The Thing Next Door wrote:As other people have already pointed out that is revisionist bullshit
Evidences ?
Though the left does love to protect squatters.
But in 1867 there was no Communist and no Bolshevik in Russia. The sole authoritative government in Russia was the AUTOCRATIC Tsarist regime.
Who was the squatter ?
The Thing Next Door wrote:Belarusians are equal to Russians in my view and both Russian and Belarusian traitors deserve equal punishment.
Good, because I have pointed out that many of your White idols received Western fund and collaborate with Nazi to invade Russia. On the other hand, historically there were many Ukrainians and Belarusians heroes who fought side by side with Russia during the Great Patriotic War.
Hope that your attitude is consistent, so that what you say will not be used against you.
higurashihougi wrote:Are you implying that a nation can only exist as empire ?
First of all nation and country are two different things.
Chechens could be considered a nation, even Navajos are a nation.
That does not make them countries.
Second and most important, empires are not inherently evil. Colonial empires are evil if they plunder and exploit their colonies and/or vassal states in order to live above their means in the main state, to the point in which they can afford to waste food and resources while the colonies or vassal states are living below the poverty level.
USA, England, France, Nederland, Belgium etc are all examples of colonial empires which exploited their colonies and treated their colonial subjects as fourth rate citizens.
Not all empire are like that.
For me an empire is a multinational union on nations which is lead by a central culture and nation, while respecting the other internal nations.
Rome was an empire even before Augustus.
Starting from when Rome extended outside Italy it was already an empire. And the Western Roman empire stopped being an empire much before the actual collapse in the 5th century. When accepting foreign barbarians without filtering and giving Roman citizenship to everyone (under Caracalla, in 212 AD) without special requirements they put the condition for the decline.
A small or medium nation like vietnam can be a (non fully independent) country.
Russia either exists as an empire or will be destroyed, as it was almost happening under Eltsin.
And small countries need to understand that they cannot push much larger neighbouring countries and create problems for them without consequences.
Each country should have the right to be neutral, but the moment they decide to ally with the enemy of a much larger neighbour, to the point of hosting military bases or similar, they need to be ready to pay for the consequences.
More than 2000 years ago Rome destroyed the former vassal nations that decided to ally with the other Mediterranean superpower (Carthago).
By the way, I find it wrong that in UN all member countries (apart from the 5 permanent members) have the same voting rights, independently from size, power and population.
This gives crazy chihuahua countries like Lithuania an eccessive Power.
Also the fundamentalism about national country Vs multinational empire is relatively recently mainly started in the 20th century. It was also because a smaller country was much more easy to be controlled by financial elites.
People who speak about freedom and against empires are the first useful idiots to make entire populations slaves of a few financial elites and,/or megacorporations or billionaires groups. Same thing as those people that help foreign NGOs destroy their countries.
P.S. Empires, when they do not only exploit the colonies can actually improve the condition for each part and group of such multi national federation, as long as the central culture and nation maintain its leadership
Rutilius Claudius Namatianus wrote:«[Roma] sospes nemo potest immemor esse tui [...] | Fecisti patriam diversis gentibus unam; | profuit iniustis te dominante capi; | dumque offers victis proprii consortia iuris, | Urbem fecisti, quod prius orbis erat.»
«O Rome, no one, as long as he lives, will be able to forget you... You brought together different peoples in one homeland, your conquest benefited those who lived without laws. By offering the vanquished the legacy of your civilization, you have made a single city out of the entire divided world."
De reditu suo (about his return), Rutilius Claudius Namatianus (Roman Gaul of the 5th century)
I suggest also this speech from the emperor Claudius about the admission of Romanised Gauls which already became citizens to the Roman senate. Some of the Roman nobles did not want to allow public offices for descendants of the barbarians. Claudius thought it differently. The fundamentals thing, however is that these Roman Gauls had been Roman citizens for generations, they spoke and thought in Latin, they dressed in the Roman way and their children were educated as Roman citizen
higurashihougi wrote:Good, because I have pointed out that many of your White idols received Western fund and collaborate with Nazi to invade Russia. On the other hand, historically there were many Ukrainians and Belarusians heroes who fought side by side with Russia during the Great Patriotic War.
You are mixing stuff.
The Bolshevik revolution was in 1917.
Germany invasion of soviet union was in 1941.
Of course the people that cooperated with Nazis were scum. That does not mean that most "whites" who fled Russia in 1917 were bad.
Some infamous figures of the Whites were captured by the USSR in the Nazi ranks at the end of the Great Patriotic War. To be fair, the Soviets were shocked to see such "archaic" face amongst the ranks of the Nazi.
Granted many of the White decided to live in quiet but it showed you how far the so-called "nationalist", "tsarist", "moral" people can do to fulfill their animal desires.
Some infamous figures of the Whites were captured by the USSR in the Nazi ranks at the end of the Great Patriotic War. To be fair, the Soviets were shocked to see such "archaic" face amongst the ranks of the Nazi.
