk (which should have been celebrated as a national holiday and not a day of mourning for Russophobe lowlifes). Also it is funny that Brzeziński, the Supreme Russophobe, believes that Russia cannot have an opinion on its own history if the rest of the world considers it criminal. By rest of the world he means the USA, East European Nazis and himself - which even when put together hardly represent more than 5% of world's population but do represent the humanity's most inhumane and criminal part. 

The link was originally forwarded to me by Mike Averko, a gentleman who is knowledgeable about Russian Polish affairs and who though an  American  is consistent in his anti-fascist views.

 
 
 
Ruslan LYNEV | 16.08.2011 | 12:00
 
Recently RIAN, the key Russian media outlet, hosted a presentation of several books which, based on documentary evidence, shed new light on the past conflict between Poland and the Soviet Union. In the process, the authors – scholars and archive researchers – seemed ready to jointly subscribe to the view that sober assessments are at last beginning to prevail over selfish political motivations in the debates over the history of the Polish-Soviet relations. This, however, was not what I gathered from The White Spots – The Black Spots, a collection of papers by Polish and Russian authors on the same theme. A detailed analysis of the materials can be found in Issue 6 of the Novaya Polsha journal. The ideas expressed therein essentially combine into a fairly unconvincing attempt to build an academic framework around the point set forth by Z. Brzeziński years ago in The Wall Street Journal: the Russian administration, as he believes, has no right to avoid pronouncing a judgment on Russia's past which the rest of the world regards as criminal. The legitimate question in the context is: was Poland constantly an innocent victim of the Soviet Union with no crimes against the USSR on its own record?
 
 
Poland, not Russia, unleashed the 1919 Polish-Soviet war and, moreover, most of the fighting at the time was on the territory of Ukraine. Józef Beck, a veteran of the 1919 war who later became Poland's foreign minister and as such a notorious proponent of rapprochement with Hitler recalled „killing everybody and burning down everything at the first suspicion”.


The Red Army repelled the aggression and in 1920 launched a counter-attack during which the initial success caused the Soviet top commanders to completely lose touch with reality. As a result, the Red Army suffered a crushing defeat near Warsaw and Moscow was forced to open peace talks which produced the Treaty of Rigagiving Poland large chunks of Belarus and West Ukraine. In part, the talks revolved around the fate of Soviet servicemen who were executed or taken captive by Poland and perished in numbers in Polish camps due to inhumane conditions, starvation, epidemics, and degrading treatment.
On September 6, 1921 Soviet commissar for foreign affairs G. Chicherin sent a note to the Polish chargé d’affaires ad interim stating that 60,000 of 130,000 Soviet POWs had died in captivity in Poland. Much earlier, on January 29, 1921 Col. K. Habicht of Poland's medical service who was involved in the Riga talks as an expert submitted to the Polish army command a memorandum of the Russian-Ukrainian Commission for the Repatriation of POWs accompanied by his own comments. One of the latter read: „Since it would be difficult to formulate a meaningful response to the charges we are facing, it makes sense to altogether brush them off with a reference to the fact that generally POWs in Russia are treated no better than in our country”.

As a part of the response pressure strategy, Poland confronted Russia with a 1,495,192,042 marks bill for accommodating the Soviet inmates. The Soviets reacted by pressing a four times bigger claim based on the calculation of the costs of the inmates' forced labor, and the material compensations issue was promptly dropped from the agenda.


The view broadcast over the past several years by the Polish media is that the isolated incidents of war-time abuse in Poland, albeit real, were nothing compared to the abuse perpetrated by the Soviet Union which for decades pursued the strategy of subduing Poland. Yet, what is being discussed were not isolated incidents. Poland's 1919 war veteran turned foreign minister Józef Beck wrote rather revealingly: „As for Russia, I can't find enough words to describe our hate for it”. Józef Piłsudski's calls for leaving nothing but death or captivity to the retreating Red Army stemmed from the same sentiment. In fact, Piłsudski used to tell that he dreamed to seize Moscow and to leave an inscription on the Kremlin wall saying: „Speaking Russian is prohibited!”. Were the incidents really isolated?
In the former Soviet Union, the overarching principle of the approach to the history of Polish-Soviet relations was to maintain complete silence on all potentially divisive issues and to carefully avoid reviving old grievances.


Since the late 1980ies, the Polish political elites, historians, and commentators started pushing for such relations with Russia that would stop short of cutting off all ties with Moscow but would, as late Polish president L. Kaczyński suggested, enable Poland to permanently draw benefits from Russia.The „partnership” model affords flexibility in handling historical problems to such an extent that Novaya Polsha could even publish Ya. Podolsky's recollections of the Polish captivity, though the material was tailored to the point of selling the Polish Gulag as some kind of paradise.


The death toll among the Soviet POWs in Polish captivity remains the key contentious issue. In a clear attempt to downplay the proportions of the tragedy, Poland asserts that as of October 18, 1920 it held 110,000 Red Army servicemen (Novaya Polsha, № 11, 2005). Some 25,000 immediately switched their loyalty to the Polish army and joined the Cossack and other White Army formations, and 65,797 eventually returned to the Soviet Union. According, for example, to Polish historian Z. Korzun, the rest – some 16,000 – 18,000 people – died in Poland of injuries and epidemics which at the time raged across Europe, or of severe conditions which were justifiable considering Poland's own material embarrassments.
Russian researcher T. Matveev holds based on currently available documentary sources that the number of Red Army servicemen taken captive by the Polish forces was 157,000 instead of 110,000. I. Pikhutina puts the figure at 165,550 with a reference to documents found in Soviet and Polish archives. Finally, V. Filimoshin's estimate is 296,877. The significant dispersion is owed to two circumstances. First, the reporting of the delivery of inmates to Polish camps and of the deaths in them used to be extremely incomplete. Secondly, whatever figures available do not reflect those who were left on the battle fields or killed on the spot, which at the time happened routinely. It is an open secret that Red Army captives who were commissars, communists, or Jews were subject to immediate execution in Poland. The number of Red Army servicemen who died on the way from the places of captivity to camps also remains unknown. Overall, the statistics fails to account for what happened to some 40,000-50,000 Red Army servicemen.


