Talk:Vladimir Putin

Anna Politkovskaya

maybe you should mention that Anna Politkovskaya was shot by most likely putins men. she is dead and it should say so.Bohdan

Thanks, I'll find a source put it down. I actually didn't know that. I'm writing a paper on Putin right now, which explains why I have all these sources in front of me. DanH 17:56, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

writing about Vlad the impaler should be fun. Putin is not a good man.Bohdan

Thanks for fixing the cite, Onetimeuse, but your edit took out my sentence about Anna Politkovskaya, and I can't figure out how to fix it, so the article as is now doesn't make sense. DanH 16:12, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Dictator?

Should we add the Dictator category here? DanH 01:11, 5 December 2007 (EST)

I don't think dictator is warranted as a description of Putin - yet. The fact that he has stayed in power long after his term has expired leads me to think he'll be a dictator soon enough. JDBowen 00:51, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

See also

Non of these articles in the see also section has anything to do with Vladimir Putin. Should we delete them? Maupiti 14:55, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

KGB

No mention of him being a former KGB man? Jros83 13:50, 28 August 2008 (EDT) (oh by the way making an analogue between him and Vlad Tepes is an insult to Vlad Tepes. Tepes scared the crap out of invading Turks and helped keep them out of Europe proper. Putin on the other hand is just evil...)

This article is ridden with many hateful subjective allegations. Stay objective!!!

Well, isn't it kind of simplistic to claim that Anna Politkovskaya was murdered by Putin? It hasn't been proven officially anywhere, and if this encyclopedia claims to be objective maybe it should BE so! "KGB Putin has complete control of Russia's future, as a dictator would." - sounds like it was written by a 8 year old! If you're bringing up the KGB past, at least say Ex-KGB (KGB doesn't even exist anymore). Also you're alleging that he's a dictator, and while I may agree, at least make a separate section about why IT IS COMMONLY BELIEVED that it so, give sources, not just write your own personal opinion! Otherwise you might as well write that he also raped donkeys and fed on the souls of the damned! (stay OBJECTIVE people OBJECTIVE!) Politkovskaya was an outspoken critic of Putin yes, but not only! She had made many enemies, especially during her assessments of the Chechen wars, where she claimed that both sides had committed war crime type stuff.. and when you get Chechens angry, people die! Period! (just look up Kadyrov or Barayev) http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/profiles/movsar_barayev.htm http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/ramzan-kadyrov-the-warrior-king-of-chechnya-430738.html

Also, other people had to benefit from her death (hey another motive), Berezovski for example was not a particular fan of her, but to murder her, play the blame game, and then piggyback on her memory to blame Putin (his greatest enemy) would be very beneficial! This article is ridden with many hateful subjective allegations, it is too biased. I would suggest somebody with a lot of experience here should rewrite. If I tried I would probably get banned right away. (I can see it now, some staunch close-minded person calling me a liberal homosexual or a communist. HA!)

Also, there is no serious military alliance between Russia and China, and there is an apparent growing rivalry between the two. http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/airforce/Russian-Chinese_Su-33_fighter_deal_collapses100017306.php

Russia fears China more than it does the United States (due to an actual border, and the fact that China is right next to the energy rich Siberia, which it REALLY wants) - and in my opinion, the US should be more concerned over China than their traditional COLD WAR enemy due to the fact that China has TOO much control over the US economy and interests, and is growing stronger politically and militarily by the hour! http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/i26htWesterman_ChinaArrogance.html Thanks for reading! -Abanamat

Litvinenko

Should we add the poisoning of Alex Litvinenko to this page, or on it's own page? JDBowen 00:51, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

Putin or America?

If Donald Trump (as well as those of you who'd call yourselves paleoconservatives) truly believe that America should come first, you should be wary of current Russian President Vladimir Putin. While I am not anti-Russian, I do not support Putin at all. As President for life,Putin is seeing what he can get away with whilst slowly restoring the old Soviet imperialist ways and will quickly turn on Trump if he gets in the way of that. If it comes down to supporting Trump or supporting Putin, which will you choose? --KommissarReb (talk) 9:50, 22 February 2017 (EDT)

I dunno. Russia has an election next year and there may be some constitutional reforms. [1] Putin may not be in as strong of a position as some may think. The deal has been cut already between Trump and Putin, [2] and Trump knows he could only make Russia great again rather than the US. [3] That's why Flynn is out. We're already moving on to other things. RobS^{CIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win?} 15:48, 22 February 2017 (EST)

Re-Adding German Liberal Deletions of Conservative David Horowitz

• Horowitz, David, Putin and the shadow of the KGB on the Glazov Gang, Sherman Oaks, California: David Horowitz Freedom Center], Published April 5, 2013. David Horowitz is a conservative and not all conservative support Putin. See Joel Skousen, Alex Jones, James Wesley Rawles. Alternate conservative viewpoints are reasonable.

TheAmericanRedoubt 14:21, 17 January 2015 (EST)

Could you please tell me why I am a Liberal? And why is it important that I am from Germany?--JoeyJ 14:59, 17 January 2015 (EST)

Stop trolling his every edit Joey.--Jpatt 22:14, 18 January 2015 (EST)

The fundamental argument

Putin's fundamental argument is the US drone program violates 50 years of international law and conventions so therefore, Russia is not held to these agreements, either. He's been demonized by the war criminals responsible for these breaches of international law, principally Obama, Susan Rice, and John Brennan, who are trying to cover their tracks by thwarting Trumps efforts to mend the breach. Is their someway we can work in the underlying cause of tensions rather than parrot the progressive lies that Putin is Hitler & Al Capone reincarnated? RobS^{The coup plotters won, for now} 19:13, 29 April 2017 (EDT)

Putin and bad days

Couldn't find a good place for this in the article, but this is slightly humorous coming from Putin.[4] --1990'sguy (talk) 10:35, 7 June 2017 (EDT)

We could do a section on ==Putin interviews== combining Megyn Kelly and Oliver Stone. I could add something from this speech here which summarizes pretty clearly the Russian (not just Putin) position on the major foreign policy issues in dispute which, unlike the US position, is pretty solid and unchanging over years and decades. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 13:35, 7 June 2017 (EDT)

Putin also stated that he likes John McCain because of his patriotism and for being consistent.[5] --1990'sguy (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2017 (EDT)

Putin is not an ideological conservative

It seems that over the last few months, this article's portrayal of Putin has become significantly less favorable. Putin's affinity for Soviet Communism and for traditional Islam is now described in far greater detail, and this page has even been removed from the "Conservatives" category. Personally, I welcome these developments. I have never bought the idea that Putin is an ideological conservative. Instead, I view him as a non-ideological pragmatist whose first and only goal is to make Russia a great power again. He has been willing to ally with any cause, be it conservatism, liberalism, nationalism, libertarianism, socialism, communism, fascism, and even globalism and Islamism if he sees Russia benefiting in one way or another. As long as he's in power, or rather as long as he has this non-ideological attitude, I can't see Russia being a reliable partner in the foreseeable future unless we somehow end up on the same side in a major war. -- Geopolitician (talk) 10:49, 9 June 2018 (EDT)

What's a 'reliable partner', convincing a rogue like Kim, Gaddafi, or Khameini to give up nukes in exchange for trade then sticking a bayonet up the kazoo? RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 11:15, 9 June 2018 (EDT)

Ha ha. Very funny. You know damn well what I mean by a "reliable" partner, Rob. Given your sarcasm, I can tell that you're still pissed at me because I advocated going to war with Germany over its illegal EU army project. But you know what? If that happens, then perhaps that will be the war that will bring the US and Russia together. We won't have any further use for NATO at that point, so why not invite Russia to smash Germany and its globalist allies from the east while we do so from the west, much like we did in 1941-45? Oh. And divide Turkey up the same way while we're at it. Erdogan needs to be taken out, too. -- Geopolitician (talk) 11:41, 9 June 2018 (EDT)

Russia, Germany, and the Nato EU members are already joined at the hip, permanently. Only Clinton Foundation donors, NeverTrumpers, and the 1991 Soviet Coup plotters think there's some sort of adversarial relationship between Russia and NATO. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 11:52, 9 June 2018 (EDT)

I'm not so sure I'd ally with Russia, especially under Putin. I'm pretty sure he is still a hard-on Communist, considering he kept his KGB card instead of burning it, and has gone out of his way to promote it whenever the opportunity arose. As far as siding with Russia or Germany should we fight in a war, why not fight both? Merkel's obviously not going to be an ally at all, and she's expressed more interest in helping Putin than in helping Trump. Plus, it would make up for our mistake in siding with Stalin instead of wiping out both Stalin and Hitler. Pokeria1 (talk) 11:56, 9 June 2018 (EDT)

The issue hangs on natural gas and winter heating supplies, IMO. Neither the German or Russian governments or people's ever want war again. Nato's days are numbered, only the Soros-backed warmongers who infiltrated the military industrial complex spread their xenophobic hate propaganda in American media amongst the American progressive youth. Russia and the US are on the same song sheet in keeping China and North Korea in check. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 12:05, 9 June 2018 (EDT)