Granted many of the White decided to live in quiet but it showed you how far the so-called "nationalist", "tsarist", "moral" people can do to fulfill their animal desires.
And yet trotsky was far worse than all of them combined.
xeno, kvs, Rodion_Romanovic and lyle6 like this post
An important point about the span from 1917 to 1941 is that the Bolsheviks were no longer in charge in 1941 and do not get any credit for the success of the USSR during WWII. Stalin's hit on Trotsky was one of the best things he did. Trotsky was no dissident, he was a butcher who was pushed out of power. But his legacy was infesting the USSR right through WWII. But by the time Trotskyist Khruschev took over, he could not keep on stuffing gulags. The central point here is that the Soviet population and Stalin's efforts against the Trotskyists, and the transforming effect of WWII, prevented the free reign of the social engineer zealots.
The USSR transitioned into a normal country such that by the late 1950s it was no longer about stuffing gulags but about development and living standards. The 1960s were the Soviet golden era. But the structural issues of the command economy and over-concentration of power in the Communist Party produced stagnation and decline from the mid-1970s. Gorbie was the natural result of this rot whose task it was to prepare the way for the elite to transition to money grubbing capitalism. The USSR fell apart from the top down and not from the bottom up. All the clowns involved in its breakup were specimens of the rot of the system. NATzO had at most a trivial effect on this breakup in the sense that it helped the rotten elite to push consumerism as the essence of a good society.
A Russian pundit I follow argued that the buy-in by the USSR into consumerism in the 1980s was a central element of the collapse of the USSR. But I think this was not a cause but a symptom. It was a way to bring down the system through aspects that could be propagandized as metrics of failure. Consumerism is a mental disease and the USSR was perfectly fine without it. Unfortunately, humans sure have an affinity for mental diseases. This is likely related to some fundamental problem with developed urban societies where people compensate for mental stresses via product acquisition. But it may be more fundamental since the aboriginals exposed to colonialists would routinely obsess with consumer type junk such as glass beads. They were "deprived" of precious consumer junk.
Rodion Romanovich wrote:The fundamentals thing, however is that these Roman Gauls had been Roman citizens for generations, they spoke and thought in Latin, they dressed in the Roman way and their children were educated as Roman citizen
That's the keywords.
It means that is not "uplift", but a total erase Celtic identity of Gallic people in Roman Empire. Cultural genocide. They were no longer Gaulois, but are Romans living in Gallia.
Let's put it this way.
Considering that a Russian named The Thing Next Door and a Serbian named PapaDragon was apprehended by the Romans.
The Romans will tell them that their Slavic nation was barbarian, their Slavic language was vulgar, their Jesus was a filthy Jew and their Orthodox Church was Devil.
The Romans will told them to denounce their ancestors as criminals, rebels and losers, they will be told to speak Roman and spat on their mother tongue, they will be told to contempt their own brothers, sisters, and parents who defiantly protect their traditional belief, and they will be told to abandon the church buildings for the temple of Sol Invictus and Jupiter.
Now you see the severity of the situation ?
It is no mean uplift, it is cultural genocide.
Rodion Romanovic wrote:For me an empire is a multinational union on nations which is lead by a central culture and nation, while respecting the other internal nations.
Empires, when they do not only exploit the colonies can actually improve the condition for each part and group of such multi national federation, as long as the central culture and nation maintain its leadership.
The problem is none of the historical empire fitted in your definition and the ones that fitted in your definition do not call themselves empires and are even hostile with the ideas of imperialism, at least on paper.
You can ask Russian government, or president Putin, whether they see current Russia is an empire. The answer will definitely no, and they will tell you explicitly that Russia does not tolerate the ideas of imperialism which is the manifestation of USA foreign policy.
The history of Roman Empire was invasions, forcefully taking lands of other countries, massacre, burning cities, enslaving population, biological and cultural genocides, and Legatii and Imperators boasting about how they rob and theft the cultural and material wealth of the victims as spoil of war.
The Corinthians, the Carthaginians, and many other cities and nations whose home were burnt, whose wealth was looted, and whose population was put to the Roman sword regardless of ages and genders.
Not to mention that the loots from Corinth was handled by a Roman general who had no awareness and knowledge of artistic value, lead to irrecoverable loss of cultural wealth.
It was also about slavery, about farmer-soldiers became bankrupt due to stress of war and became landless tenant or pauperized proles depended on charity and welfare, about the local elites, tax collectors, moneylenders, and wealthy class appropriate lands from small farmers or from conquered people to became literal exploiters and oppressors.
The reason why you see Roman history in bright light because it was written by the privileged class, not the people marginalized by it.
But even a Roman historian Tacitus deliberately quoted that the Romans created wilderness and claimed it as pax.
Yes and that was after the fkng Gauls had attacked Rome many times including the famous sack of Rome in year 387 BC led by the gallic chief Brennus . Many Gauls also allied with Carthage against Rome during the Punic wars. I would say that the Romans have been even too nice.