The calculations performed by military historian V. Filimoshin show that around 82,500 Red army servicemen died in Poland. In 1998, Russia's attorney general asked his Polish counterpart to open a probe into the causes of the deaths but heard back that no investigation into “the alleged extermination of the Bolsheviks taken captive during the 1919-1920 war” would be conducted. In other words, Polandwants the Katyn massacre to be condemned as an act of genocide but the concentration camps it ran in Tuchola, Strzałkowo, Bialystok, and Brest – to be regarded as perfectly normal institutions.
In fact, the Red Army servicemen were not the only category of people to face inhumane conditions in Poland. White movement leader A. Denikin recalled that the White Army forces were similarly ill-treated in Polish camps at the time. In the 1920ies, the triumphant Poland launched a sweeping campaign of uprooting all things Russian. When the Russian Cathedral of Saint Alexander of Neva, a shrine with artwork of exceptional value, was looted and destroyed in Warsaw, a Polish newspaper wrote that by this Poland had demonstrated moral superiority over Russia.


In contrast, even L. Trotsky, otherwise renown for his ruthless character, wrote in July, 1920 that the Red Army should treat captive Poles generously, the reports of Polish atrocities notwithstanding.
These days, the EU intends to observe August 23 – the date of the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact - as the European Day of Remembrance for Victims of Stalinism and Nazism. It is clear that as a part of the event Moscow will be taking hammering and showered with calls for recanting Russia's past and handing out various compensations, while others will as usual remain insulated from criticism. On our part, it would be a huge mistake to accept the approach to history as a norm.

Wednesday, August 10, 2011

Three first essential formlas (formulae) to understand the state of affairs in Europe and former Soviet space

Good now we are getting there

Three  very important formulas to understand what is going on and I guess intelligent people have figured this formulae out on their own.

The First one:  Nazism and America
The  US is the heir (not a heir) to the Third Reich.
The Third Reich would be good guys if they did not kill the Jews. That's their only sin.
Nazis fought Communism. America and NATO fought Communism.
Nazis's enemy is Russia.  America's (and its vassals') enemy in Russia.

The Second one: the Tiger of Islamic Extremism and Riding the said Tiger
- Islamic extremism is good when it is directed against Russia or Serbia.
- Islamic extremism is bad when it is directed against the USA and Israel.

The Third one: rights of ethnic groups and "nationalities. This formula applies to the EU as well.
- Nationalities and ethnic groups favored by the USA and EU have certain rights.
- Nationalities and ethnic groups not favored by the USA and EU have no rights.

A dialogue that followed my translation of that Islamofascist (in the real sense of both Islamic terrorist and fascist) Polish lowlife minister Radek Sikorski's revelations.

A dialogue that followed my translation of that Islamofascist (in the real sense of both Islamic terrorist and fascist) Polish lowlife minister Radek Sikorski's revelations.

------------------------------------------------------------

From what I know Richard Lowry is a Nazi and an extreme Islamophobe. He is a fan of water-boarding and he advocated nuking Mecca.

Likewise as a Nazi is expected to be a Russophobe. I haven't yet met Russophile Nazis in America.

By the way who talked to lowly Rich Lowry, did you, Mike - it would be astonishing that he would feel sympathetic to your protestation of racial and ideological bias because that's what National Review is all about.

As of Sikorski. He is symbolic of his nation's natural traits -  meanness,  treachery and pathological ingratitude. In the 1980s he hanged out with the Taliban and Muslim terrorists,  he got food from their hands,  chances are those guys even petted their Polish dog.  in the 1990s he was in bed with American Nazis like Richard Lowry and even managed to befried the pro-Israel lobby.  Right now he has committed his hyena of a nation to a war of aggression against people who gave him comfort and lived with him in the 1980s.   What Sikorski deserves is to be turned over to his old Afghan friends - I wonder if they kill him right away or cut his balls off first.

There was an article published by the Völkischer Beobachter in Washington (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/will-the-libya-intervention-bring-the-end-of-nato/2011/04/11/AFhvpoMD_story.html) authored by Sikorski's Russophobe wife on war of aggression against people of Libya. I don't believe those rats give a dead rat's ass about people of Libya but they are bothered by what can happen to the NATO unity as the potential battering ram in the planned war of aggression against Russia. They only thing they care about (Sikorski and Appelbaum, Appelbaum might also care a bit about the sad state of the state of Israel) is hurting Russia and Russians. That's what Sikorski concern for Libya, NATO's phony unity of EU's Eastern Partnership or how the heck is that travesty called, are all about.


 


 
Briefly, from a friend on the church situation -
 
 
I note your recent post on Sikorski.
 
In the early 1990s, Sikorski wrote noticeably anti-Russian commentary for National Review (NR). This was before he joined the AEI and might've been before his meeting and/or marriage to Ann Applebaum. My sense is that he has learned to cover-up his views Western style.
 
In one of his NR articles, Sikorski describes a train ride with a Russian woman. After listening to him, she (in the article) asks why does he hate us (Russians)? Sikorski gave (what for some is) the standard reply of Russians not fessing up to their past. In a phone conversation, NR's editor Rich Lowry was unsympathetic to my protestation of such bias.
 
On the matter of fessing up to the past:
 
 
Over the years, NR selectively used Solzhenitsyn. His general opposition to Communism is propped, unlike his opposition to anti-Russian propaganda.
 
BTW, there was some other journo of Polish origin besides Sikorski who was in Afghanistan rooting for the anti-government rebels at the time of the Soviet military intervention there. That guy came across as a real SOB. I recall him filming a dying soldier aired on PBS.

Tuesday, August 9, 2011

On Polish ministers, terrorists, mujahedeen, Taliban and impartial journalists who, according to Reporters sans Frontières, are unarmed carriers of truth who need to be protected

Translation of the Regnum piece and of Sikorski's revelations - Russian original text here.  