Rob, you say Russia, Germany, and the NATO EU members are "joined at the hip permanently." In what universe? Like you said, "the issue hangs on natural gas and winter heating supplies." I would also add "mutual hatred of the US" on that list, but other than that, Russia is not in a military alliance with a single member of either NATO or the EU. Russia doesn't even have a single military base in any country that is a member of either NATO or the EU. Russia could cut off Germany and the rest of NATO/EU at any time, for any reason. If Merkel keeps up what she's been doing with the illegal EU army crap, Russia would have a very good reason to cut Germany and its allies off. Meanwhile, I'm glad you brought up China. That's another reason why I'd much prefer normalizing relations with Russia. I don't see us defeating the EU and Turkey unless we have Russia as an ally. Because we also have China to deal with. There is no way in hell China will allow us to defeat the EU and Turkey in a war, especially if Russia decides to intervene on our side. Without the EU and Turkey, China's One Belt, One Road project is dead. Those are the only countries that both the Belt AND the Road run through, after all. -- Geopolitician (talk) 12:19, 9 June 2018 (EDT)

While I am open to the idea of allying with Russia, it should be after Russia fully gives up Communism, by not only throwing Putin out (and preferably replacing him with one that intends to restore Russia to the time of the Tsars at least, since that time was pre-Communism), but also tearing down Karl Marx's statue at Teatralyana Square, and completely banning Communist parties there. Allying with Russia now is like when Nixon made the mistake of allying with Mao Zedong in China even when it was to fight the USSR. I for one do not intend to ally with any Communist countries, period, and if anything, I'd rather commit genocide against Communism for what it did to us Christians. If that's not available, I'd rather fight a multi-front war against Russia, Turkey, China, and the EU if that's what it takes. Heck, had I existed during World War II, I'd rather fight both Stalin AND Hitler at the same time, that's how much I HATE Communism and like-minded groups. Besides, let's not forget that Putin's Russia is actually helping North Korea right now if this is of any indication. Pokeria1 (talk) 12:29, 9 June 2018 (EDT)

Oh, boy. Where to begin, Pokeria1? How about this. Number one. Russia is not communist. Not in the slightest. Everything it does regarding communism under Putin is one hundred percent related to great power geopolitics. A great analogy for comparing Putin to someone else would be to a gamer who likes to play the strategy PC game "Victoria II." Number two. Genocide? Really? First off, it's not genocide if it's targeted at a political ideology. Genocide is when it's aimed at an ethnicity or a religion. But regardless, what you're advocating is not just killing soldiers or other combatants and prosecuting bad politicians, but also intentionally killing innocent civilians. Intentionally targeting innocent civilians is sick, morally wrong, regardless of the motive. Actually, especially given the motive in your case. Christians do not kill people out of revenge. Christ himself spoke against that when Peter cut off the Roman soldier's ear, AND when he said that whoever hates his brother will not achieve salvation. I do not hate our past or future adversaries. I am willing to kill to protect our interests, but if I will ever do, I will do it with regret. Not for my actions, but that conflict could not be avoided. Lastly, number three. A multi-front war against Russia, Turkey, China, AND the EU is a war we cannot win. It will result in our destruction as a power, and perhaps as a country. I love my country too much to take that risk. If it comes to that BEFORE WAR BREAKS OUT, then I advocate peaceful containment, not war. But since I don't believe that will happen, I, for now, am not even close to inclined to go out on the streets and shout slogans while holding an anti-war sign all day. -- Geopolitician (talk) 12:53, 9 June 2018 (EDT)

This is the nature of the modern tri-polar alliance. Russia & the US still have 94% of global nukes, and will never allow China to compete in the nuclear sphere. The problem is - Trump is wrong - the G8 is the world's 8 largest economies, and Russia has slipped to #12. Russia isn't even in the top three in military spending anymore. It only retains the #1 position in number of nuke warheads.

But Russia and the US share the same problem - convincing their populations of the necessity to retain the position of monopolizing 94% of nukes through constant, expensive, modernization and sacrifices demanded and expected of the people. And it's twofold - the emphasis today is on expensive missile defense - the ability to shoot down a missile with a missile, as the a principle deterent, rather than matching one-for-one in production of warheads. The ability of Russia to be a 'reliable partner' in modernization of warhead production and missile defense technology with their failing economy, and the ease with which China can accomplish it with a growing economy fueled by their Wal-Mart customer base, keeps dragging Putin and Russia into a nuclear arms modernization and missile defense race they neither want nor can afford. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 12:59, 9 June 2018 (EDT)

Bottomline: It's Wal-Mart shoppers who created the North Korean nuclear threat, as they destroyed their fellow citizen's jobs and their shopping money trickled down to the Chinese and North Korean regimes. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 13:46, 9 June 2018 (EDT)

I'm glad you acknowledge that Russia is weaker and having economic woes. Although I don't agree with you using nominal GDP rankings instead of PPP rankings (which would place Russia at #6), much of what you claim you observe is true either way. I fear that Russia may be in fact on its last legs as a state as large as it is today because of those economic woes, as well as the national identity crisis that Putin has contributed to. All the more reason for Russia to turn to us for help. It's got the EU to deal with in the West, Turkey to deal with in the south, and China to deal with in the East. -- Geopolitician (talk) 23:32, 9 June 2018 (EDT)

Yes, I think we've made a fairly good assessment here. What Russian strategists want is an easying of tensions with NATO without alarming China. The idea of an expansionist Russia outside its Near abroad is bunk, IMO. Domestically, the Russian Federation relies on a substantial number of secularized Muslims in its military, and relies on them to fight jihadists internally and externally. This is (1) why they want an alliance with the West, (2) a shared objective and enemy with China, and (3) made impossible by Western political correctness, making nice with jihadists, and commitment to gay rights. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 02:15, 10 June 2018 (EDT)

And frankly, I don't see the Crimea going back to the Ukraine without a referendum among the people involved. The rhetoric we've heard in recent days about 'democracy' from Russophobes is ludicrous. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 02:56, 10 June 2018 (EDT)

I'm glad you brought up secularized Muslims in the Russian military. That I think is going to be the biggest challenge of them all for Russia. Why? One word: Erdogan. Recently, Erdogan has not only attempted to assume leadership of the Muslim world, but also of the Turanid (Ural-Altaic) world. The People's Alliance (which is a merger of the AKP and MHP parties) advocates the transformation of Turkey into a neo-Ottoman empire that brings the Muslim world AND the Turanid (Ural-Altaic) world into its sphere of influence. MANY of the secularized Muslims in the Russian military are of Turanid (Ural-Altaic) descent. I can easily picture Erdogan trying to exploit that fact by using his influence to radicalize those secularized Muslims, so they end up mutinying either in the name of Islam or in the name of separatist nationalism. -- Geopolitician (talk) 9:57, 10 June 2018 (EDT)

This I believe may be the one the reasons why Putin is so reluctant to go full Tsar, and instead rely on a big tent that includes traditional Muslims and Eurasianists (the latter who are closely allied with Erdogan, and unlike Putin actually DO want to see Russia expand past its Near Abroad because they want Russia to become the center of a neo-Eurasian empire). If Putin casts them aside, they are wide open to be brought into Erdogan's fold, and Putin would then have TWO fifth columns determined to topple him instead of one. -- Geopolitician (talk) 9:57, 10 June 2018 (EDT)

I'll respond in two parts, since I was out at lunch with Dad at the time the two made their responses.

First of all, regarding Geopolitician, 1. Western Free Press and The New American (both Conservative journalist sites) made it clear that it wasn't simply due to geopolitics. Heck, Putin actually managed to tick off the ROC by comparing Lenin and his sordid Communist Code with Christianity, its relics, and its saints. And I don't think a guy who would just cynically use geopolitics to gain votes would go so far as to keep his KGB card and brag about it. No, he was definitely a firm supporter of Communism, and the fact that he has been confirmed to be funneling Nicaragua, Angola, and even North Korea as that article and several others that I used as sources mentioned should be proof enough that he's a supporter. 2. Seriously, you think mere revenge is my main motivator for wanting Communism dead? No, it's not simply revenge (though I'll admit it is indeed a part of it). I know killing them is not going to bring back any of those killed under Communism, so I have no illusions that revenge would be of any help. The reason I want them dead is because I know far TOO well how they are too much of a threat to be kept alive. Keep them alive, and they'll lie, cheat, kill, and claw their way back into power, which is in fact how Karl Marx advocated they gain power, and Lenin for that matter (the latter did say the best revolutionary is one without morals). And showing them mercy is NOT going to cut it, despite what Jesus said. We made that mistake with Voltaire and his ilk, not to mention the French Revolutionaries, where we capitulated to their every demand in an act of mercy, even going so far as to warn them about a raid on their works in a so-called "act of mercy" to them in the law. Heck, we made that exact mistake with Gramsci and the Frankfurt School, where we not only showed mercy to them, but even granted them full access to our education system due to being refugees, and their "repaying" us by poisoning the cultural well. Communists are NOT the type we should show mercy for, as they'll only view it as a weakness and they'll then exploit it to essentially do what Gaston did to Beast in the Disney film when he begged the latter for mercy. Besides, God is not above committing genocide or taking joy at destroying his enemies. Just look at Sodom and Gomorrah, or the Malenkites, or the Great Flood, or his seven plagues in the old testament (and if he truly didn't enjoy it, he wouldn't have done it, since, being above everyone literally, no one has a gun to his head forcing him to do so, and since he clearly isn't forced by a higher power at gunpoint, he enjoyed it, period. I know if I were God and I did those acts, I'd actually be laughing at my display of power over mortals and be very proud of it, and I'd act like that because that's EXACTLY how omnipotent beings have acted in other instances, like for example Kefka or Zeno. Heck, just look at how God acted in Sinners at the Hands of an Angry God where he if anything took joy in dangling people over fire like spiders over a candle.). Third of all, I'd rather have a multi-pronged war than let Communism take over, especially knowing just how much of a threat Communism, heck, French Revolution-style ideology even since that acted as the progenitor, truly is. God specifically demanded that he rule the entire world, that's in fact why he sacrificed Jesus on the Cross, to ensure humanity is under his thumb again. There's a reason he demanded we spread the gospel instead of doing to us like Jimmy Carter did the Shah of Iran.