They were not population that joined Rome voluntarily and peacefully. They created problems for Rome, lost wars and paid the consequences.
They were also lucky because Rome only executed their chieftains and after some time gave them possibility to achieve full citizenship. Other countries at the same time (or even much later) were not so tollerant
For what you said later... As far as I remember vassal states of Rome were left with a lot of autonomy and Rome did not interfere with their religion... It was after they caused problem for Rome and its security that Rome waged wars against them and conquered them.
FAFO (Eff) around, find out
As far as the problem with Christianity, most of it was due also to Jews interference.
Anyways there is a misunderstanding here. Losing wars in the past has always meant losing right to keep the own culture, especially when responsible for causing it.
It is only recently that there is the idea that all cultures have to be respected independently from the problem that they can cause to the main country.
The way it should be is that the main culture in a big federation/empire should be the one of the central nation, i.e. Roman, Russian, etc. Ethnic minorities should be allowed to keep in parallel also their own culture (but it should not be seen as their primary culture) as long as it is not in contrast with the main one.
The multi ethnicity of Yugoslavia and former territories of the Tsarist Russia (and later USSR) is a fact. It is not like Serbian kings invented Croats or Slovenes on his own will like God.
If you decide to rule a countries with different people, then it is imperative to make sure that all voice is heard. If not, get out and let them die or live on their own.
Creation of Yugoslavia was a colossal mistake of an egocentric ruler. Thing should've never been created. Serbia, as one of the winners of WW1, squandered its historic right for making a state with all Serbs in one country. National interests of Croats and Slovenes shouldn't worry Serbia at all. Of course, some Croats would find themselves within a territory of said country, but that's all. We didn't have any obligation toward them, historical or otherwise. As it turns out, consequences of that decision are still haunting us a century later. Communists later just added more chaos to already messy situation. Short history lesson for you. Croats and Slovenes didn't have a country before 1918. They lived in KuK monarchy and they were on a losing side of the war.
higurashihougi wrote:If you decide to rule a countries with different people, then it is imperative to make sure that all voice is heard. If not, get out and let them die or live on their own.
No, if they are citizens they will get the same rights as the other. Not getting special rights because they are a minority group.
And also minority groups should not be allowed to give advantages to fellow people from the same ethnicity or tribal groups if this means lowering the quality.
The first person that starts or suggest a policy to give more places to some ethnicity because of some affirmative action or for "diversity" should be deprived of citizenship and exiled.
One of the problems of soviet union was that minorities from the other soviet states (other than Russian) were overrepresented in every institution.
caveat emptor wrote:Short history lesson for you. Croats and Slovenes didn't have a country before 1918. They lived in KuK monarchy and they were on a losing side of the war.
And then what ? You also have a long history of not having a state before you finally got one. Everybody has their own statelessness past.
They did not have a state did not mean they could not or did not want to. Or they did not exist, or they had no identity, or they did not make any labour or do any work to at least sustain their identity and their own living quarters. There were periods they did not live in their own government but they were there as long as you were, they were tilling their field, building their houses, tending their cattles and poultries, and in 926 they even managed to kick the a**hole of the Bulgarian invaders.
That also does not translate to belittle them or discriminate them for your favoured nation, or meaningless arguments about weakening identity or who has most acumen, which is literally racist from the very beginning.
Creation of Yugoslavia was a colossal mistake of an egocentric ruler. (...)
If your argument simply mean that it is not feasible for you to stay with them in a common state and each should stay in their own countries and mind their own business.
Then it is fine, it is your freedom and I have nothing to argue against.
But from the comments that you have made I have an impression that you are trying to accuse them to just laze out and sucking welfare and contribute nothing and it is what I am very against. I also have an impression that you attempt to take the homeland of the Croats, the Slovenes and put them under your rule but at the same time treat them as nobody, which is what every decent humans should be against.
And no offense, but because you yourself tell me that I should accept that people that have different ideas than me, therefore I feel hard to comprehend your reluctance about living together, in an equal and mutual manner, with people that have different identity that your nation.
Last edited by higurashihougi on Sat Jan 04, 2025 2:24 pm; edited 6 times in total
higurashihougi wrote:And then what ? You also have a long history of not having a state before you finally got one. Everybody has their own statelessness past.
No ethnicity, tribe or group of people is "entitled" a country.
Especially because in most cases, after stealing lands and separating from another country they are not really able to be independent and they sell out to a foreign country which is often hostile to the country which land they stole (I.e.Kosovo which is an American protectorata and a safe haven for illegal drug manufacturers).
Or like separating from a federation/ union and then begging to enter another union in which they will have even less autonomy/independence (i.e. Croatia with European union, which is the bad copy of soviet union, with even less rights and democracy except excessive tolerance for degeneracy)). Most of these are actually hostile takeovers masked as democratic independent movements.