Russia's envoy to NATO: how many Soviet soldiers did Poland's foreign minister murder?



Actions of Dmitry Rogozin, Russia's permanent representative at NATO, are considered a provocation in Poland. Such was the reaction on the Facebook entry Dmitry Rogozin made about Radosław Sikorski, Poland's foreign minister. On his social network page Rogizin published photographs of Sikorski dating from 1980s, when the current foreign minister worked in Afghanistan as a foreign correspondent for the Spectator and the Observer - from the side of Afghan mujahedeen  who then were fighting USSR forces. Dmitry Rogozin accompanied photographs of the Polish foreign minister, who is armed and dressed up like a mujahid, with a commentary: "This is Sikorski, Poland's foreign minister. Year 1987. I wonder how many of our boys did he kill?" Numerous Russian speaking users of the social network reacted to the post both condemning Sikorski's actions and branding him with a variety of insults.

Sikorski likes to remember the times he spent in Afghanistan. For example he wrote :"You need a Kalashnikov, - he suddenly asked? The decision was uneasy one. I was a journalist, not a soldier, and should not have taken up arms, but what good comes from all those conventions if the enemy does not honor any agreements? I was grateful for my Kalashnikov. The weapon's metal was not yet worn out and it wasn't yet covered with Arabic inscriptions though a green adhesive tape was glued around it. I learned how to shoot a Kalashnikov a year ago. I learned how to take an aim, how to clean my weapon - in short I learned everything I had to. Not for a second did I have any doubts about using this weapon.  At any moment we could have come upon those professional killers, Soviet paratroopers or special forces soldiers. Their task was to make ambushes in the enemy terrain, these assignments were never given to conscripts. If I did not fall prey to those "specialists", I would have killed any of those bandits without any qualms. Conscripts are a different story. Most of them were good guys, frightened by own commanders. I got to know quite a few of them. Soon we had to attack Soviet barracks. Words that I wrote in my diary in a few months' time, like "if I shall perish " or  "if I survive until tomorrow", may appear funny. But now it was not funny. We are going to attack the post and bullets will fly. Most likely some of us will die. A Kalashnikov rests on my lap. The weapon assured me. This was war and I had a weapon. There was a candy bar in one of my pockets. A hand grenade in another. A water flask dangled against my thigh. With respect I cleaned the barrel of my weapon. As of my belt, it was never tight. My ammunition bag contained 6 magazines, each holding thirty rounds. Another magazine was loaded in the assault rifle. During  attack on the barracks that night I fired three magazines (90 rounds) but then, as I understood, everything in vain - the bullets just broke crumbs off the surface of stone plate (Translation from the Lithuanian Courier, August 4)

***
In the interview to Polish newspaper Rzeczpospolita, chairman of the Commission on Foreign Affairs of the Polish Sejm, Andrzej Halicki made a comment about Facebook discussion: "By definition Facebook or Twitter entries are not something very important but Rogozin's actions are plain stupid. I can even call them a provocation. However I don't believe they would affect Russo-Polish relations in any way.

Polish minister, conventions of war and the Reporters Sans Frontières

A good person wrote to me saying that perhaps Sikorski just dressed himself up in a Talib costume. I am going to translate some of Sikorski's revelations but here's what I responded:
------------------------------------



Well, Radek Sikorski was a journalist who carried a weapon and possibly murdered people.

I assume he even killed peaceful Afghans

I am going to translate what he wrote himself about his homicidal adventures as Talib in Afghanistan

Now what is wrong with this picture? A commentary

Radek Sikorski is a war criminal because his actions were in violation of war conventions on non-combatants and of rules of war. As a journalist he was supposed to be an independent person, not a party to the conflict. The Reporters without Borders, Reporters Sans Frontières, lament the fate of journalists occasionally killed in the zones of armed conflicts. If we take the record of how many reporters were murdered in Iraq for example, it becomes apparent that Journalists are usually murdered by the US or its NATO vassals. Reporters Sans Frontières proclaim that journalists should not be killed because they are not combatants, but are unarmed and impartial truth seekers and reporters of news. A question arises in view of Radek Sikorski's self-revelations - are reporters indeed non-combatants or are some reporters non-combatants while others are very much combatants? Which are to be exempt? For example, can Polish journalists be considered non-combatants or if a Polish reporter is spotted on or in the vicinity of a battlefield, he can or should be killed without remorse or a second thought? Sikorski's revelations confirm that to be the case.

I would love to write a letter to the Reporters Sans Frontières (and perhaps someone can help me with putting such a letter together) asking them for a commentary on Sikorski's journalism and providing a clarification on whether all reporters are indeed non-combatants including even those who are partial, armed and do participate in combat?

Finally I think a major revision of the status of journalists is long overdue. First on the level of Russian Federation domestic laws and then in international treaties a clear legal distinction must be made between three groups - bona fide journalists and reporters who deserve legal and international treaty protection; enemy combatants who masquerade as reporters and, thirdly, enemy propagandists, i.e. people who do not report the news or cover events impartially but are agents of foreign governments or privately-held propaganda outfits whose job consists of falsifying information on a consistent and continuous basis and who are engaged in what can be legally defined as propaganda (Edward Lucas and Sikorski's spouse, Anne Applebaum, fit that category rather perfectly).

Monday, August 8, 2011

find the difference game

follow up from Russian envoy to Nazo (Rogozin) post:



Radek Sikorski in his younger years as a Talib in Afghanistan (1980s).

Radek is now Poland's foreign minister, and spouse of despicable Anne Applebaum, the official Russophobe number 2 (after Edward Lucas).

A game for kids: what's the difference between a Polish minister and a terrorist?

Sunday, August 7, 2011

The concept of totalitarianism is a West's propaganda invention

My translation of another, this time very brief interview, by IA REGNUM with a different historian, this time with Igor Pychalov (Pykhalov in americanized transliteration, ch in ISO and here as Russian letter x would be pronounced not dissimilarly to ch in loch ness ).


