Author Topic: Aryanism's hostility towards Russia and Eastern European people  (Read 5324 times)

guest5

  • Guest
Quote
Thanks for exposing yourself as an Anglophile and Western Europe supporters

Quote
The five main ("core") countries in the Anglosphere (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States) are all developed countries and maintain a close affinity of cultural, diplomatic and military links with one another.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglosphere

America is not an Anglosphere country, it fought a War of Independence against the British:
Quote
The American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), also known as the Revolutionary War and the American War of Independence, was initiated by delegates from thirteen American colonies of British America in Congress against Great Britain over their objection to Parliament's taxation policies and lack of colonial representation.[m] From their founding in the 1600s, the colonies were largely left to govern themselves. The cost of victory in the 1754 to 1763 French and Indian War and the 1756 to 1763 Seven Years' War left the British government deeply in debt; the colonies where the war was fought equipped and populated the British forces there, at the cost of millions of their own funds. The Stamp Act and Townshend Acts provoked colonial opposition and unrest, leading to the 1770 Boston Massacre and 1773 Boston Tea Party. When Parliament imposed the Intolerable Acts upon Massachusetts, twelve colonies sent delegates to the First Continental Congress to draft a Petition to the King and organize a boycott of British goods.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War

The only reason THE UNITED STATES (not to be confused with AMERICA) is part of the "Anglosphere" is because of Western Civilization!!!

And even if we were pro-West Europe, (which we are not) so what? What is your point? LOL!?!?!? You do realize that NS Germany laid the ground work for the European Union, right?

National Socialists treat every nation as if it were an individual person, something you are clearly incapable of. National Socialist Germany fought France, Britain, and the Netherlands in WWII, did it not? Didn't Germany take over Czechoslovakia in WWII as well?

Quote
Geography: Realms, Regions, and Concepts has been published since 1971 and now in its 17th edition.[13] It was written by the authors Jan Nijman, Peter O. Muller and Harm J. de Blij. It is used in many US schools to teach students world geography.

Here, the definition of Western Europe includes:[13]

    Austria
    Belgium
    Czech Republic
    France
    Germany
    Ireland
    Liechtenstein
    Luxembourg
    Monaco
    Netherlands
    Switzerland
    United Kingdom
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Europe

You do not make any sense, nor do you understand history apparently either....

guest5

  • Guest
Where on this forum did you read: "We are here to coddle Russophiles like kameradbaren"?

guest30

  • Guest
@NuminousSun

Quote
“In many ways,” Khodarkovsky contended, “Russia continues to be an ‘Empire of the Steppe’: an empire that is bitter about losing in 1991 what it considers its territories, and is now trying to restore under the slogan of the Eurasian Union."

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/russia-the-last-colonial-empire/

I read information which you provide, and I found a statement which can be concluded if Russia is not proper enough to be called as "colonial" empire

Source : https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/russia-the-last-colonial-empire/  >>> https://www.international.ucla.edu/euro/article/139315

Quote
Traditionally, Russia has maintained that it came together as a country through peaceful and voluntary unification, instead of the violent means employed by European empires.

Unlike Europe’s colonization of the New World, which resulted in bloody wars of independence and ultimately the expulsion of Spain, Portugal, France, and England from the Americas, many Russian historians have argued that Russia’s control of conquered territory resulted from a policy of “unite and rule.” These nuanced differences, said Khodarkovsky, give Russia grounds to deny the country’s imperialistic tendencies.

The speaker argued that Russian history can indeed be classified as an imperial if one defines the main characteristic of colonialism as an unbalanced relationship between Christian conquerors and the non-Christian subjects of their civilizing mission. He added that the Russian empire was adept at using local elites in the lands it conquered to promote its imperial agenda long before the British attempted to do the same in India.

Anyone can become Christians, and Russia only classify people from their religion background which can be changed and if they change their religion to Christian, they can become Russian citizens, not like colonization of Western European countries which classify its colonized people based on their ethnic or "race" background which can't be changed, so, from that, they deliberately not give the colonized people a single chance to become part of their empire, and the conclusion is, Russia expansion more proper to be called "Imperialism" rather than "Colonialism", so we still can forgive Russia rather than the tyrant West...