Second, to RobS, I'm not entirely sure what the heck the whole Walmart thing has to do with the North Korea situation, but last I checked, it was Stalin who was the reason why North Korea is a threat, not Wal Mart (heck, Wal Mart wasn't even an idea when North Korea was formed). Heck, Putin also was continuing funneling weapons and materiel to North Korea. Pokeria1 (talk) 14:30, 9 June 2018 (EDT)

What economic resources does North Korea have to build and maintain a nuclear arsenal, other than it's legal and black market trade with China which occurs across a common land border and by boat across the bay from Beijing, which is fueled by Chinese economic success as a major, if not principal, supplier of Wal-Mart? RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 14:45, 9 June 2018 (EDT)

What makes you think that they could have only gotten the resources for nuclear weapons from China? Do I really have to remind you that it was Stalin that was the reason why North Korea even EXISTS as a communist state, and most likely would have provided them with nuclear material had they made their own bomb sooner? Heck, even now, Russia is also providing them with weapons and materiel as well. In fact, had I been Putin, I'd ALSO ship them uranium, just to be on the safe side, and Wal Mart wouldn't play a role there at all. Pokeria1 (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2018 (EDT)

"For socioeconomic reasons, pre-school children raised in the developing country of North Korea are up to 13 cm shorter and up to 7 kg lighter than children who were brought up in South Korea--an OECD member. North Korean women were also found to weigh up to 9 kg less than their Southern counterparts."...North Koreans eat tree bark, but that's become increasingly difficult given trees have been used for firewood leading to mudslides. They can't feed themselves, but have a nuclear program developed from trade with China, which China pays for with their trade surplus from America. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 17:40, 9 June 2018 (EDT)

Yeah, well, Trevor Loudon indicates Putin was in fact helping arm North Korea, so as far as I'm concerned, both Putin AND China are helping North Korea, including with nukes. Pokeria1 (talk) 23:25, September 13, 2021 (EDT)

It wouldn't have to be that way if the European NATO idiots weren't so paranoid of Russia. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 01:07, September 14, 2021 (EDT)

And maybe if Russia actually took down literally all of its Marxist monuments, including that statue of Karl Marx prominently displayed on the main square at Moscow, and did the exact same thing to the Communist party that the Germans did do the Nazi party after World War II as a result of Nuremberg, NATO wouldn't HAVE a reason to be paranoid (though then again, just to make things fair, NATO really should have cracked down on all those Marxists within their borders, made sure that the bicentennial for Marx was only remembered with scorn, and not praises like what happened in Triers). I know if I were Russia and the Soviet Union collapsed, I'd make sure the Communist party was outlawed, all reminders of Communism were eliminated, to the extent that even Marx's statue suffered the same thing as various Lenin and Stalin statues, and even go so far as to relocate Lenin's body from the mausileum to hanging from a prominently displayed lamp post. If we're going to get rid of Communism from Russia per the end of the Cold War, we need to be thorough. Same goes for China, they'll be next on the table, as well as Cuba and the others, even target the Marxists occupying the Democrat Party and possibly also the Republican Party in addition to the more obvious CPUSA and Democratic Socialists of America, even target France if necessary (yes, Communism ultimately had its start in France). The point of the Cold War was to end Communism, we shouldn't have settled for just the collapse of the Soviet Bloc, but the complete extinguishment of ALL Communism. Pokeria1 (talk) 05:31, September 14, 2021 (EDT)

There is more nothing Russia or Putin would love more than to join NATO, to counter their two biggest fears, radical Islam and China. Instead, they are treated as the black sheep of the Western family. What's more dangerous, a statue to Marx and Robert E. Lee, or Marxists teaching in the classroom? RobS^{Free Kyle!} 12:03, September 14, 2021 (EDT)

Considering a statue to Marx goes directly hand in hand with Marxists teaching in the classroom, both are equally dangerous. In fact, get rid of the Marx statue, you get rid of the Marxists teaching in the classroom. Triers more than taught us that bit, where during the bicentennial of Marx's birth, they literally commissioned a Marx statue to commemorate the occasion rather than, say, expose that he was a pure psychopath who nearly destroyed the entire world, which is what I would have done in their situation. And if they truly were afraid of China, why is it that he's aiding North Korea and Nicaragua, and supplying them the exact same aid as China? No, if we are to destroy Communism, Russia must absolutely renounce the Marxists and Communists just like Germany did with the Nazis after World War II, to the extent that any trace of Marxism and Communism is not only wiped out, but demonized afterward. Pokeria1 (talk) 13:58, September 14, 2021 (EDT)

The statue to Budda stood for 2,000 years before Antifa the Taliban tore it down, and few people if any were teaching Budda the past 1,500 years in Afghanistan. As to the commies in East Germany and the USSR, for decades anti-communists vowed they'd all be stood up against the wall and shot when the day of reckoning came. What happened? They were invited into a unity government (and like everywhere, the hard left never constituted more than 17% of the electorate).

The maker of The Lives of Others which truly is one of the greatest films ever & I'd highly recommend to anyone, said he felt the Communist party should have been banned as the Nazi party was after 1945. That's odd, cause even Wikipedia includes the criticism that unlike Schindler's List, there were no good Stasi. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 15:14, September 14, 2021 (EDT)

That only tells me the guys who created those Unity Government stuff were complete idiots, especially when that gave the Germans Angela Merkel, with there being strong evidence that she was part of the Stasi in East Germany and unrepentant at it, even hijacking the German Democratic Party to push communism, which also explains her role in the refugee crisis. Besides, I suggest you read these articles here for precisely WHY unity parties were a terrible idea. Heck, on that note, Counting Stars also makes clear that Putin if anything is a big ally to Communism here and here (heck, if anything, the latter article claims that, similar to Nazis and Soviets, Putin and Soros are two sides of the same leftist and communist coin).

As far as Afghanistan, you know full well that's because Muslims are known to outright kill anyone who dares openly worship Buddha and literally any other religion than Islam, with the closest things to exceptions being Judaism and Christianity due to tolerating them enough to at least allow a presence there, and even THAT requires dhimmitude on their part and outright submission to Islam as the sole power. It's the same as how despite being largely Muslim under Saddam Hussein, he tolerated the presence of Christians in Iraq. Pokeria1 (talk) 06:35, September 15, 2021 (EDT)

China, Russia and Christianity

China is undergoing rapid Christianization via an explosive growth of evangelical Christianity. It is going to be an economic powerhouse. The 21st century is going to be an Asian Century. See: Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism

Please read the articles:

• China, officially atheist, could have more Christians than the U.S. by 2030

• The Protestant Work Ethic: Alive & Well…In China

If the Russian Orthodox Church keeps expanding and promotes pro-natalism, Russia could escape a demographic implosion and increase in power in the 21st century. In addition, there has been a growth of Protestantism in Russia. See: Central and Eastern Europe and desecularization.

Russia's fertility rate has been increasing.[6]

Religion, demographics and economics is destiny.Conservative (talk) 12:54, 9 June 2018 (EDT)

Look, while I am glad that there's some effort to China being Christianized (even though I'm a bit irritated that it keeps on harping on the protestants while ignoring the Catholic contributions to capitalism, which BTW predated Protestantism's existence on that matter), China's still a Marxist country, and in fact, Xi even basically groveled over Marx a little while back, so it's still not reliable as a Christian country yet. Maybe if they smash Marx's images, I'll be a bit more receptive. And as far as the ROC, only if they completely throw out the Marxist followers of the ROC that were installed by the KGB. And yes, I'll say the exact same thing about us Catholics and the liberation theology/leftists in there. Pokeria1 (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2018 (EDT)

Pokeria, look at the graph in THIS ARTICLE. The growth of Christianity is explosive in China and the the growth of Communist party members in China is much, much, much slower. And the projected growth of Christianity in China is expected to very explosive. Conservative (talk) 13:02, 9 June 2018 (EDT)

Ideology is almost meaningless in these discussions. It's like asking if you want your nuclear bomb in a pink or blue package. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 13:05, 9 June 2018 (EDT)

The ideology of communism in the 20th century caused the death of over 100,000,000 people in the 20th century.

The ideology of evolutionism caused Adolf Hitler and his alleged "master race" to cause WWII. Evolutionism played a key role in causing WWI. See: World War I and Darwinism and Evolutionary racism

Right-wing populists are about to close down 7 mosques in Austria. Ideology still plays a big role in the world. Yet, religion, demographics and economics is destiny.Conservative (talk) 13:59, 9 June 2018 (EDT)

So now, connect the dots to Vladimir Putin, and how he can raise Russia's economy from #12 back to #8 without looking like he's a CIA plant, installed to do the West and George Soros bidding. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 14:06, 9 June 2018 (EDT)

Any particular reason you're going by nominal GDP instead of PPP? By PPP standards, the lowest rank Russia ever was under Putin was at #10, and Russia is currently at #6. -- Geopolitician (talk) 14:28, 9 June 2018 (EDT)

The Russian people are tough (Russian winters probably help toughen Russians) and smart (chess champions, faster missiles that counter America's anti-missile technology, nuclear arsenal, etc. ).

But it comes down to demographics. The Russian Orthodox Church is growing in Russia and there is an attendant growth in the Russian fertility rate as a result (see: Atheism and fertility rates).[7] And Protestantism is growing in Russia which forces the Russian Orthodox Church to have to compete and not become complacent.