The historian: 
Western "democracies" cynically betrayed  democracy



Here in the photograph Polish marshal Edward Rydz-Śmigły enthusiastically shakes hands with the Nazi German war attaché  Major General Bogislav von Studnitz at the Independence Parade in Warsaw on November 11, 1938. The photograph is remarkable because the Polish parade was celebratory as it marked the invasion and occupation of Těšínsko or Czech Silesia just one month before this picture was taken. A special column formation of Těšín Poles marched in the parade celebrating destruction of Czechoslovakia while just before, in the nights of November 9 and 10, 1938 the Crystal Night (Kristallnacht), the first large scale act of organized physical violence visited upon Jews in the lands of the Third Reich. Illustration and commentary: War Album



For the first time ever on August 23 of this year the European Union will commemorate the Day of the Memory of Totalitarianism Victims. According to the decision by the European Parliament, only two ideologies - Nazism and Communism are regarded are totalitarian. In a an interview with IA REGNUM Russian historian Igor Pychalov (Pyhalov, Pykhalov) is explaining why talks about the origins of the victims of totalitarianism commemoration.

IA REGNUM. Why does the European Union only commemorate the victims of totalitarianism, but does not memory good enough to remember all those victims of democracy and authoritarianism, of fascism and militarism?


This is perfectly natural. The concept of totalitarianism is a West's propaganda invention in its war against the Soviet Union. Although the socialist system might have fallen, the struggle against our country did not.


IA REGNUM. How would you describe the nature of political regimes in Central and Eastern Europe in the 1930s-(early) 1940s period with which the USSR had to deal with on its western borders.

Majority of those states were indeed very far from the democratic ideal. Military-led coups d'état , concentration camps - this sort of thing:, authoritarian and semi-authoritarian regimes. Perhaps the only more or less democratic state in this part of Europe was Czechoslovakia, although, what irony of fate, it was Czechoslovakia that "democracies" represented by England and France sacrificed and betrayed.

IA REGNUM. What goals did these (Central and Eastern) Europe regimes pursue vis-à-vis the USSR?

To say that the way those regimes related to our country was not particularly friendly would be a gross understatement. Perhaps it would sufficient to recall that memorable statement by Poland's strongman Józef Piłsudski - The foundation of Polish state interests in the East are based on eventual dismemberment of Russia. Or words of Finland's Prime Minister (later President) - Per Evind Svinhufund - "Any enemy of Russia  must always be a friend of Finland"

IA REGNUM. Who began partition of Europe with Hitler before the Second World War - the USSR or the Western "democracies"?

Obviously Western "democracies" in Munich. It was the height of cynicism when they sold Czechoslovakia to Hitler while that nation was on friendly terms with them, it was a democratic state which in case of France also happened to be a formal ally.

IA REGNUM. Why wouldn't the European Union condemn Munich Agreements of 1938.

They won't because that would mean placing a part of responsibility of starting the Second World War on themselves.

Friday, August 5, 2011

as certain electromagnetic waves hit retina of the intellectual stimuli which Western iterpretation of subconscious systemic homeostastis in equalibrium adjustment or the unending Nazi apotheosis at the EU expense

Suddenly I got an unexpected proof for everything Oleg Nemensky said  in his interview (though I do have some criticism for his theory of united West against Russia, but more on that later).

What I am about to tell also resonates with the revolting,  though not unexpected experience, of  the acquittal in Kepiro case by the Hungarian court. Today a close friend of mine, an Estonian, asked me to proofread a paper, doctoral dissertation in fact, written by his girl friend who is getting her doctorate degree in cinema studies from the University of Jyväskylä in Finland. The dissertation is about image of women in Hungarian cinema.

I guess it is cinema studies with a feminist bent but I haven't gotten that far in the manuscript to pass any judgements on its feminism merits.

First remark which won't probably be so remarkable. Although she is getting her degree in Finland,  the language of the dissertation is English. All references are made to American and English-language sources - and what a skewed, one-sided and grotesque world they live in. When Estonia was a part of the Soviet Union, she could have obtained her education in Estonian because the Soviet Union offered a wide range of opportunities for higher learning in tribal languages. In fact there was no tradition of academic publishing, research or Estonian universities before Bolsheviks. If she chose to get her postgraduate degree in Russian, she would have had to learn the Russian because it is impossible to write a dissertation without speaking the language. It is however perfectly possible with English. In fact both ethno-Nazi statelets of Estonia and Latvia, at least a large portion of native populations, more so in Estonia than in Latvia, switched to English as it de facto became the only foreign language tribal members speak. English is a language that is notoriously easy to speak poorly.  Writing in it is easier than in German or Czech but still requires some rudimentary knowledge of the language. I discovered a phenomenon that is almost unique to the Finland and the Baltic statelets though it may reoccur now and then in some unexpected places, like in a book on modern art published in Italy among all places. This phenomenon is overabundance of scientific and liberal arts texts, in this case a dissertation, written in an obtuse and grotesquely verbose style filled with esoteric words and concepts which neither the author nor the intended readership have any chance of comprehending. Although English has a notoriously easy grammar, some authors, Finno-Ugric tribesmen in particular, manage to get by without it (something they sure wouldn't do with their own languages) as long as the words that are piled up in dung heap manner are sufficiently complicated and meaningless. That tells me in turn that those illustrious centers of scholarly thought and ancient beacons of enlightenment like the University of  Jyväskylä produce tons or, as Finland is metric, then tonnes of totally worthless research, dissertation and papers which advance no worthy causes (in this case the paper is advancing the cause of Nazism at the EU expense though) and contain no research, valuable or not, present a case of environmental wastage as all this mental rot has to be printed on paper, and of ultimate futility as no one either will or can read all this. 

Page for page it goes like that: "The cultural systems of what important is figure, motion, color, number is charged with the prerequisites of goal attainment and integration, this means that culture has a central role in ensuring the equilibrium in internal homeostasis of the overall system.