Dazhbog

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 159
    • View Profile
Russia only classify people from their religion background

Nope:

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

Quote
In the Russian Empire, inorodtsy (Russian: иноро́дцы) (singular: inorodets (Russian: инородец), Literally meaning "of different descent/nation", "of foreign (alien) origin") was a special ethnicity-based category of population. Informally, the term referred to non-Russian population of the empire (other than the triune Russian nation of Great Russians, Little Russians, Byelorussians). In strict legal sense, it referred to certain indigenous ethnicities of non-European descent specifically listed in the corresponding code of law.

Regarding the fact that you're still around shilling for Russia despite having been unable to refute my arguments before, you really make me think of this quote by the Leader himself:

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mein_Kampf

Quote
But if you really struck one of these fellows so telling a blow that, observed by the audience, he couldn't help but agree, and if you believed that this had taken you at least one step forward, your amazement was great the next day. The Jew had not the slightest recollection of the day before, he rattled off his same old nonsense as though nothing at all had happened, and, if indignantly challenged, affected amazement; he couldn't remember a thing, except that he had proved the correctness of his assertions the previous day.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2021, 08:44:19 pm by Dazhbog »

guest30

  • Guest
@Dazhbog

Quote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inorodtsy

In the Russian Empire, inorodtsy (Russian: иноро́дцы) (singular: inorodets (Russian: инородец), Literally meaning "of different descent/nation", "of foreign (alien) origin") was a special ethnicity-based category of population. Informally, the term referred to non-Russian population of the empire (other than the triune Russian nation of Great Russians, Little Russians, Byelorussians). In strict legal sense, it referred to certain indigenous ethnicities of non-European descent specifically listed in the corresponding code of law.

If such categorizing policy still used in recent Russia, there will be mass report news around the world about racist treatment of non-European Russian people by the European Russian people's authority, and there will be mass protest about dissatisfaction to the Russian government by non-European Russian people around Russia territory which settled by non-European Russia people, but in fact that's not happen, so the Inorodtsy policy is obsolete and not used anymore by Russian government, its just policy of Old Russia Empire, before Communist Russia, and today Russia

And had if Inorodtsy policy still used by Russian government, then you should consider Australia, New Zealand, United States, and Canada also have discriminating behavior too, their European settlers still do like what their ancestors did in the past, live in indigenous people's territory outside their original place of live, Europe... And from that you should not support and encourage people to support them, like what you do to Israel, you not support them, and want to destroy them



Another reason why I cannot be hostile and consider Russia as my enemy, we have common fate, and enemy in the past, the colonialist Western European and Anglo countries

Source : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesia%E2%80%93Russia_relations#Soviet_era

The Soviet Union established diplomatic relations with Indonesia in 1950 and is one of the very few countries to recognize Indonesia's sovereignty and independence from the Dutch after the end of World War II.

Early in the Cold War, both countries had robust relations, with Indonesian president Sukarno visiting Moscow and Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev visiting Jakarta. The first military deal of Indonesia with Soviet Union happened in 1958, which was the import of GAZ-69 trucks.[3] In 1960, General Abdul Haris Nasution visited Moscow to negotiate an arms deal with USSR. It turned out to be a $2.5 billion deal, involving the purchase of Mil Mi-4, Mil Mi-6 helicopters and MiG 15, MiG-17, MiG 19, MiG-21, Ilyushin Il-28, Tupolev Tu-16 planes, and Whiskey-class submarines, Komar-class missile boats and one Sverdlov-class cruiser, AS-1 Kennel anti-ship missiles and Antonov An-12 and Ilyushin Il-14 transport planes. Soviet Armed Forces assisted Indonesia in Operation Trikora to recapture Dutch East Indies in 1961–62.

...

Dazhbog

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 159
    • View Profile
so the Inorodtsy policy is obsolete and not used anymore by Russian government

Apartheid, Jim Crow etc. officially ended, too, but that doesn't mean white supremacy is dead in South Africa or the US.

you should consider Australia, New Zealand, United States, and Canada also have discriminating behavior too

We do. Therefore we support movements such as Black Lives Matter, which resist such behavior. No such movements exist in Russia however.

their European settlers still do like what their ancestors did in the past, live in indigenous people's territory outside their original place of live, Europe...

...as do the Russian settlers in Siberia, the North Caucasus and other places Russia colonized.

guest30

  • Guest
@Dazhbog

Quote
"We do. Therefore we support movements such as Black Lives Matter, which resist such behavior. No such movements exist in Russia however."