Before the growth of the Russian Orthodox Church in Russia, it looked like Russia was facing a demographic winter and a bleak future in terms of being a major world power. Conservative (talk) 14:32, 9 June 2018 (EDT)

Like I said, projected numerical growth, and even protestant growth (or, really, any Christian sect growth beyond the ROC) means absolutely nothing if they are still promoting Karl Marx (or in the case of the ROC, literally having KGB plants as heads of the church to ensure Communism still exists). Pokeria1 (talk) 14:30, 9 June 2018 (EDT)

Secular leftism is collapsing in the world. The reason is that secular leftists have below replacement fertility rates and because the power of the state is waning (due to the internet making information more available so it is harder for countries to promote false narratives, failing welfare states, etc.).Conservative (talk) 14:36, 9 June 2018 (EDT)

People also assumed the exact same thing regarding the failure of the French Revolution and it collapsing as a result of Robespierre losing his head. Look what happened afterward: Karl Marx pretty much revitalized it. Forgive me for being a bit cynical of the claim that secular leftism is dying, especially when I actually DO want it to die out for what it has done. Pokeria1 (talk) 14:39, 9 June 2018 (EDT)

Look at the recent main page right news on the main page of Conservapedia. News like this makes secular leftists sweat faster than a fat man on a treadmill going at full speed!Conservative (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2018 (EDT)

Yeah, I saw the news, and believe me, I actually have high hopes that the secular left would just die out, especially after everything they did, and I especially hope their ideas die with them. However, the perfect opportunity for them to actually die out was when Robespierre got killed in the chaos he and his ilk unleashed, and we all know how that turned out (Karl Marx pretty much revitalized the French Revolution per his own admission, and then we got the deaths of the 20th century to go with it). If it didn't die back then, I have zero reason they're going to die now, it's actually a bit arrogant to assume they're going to die out, when you know that. I'm skeptical, though only because we had plenty of instances where leftism seemed to die out permanently due to their failures, like Robespierre's death, or the fall of Communism in the 1990s. If it dies out, it needs to be a permanent one, and I have only one way I can think of that can ensure it. Pokeria1 (talk) 14:55, 9 June 2018 (EDT)

Pokeria, once again, the solution you advocate is morally abhorrent. It includes the killing of innocent civilians who have done nothing other than express political opinions. While those political opinions are vile, as long as they don't implement them, they cannot harm anybody. So why not prevent them from implementing their opinions? There are ways to do just that while keeping them alive. The best way to do so is through post-war re-education. De-Communization, I would call it. And let it be more rigorous than the De-Nazification education we imposed on Germany after WWII. Because when we imposed De-Nazification, much of it was rushed and half-assed because of the upcoming Cold War. -- Geopolitician (talk) 23:27, 9 June 2018 (EDT)

It's still better than literally letting them talk, which is even worse. Or do I really have to remind you of how Voltaire and his ilk were literally allowed to say whatever they wished by France (heck, the French Library Minister at the time even went as far as to warn Voltaire and the other Encyclopedists about a raid that was going to occur on them), and had the Jesuits thrown out via their influence, and how that led directly to the French Revolution? Or how about the French Revolution proper, where the Catholic Church and even the King of France constantly capitulated to the mob until it was far too late? Heck, we literally let the Frankfurt School enter our borders, showed mercy to them, and they repaid us by poisoning our cultural well with their Cultural Marxist Crap, something neither France NOR America has recovered from. And besides, I'm not even sure genocide at this point is morally repugnant when God literally had no qualms ordering exactly that in the Bible, if not doing exactly that himself (Sodom & Gomorrah [heck, technically, God didn't even have any qualms with lying to Abraham considering that, being omniscient, he knew far too well that, even before creation, Sodom & Gomorrah was destined to be destroyed by him for its sins, yet let Abraham think there was a chance it would be saved via the latter bartering him, when if he had been honest, he'd tear down any attempts at bartering him and if anything break his will if he even attempts it and even sadistically taunt Abraham for it, which is what true honesty entails], the Great Flood, as well as his ordering Saul to exterminate the Amalekites to the last man, woman and child, and livestock even and that was despite the fact that even God would have known that some of those would have technically been innocent in-so-far as having done absolutely nothing beforehand [heck, if anything, Saul "showing mercy" to them is what lost him favor to God and a large part of the reason he ultimately got replaced by King David.], and that's just to name a few, not even counting stuff like his seven plagues of Egypt and/or his handling of Korah's Rebellion.). Heck, in school right now, most kids are being told the French Revolution is no different than our own and even implied that it's a good thing that Christians were slaughtered during that time [in fact, the only time the metaphorical honeymoon seemed to be over with was the Reign of Terror, and that's mostly because the teachers seemed to think Robespierre was an idiot for implementing it rather than any true moral qualms against it.]. We've literally had two centuries of this crap going on. If leftism was going to die out without resorting to those measures, militant atheism or any other form of leftism, it would have done so a long time ago. De-Communization I'll admit probably would be a better idea, but unfortunately, in case you haven't noticed, despite places like Prager University teaching the horrors of Communism, we've STILL got far too many instances of people singing praises for Communism (heck, when Obama got reelected, there was a crowd literally chanting Karl Marx in praise. There's even a video of it online). Heck, even the likes of Western Europe has Communism being praised, or at the very least Karl Marx (just look at Triers and it outright celebrating Marx's bicentennial instead of, I don't know, demonizing him). And believe me, after the Cold War and the USSR's collapse, that would have been the perfect time to expose Communism as bad, as if the reports of Communist atrocities that were being given in various places throughout the Cold War weren't a good time to expose it earlier. Pokeria1 (talk) 08:05, 10 June 2018 (EDT)

You admitted that De-Communization would "probably" be a better idea. Then why not try it, considering that it's never actually been tried before. Education through the university system such as what Prager is doing is NOT de-Communization as I define it. Instead, I'm talking about an anti-Communist equivalent to the mandatory de-Nazification process that was imposed on Germany by the Allies after WWII. One thing I would do differently though, is NOT give any of the Communists in what remains of the defeated enemy countries (particularly China) a free pass, like we (unfortunately) did with many of the Nazis after WWII. -- Geopolitician (talk) 9:37, 1- June 2018 (EDT)

Also, regarding genocide, last time I checked, God did not give us an explicit command to kill all Communists. He may have given commands to the Israelites in ancient times, but those were specific commands aimed at specific groups of people. And I'm 100% certain God will NEVER command us to commit any acts of genocide ever again. Why? Because he through Christ already gave the Great Commission: to spread the Gospel. THAT's our job as God's children. Everything else is not inherently necessary, and can only be applicable in situations where we act in defense and in humility. -- Geopolitician (talk) 9:37, 1- June 2018 (EDT)

Actually, God DID give an explicit command to kill all Communists. It's called Fatima. Pokeria1 (talk) 02:05, February 1, 2022 (EST)

Pokeria, see: Essay: Post sexual harassment allegations against Lawrence Krauss and David Silverman, searches for atheism related topics have dropped like a rock.

British atheists/agnostics like Richard Dawkins must cry themselves to sleep.

Recently, a prospective Australian television interviewer was told that if he was granted an interview by Richard Dawkins, he must not bring up Lawrence Krauss or the me too movement. The interviewer told Dawkins to buzz off. See: ON RICHARD DAWKINS TELLING ME WHAT NOT TO ASK

2018 is going to be a TERRIBLE year for militant atheists.Conservative (talk) 20:19, 9 June 2018 (EDT)

You still haven't actually addressed why leftism didn't die out after the Thermidorian Reaction, which, you know, should have been the perfect time for it to die out. You can give me all those links, and believe me, I actually DO think that's going to be good that the Atheists are having trouble, but that's STILL not going to help address the specific question on why is it that militant atheism didn't die out when the French Revolution fizzled out, or even when Communism collapsed in the late 20th century. Pokeria1 (talk) 08:05, 10 June 2018 (EDT)

I would have to know more about French history to be able to address your first question. Secondly, post communism the percentage of the world's population who are atheists has been dropping (see: Global atheism statistics).

And actually, atheists as a percentage of the world's population dropped before the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989. As noted above, atheists as a percentage of the world's population started dropping in 1970 (see: Desecularization). The birth control pill became widely available in the 1960s/1970s. Birth control pills have driven a great deal of desecularization post 1970 (Atheists have below replacement levels of births, see: Atheism and fertility rates). Conservative (talk) 08:22, 10 June 2018 (EDT)

Well, at least the Communist bits are decreasing (too bad it's not enough, though, considering we've still got far too many instances of communism being promoted. Case in point: http://www.businessinsider.com/karl-marx-200th-anniversary-celebrations-in-trier-germany-2018-4). Pokeria1 (talk) 08:26, 10 June 2018 (EDT)

By the way, for more information, please see: Causes of desecularization.Conservative (talk) 08:28, 10 June 2018 (EDT)

Is Putin pro-abortion?

If this article is true, we can forget about Putin being an ally of the pro-life movement beyond imposing minor restrictions. --Geopolitician (talk) 11:08, 28 July 2018 (EDT)

• Heck, that's not even the only thing that puts his "pro-life" credentials in question: He also stated he wouldn't ban abortions in the first trimester. Pokeria1 (talk) 11:36, 28 July 2018 (EDT)

That article is informative. Thank you. But notice that Putin does not declare an individual right to abortion, but instead is open to consideration of more pro-life legislation (in addition the pro-life laws that he has already approved, which are far greater than what exists in the U.S.).