 (this goes on for over 150 pages). 

I got myself a notebook and a pen and began rewriting entire paragraphs. I struggled through first pages and then the (Nazi) devil tempted me and  I looked right into the middle of this manuscript.

There was a chapter of cultural background of Hungarian cinema. Though written in an obtuse manner it repeated myths that are essential to Nazi conception of Europe and the world (which to a great extend corresponds with today's American concept of the West as formulated by America's fascist theoreticians like Samuel Huntington)  and with modern day Central and Eastern European cultural mythology.

It says (all wrong in historic sense but the last thing that matters here  is history of course): 

For the last thousand years Hungary stood between East and West and has been Austria's bastion and bastion of Europe against alien hordes of Mongols and Russians (logically there should be evil trio of Mongols, Turks and Russians, but either because Mongols and Russians sound scarier to the Finnish and Estonian Nazis, or perhaps this being Finland you can't mix in the Turks because they are remote Ugro-Altaic cousins of the Estofinns, though I don't believe that the brilliant thought went so far).

It goes on:

As Mongols threatened Europe in the 13th century, Russians threatened it in all subsequent centuries. In the 20th century Hungary had to stand up in defense of the West against outside Russian evil, failed together with half of Europe, and for 40 years was subjected to alien, Oriental, Russian domination (which however had no impact on Hungary's culture because its culture was so vastly superior to that of the Eastern, Russian occupiers).

Stop here.

It is clear that the Estonian authoress refers to Hungary's role in the Second World War on the side of Adolf Hitler and of German Nazism as to a heroic act of the defense of the West. The fact that Hungary along with Germany was the aggressor and Hungary's defense of the West consisted of murdering innocent and unarmed people - Jews, Gypsies, Serbs, Russians is of no consequence or significance.

It also jibes well with quite plausible theory I encountered in Estonia that although they cannot say it out loud the NATO is just the continuation of fascist armed forces of  united Europe, of the West as civilization,  that the United States is the direct heir to the Third Reich, that they have to pay lip service to the "Jews" (as a few of those nasty beings got slaughtered during the war) but they fought the good fight the last time, and as long as there is NATO and America, the Second World war was not lost by the Nazist as the Cold War was just the continuation of it.

Now that stuff is amazing because I am quite sure people in Russia (though there is that great InoSMI site that translates foreign press articles into Russian) are quite unaware of this orof the fact that Finnish universities happily deal with this sort of garbage and give doctorate degrees away, oh magic, - remember that Finland sucks its nourishment from the Russian tit for over 60 years now -  or that the European Union pays is paying for this wild intellectual extravaganza.

Thursday, August 4, 2011

If Hitler defeated the Soviet Union, modern Europe would have considered him a savior

This is a good, in fact important article on the nature of the crimes of Communism and their subsequent interpretation. An interview Oleg Nemensky, a historian at the Russian Academy of Sciences gave to the IA Regnum news agency.  I translated it roughly, the text might require some polishing.

Original Russian text here.

If Hitler defeated the Soviet Union, modern Europe would have considered him its savior


Russian historian and political scientist Oleg Nemensky. 

IA REGNUM is continuing a survey of Russian and foreign historians, which theme is this year official commemoration of the Day of Remembrance of the Victims of Totalitarianism.  In the EU context this  means two political regimes - the German Nazism and Soviet communism.



Questions and answers by a REGNUM,  August 3, 2011 at the Institute of Slavic Studies, 

IA REGNUM : Why does the EU commemorate the victims of so-called totalitarianism only, but does not care about victims of democracy and authoritarianism, fascism and militarism?

The reason lies in the modern European identity. Their own sins is one thing, those sins are judged either in terms of being long gone history or as something that at the time of their occurrence was inevitable and necessary. Another thing is what forces had to be overcome in order modern Europe could be born. The post-war Europe was constructed upon rejection of Nazism and Communism as two almost equal evils against which shone the brilliant light of the ultimate good, the light of Western civilization with which the EU identifies itself. And while many Europeans see the world in a more complex, less caricature-like way they do not make the difference because their views do not form the structure of the European identity.

IA REGNUM : What was the political nature of regimes in Central and Eastern Europe in 1930s -1940-s., with which the USSR had to deal on its western borders.

In ideological and operational terms political regimes in interwar Central and Eastern Europe were much closer to Nazi Germany than to the Soviet Union. Most of Central and Eastern European belonged to Nazi Europe, not to the continent's liberal bloc.

And now it is important to understand that for all those people (except perhaps for the Czech Republic and, with some reservations, for Slovakia), the victory of our country during World War II meant the defeat of their own kind and a national catastrophe. Even the Poles perceive the outcome of the war this way, because they lost a third of the country to the east (their "Eastern Ranges ' - although as translator's note, Poles were rewarded with a far productive and developed part of Germany, in fact it was the entire East Germany that they were allowed to steal. What was called East Germany during Cold War years is in fact Central Germany), and are still grieving over the loss.  To entertain the hope that these people would somehow be grateful to us because they were saved from the miserable fate Nazi politicians had in store for them, -  is hardly reasonable. Asking them for thanks is to them way worse than being simply annoying. At one time this alien feeling of gratitude was forced upon them, but this sentiment was so burdensome that now, after being finally freed from it, they are unlikely to revive the feeling on their own accord. But let's be honest with ourselves - the liberation of those countries from Nazi Germany and denazification was in our interests, for them this event will never be a cause for celebration. For one side to win, the other must lose. And they were the other side. Now they want a revenge.

These people are sick with nostalgia for the period of their interwar statehood, for the geo-political projects, which they were planning and which failed. And, yes, all those projects had some connection with Nazi Germany, at least with the way how it presented its own plans in its  pre-war propaganda. The dream of a revenge or of a history replay will inevitably lead to partial acquittal of the Third Reich, in fact in their minds the Third Reich  has already been long rehabilitated . The gravest problem these countries face is  that the Nazis were considered "uniquely evil" not only in and by Russia (USSR), but also in and by the West. And here Central and Europeans are starting to have all sorts of problems but so far they managed to disguise things and  put up a very good show. 