Russia rarely in history records persecuted "black" people, even in post-colonial era its Russia, not the West who assist colonized "black" people in Africa to struggle to fight against "White" Western European colonial people  and their apartheid and oppressive authority

Source : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa%E2%80%93Soviet_Union_relations#Overview

After 1953, the continent underwent a rapid process of decolonization, whereby nearly all the colonies became independent nations. However, the nationalist movement was led by the better educated young middle-class that had little exposure to communism or socialism.[2] Soviet leaders, beginning with Nikita Khrushchev, were excited by the enthusiastic young black Africans who first came to Moscow for a major youth festival in 1957. Patrice Lumumba Peoples' Friendship University was established in Moscow in 1960 to provide higher education to students from developing countries. It became an integral part of the Soviet cultural offensive in nonaligned countries.[3]

The Kremlin saw an opportunity, and established four foreign policy goals regarding Africa. First it wanted a lasting presence on the continent, including port facilities in the Indian Ocean. Second it wanted to gain a voice in African affairs, primarily by supporting local communist parties, and providing economic and military aid to the governments. Third it wanted to undermine Western/NATO influence. However the Kremlin was reluctant to send Soviet troops because of its fear of a major escalation with NATO powers. Fidel Castro sent 300,000 Cuban troops to Africa to support fellow revolutionaries against Western imperialism. The Kremlin thought Castro's adventurism was dangerous but it was unable to stop him.[4] And finally, after 1962, it was engaged in a bitter controversy with China for influence and control of local radical movements.[5]

Stalin thought in terms of a black and white world of class conflict, capitalists versus the proletariat. Khrushchev said it was a three-way contest, the third pole being bourgeois nationalist movements that were inherently anti-imperialist and were demanding decolonization across the globe. The favorite technique therefore was to identify the Soviet Union with the rising tide of nationalism – to demonstrate that they in Moscow were engaged in a common struggle against Western imperialism.[6] Moscow also expected that the Soviet model of industrialization and nationalization would prove attractive, but that approach did not resonate with the nationalistic forces, which were black based on the small middle class and were socializing the means of production.[7] The passive reliance on the Soviet model of development failed because of the unreliability of local leaders, and by the Congo crisis. The Kremlin learned that it was essential to find and promote ideologically reliable leaders, who needed Soviet help to build enough military strength to control their country.[8]


Quote
...as do the Russian settlers in Siberia, the North Caucasus and other places Russia colonized.

If today Russian people do colonization and discrimination towards the indigenous people of Siberia, Northern Caucasus, and other place in the East, there will be mass protest from the indigenous people and even rebellion against Russian authority, and many media worldwide will cover that events, and there will be international movements around the world which against such Russian attitute, but actually until now there is no such things happened, so Russian people live peacefully with indigenous people, different with indigenous people in North America, Australia, and New Zealand, until now there is still many protest movements to demand justice to the authority and sue them to apologize and give compensation to the persecuted indigenous people 

Dazhbog

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 159
    • View Profile
Russia rarely in history records persecuted "black" people

Maybe, but racism very much exists in present-day Russian society and it goes virtually unopposed.

If today Russian people do colonization and discrimination towards the indigenous people of Siberia, Northern Caucasus, and other place in the East, there will be mass protest from the indigenous people and even rebellion against Russian authority

This isn't necessarily the case, depending on the docility of the colonized subjects. Besides, at least the Chechens never quit fighting the Russians, even if they're mostly doing so outside Chechnya these days:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzhokhar_Dudayev_Battalion
« Last Edit: April 22, 2021, 01:08:15 pm by Dazhbog »

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11046
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Quote
The Kremlin saw an opportunity, and established four foreign policy goals regarding Africa. First it wanted a lasting presence on the continent, including port facilities in the Indian Ocean. Second it wanted to gain a voice in African affairs, primarily by supporting local communist parties, and providing economic and military aid to the governments.