Putin may not be obsessed with the "right to choice" like the Democrat Party is, but his statements that "in the modern world, the decision is up to the woman herself" and that future regulation "must be careful, considered and based on the general mood in society and the moral and ethical norms that have developed in society" cannot be considered pro-life on any level. The best we can expect from him is to endorse some changes to Russian abortion law, but not go all the way to banning abortion completely. --Geopolitician (talk) 12:46, 28 July 2018 (EDT)

Your point is astute, but what would be pro-choice in the context of American politics may not translate to Russian politics. Putin is, above all, pro-Russian and if he becomes convinced that pro-life laws are good for Russia, then he'll support that. His statement does not reflect a personal opposition to pro-life laws, and his phrase "the decision" is a big ambiguous and potentially includes the decision to get pregnant, too.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 14:43, 28 July 2018 (EDT)

As a general point, let's avoid the liberal euphemism "pro-choice" and use the more accurate term of "pro-abortion." --1990'sguy (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2018 (EDT)

Excellent point. I've changed the subheading here. Thank you.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2018 (EDT)

Medvedev - VP?

There is no position of Vice-President in Russia (it was abolished in 1993), though Medvedev is mentioned as VP for Putin in infobox. He actually served as Prime-Minister. Could somone please edit it? Thank you!. UndDerDie (talk) 14:51, 14 October 2018 (EDT)

Boogeyman

I think it is time to do away with this Christopher Steele/Hillary Clinton/Michael Sussmann/DNC/Deep State/military-industrial complex Russian boogeyman once and for all. I think it is our European friends who keep adding this stuff back in. As Oleg Deripaska just said, "‘Europe, too, no longer wants to freeze because of NATO fears that the Russians are coming." [8] Trump would agree, when Christopher Steele and the EU start picking up their fair share of the NATO tab, stop buying Russian natural gas and heating oil, and start buying American, then they can tell us what a threat Russia is and have MI5 agents interfere in our elections again. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 03:26, October 24, 2021 (EDT)

Okay, first of all, I could care less about Europe in its current state (if anything, I want Europe to re-embrace Christendom and be ruled under God and Jesus's iron thumb, and that requires that ALL forms of Communism be destroyed, dating as far back as to the French Revolution.). I just want to expose Putin as not good for Russia, ESPECIALLY if we are to go by Christendom, ie, the absolute absence of Communism. Second of all, places such as The New American and Trevor Loudon made it very clear that Putin was still a Communist, and last I checked, they were also very much pro-Trump. Just because I'm pro-Trump doesn't mean I should act like Putin is an ally, unlike you, who seems to adhere to the idea that Putin isn't for Communism despite the evidence otherwise. I know if I were Putin, not only would I NOT host the World Youth League at Sochi, I'd if anything round UP the organizers to be imprisoned, also imprison ALL communists and even go so far as to execute them specifically to ENSURE Communism never comes back again. I won't settle for anything less. God himself wanted Communism in ALL of its forms destroyed, to ensure he and his son alone had totalitarian control over us, as they aimed for since creating the world before Satan messed things up. And for the record, if he were truly pro-Christian, this wouldn't happen: https://www.americanpatriotdaily.com/latest/putin-targets-christians-in-kremlin-crackdown/ Just because he was willing to enact pro-life measures and is stopping gays doesn't mean he's an ally of Christianity. Let's not forget that even Joseph Stalin enacted those measures during his reign, and he was no ally of Christianity. It just means Putin is pragmatic. Want true adherence to Christianity? How about doing mass incarcerations of Communists, making communism illegal to such an extent that anyone who has Communist membership is arrested on the spot, and tear down literally EVERY vestige of Communism in Russia, and also shoot any Marxist groups across the world, even if geopolitics says otherwise, do a crusade against Communism in ALL of its forms. That's what God would have wanted. That's why Fatima happened. Heck, that's even why Mary visited King Louis XVI before the French Revolution demanding they consecrate her heart. Pokeria1 (talk) 07:10, October 24, 2021 (EDT)

I don't believe it. You sound more like a UK grifter wanting the US to pick up your NATO tab so that you can continue indulging your communist NHS. So Putin loves thine enemies, big deal. Whats a matter with a little tolerance? And your advocacy of violence is gonna get you on the domestic terrorism list. As to Louden and the New American, I'll have to see it for myself. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 11:48, October 24, 2021 (EDT)

Let's look at your ridiculous source here: AmericanPatriotDaily.com/About Us. How come there are no names of any credible, living authors or editors on this page? How do we know it's not a front for the Lincoln Project, FusionGPS, the DNC, or FBI domestic counterintelligence? Do you really think we here at CP, and our readership, are that naive and stupid? 15:17, October 24, 2021 (EDT)

The cite looks more like a front for the Liz Cheney for Congress Committee. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 15:25, October 24, 2021 (EDT)

You're one to talk, considering that you repeatedly tried to shut down Northwest when he tried to expose Biden as corrupt and getting in via voter fraud. In any case, I again don't give any care for the UK. Actually, to be honest, if it were up to me, I'd probably make sure the UK stops adhering to socialism and parroting Marxist thought, period. I also provided sources for Trevor Loudon as well. The New American, BTW, is also part of the John Birch Society, aka, the Old Right, so they obviously aren't doing this for the UK or globalism, or even any of the other groups you listed. And as far as American Patriot Daily, I think the fact that they were intensely negative about Biden yet very obviously pro-Trump based on their articles makes it very clear that it's not tied to Lincoln Project, FusionGPS, the DNC, FBI domestic counterintelligence, or Liz Cheney. If they were a front, I'm pretty sure they'd make sure to demonize Trump in their articles, like how the New York Times repeatedly parroted Pravda's talking points during the Cold War.

And use your darn head. Why the heck would Putin want to ally with Marxists in response to Obama's newly passed law if he was anti-Communist? Have you completely forgotten that Obama himself is a Marxist, a communist in other words? If I were anti-Communist, I wouldn't dare ally myself with the same groups who tried to sabotage me just to take that guy down who sabotaged me, I'd try to wipe them ALL out. That's the POINT of being anti-Communist, period. Pokeria1 (talk) 16:52, October 24, 2021 (EDT)

Well, it's all interesting arguments. Unfortunately, none of them make any sense. Next you're going to tell me the FBI wasn't involved in the Whitmer kidnapping plot, the J6 protests, or Charlottesville, and that Trump colluded with Russia, covid comes from eating bats, and STDs from toilet seats. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 18:39, October 24, 2021 (EDT)

I never believed the idea that Putin colluded with Trump from the start, and if anything, even early on into that fake news cycle, I realized Putin would NEVER support Trump becoming President, much less interfere in the election when he was dedicated to restoring Russia to its Soviet state under Stalin. Why would a guy so dedicated to restoring the Soviet style of things, including rehabilitating Stalin and whitewashing him, back a guy who was dedicated to restoring America to its founding principles (you know, the kind of principles that KILLED the Soviet Union in the first place by the 1990s, or at least severely crippled it)? If anything, he would have been more likely to interfere with the election on Hillary's behalf. And quite frankly, I have zero reason to doubt the FBI under Comey would have been involved in those bits. They were responsible for the Steele Dossier among other hit pieces. They most certainly could engineer those kinds of things as well. That said, however, I WILL also make clear that the leader of Charlottesville had prior ties to OWS, so it's also just as likely Obama and his OWS/BLM/ANTIFA groups had their fingerprints on it as well. And I never once believed that COVID came from a bat. Actually, if anything, knowing how the Communists do stuff, I if anything was pretty certain early on that COVID was most likely weaponized by the Chinese at a bare minimum, maybe even deliberately released onto their own populace. It's not uncharacteristic of them, being standard operating procedure since Lenin and his starving the Ukrainians. And the only time I've EVER heard of STDs coming from toilet seats was from House M.D., and even there it was a way to manipulate a guy into admit he was the one cheating on his wife and got the STD from that. Pokeria1 (talk) 20:47, October 24, 2021 (EDT)

Well, now we've seen you analytical skills. March 2016, before Trump won the GOP nomination, Trump said NATO is obsolete. This sent Richard Dearlove and John Brennan into a panic. But you think Putin would've helped Hillary and maintain the status quo vis-a-vie NATO. Ok. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 03:23, October 25, 2021 (EDT)

Considering Hillary promised Putin a huge amount of Uranium during her time as Secretary of State and even supplied some to him anyways at our expense, it's obvious she'd be better for him than Trump would be. Besides, there's been PLENTY of collaboration between Clinton and the Obamas with Putin. Let's not forget the infamous "hot mike" incident during 2012. As far as NATO is concerned, until all Marxism and it's derivatives are eliminated (not just in China, but also within Russia, Cuba, North Korea/Southeast Asia, and even Western Europe, France in particular due to it effectively starting that plague), only then can we firmly retire NATO. The most we can do is purge Marxists from NATO's ranks. The whole point behind NATO is to get rid of Communism during the Cold War, and having Marxists in its ranks betrays its standing as such. Pokeria1 (talk) 05:39, October 25, 2021 (EDT)

EDIT: here's an article explaining more, with plenty of sources, how Putin truly is a communist. Pokeria1 (talk) 05:46, October 25, 2021 (EDT)

NATO is an arm of the Deep State. It should be abolished.--Geopolitician (talk) 11:38, October 25, 2021 (EDT)

I agree NATO should be abolished, but it should NOT be abolished until AFTER Marxism and all its forms, yes, including Jacobin-style politics, is completely and utterly destroyed. If we get rid of it early, Marxism wins, and we can't allow that, especially when Marxism and Socialism is the epitome of the deep state. Pokeria1 (talk) 14:09, October 25, 2021 (EDT)

What's wrong with replacing NATO with a series of unilateral alliances?--Geopolitician (talk) 21:08, October 25, 2021 (EDT)

You mean, aside from the fact that a series of unilateral alliances led directly to World War I and the outgrowth of Marxism, culminating in Lenin taking power as well as his exporting Marxism throughout the world as early as when he tried to invade Germany before being stopped at Poland? Besides, let me remind you that if it weren't for NATO, the likes of Germany, the UK, France, and most of Western Europe would be speaking Russian and hailing Karl Marx much earlier than now due to Stalin pushing an invasion, or at most infiltrations in the style of that memoir "And Not a Shot was Fired." Pokeria1 (talk) 21:20, October 25, 2021 (EDT)

First off, WWI was not started by bilateral alliances (that was the term I intended to use in my last post, I apologize for that typo). Both the Triple Alliance and the Triple Entente were multilateral, as they involved more than two parties.