IA REGNUM : What were the goals those regimes pursued vis-a-vis the USSR?



Speaking of the states that appeared on the map as a result of Russia's defeat in World War I (as translator - I would say of the Bolshevist revolution,) or like Romania which profited from stealing its territory   ,   the success of their interwar geopolitical projects  rested upon the eventuality of the military defeat of the Soviet Union. Only the fact that  Russia has been  militarily defeated could guarantee them their independence from Moscow and their sovereignty over long term and over large areas, particularly those which have been a part of the Russian Empire. And Germany was seen as their  natural ally in this cause (a divine instrument), something Germany exploited well in its politics and its propaganda.

IA REGNUM : What was the plan for eventual political system that the national movements of the 1940s  had, the ones which  fought for their independence from the Soviet Union?


Political movements of the immediate prewar years and the war period should be assessed from the premise that those people had a very poor comprehension of what Nazism means and what further designs Nazi Germany had for their lands. However, many of their leaders, due to a rather quick succession of military events did not have a chance to disbelieve the inadequacy of their own preconceptions. Or did not want to.

By the way, some movements could really have had a chance to coexist with the new (Nazi) system. Nazi plans for the dismemberment of the Russian lands went much further than those of the Bolsheviks, and many of today's activists for projects like the Cossackia or the Idel-Ural find it now difficult to hide the nostalgia (or conceal the sadness) that those projects failed  

The political system (for the lands of Eastern and Central Europe) - either or,  in any case it would have been based on some form of fascism. Though not necessarily on Nazism everywhere.


IA REGNUM : From what end was Europe divided before World War II:  Hitler split it with the Soviets or Hitler divided it with the Western "democracies"?



To a great extent Hitler  and  "Western democracies" shared identical objectives  - the defeat of Communism and the destruction of Soviet Russia. The misfortune of France was that its leaders hoped that Germany would do the job on its own without getting them involved.  Hitler did everything possible to unite the West for a united crusade against Russia. Had he won on the Eastern Front, today's Europe would have certainly remembered Hitler as the greatest savior and the founding father of the modern Europe where every schoolkid could  explain what a mortal danger those Jews, Gypsies and Russians presented to the continent's progressive people. And that attitude is not particular to Third Reich, it was shared in English-speaking cultures as well. 

This common goal has been the cause for the numerous concessions granted to Hitler. In general, prior to the attack on Poland, Berlin's actions fit quite nicely to the logic of " historic  unification of Germany." And Bohemia, and Austria, and the demand for the Danzig corridor - these  all were of course justifiable for creation of a unified nation on the territories of the old German states. This policy, one of creating a unified nation-state,  could not have caused too much of harsh criticism because at the time the very notion of a unified nation state was considered justifiable and even noble.

Czechoslovakia was partitioned by Germany, Poland and Hungary and this dismemberment produced  a slight change in the political map of Europe as compared to a much greater challenge that lied ahead, that "in the East." You've got to understand that a few people then believed in the viability of the Czechoslovak national project, and so obviously they were not much disturbed when Czechoslovakia got destroyed. To this day, even in our historiography the partition is not treated as part of  World War II but merely as one of the events that led to it.  It is so however not so clear cut, unless you want to deny the connection between the partition and the military action that followed later.  It is important to remember that our country opposed the partition  - after all, that was when Berlin began conquering lands which were not German in the ethnic or any other sense.

By the way, the  Soviet Union acted according to the same logic of national unification in September 1939, in direct contrast to Germany. Moscow regained what Poles  occupied by force  twenty years earlier and these territory had a predominantly non-Polish population. And now, when Poland is trying to equate the "aggression" of Germany and the USSR on 1 and September 17 of that year, it is important to emphasize this fundamental difference. As, of course, is the difference that by September 17 the state called Poland ceased to exist.

IA REGNUM : Why doesn't the EU condemn the Munich Agreementof 1938?



And why should they?  Their goal is to condemn Russia now, certainly not to "look for an impartial assessment of the past events."

It seems that we often underestimate the need for the West to condemn  actions of the USSR in the World War II.  Without condemnation of Russia, the West can not be sure of its  positive self-esteem,  it cannot be sure of the absolutely positive perception of its historical experience, its  values and of itself.  The notion of universal Western values, that  these values that are somehow shared by the entire mankind  is only possible when there is a great degree of confidence that these values are good. In the West liberal values have replaced Christianity and the West is religiously faithful to them as it sees itself through their reflection - and nothing would be allowed to disturb the sight.

Mass perceptions of major historical events are always based on a simple childish model of a struggle between the good against the evil. The Second World War - the most important event in the history of the West which has shaped its present political and ideological state, and formed its memory is also reconstructed on the simplistic pattern of victory of the Good over the Evil. After all Good is good because Evil is evil. And here lies the biggest problem the West has: what is considered  evil has been defeated by Russia, which is also seen as evil. But the logic of defeat goes like that:  evil must always be defeated by the good, not by another evil (otherwise the model falls to peaces). Because of deep cultural and civilizational reasons the West cannot recognize Russia as something other than evil. Most importantly, Russia is not the West. And no matter how you twist and falsify the events of the war it is impossible to conceal the fact that the Soviet Union defeated Nazi Germany. That means in turn that they are forced to present events as if the war itself was the result of collusion of two evils, and thus their joint enterprise. 

Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is the central theme here, as it was this pact, regardless of its actual content,  that becomes the most potent symbol of this conspiracy, the symbol of the unity of the world's evil. No other agreements that other countries might have signed with Berlin are that symbolic, and hence they do not matter, are insignificant to the European history. Moreover, any differences between the communist and Nazi regimes in such a scheme of things must be erased, and this feat is accomplished by employing the theory of totalitarianism. Thus, the Third Reich and the Soviet Union are turned into a single whole, and conflicts within this "one" whole are of no fundamental significance. The very fact that these two powers   began to fight one another, and another one of them won - well, it's not victory of the good, it is just failure of an evil power, the failure of Evil. In all the fairy tales evil characters are not only in conflict  with the good, but occasionally they quarrel with each other - that's obviously not a reason to sympathize with them.