Thank you for proving my point. Everything Russia does is cynical geopolitical opportunism serving Russian interests. There is no sincere empathy behind it whatsoever. In contrast, in Counterculture-era UK:



And of course Counterculture-era US:



What you see is the US supporting Israel, but what I see is the US doing something that does not benefit itself in any way, because everyone knows that only Israel benefits from the US-Israeli alliance. The US's ability to do things that are not in its self-interest, but simply because it believes it is the correct thing to do, is the characteristic that gives me hope in the US. We can change (indeed we are already changing) what the US believes to be correct, and then the US will work for our objectives with the same conviction as it currently works for Zionism. In contrast, a country that lacks the ability to do anything without self-interest as motivation, such as Russia, has no potential for good. Russia may happen to be helping you at this moment because helping you happens to align with helping itself at this moment, but Russia will have no problem in future destroying you if destroying you is what happens to align with helping itself in future. This is the difference.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2021, 10:58:48 pm by 90sRetroFan »

guest30

  • Guest
@90sRetroFan

Quote
Thank you for proving my point. Everything Russia does is geopolitical opportunism serving Russian interests. There is no sincere empathy behind it whatsoever. In contrast, in Counterculture-era UK:

At least, Russia try to help the oppressed non-Western people, for what purpose if we help someone but we not gain anything good from them?

Even if United Kingdom culturally "counter-culture", her political view still support Israel, and keep oppressing non-Western nations, UK is still involved alongside the United States to secretly fund and give arms to political-opposition terrorist who want to attack and overthrow legal anti-Zionist Syria government under Bashar Al-Assad leadership, so Syria got weakened, and easily to got occupied by Western European troops, from that Syria no longer be threat to Israel, and Israel alongside with ther Western European and Anglo allies dominate Middle East, the world got oppressed under their supremacy

guest5

  • Guest
Quote
The most dramatic turnaround in relations in recent years has occurred between Russia and Israel. The new quality of the relationship owes a great deal to the personal diplomacy between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, but Russia’s emergence as a major presence in Syria has meant that the Israelis now have no choice but to maintain good relations with their new “neighbor.” Some Israeli officials hope that Moscow will help them deal with the biggest threat they face from Syria—Iran and its client Hezbollah. So far, Russia has delivered some, but far from all that Israel wants from it, and there are precious few signs that Russia intends to break with Iran, its partner and key ally in Syria.

Russian-Iranian relations have undergone an unusual transformation as a result of the Russian intervention in the Syrian civil war. Their joint victory is likely to lead to a divergence of their interests. Russia is interested in returning Syria to the status quo ante and reaping the benefits of peace and reconstruction. Iran is interested in exploiting Syria as a platform in its campaign against Israel. Russia lacks the military muscle and the diplomatic leverage to influence Iran. That poses a big obstacle to Moscow’s ambitions in the Middle East.
Quote
Much like Turkey, Saudi Arabia had no choice but to upgrade its relationship with Russia. In addition to its stake in the outcome of the Syria conflict and rivalry with Iran, Saudi Arabia has a growing interest in coordinating oil production with Russia at a time when both are grappling with a surge in U.S. energy production. Saudi King Salman’s 2017 visit to Moscow was a historic first, and the two energy superpowers have pledged to coordinate their oil export policies, but much like the Israelis, the Saudis are likely to be disappointed in their hope that better relations with Russia could lead it to abandon its partnership with Iran. Still, with influential U.S. voices arguing for reducing the U.S. commitment to the Middle East, good relations with Russia provide an additional, even if not very reliable, hedge against uncertainty.
Quote
Russia’s return to North Africa too has to be considered against the backdrop of the United States’ disengagement from the region. The relationship between Moscow and Cairo, interrupted in the 1970s with the latter’s pivot toward the United States, underwent a significant upgrade after the 2013 coup in Egypt and the rise of Abdel Fattah el-Sisi to the presidency. Criticized in the West for his human rights abuses, Sisi found in Putin a convenient partner to help shore up his domestic standing and leverage vis-à-vis Washington. Egypt has emerged as an important customer for Russian arms. Russia and Egypt have partnered in supporting one of the factions in the Libyan civil war, the Libyan National Army, but the country remains too badly fractured for the LNA to score a decisive victory. Moscow expects to have a say in negotiations about the conflict and to reestablish commercial opportunities derailed by Muammar Qaddafi’s demise.
Quote
That said, one of Russia’s key accomplishments is also symbolic of the limits of its power and influence in the Middle East. In a region torn by fierce rivalries, the ability to talk to everyone without taking sides has limited utility. Absent major capabilities for power projection and economic resources, and with its diplomatic capital confined largely to a well-advertised willingness to talk to all parties, Russia’s clout is not sufficient to resolve any of the region’s myriad problems.
https://carnegieendowment.org/2019/10/31/russia-in-middle-east-jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none-pub-80233

guest5

  • Guest
@KB:

Quote
Even if United Kingdom culturally "counter-culture", her political view still support Israel

The UK is coming apart at the seams currently and may actually breakup:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/brexit/
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/scottish-independence/
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/ireland/

guest30

  • Guest
@NuminousSun

Quote
https://carnegieendowment.org/2019/10/31/russia-in-middle-east-jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none-pub-80233

From information which you provide, I can conclude that Russia foreign policy is do something which benefit her, she (Russia) not too much support Israel, and not too much support countries which being victim of Western European and Israel agression, not pro-Israel like Western European countries, and at least she (Russia) still can be invited to work together with my country for having mutualism benefits, my country get some advanced weapons, Russia get raw material from my country like cocoa, vanilla, palm oil, and so on, so we can defend ourselves from Western agression from the South East (Anglo countries Australia and New Zealand, which friends of the agressor United States), and if we get opportunity, we will assist Syria and Iran to defend their homeland from the barbarian Western Europeans, and if can be done, they (Syria and Iran) can attack Israel too with our arms or voluntary troops support



@90sRetroFan

Quote
...The US's ability to do things that are not in its self-interest, but simply because it believes it is the correct thing to do, is the characteristic that gives me hope in the US...

Your argument seems like you consider United States is "altruist" or "benevolent" country, but I hardly to believe your opinion, United States in historical records always support Western European countries even during colonialism period, and after World War 2, United States always involved in many proxy wars to overthrow a country which its government is against United States because they doesn't like its (United States) attitude about supporting Western European countries keep colonizing the territory which they colonize, and I never forgive United States's policy to give arms supply to Netherlands after the World War 2 end, which it make Netherlands can occupy and colonize my people which recently gain freedom (During 1947 and 1948 Indonesia-Netherlands War)

And United States, alongside with its Anglo friends Britain (UK) is using proxy war to overthrow my lovely leader Sukarno during end of September 1965, using the opposition military people to launch a false flag operation which make Sukarno and his Communist people got blamed for their "atrocities" for murdering high ranking military officials, even though people who commit that crime is United States and United Kingdom-backed Indonesian military officials who disguised as "Communist people" to murder the high ranking military officials, so after Sukarno got overthrowed, he replaced by pro-Western European leaders Suharto, the West also forcing their oppressive economic system to him, so Suharto implement Western economic system, which become our economic system recently, and it's very bad for us

And United States's aid and find to other countries is not without benefit itself, a country which already given aid by her (United States) must politically support United States and its allies, and also implement her people's culture like democracy and liberalism to their people, different of we make cooperation with Russia or China for example, the cooperation business is only buy and sell, "you want my stuff? then pay it", without any trapping agreements like forced to also follow their ideology or political view

The conclusion is, United States is not "altruist", she is agressive, bulliers, and also arrogant

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11046
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
"Your argument seems like you consider United States is "altruist" or "benevolent" country"

No, my argument is that the US can be ideologically motivated. More often than not its ideology is bad, but at least it has a chance of holding a good ideology one day, and acting on it.

All you ever do is throw repetitive trivia at us about all the times when the US had a bad ideology, which reveals that you are utterly failing to catch my point.

"the cooperation business is only buy and sell, "you want my stuff? then pay it", without any trapping agreements like forced to also follow their ideology or political view"

With that approach, how are we going to turn the whole world vegan, for example? Idiot. The US approach is what we need.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2021, 06:39:50 am by 90sRetroFan »

guest30

  • Guest
@90sRetroFan

Quote
All you ever do is throw repetitive trivia at us about times when the US had a bad ideology, which reveals that you are utterly failing to catch my point.

Quote
With that approach, how are we going to turn the whole world vegan, for example? Idiot. The US approach is what we need.

So you believe that United States can be ideologically anti-Zionist and Vegan, what a joke!... Most of US people eat meat and majority of US population is following Christian religion which its teachings order them to support Jewish people and Israel, and its Christian teachings is tied strongly to their mind, so hardly to introduce and influence US people to be "vegan" and "anti-Zionist", you just waste your entire lifetime

You are agressive United States supporter, die to American, die to the Western Europeans, die to the Jews!

United States from the beginning of its born is committed many bad things to the world, I don't trust United States can change into a good one