Think about Ukraine. After separating from Soviet union/Russia they had a large territory a decent sized population, industries, resources and agricultural lands. They managed to waste everything, destroy industries, resources built with a lot of effort for decades, and the lives and future of their citizens just so that they could sell themselves to their former enemies.
Furthermore currently there are no independent countries, except superpowers (like USA, China and Russia) and big regional powers (like India and turkey), which, albeit not fully independent they have much more freedom to act in their interests.
All other countries are puppets of someone else, even if they brainwashed their citizens in believing their own importance. And even in the case of USA and other large nations, unfortunately often the interest of the state and its people became of small importance in comparison to the interest of billionaires and big corporation.
So noone is entitled to sell itself to a foreign power.
In normal times leaders of autonomy parties that want "independence" in order to sell their people and the resources of the land ( in which often they are not even the majority) to foreign powers should just by tried for high treasons and shoot.
Or maybe they should take a lessons from medieval times, in which the punishment for high treason was getting hanged, drawn and quartered.
Rodion Romanovic wrote:No, if they are citizens they will get the same rights as the other. Not getting special rights because they are a minority group.
How is my argument translated to privileges of someone ?
If the citizens are equal then everybody's voice is heard in a democratic way.
Why the minority must not have a voice ? Is having a voice a privilege of the majority ?
Rodion Romanovic wrote:Yes and that was after the fkng Gauls had attacked Rome many times including the famous sack of Rome in year 387 BC led by the gallic chief Brennus .
And the "fking" Roman attacked Estruca, leveling down the city of Vei, and enslaved the people.
The "fking Roman" invaded the Hellenic land in Italia, Sicillia, and Hellenic proper. They leveled down the city of Corinth, put all the men and women to the sword, and because the Roman general that time was an uneducated brute who knew nothing of arts, the Roman destroyed many valuable arts lead to irrecoverable loss of cultural wealth.
A "fking" uneducated, brute, ignorant Roman soldier killed the genuis Archimedes.
The "fking" Roman put their bloody sword to Britannia, to the land of the Icenii, even the Icenii probably did not care or did not know what the hell Rome was.
The "fking" Roman invade Asia Minor, Levant, Armenia, modern Gruzia.
The "fking" Roman took advantage of the weakening of Egypt, manipulating and interfere into their affairs, long before Augustus conquest of Egypt in 31 BCE.
In their own home, the "fking" Roman exploited slaves, pauperized tenants, brutally massacred Chirstians and then brutally massacred their own pagans after Chirstianity took over.
Surely the "fking" Roman Empire deserved to be dismembered and erased... which they were. Served them right.
Vietnam has a long history with Chinese imperialism so the context for this discussion is there. The key detail is that Vietnam got independence from a sort of tributary regime in the 1800s but became a French colony instead. The US-Vietnam war was an attempt to keep Vietnam on the colonial plantation. But it was the USSR and China that were not so keen on local western colonial control. Here the communist ideology functioned properly and Vietnam was not converted into a communist colony but became part of the communist bloc. The USSR did contribute to real liberation movements around the world. It was not a colonial empire and neither was communist China.
But Vietnam cannot be compared to Ukraine and Belorus. There were no such countries as Ukraine and Belorus that were colonized by Russia. Vietnam was emerging as a country even before 300 BC. In the 1100s AD there was only Kievan Rus with no Ukrainian or Belorussian ethnic groups. The Ukrainian ethnicity emerged from the Polish occupation of western Kievan Rus lands in the wake of the Tatar-Mongol destruction of Kiev and Kievan Rus. Russia is the obvious successor to Kievan Rus. The principalities constituting Kievan Rus would have merged into a single state just like we had in Italy and Germany. The origin of the Ukrs is the Tatar-Mongol horde and all their pop "academia" about some Ukraine as far back as 40,000 years ago is retarded BS funded by western imperialists to carve up Russia and create an enemy at its border.
You can see evidence of a constructed identity (i.e. fake) in that it revolves around being anti-Russian and stealing Russian history. There was no Ukr Knyaz "Volodymyr". There was an ethnic Russian Knyaz Vladimir. The fake identity requires a fake history and now we have the lie spread that there was something called the "Kievan State". No such thing existed in history. The people of the Kievan Rus did not speak Ukrainian since this dialect emerged after the Polish occupation and shows all the hallmarks of Polish influence. I will dare say that the language spoken was much closer to Russian today without the French influence that came later via Peter the Great and later Czars who had a fetish for western Europe.
As for Belorus, it is a total concoction of the Bolsheviks. It's a freaking diluted Surzyk-like dialect that sounds almost identical to Russian. You could argue that there is a real Ukr ethnicity (fission of ethnic groups occurs). But Belorussians are Russians without any real distinction. There is Polish influence on "Belorussians" but it is vanishingly less than on Ukrs.
GarryB wrote:Before 1918 Poland didn't exist as a separate entity.