And second, it goes against historical American tradition to form multilateral alliances, or even bilateral alliances which are permanent in nature. See George Washington's Farewell Address.--Geopolitician (talk) 14:55, October 26, 2021 (EDT)

Yeah, and we didn't have multilateral alliances, bi or multi, during the Great Depression, went into full isolation mode to such an extent that we had to withhold any funding to the Germans and others because of it in an attempt to prevent the huge crash from affecting us. Last I checked, going full isolationist if anything resulted in the Communists making significant inroads to America thanks largely to FDR and Eleanor. And don't get me started on all those pro-Democracy groups early into America's founding that Jefferson let in to promote the Jacobins, leading to a LOT of serious problems as a result. And bear in mind that the French Revolution literally helped set up Marxism and possibly also the Deep State. Abbe Barruell certainly thought the Deep State ultimately had its roots in Voltaire based on his Jacobin Memoirs treatsie, and that was definitely while Washington advocated for neutrality (and personally, I think declaring neutrality during that time was a mistake. If we just sided with King Louis XVI and stopped the Jacobin menace, they would have been forgotten as an incompetent group who tried to overthrow France, with there being no Marxism as a result (or at least, Marx certainly won't take inspiration from the Jacobins). We didn't even need to side with Great Britain to stop the Jacobins, just state we're not doing it for Great Britain, but just trying to prevent the concept of "liberty" from being perverted by godless anarchists.). In fact, the fact that the Jacobins literally tried to influence America in a wrong direction in what was undeniably an attack on the American way would have been sufficient reason to go to war WITH France as a third party, as even Washington outright stated the Jacobins were a godless illuminati group and should NOT be supported. Pokeria1 (talk) 21:49, October 26, 2021 (EDT)

And yet, Washington did NOT go to war with France. Why do you think that is?--Geopolitician (talk) 21:32, November 2, 2021 (EDT)

He emphasized neutrality above all else. Personally, I think that was a mistake, especially when by his inaction, it led to the French Jacobins to be deemed a success story and emulated by Karl Marx, and later by Vladimir Lenin. We should have nipped it in the bud and ensured they didn't pervert the concept of liberty into being godless anarchy, which right now we are suffering from. Pokeria1 (talk) 04:55, November 3, 2021 (EDT)

Deep States are nothing new; countries like China and Eygpt have had unbroken civil service bureaucracies for thousands of years, despite a zillion changes of regime in the interim. Heck, even the Cheka was made up of old-timers from the Czarist Okhrana who trained and mentored the younger Marxist revolutionaries in professional police tactics. IOWs, it just changed its name. There is no destroying a deep state once it takes root. You can only come to terms with it, and maybe try to influence or control it, depending on how much power you have. They have six ways from Sunday to make your life miserabble. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 05:01, October 28, 2021 (EDT)

Yes, there is destroying a deep state once it takes root. It means radical measures. Abolishing the most corrupt of the corrupted agencies is a starter.--Geopolitician (talk) 21:32, November 2, 2021 (EDT)

Historically speaking, it is hard to think of an example where it has been rooted out completely. Yes, historically there have been agencies and whole generations of people ostracized, the SS & NKVD for example. But even Weimar bureaucrats survived in the civil service throughout the Nazi regime. Deep Staters like Reinhard Gehlen and Werner von Braun (representative of the technocracy and leadership) survived. Putin would be in that class, but it does not mean, as Pokeria ridiculously crusades for, that he's a dedicated communist. The Stassi is another example. It survived the East German state, was strengthened as a legitimate political party in the greater unified German state (Die Linke), and its tentacles now have an international reach into Antifa and the Black Lives Matter movement. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 03:45, November 3, 2021 (EDT)

Yes, he IS a dedicated communist. Or maybe you've completely forgotten about that Sochi speech, or how he directly aided and abetted Marxist groups (you know, the same Marxism that Obama adheres to via Nicaragua and Angola?). If he weren't a dedicated communist, he'd be out there exterminating them. It's that black and white. Even God made it that black and white. Pokeria1 (talk) 06:18, November 3, 2021 (EDT)

You seem to have Jehovah God and Jesus Christ confused with Allah; you don' win brownie points with Jehovah and Christ by exterminating God's enemies. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 12:25, November 3, 2021 (EDT)

No, I if anything am going by God in the old testament, who DID indeed advocate fully for exterminating his enemies (and if anything, he punished King Saul precisely because he showed mercy towards his enemies. Mercy motivated mostly by greed, but mercy all the same). And even Jesus in the New Testament cursed that tree to wither and die in one of the readings, and that's not even getting into his violent assault on the money changers. Heck, the whole reason he caused Fatima via Mary is to specifically prevent Communism from ever existing. Pokeria1 (talk) 07:27, November 4, 2021 (EDT)

So we're just supposed to ignore Christ, who he is, and what his mission is. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 18:04, November 12, 2021 (EST)

No. If anything, this is fully taking into account Christ, especially when he himself has shown himself to be lacking of mercy at times, like the moneychanger incident, or even the time he cursed a tree to die. Not to mention Jesus specifically commanded us to conquer the world (I believe his exact words "go and spread the good news to the four corners of the world." AKA, conquer it under Christendom). Pokeria1 (talk) 19:21, November 12, 2021 (EST)

Putin is not the enemy. The Deep State wants us to believe that he is, because he’s a constant foil for its agenda.--Geopolitician (talk) 11:34, October 25, 2021 (EDT)

His 2007 speech at Munich deserves to be on the list of “writings critical of the Deep State.”--Geopolitician (talk) 11:38, October 25, 2021 (EDT)

I suggest reading J.R. Nyquist, especially when he's also anti-Deep State. Also Counting Stars. And yes, actually, Putin IS the enemy, as even anti-Deep State people like Nyquist and Trevor Loudon and even The New American, aka the John Birch Society have attested to. In fact, Soros, the epitome of the deep state, is on the same coin as Putin as Counting Stars pointed out. Pokeria1 (talk) 14:09, October 25, 2021 (EDT)

Theoretically, Russia would be a natural ally of NATO against Chinese adventurism and aggression and the war against radical Islamic terrorism. In the West, and US in particular, since about 2007 the US began adjusting priorities in the war on terror (actually there's much more to be said, like you need war aims before you go to war, not after). After the covid attack and withdrawal from Afghanistan, it's now clear China is the number 1 enemy.

One problem is, NATO openly embracing Russia creates a 4,000 mile border between China & NATO, at least that has been the argument since the collapse of the USSR for not allowing Russia in NATO. I don't think that argument carries as much weight anymore.

The Chinese hypersonic "Sputnik moment" has arrived. Let's see how that plays out.

But Pokeria has some valid points: NATOs internal structure needs to be re-examined. In my estimation, the leftwing idiots are in control of the institution now, so it may be difficult if not impossible to purge Marxists. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 14:36, October 25, 2021 (EDT)

We don't need NATO to contain China. The only members outside the US itself that would have any real use for containing China are Canada, France, Germany, and the UK. The rest of them can't really project hard power outside their own backyards, much less into China's (okay, Turkey technically can expand its influence into Central Asia, which is part of China's backyard, but I don't trust the Erdogan regime at all, so I'm not counting that one).--Geopolitician (talk) 21:08, October 25, 2021 (EDT)

Which is EXACTLY the point behind NATO. We have to defend those who can't defend themselves. And use your head, if they can't defend outside their backyards as you seem to imply, that means it will only be a matter of time before Canada, France, Germany, and the UK, to say little about us, fall to China, not to mention Marxist ideology as a whole. And we cannot let that happen. Heck, during the great depression when we actually DID practice constant isolation, Communism made vast inroads into America and presumably into large parts of Western Europe, and a group like NATO didn't even exist back then. Pokeria1 (talk) 21:20, October 25, 2021 (EDT)

• We have to defend those who can't defend themselves.