Victory of the May 1945 is not seen in the West such the absolute victory, the way it seen in Russia. For them, finally, "a force of  good" overpowered "evil" only at the end of the Cold War. This is what ideologically justifies U.S. leadership in the modern world. It's the task of "defending freedom and democracy", which the United States and its allies took upon themselves during World War II and then managed to finish. But wait, not, they did not manage to finish anything. The collapse of the Soviet Union was unexpected, there was "somehow wrong" with it -  there were no American tanks in the Kremlin - so that evil still dwells  there, it just became weaker, but is not less dangerous.



By the way, the Third Reich - though is evil,  is of course European, and thus it's comprehensible. So it cannot really be equated with  evil Russia - which is alien.  This is the evil from and on the outside. Since it must be fought,   the idea of ​​a "new Nuremberg" trial, only this time over the USSR and its "successor State" comes handy. For the political elites in Poland and the Baltic states this became something of an the obsession, it is their wildest political dream. And I think the urgency of this issue will only grow with time as  no historical or logical arguments would  be able to stop the West from pursuing it.  Again, the West has a psychological need of condemnation of both the USSR  and of Russia; it  is a very serious cultural complex, which we only managed to wake up in somewhat western, in the cultural sense, nations  of Central Europe and in the Baltic states. The main reason for attacking the USSR now is the fact that it won in the Second World War.

The only weapon that Russia has at its disposal are Western financial interests.  Whenever dealing with Russia becomes more profitable than fighting it, the intensity Russophobia itch decreases. But unfortunately so far we have not been particularly successful at this.

There is one area where we can give a fight, but somehow nothing seems to work here either - perhaps because the social sciences, the humanities in today's Russia are barely alive. This is the very theory of totalitarianism. Behind it stands a great comparative tradition of finding commonalities  and, through them assuming the common  general nature of Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union. The theory is slick and beautiful, it attracts many and  in the West it is absolutely dominant theory in scholarly and public discourse about these two states. But since the question itself does not require to find differences, but only similarities, whoever works within the framework of this theory must come up with same answer, the proponents   argue that these two modes were similar to each other almost like twins,  like two peas in a pod. And as there is no market for an alternative, and nobody is asked to find the differences between Nazism and Soviet system in the West  (and there will be no market for alternative models in the West), then the theory of totalitarianism reigns supreme and is almost unchallenged. Meanwhile, we better pay attention at how different these two systems were and why only a fraction of their qualities manage  through into the theory of totalitarianism. After all, most aspects of social and political life and ideology in the Third Reich and the USSR get simply overlooked within framework of this theory as unnecessary because to do otherwise would defeat the whole scheme. And, I think, if we pay attention to differences between these countries, there are obviously far more differences than commonalities. And these differences are crucial to understanding what was the Third Reich on one hand, and what the Soviet Union on the other.

We in the historical science, unfortunately, don't have a tradition of criticizing classical theory of totalitarianism. We were fascinated by it in the 1980-es and -90-ies. For the most part though we were unaware of the political implications of this theory and that it prevents us from looking at our own past objectively. In this case at a single glance, the only opposition to this theory consists of the old Soviet " approach, it a manner opposing the Stalinist USSR to the Third Reich in the an absolute good versus  absolute evil pattern. This approach is very convenient for "the researchers of totalitarian regimes" and advocates of the theory of totalitarianism  because its practitioners represent the "perfect opponent,"  who try to justify their entire theory,  the whole thing, and most importantly who are as   ideologically motivated as they (promoters of the theory of totalitarianism) are.

We cannot be drawn into the game of "which model is better." After all,  that's what they are waiting for, that we will vigorously defend the  communist governments and again take on the role of the pan-European bogey.  Those regimes are different and incomparable.  Our attitude to the past must be differentiated because the past does not fit the black-and-white pattern approach which we are being pressured to take but which shouldn't because it is our internal business and not a subject for discussion at the political level. And from the standpoint of historical science - yes, I believe  that we should show fundamental differences between these systems and their ideologies without  becoming romantically apologetic to one of them. The approach can be  rather abstract,  but it must free from ideology, there should be  analysis  and no deliberate attempts should be made to  deliberately ignore or   justify darker events from the past or the worst crimes committed by the authorities,  but it also must reveal the  different motivations behind their deeds.

By the way, no less important, would be analysis of differences  in  core values ​​ of the  official cultures of the Third Reich and the USSR, among them the notions of good and evil:  like how they taught small children  about "what is good and what is bad", which purpose in life is considered noble, worthy, etc.. And in this area (perhaps the most significant for the overall ratings of those regimes), the differences will be absolutely enormous.

However, there is one aspect that is being continually raised at the political level - it is the matter of national responsibility for the actions of those regimes.   Especially in the light of the prospects "for alternative Nuremberg"  this aspect is very  important.

We must show the differences and state that it is impossible to equate the responsibility of Germans for the Nazi regime and responsibility of Russians for the Soviet one as two are so greatly dissimilar. Nazi regime was based on the premise of exclusive superiority of one group over others, of  the German people, while the Soviet system was internationalist in spirit, based upon supranational principle, and was built and maintained at the expense of the Russian people. These are two fundamentally different political structures with dissimilar systems of accountability, and the question who is responsible points to diametrically different directions.

    
The concept of totalitarianism is a useful one, but  it requires constant creative adaptation on the part of its promoters. If we are to take a look at the contemporary Western society, what we'll discover is that the level of  control over the consciousness of society is incomparably higher than it has been the case either in the USSR or  Germany of the 1930s.   The government propaganda,  the solidarity based upon a common ideology, the notion of true principles or values characterize current political system.  Even the notion of condemning "Communist ideology and the criminal USSR regime" is just an attempt to justify yet another totalitarian system. Though this one might of course be "really democratic".