To be fair Poland was a distinct nation long before then. This incorporation into the Russian Empire did no delete it from history. This is in contrast to Ukraine which never existed as a country until contrived by the Bolsheviks. It was fully reasonable for Poland to regain its independence, but NATzO's fetish for Bolshevik Mickey Mouse borders in the USSR is utter BS.
The republic of Venice has existed as independent nation longer than Poland: from 697 AD–1797 AD
It originated from a eastern Roman duchy under the exarcate of Ravenna (after the Roman reconquist of Italy).
And its influence on world history has been higher than Poland.
Anyway the problem with Italians (but the same was true for the greeks) is that we almost always fought against each other instead of cooperating with each other (often stupidly looking for "help" from foreign powers instea did solving the issues among ourselves.
The expansion of the Roman republic in the rest of Italy has been the best thing that happened to our peninsula.
By the way, here some reply to one of the previous posts from higurashihougi.
Ok this is really off topic, even for the off topic thread, b
As far as I remember Tarentum, a former greek colony in magna Grecia (i.e. southern Italy) attacked a Roman fleet in the Adriatic sea first. Then Rome declared war, then the Italian/ Magna Graecia city state asked help to the kingdom of Epyrus and the Pyrrhic wars started.
Possibly envoys of Tarentum also tried to push various italic tribes who had been conquered (i.e. Samnites, etruscans , etc) by Rome to rebellion.
Furthermore previous wars of conquest also started because of some non roman intervention (i.e. first Samnite war, in which Samnite attacked another Italian tribe, which in turn asked the help of Rome, which was glad to help bevasua) and Rome was later
As far as Archimedes the order from the Roman general was not to harm him, but a stupid soldier did actually kill him.
The issue was also that the genius Italian-greek mathematician could not read the air and ignored an armed soldier and continued with his observation and experiments while a war was being waged.
As far as the other Italian tribes 2 of the first 4 kings of Rome were Sabini, and instead the Etruscans ruled Rome for a large part of the monarchy periods and did not treat Roman subjects very well.
Three of the seven kings of Rome were Etruscans
In the judgment provided by ancient Roman tradition, this period was characterized by a very accentuated tyrannical despotism.
And anyway a lot of the Roman culture and traditions are inherited from the etruscans (and later the Roman also included Greeks culture).
So Rome did not destroy the other tribes cultured but took them and included part of them in the mainstream Roman culture.
As far as the greeks (and the rest of Italian tribes) they cannot stand each other and were already fighting against each other without Rome.
Without Rome Italy would have become a Carthaginian province.
Let's talk about Egypt... Ancient Egypt did not exist anymore as it was before since the conquest by Alexander. Then one of his generals, Ptolomy (a Macedonian greek) took Egypt as his own Kingdom as pharaon.
His family did not mix with the local population and even interbred among themselves (I am not just talking by marrying cousins, but often brothers and sisters).
There was a civil war in both Egypt and Rome at the time Caesar went to Alexandria, and the idiot pharaon offered the head of Pompeus Magnus to Caesar. He did not take it well.
So the idiot pharaon killed a Roman head of state (and former friend of Caesar and former son in law of Caesar) who asked for asylum.
Caesar reaction was actually done quite well also in the HBO show Rome
https://youtu.be/r75FmMPKOAg
(I did not like several aspect of that serie, and they completely skipped the military tactics and geniuses of Caesar, but that part ["he was a consul of Rome" is one of my favorite scenes from all movies or series I watched.)
I would say this is a large enough reason for war.
Very sad, also considering that Caesar would have almost certainly pardoned Pompeus.
Maybe this would have prevented the assassination of Caesar and further civil war.
Anyway Caesar maintained Egypt independence after helping (his lover) Cleopatra but his heir (which earlier was called Octavianus and later Augustus) did not and annexed Egypt as special province (managed by himself and not by the senat).
Back to more recent times. Even now my country is disunited because even after the Italian reunification there was never the real interest of the ruling powers to diminish the differences among us.
Massimo D'Azeglio, an Italian (from Piedmont) said:
"Fatta l'Italia bisogna fare gli italiani"
(Now that Italy is done we need to do the Italians")
But actually the piedmontese kings and their politicians only exploited the rest of the country.
Unfortunately we had been reunited under the worse possible rule, a french loving betraying family, the Savoia (may they burn in the ninth circle of hell together with Brutus and Cassius) who had already treated Sardinia worse than other country treated their colonies (but they had needed to own Sardinia in order to be promoted from a Grand Duchy to a Kingdom).
All the unification of Italy had been based on lies. Garibaldi (another place in hell should be his own) was another useful idiot who made a lot promises to the rest of Italians that he had no way to keep (and of course after Italy has been reunited the Savoia never even consider maintaining any of those). "Funny" thing is that the Savoia gifted to France the region carrying their very own name and another important Italian city, Nizza (Garibaldi birthplace, which is now known as Nice).