This is a generalized re-statement of Samantha Power & Hillary Clinton's R2P, Responsibility to Protect that created the Libyan & Syrian disasters, and brought black African migrants in Libya back into the slave trade. And who were the "oppressed" by Gadaffi? Radical Islamic terrorists, al Qaeda offshoots and the founders of the Islamic State (LIFG). RobS^{Free Kyle!} 04:25, November 3, 2021 (EDT)

It's not a restatement, RtP is an outright perversion of the concept by Hillary Clinton. Using your logic, we should have abandoned ALL of Europe to the Soviets after World War II, leave France speaking Russian, also the UK, even leave Japan to the mercy of the Soviets, all to ensure we avoid creating disasters by protecting anyone. Because that would have been the ultimate result of not creating NATO. Personally, I would have preferred that George Marshall just shut up about any misgivings he had about Chiang Kai Shek and explicitly side with him over Mao's group and especially not essentially disarm Shek's forces, which would have done wonders in at the very least preventing China from going Red if not even make some headway in preventing the Communists from taking over Eastern Europe, thus avoiding the Cold War altogether. However, that's no longer an option, so we have to go by what we have. And BTW, Hillary Clinton if anything bashed the whole concept back during the 1960s after she went radical left thanks to her preacher and Saul Alinsky (who was the George Soros before Soros became a known name) when we were fighting Vietnam, as did her future husband Bill Clinton, who went as far as to orchestrate explicitly anti-American protests while studying abroad at Oxford. As far as Gaddaffi is concerned, if you ask me, we should have wiped out both Gaddaffi AND the radical islamists, then what's left over of Libya is turned Christian. THAT would have been the way to go. Pokeria1 (talk) 04:53, November 3, 2021 (EDT)

NATO was a quickfix solution in 1948 to the failures of what the ambitious United Nations had envisioned for a post-War peace in 1945. It was never part of FDR's plan or vision - in fact, it was and is the complete opposite.

As to your defense of R2P, does that apply to the citizens and taxpayers of Vichy regime, who did more for the Nazi war effort than the handful of exiles who left the continent with DeGaulle? RobS^{Free Kyle!} 12:25, November 3, 2021 (EDT)

And your whole argument here is contradictory on its face: on the one hand you argue for naked isolationism, OTOH you make a spirited defense for interventionism and a responsibility to protect those who can't protect themselves. Like Geo saying Putin is and is not an enemy, you speak out of both sides of your mouth. In any case, both of you guys efforts to pantomime conservativism are pretty lame. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 12:39, November 3, 2021 (EDT)

I never argued for naked isolationism once. I if anything argued AGAINST it, and even made sure to cite how we practiced that during the Great Depression and how that led to Communists having a boon in making inroads towards America's way of life during that time. And I never said anything about FDR at all (and personally, I think the UN should be abolished precisely BECAUSE it's a Marxist front. In fact, that's exactly my point above even if I DID mention FDR, especially after he completely bungled the whole Yalta Conference thanks to Alger Hiss.). As far as the Vichy government, we also had the FCP aiding in sending Jews towards the Nazis with Stalin's blessing even after Barbarossa. At least DeGaulle actually DID try to prevent France from becoming both Nazi and Communist, so we could work alongside him. And for the record, let me remind you that most people during the American War for Independence didn't give one care about whether or not we were free from Britain or still in Britain's yolk. The ones who declared independence were ALSO a minority. Using your argument, we might as well not even BOTHER fighting for independence at all. Pokeria1 (talk) 07:27, November 4, 2021 (EDT)

NATO is no longer a defensive alliance. It is an offensive alliance. It is now what the Warsaw Pact was in 1955.--Geopolitician (talk) 14:55, October 26, 2021 (EDT)

NATO apparently now exists so when some third world bumpkin like Gadaffi, in a divided country of 3 million people sits atop 143 tones of gold and gets too big for his britches, criminals like Hillary Clinton, Nicolas Sarkozy, and David Cameron can go down and snatch it (kinda like Wotan and Loge in Das Rheingold). RobS^{Free Kyle!} 23:21, October 25, 2021 (EDT)

Oh, I definitely agree China's our primary enemy currently. However, we should keep Russia at arms length at best, especially considering some pretty credible sources regarding Putin NOT actually renouncing Communism, especially with that Sochi World Youth Conference thing (and quite frankly, that law being passed or not, I still don't buy the claim that he's anti-Communist after he backed explicitly Marxist countries/groups. I don't care if he did so as a response to Obama's law being passed. Actually, if anything, Obama would have been a good reason NOT to ally with Marxists since it's essentially saying "I'm allying with Obama while fighting him", since Obama IS a Marxist, just as the groups he financially backed). The last thing we need is a repeat of the aftermath of World War II where, after we defeated the primary enemy, the Axis powers (that is to say, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan), we stupidly let Soviet Russia take control of Eastern Europe and also turn China and North Korea Red. Pokeria1 (talk) 18:55, October 25, 2021 (EDT)

China is not just the "Flavor of the Month" enemy. It will remain so for as long the CCP is in power, which, according to them, is indefinitely.RobS^{Free Kyle!} 23:21, October 25, 2021 (EDT)

Yeah, and Hitler claimed that the Nazis would remain in power indefinitely. Didn't work out so well for them. The CCP and even the Soviet Communists (which still exist unfortunately, arguably including Putin) ultimately will fall. Pokeria1 (talk) 05:32, October 26, 2021 (EDT)

<digression> If I may digress with a personal observation momentarily: Recently it's been reported that Russia is the only country to ever land probes in Venus. [9] Wikipedia does not dispute this. Circa 1962 I distinctly recall MSM news reports that China had landed a probe on Venus with a Chinese flag and broadcast The East is Red. So, is it possible the deep state/military-industrial complex has been faking news since the early 1960s to create public panic and justify funding for NASA & the CIA? Perhaps.<end> RobS^{Free Kyle!} 14:49, October 25, 2021 (EDT)

I thought Wikipedia was barred from being used as a source for anything on Conservapedia due to it's huge leftist bias? Besides, if the Deep State was to utilize fake news for anything, it would be more like helping Walter Cronkite lie about the Vietnam War to further agitate the anti-War Crowd, like with his infamous Tet Offensive broadcast. And don't get me started on how the Deep State via Obama basically gutted NASA to basically be a muslim outreach group rather than a place that studies the atmosphere and launches rockets. Pokeria1 (talk) 18:55, October 25, 2021 (EDT)

NASA, like the CIA, only survived the Cold War and not having their budgets decimated by adopting the KGB climate crisis conspiracy theory to justify continued funding against alleged "threats".

Wikipedia reports, "Venera 1 was launched on 12 February 1961. Telemetry on the probe failed seven days after launch. It is believed to have passed within 100,000 km (62,000 mi) of Venus and remains in heliocentric orbit. ...Several other failed attempts at Venus flyby probes were launched by the Soviet Union in the early 1960s,[2][3] but were not announced as planetary missions at the time, and hence did not officially receive the "Venera" designation." and then there is this: "a lengthy design conference was held, lasting 42 days – from 20th October to 2nd December 1965 – and called the “651 conference”. This settled the details of the satellite, called the Dong Fang Hong 1 (“the east is red”)." [10] All this occurred before Yuri Gargarin's first manned space flight, so it's unsurprising that it's been shunted behind other historical events in the space race. So is it possible, that in 1961 in the early days of technological competition, the American people were lied to, and a failed Russian test was attributed as a Chinese success in American MSM in 1961? This was in the early days of the Sino-Soviet split, and Americans needed to be frightened or reminded of the threat from the Communist bloc. And use of the name East is Red, four years before the fact, could have been a not-so-subtle message to the CCP from our amateurish CIA that they had a direct pipeline into China's most prized national security planning discussions. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 20:16, October 25, 2021 (EDT)

I wouldn't be so sure about there being a true split between the Soviets and the Red Chinese. Let's not forget that China was willing to collaborate with the Soviets during the Vietnam War, which occurred AFTER the split. Besides, last I checked, Wikipedia references are not even allowed on Conservapedia due to it being too biased to the left. Not that I needed any further proof that the media lies constantly. Let's not forget they repeatedly lied during the McCarthy hearings, constantly tried to paint Joseph McCarthy as a nut and successfully did so, not to mention repeatedly lied about Castro being anti-Communist, lied about and covered up Holodomor, etc., etc. And all before the Tet Offensive and Walter Cronkite's infamous report on that. Heck, Walter Lippmann practically and quite literally wrote the dang playbook of media constantly lying to their audience, making them even worse than the yellow journalism they replaced. At least yellow journalism allowed for differing point of views rather than a monolithic lie. In fact, considering the media loves communism, it's unlikely they'd try to scaremonger people to fight against the Soviets or other Communists, and if anything are more likely to scaremonger people against "right wingers" like us. Honestly, forget politicians, the way you know the media lies to you is that they move their lips and write things down. Pokeria1 (talk) 20:54, October 25, 2021 (EDT)

It's all about budgets. Patrick Moynihan wanted to abolish the CIA when the USSR collapsed. All of them, NATO, CIA, NASA, all had to justify their continued existence when the Cold War ended. They latched onto global warming as the future threat. As China was being cultivated for investment, nobody wanted them to feel threatened by allowing Russia to join NATO (as Yeltsin wanted, and as other Warsaw Pact members were invited in). So the myth of the Russian boogeyman had to be perpetuated to placate China, despite Moynihan being sickened and outraged after years of fake reporting from the CIA.

Moynihan wanted to abolish the CIA? That's a surprising one for me.--Geopolitician (talk) 14:55, October 26, 2021 (EDT)

The Case For Abolishing The CIA, JOHN JUDIS, DECEMBER 20, 2005, THE NEW REPUBLIC ONLINE. carnegieendowment.org

2005 is well into the CIA's rebirth during the War on Terror, after Moynihan's death, before the Patriot Amendments of 2006 which Comey/McCabe/Strzok used to spy on Donald Trump and Merrick Garland now is using in the War on Parents, and before CIA torture was exposed. So the commie front, Carnegie Endowment (which Alger Hiss headed), made a strong case for its abolition just a few short years ago. My guess is, those racists didn't imagine a Black man could be elected president a few years later, and communists could finally flip the tables on their enemies. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 15:30, October 26, 2021 (EDT)

Every year the CIA made assessments of the Soviet economy (cause the communists never published official figures). They said year after year for decades that the USSR GDP was roughly half of US GDP, and spent twice as much on defense, which was called "parity" in arms negotiations. Today, as it turns out. the Russian Federation total annual budget equals about what the U.S. federal government spends in 3 days (figure Russian defense spending is probably less than 25% of its total government budget. That would equal about what our federal government spends on everything in 18 hours.) Let's look at propaganda: NBC News alone (not counting CNN, CBS, Reuters, AP, etc) spends more on global operations than the Russian Foreign Ministry for its entire operations worldwide.