Monday, August 1, 2011

Finland language annoyance

though not Finnish language annoyance - as I don't speak Finnish I don't know of any annoyances it might contain though as any other language it probably has a plenty.

The language annoyance here pertains to Finland and not to Finnish language (which is beyond me aside from a few simple phrases and perhaps a hundred or so words).

because I speak German I understand written Swedish fairly well, though when they talk fast I cannot understand a thing.

Nominally Finland is a bilingual country - and not just nominally as I encountered a few semi-rural visually half extinct Swedish speaking communities between say Kotka and Borga and of course Åland islands still speak Swedish.

Thus said I am surprised at why there are so many monolingual Finnish-only websites 
like for example this real estate portal
http://kuluttaja.etuovi.com

This is surprising as making a Swedish interface for it would not be that difficult. In fact I would have made an English and Russian one as well as Russian Thieving Classes and those who serve them are now a major buying force in Finland's (though not necessarily Finnish) recreational real estate market.



I was looking at the Finnish site thinking about resurrecting, not the Baltic independence which I want to be put to a final and irrevocable end, but my own real estate search engine which is like 5 years old (!) now - http://realpetersburg.ru/ru. It is dormant. Although only Russian and English are visible and the thing easily switches between the languages, there is also a Finnish module (translated by an Estonian friend of mine) as well as German and French ones.


Anyway, why etuovi.com
is only in Finnish and not Finnish and Swedish is surprising considering that making a second language interface takes so little effort. For me at least navigating through a Swedish language website would be much easier.

On gay parades in Moscow and elsewhere

On and off the buzz hangs in the air of either impending pride parade or its  prohibition.

Will they allow a gay parade to go on or ban the visual feast of homosexuality in the Soviet capital ? Russia's capital is located 600 km north.  Who knows. Who cares.

The Bolshevist church is supposedly against the gay parade though she seems to be far greater pervert while the public - well, no one asks the public.

Putin is against  gay parades - if we to spell his name phonetically he should be Pootin like Poo Tin (tinned poo? a tinpot dictator called Poo),  not Putin but again who cares? Putin and the patriarch would look really good at the head of a major gay procession - that's why probably it is not taking place - not because Pootin and the patriarch won't beautify any gay parade with their lusty presence but because Putin is against any gaiety.

That's what matters most in Russia.

I haven't yet seen a guy parade live or on TV and don't understand why they would want to organize one either. I know there is a gay parade in Taiwan but  not in Sodom in Gomorrah that is called Moscow.

While Moscow had a particularly avaricious cleptomaniac vizier presiding over it, Iuriï Lužkov (Yuri Luzhkov in Americanish-phonetish), under whom the city became number one European (or honorary European, it is Asiatic really ) capital (the place where they steal capital) by the number of Muslims outside of Tirana and the number of mosques constructed while becoming a personal milking cow for  Lužkov (hence my idea of changing the spelling of the city, at least in English, to Mosque Cow. If the State department changed Kiev to Kiyiv or whatever then why can't it change Moscow to Mosque Cow )  was notorious for fighting the threat of gay parades but not organized crime and corruption. Iuriï Lužkov battled the mysterious parade that never took place while looting billions.

Iuriï Lužkov was also a valiant defender of Russian speakers' rights in the Baltics, particularly in Latvia. 

After Great Khan dismissed him because he was probably outstealing even the Thief in Chief himself, Iuriï Lužkov forgot about his patriotism and ran to kiss and polish with his tongue the gate of the great concentration camp called Latvia. He wanted in. He knocked. He whined. He groaned.  Apparently he bought some property on other side of the fence (in addition to Tyrol, London and other places) and life in the concentration camp called Latvia looked more attractive to the mayor of Moscow and Soviet apparatchik with his countless stolen billions than life in Moscow.   Where he fought hard against gay parades but lost all interests to them after losing his post and at the end fled to London. Probably because London is gay-friendly unlike Lužkov's Moscow. It is likely one of the reasons why it is the city that is preferred by Soviet nomenkalatura and Muscovite Thieving Class.

I was listening to the radio today - I rarely do that - there are no good national classical music stations in Russia, in fact there are no bad ones either.  Russia is losing its culture, its language and its musical tradition . There are national syndicated stations with round the clock broadcasting of ...  criminal songs, the music of the underworld and of the folklore of thieves that is misnamed shanson, the aural garbage that has nothing in common with the chanson française though, and then some idiot was again on the air talking about gay parade - which is something that is not on most Russians or non-Russians agenda anyway. This  is grotesque non-issue issue that is being pulled out by the junta and the Bolshevist church to stimulate the organs of their moronic electorate. 

Now the schizophrenia of all this is remarkable as neither one of many Lužkovs nor Putin can forbid a parade of homosexuals from taking place, even those of Polynesian descent can congregate  as long as they are Russian Federation citizens, and no sight can be more repulsive than gathering of United Russia members - I mean in the sense of offending public morals on the subject of which the constitution is silent. And now I got it as I remembered that Russian Federation has a constitution or  the constitution,  a stupid  copycat sort of document, but which is still amazingly valid, on the "books", and is supposedly the supreme law of the land.

It says right there.

Article 31

Citizens of the Russian Federation have the right to gather peacefully, without arms, and  assemble, conduct public meetings and demonstrations, processions and organize picketing activities.




Статья 31

Граждане Российской Федерации имеют право собираться мирно без оружия, проводить собрания, митинги и демонстрации, шествия и пикетирование.

Target shooting and sanity

I know a few people who have guns, they caress them, drink themselves silly with the pistol on the tabletop, store ammo and go regularly target shooting. Not a single one of them is fully normal. Some are
nuthouse candidates. I also noticed that hunters, especially urban hunters, those who hunt for killing's sake and not for food are messed up.

Peter I of Russia hated hunters and hunting. But it looks that he was a great fan of target shooting. In his hobby shooting practice he preferred artillery over hand held firearms.