The Savoia exploited the rest of Italy (Milan and the north east had been better under Austrian rule) and destroyed the industries of the south, after being also responsible of the criminality (the prisons in the kingdom of Naples had been all opened in order to find people against the borbon kings even if they were not political prisoners but just criminals).
This while honest people had to turn into brigands, in order to fight against the oppressing Piedmontese.
There are two interesting songs about the fight against the piedmontese from two parts of Italy:
Brigante se more, from the south of italy, but written recently (i.e. about 40/50 years ago for an Italian TV movie, "L'eredità della priora", based on a novel with the same name (I do not know if the song is based on a previous text)
(About that film/novel) The drama condemns the way in which the unification process of the Italian Peninsula was carried out, which for the author of the novel turned into a real colonization to the detriment of the South and which led to a bloody civil war between the new Kingdom of Italy and the Bourbon reactionaries, with atrocities and barbarism on both sides.
https://youtu.be/ubIGp0BTikw
"Chi ha visto o lupo e s'è miso paura nun sape buono qual è a verità o vero lupo ca magna 'e creature è 'o piemontese c'avimma caccià"
"He who saw the wolf and was frightened, does not yet know what the truth is. The real wolf that eats children is the Piedmontese that we must chase out"
E le canzoni dei patrioti sardi, like this:
(This is from before the Italian reunification, since Sardinia had been under the Piedmontese barbaric domination even before.
https://youtu.be/SaXjVD_p4DA
Here a translation of and extract
32)For the Piedmontese, Sardinia was a land of plenty: like Spain in the Indies they were here; even a waiter raised his voice; whether commoner or knight, the Sardinian had to humble himself.
33) They took millions from our land they took away, they came without trousers and left with braid. They would never have come that they burned everything! Damn the country that creates such a race.
34) Here they found advantageous marriages, for them were jobs, for them were honors, the greatest dignities of church, toga and sword: and the Sardinian was left a rope to hang himself.
35) They sent the worst (of them) for punishment , with salary and pension, with employment and with a license. [b]In Russia (Moscovita in the original song), people like that are sent to Siberia, but to let them die of poverty, not to govern.
Paradoxically, the fascists, even with their innumerable mistakes, understood the need of really uniting the country and diminishing the difference among the various regions without one getting rich from the other. Too bad that they did too many other stupid things and that after the end of WW2 italy had been practically split again and has remained a puppet of foreign nations since then (it is true that until the 90s the living conditions were good (the butler of a rich man is probably better off than a poor shoemaker, even if the latter has no bosses), but since the 90s they are decreasing each year. The purchasing power of Italians has decreased about 60% from the 1980s.
The reason Ivan Grozny is smeared in the west is because he united Russia. The Ukrs always bleat about Moskali because Moscow created a unified Russian state and Ukrs are all about hating Russians. They have no other identity. Ivan Grozny did not run gulags to achieve unification and a single cultural space was established. Italy appears to have fallen into regional power struggles that delayed its unification. None of the powerful Italian regional entities took it upon themselves to properly integrate the country and instead there was some sort of colonial exploitation BS as noted in the post above. Russia never exploited any of its regions which includes what is now called Ukraine.
There is a certain human pathology at work here. Ukrs are the result of sodomization of western Russians by Poles, etc. This sodomy overwrote their brains and they fissioned off into a new identity. Instead of accepting that they were sodomized, they hate Russia as a type of inferiority complex compensation reflex. We see how the post-Soviet limitrophe statelets yap like rabid chihuahuas with pure hate at Russia which lifted them out of dirt poverty during the USSR (and before). Maybe if Russia sodomized them right and proper, then they would have some "respect". The moral of the story is: don't be kind to humans, beat them hard or they will think they can shit all over you. "Spare the rod and spoil the child".
GarryB, Werewolf, Rodion_Romanovic and lyle6 like this post
Rodion Romanovich wrote:The issue was also that the genius Italian-greek mathematician could not read the air and ignored an armed soldier and continued with his observation and experiments while a war was being waged.
And who gave that Roman soldier the rights to kill a person just because he was so immersed in scientific and academic contemplation that he failed to notice other people ?
Were that Roman soldier a narcissist psychopath with a bloated ego, a snowflake personality, and were devoid of basic human manners, resulting in a harmful tendency to solve things by bullying violence like a gangster ?
If that was how Roman "civilization" was conducted then I rather choose to be a "barbarian".
Rodion Romanovich wrote:As far as I remember Tarentum, a former greek colony in magna Grecia (i.e. southern Italy) attacked a Roman fleet in the Adriatic sea first.
Yes, because the Romans fleet entered Tarentum waters which was a clear breach of mutual agreement pact before that. From Tarentum side it was a clear violation of sovereignty and deserved the total destruction of invaders.
Thing escalated quickly and surely both side of the war had their own responsibility in the bloodshed.
Rodion Romanovich wrote: wars of conquest also started because of some non roman intervention (i.e. first Samnite war, in which Samnite attacked another Italian tribe, which in turn asked the help of Rome, which was glad to help)
The Romans was glad to "help" like modern USA is also glad to "help"... and then the establishment of puppet regime installed by USA, and then USA bases, another colonies for blood sucking is added to the list.
Empires are all the same regardless of ages and location.
And by the way it took the Samnite a huge rebellion war to force the Romans to acknowledge the citizen rights of all Italians. Surely the Romans were not a saint as you perceive.
Rodion Romanovich wrote:we almost always fought against each other instead of cooperating with each other (often stupidly looking for "help" from foreign powers instea did solving the issues among ourselves
You see the key problem of Roman conquest now ? You managed to discover the issue yourself, that the Romans pretended to be "helper" and then eat all the belligerents in the dispute.
USA imperialism uses the same classic trick.
Rodion Romanovich wrote:There was a civil war in both Egypt and Rome at the time Caesar went to Alexandria, and the idiot pharaon offered the head of Pompeus Magnus to Caesar. He did not take it well.
So the idiot pharaon killed a Roman head of state (and former friend of Caesar and former son in law of Caesar) who asked for asylum.
Keywords: "former".
Pompey was already a foe against Caesar at the time he fled to Egypt and you think Ptolemy wanted to side with Caesar's enemy ?
Ptolemy miscalculated in this matters but Casear probably had his eyes on Egypt already and it was just a convenient excuse.
Rodion Romanovic wrote:Without Rome Italy would have become a Carthaginian province.
And for what reason being a Carthaginian province was worse than being a Roman province ?
There is no reason to see Carthaginians were inferior than Romans in culture or in contributions. Carthage was a major commercial center, made significant advancements in agriculture, was a large and well-planned city, and had their own culture. Carthaginian civilization was less visible than Roman simply because the Romans used violence to erase them out of the map.
Roman Romanovich wrote:So Rome did not destroy the other tribes cultured but took them and included part of them in the mainstream Roman culture.
Did the Roman issue an official acknowledge and gratitude statement for the conquered people who were the original authors of the culture that the Roman took in ? Or the Romans kept pretending to be superior and treated the conquered people with disdain while stealing their culture behind their back ?
Clearly it was a blatant case of cultural appropriation.
[picture of Russian anti-Nazi soldier holding the head of a NATO medusa]
(Disclaimer: it is just a trivia talk and mean no offense to any members in the forum)
It is off-topic but I think the head should not be Medusa, but should be of Poseidon or Athena.
If people are familiar with the story of Medusa we will know that Medusa is a victim. She was raped by Poseidon, and Athena, due to nepotism, shifted the blame back to the victim and turning Medusa to a monster.
Which is clearly the manifestation of NATO Western regimes: hypocrite, nepotism, power abusing, yet pretending to be "justice" and exceptional.
Rodion Romanovich wrote:Inuit are a very small group of people in Alaska. Even the whole native American population in Alaska is a relatively small group for a such large territory. And on their own they are not able to maintain infrastructures, roads, electricity, etc.
It is perfectly normal for historical people to roam on a very large territorial area compare to their own population density, considering their historical mode of production and social customs. The most notable example is nomadic people in Central Asia and northern China. Tribal communities in North America and Africa also have broad living range and "unofficial territorial claims" based on customs and verbal treaties.
The self-proclaimed Western "civilized" colonial invaders deliberately take advantage of that to dispossession the natives and deny their claims on their homeland, using the excuse that there is no "paper" to prove it, and disregard the customs and verbal treaties of native societies.
And the natives do have their own kind of "infrastructure" to sustain their lives and preserve their culture for milliena without the needs to rely on modern kinds of roads, electricity, or whatever it is. Despite the lack of modern infrastructure, ancient people still manage to develop innovative water and resource management scheme, adaptive seasonal camps with shelters, extensive networks of trails that was not visible paved roads, but well-established routes marked by natural landmarks or deliberate markings. And they develops an innovative way to systematically preserve their understanding of surrounding environments via oral traditions, idioms, folk songs. In their free time, they are true artists with ancient paintings on cave or other kinds of creative works.
You can make a comparison between the self sustainable seal hunting of the Inuit and the "civilized" commercial hunting of seal in North America by "civilized" people. Surely the so-called "civilization" does not mean they are more humane, they can be less humane.
Granted today it is imperative to develop an extensive networks of road, railway, electricity and other infrastructure to boost the economic development and increase life quality of people but it is also imperative to not enforce modern understanding of development to deny the human rights of natives. It is similar to putting one foot into the ideology of imperialism and paternalistic colonialism.
And by the way the official stance of Russia is consistently respect the self determination of local people and do not intervene into internal affairs. (remember: Russian claim of 4 provinces and Crimea is based on the fact that the local people themselves voluntarily joined Russia via a referendum) What you propose is not aligned to official stance of Russia.
If Greenland had not been hosting American bases and its ownership (as the ownership of Alaska) did not give the right to the resources and control of the artic, you could have at least partially a point (at least about the excessive commercial hunting and fishing practiced in north america).
Since it is not like that, it is only a matter of what medium or major power is owning the land and protecting the "natives".
Otherwise they could try to claim complete neutrality, ask the UN to guarantee their protection and the absence of foreign bases in their territories and formally renounce to all claims on the artic that the ownership of such a land entitles.
But the moment in that land it is hosting military bases of an enemy country, they are not neutral anymore. And if they become part of the US they should be considered the same way as any other US citizen is in the state where they live, like a fictionary Texan called Cordell Walker ...
Crimea is not the same, because most of Crimean people are Russian and claim to be russian.
I do not know if Inuit people feel the same about US or Denmark.
P.S. if you lose a war the claim you may have had on a certain land or the fact that your citizens were living there until now cease to be of utmost importance.
I.e. country A lost a war so they lose the territory and their citizens have to vacate their former properties (even if their families had been there for 30 or more generations).
This may happen also during a regime change if you are a lawfully resident foreign citizen.
Anyway to have a claim on a land you have to occupy it and being able to develop and defend it. Are Inuit able to defend it? Is there a land called Inuit land or similar?
No, because they would not be able to defend it. So Greenland is only a matter between Denmark and US or whoever will get it by force.
So Russia has a claim in its land because it has payed the price in blood and it is continuing doing it.
I close with a couple of quotations from Heinlein (from the book Starship troopers)
Robert A. Heinlein, Starship Troopers wrote:Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called natural human rights that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost.
Robert A. Heinlein, Starship Troopers wrote:Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms
What Robert A. Heinlein means that liberty and human rights has been historically hard-earned by blood and efforts because there have been enemies of mankind that has always threatened to take it away hence endless effort is needed to protect it. By no way he meant that we can arbitrarily violate the human rights based on what we perceived as weakness or strength of others.
Being strong to resist a bully does not give one the right to become a bully themselves. For example, do we have the right to bully a crippled or disabled person because his physical and strength is compromised and cannot defense himself ?
"Violence and naked force" that Robert A. Heinlein mentioned is "self defense" or "justice" violence, for example the violence to defend yourself against aggressor, and the violence to punish criminals and evils. Such violence emerged because there are evil forces who cannot listen to peaceful words and hence necessarily violence is needed to stop violence and to bring back justice. That does not mean to support the attitude of using brute violence to bully people or to deny the human rights.
In essence the key is to distinguish between: (1) Violence used as a needed resort in the face of systemic oppression or in self-defense against aggressors and (2) violence used as a tool of oppression, domination, or the suppression of dissent. Surely Heinlein called for the (1), not the (2).
To be fair Poland was a distinct nation long before then. This incorporation into the Russian Empire did no delete it from history. This is in contrast to Ukraine which never existed as a country until contrived by the Bolsheviks. It was fully reasonable for Poland to regain its independence, but NATzO's fetish for Bolshevik Mickey Mouse borders in the USSR is utter BS.
If you read what I actually said to contradict me and say I was wrong you would have to produce a map showing a country called Poland before 1918 that was not part of another country or empire.
Alaska was leased but the Bolsheviks renounced all Czarist documents so the US got to steal it. The US helped to install the Bolshies into power.
Russia does not need this land. Americans fantasize that there are trillions of barrels of untapped oil there, but that is their routine delusion. Conventional oil and gas resources in Alaska are spent. Mineral resources are not worth the bother.
If you read what I actually said to contradict me and say I was wrong you would have to produce a map showing a country called Poland before 1918 that was not part of another country or empire.
Answer: Poland during the Piast Dynasty and Jagellion Dynasty.
Later during the so-called Commonwealth, Poles were the dominant one over the Lithuanian and hence, most historical books have good reason to simply refer the commonwealth as simply "Poland".
but NATzO's fetish for Bolshevik Mickey Mouse borders in the USSR is utter BS
The Bolshevik were not the "creator" of Ukraine and Belarus.
The 1917 Rada in these countries was anti-Bolshevik, and the 1917 Provisional Government who acknowledged the Ukrainian Rada was also anti-Bolshevik.
Surely the authors of Ukraine and Belarus were someone else.
Alaska was leased but the Bolsheviks renounced all Czarist documents so the US got to steal it.
(1) Would you mind to elaborate why it is leased, not sold ? Which phrase or document explicitly say that it is leased ?
(2) Why the renouncement of Tsarist agreement mean that USA had the legal rights to achieve Alaska ? By logic, the renouncement should mean the opposite, that the lease or sold is abandoned and USA had to return the land back.
(3) Most of the "Tsarist documents" were massive foreign debt, economic concessions and unequal treaties that granted foreign companies preferential treatment or control over key industries and resources within Russia which could be characterized as exploitative investments. So the Bolsheviks renounced them was a good thing.
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