It just gets tiresome hearing discredited stories from discredited sources with obvious, known motivations day after day for decades. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 22:53, October 25, 2021 (EDT)

If I were the CIA, I wouldn't need global warming to justify my continued existence. I'd just try to take out the Cubans, Norks, and Red Chinese instead. As long as Communism exists, there's plenty of reason to continue, even without the USSR. Simply ending the USSR wasn't enough (besides, it's also debatable whether the USSR did indeed collapse since at least one KGB defector implied they simply entered sleep mode rather than actually collapsing. And I know the late DIE defector Ion Mihai Pacepa indicated similar stories as well.). Now, maybe under Yeltsin, it could have been possible to let the Russians join NATO after they've demolished literally ALL of the Soviet stuff, yes, including Karl Marx's statue. But after Putin came to power, that's no longer possible. Not after several right-wing authors, many of whom aren't friends of the deep state anyhow, gave pretty convincing claims that he's as anti-Communist as Fidel Castro (meaning not anti-Communist at all). Pokeria1 (talk) 05:32, October 26, 2021 (EDT)

Putin is frustrated that the West, NATO, and the US keep pushing the Russian Federation into a costly arms race with technological upgrades. He'd rather work with the West countering radical Islamic terrorism and CCP adventurism.

Putin may be "frustrated" with the West, but his base of popular support is firmly anti-West and pro-CCP. Many of his supporters would oppose him working with the West, because they see the West as a greater evil than the CCP.--Geopolitician (talk) 14:55, October 26, 2021 (EDT)

That just sounds crazy on its face. You apparently like playing devil's advocate whatever the issue. Above, in fact, you just posted:

• "Putin is not the enemy. The Deep State wants us to believe that he is, because he’s a constant foil for its agenda.--Geopolitician (talk) 11:34, October 25, 2021 (EDT)

RobS^{Free Kyle!} 15:42, October 26, 2021 (EDT)

I’m not playing devil’s advocate on anything. I stand by both of the statements that you refer to, as they’re not contradictory. Putin is Putin; his base is his base. Putin himself is willing to work with the West, but for the Deep State’s antics. But his base is much more radical than he is, and much of it would oppose him working with the West, even if the Deep State disappeared for good today. Putin will have to pick a side in the end, and it could cost him a lot either way.--Geopolitician (talk) 20:05, October 26, 2021 (EDT)

Oh, he's picked a side for quite some time actually: Communism. Don't believe me? Watch/read these sources:

• Putin’s remarks at communist youth festival in Russia last October - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzkLe-hOvgU

• Putin: Soviet Collapse a “genuine tragedy” http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7632057/ns/world_news/t/putin-soviet-collapse-genuine-tragedy/#.WjWVNkxFyzk

• Putin as Castro’s friend: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2689518/Is-sign-return-Cold-War-Putin-cozies-Castro-Cuba-relations-frosty-West.html

• Putin’s cryptic statement to the Cuban press: http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/21138

• Putin’s support for communist military power in Africa: http://www.africareview.com/news/Angola-now-biggest-African-buyer-of-Russian-arms/979180-2037576-11bhfeqz/index.html

• Putin’s criticism of Lenin as strategist: http://www.newsweek.com/russias-putin-accused-lenin-ruining-soviet-union-418519

• On the Poisoning of Priests in the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad http://www.portal-credo.ru/site/?act=news&id=52322

• Larry King asks Putin about his faith: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0009/08/lkl.00.html

• Russian tank deal with Nicaragua https://news.usni.org/2016/05/09/opinion-russian-tank-deal-with-nicaragua-back-to-the-future-moment-for-u-s

• Putin Kept his Party Card and Says he Likes Socialism - https://www.yahoo.com/news/putin-still-communist-party-card-likes-socialist-ideals-183734163.html

And just because he's shutting down gays or promoting anti-abortion measures doesn't mean he isn't a communist. Let's not forget that even Stalin was all for shutting down gays within the USSR itself, not to mention allowed some anti-abortion laws to pass, and that had less to do with being anti-Communist and more due to having just enough pragmatism to realize going all out on abortion and homosexuality like Lenin did would harm them more than it would doing any good. Heck, even Stalin relaxed any overt persecutions of Christianity during World War II, not because he had any come to Jesus moment, but because, again, he was smart enough to realize promoting the USSR nationalist line, including religion, was ultimately necessary to fight off the Nazis. There's also the no small fact that apparently the ROC got coopted by the Communists after World War II due to Stalin realizing that having direct control over it was far more useful than just wiping it out of existence. The fact that he has repeatedly aided Communist groups and has even admitted in a few interviews that he still likes socialism, even called the USSR's collapse the "greatest geopolitical disaster" should be sufficient proof that he is STILL a communist, an unrepentant one at that. Maybe if he said he's glad the USSR is dead, actually condemned Lenin for his character (not his tactics, but his actual underlying character) as well as Stalin and literally every communist, had issued a mass arrest against the World Youth and Student Conference for being Communists, had literally every communist element removed and the history books only detailing Communism as the demonic idea created by a complete psychopath and followed by psychopaths, and literally hung Lenin's corpse from a lamp post, I'd buy him actually BEING against Communism. Oh, and not only refusing to aid Communists abroad, but if anything giving Russian weapons to explicitly anti-Communist groups to take OUT the Communists, even anti-Communists already in power. All of that would be what I would have done in Putin's position, being hugely anti-Communist. Pokeria1 (talk) 21:49, October 26, 2021 (EDT)

A word on Putin's alleged communism: With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the resultant anti-communist sentiment, Putin felt the communist victory over fascism was something to be preserved. Putin rejects the ideology, but attempts to convert Russia's communist-dominated era that oversaw the victory over nazism as a point of national pride. And when we speak of Russian nationalism, we are really speaking of Russian multinationalism. That's what Russia is - a union of peoples.

So there is a paradox here caused by the use of the same words in Russian and other languages that have a different meaning in Russian idioms. Putin is trying to preserve Russia's communist victories as a point of national pride for the peoples of the Russian Federation. Turning communism into a point of national pride sounds contradictory in English, but in Russia's multi-national, multi-ethnic, multi-linguistic state, is perfectly logical. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 04:25, November 3, 2021 (EDT)

Yeah, sorry, don't buy it. In fact, the only reason Nazi Germany got as far as it did was because the USSR Communists entered an alliance with them with the Molotov-Ribbentropp agreement, and the only reason the Soviets sided against them was due to Hitler invading the USSR with Operation Barbarossa. If anything, what actually needs to be remembered is that Soviet Russia was ultimately responsible for Fascism rising in power, and only got those "Communist victories" because we aided them with Lend Lease (which if you ask me was a mistake). In fact, if it weren't for Operation Barbarossa, the Soviets would have firmly been on the Axis side. And there's plenty of ways for Russia to embrace national pride that didn't involve singing praises in any way for Communism. For example, they could take pride in the fact that, before Vladimir Lenin and Kerensky took office, they created the first fully colored HD photographs, long before us Western societies. Also Faberege Eggs, which are valued collectors items here in the West. We can also point out as a cultural achievement the Russians beating back Napoleon during his invasion in 1812, immortalized by the musical score 1812 Overture. Also Dolstovesky and quite a few pre-Soviet authors whose works are deemed timeless in Russia and even outside Russia. All of those would be stuff that would bring about National Pride, and if anything, their beating back Napoleon actually WOULD be something WORTH having national pride over instead of singing praises for a despotic system of government that was literally founded by a double-crossing German agent who even turned against his own handlers when the opportunity arose by siding with the German Communists and barely got beaten back at Poland. Pokeria1 (talk) 05:05, November 3, 2021 (EDT)

Revisitng the term "Russian nationalism", it is not understood properly in the West. Russian nationalism has nothing to do with the singular Russian ethnicity. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 12:51, November 3, 2021 (EDT)

That's only because Lenin literally wrecked Russian nationality when he created the USSR by creating artificial states such as the Ukraine for identity politics purposes. Basically the claims that Africa's countries were merely created by drawing lines on a map willy-nilly, only in Lenin's case this was fully deliberate per his Communist theories. I ultimately want the Ukraine to be fully reabsorbed into Russia, but ONLY after Russia and the others get RID of Communism, since it's not a source of national pride at all, not even with beating back the Nazis, since Stalin MADE that conflict inevitable. Beating back Napoleon if anything made for a far better source of national pride. Besides, Hitler essentially used the same argument for absorbing Austria and the Rhinelands. Are you seriously going to claim German nationalism for Hitler was justified? This is essentially the same argument. Pokeria1 (talk) 07:27, November 4, 2021 (EDT)

Russia has been a union of peoples since czarist times. In fact, there is no singular Russian identity, there are at least three Russias, plus a host of Muslim, Turkic, Tatar, Mongol, Tuvan, Kuban, Buddist, Hindu, Evangelical, Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Slav, Uralic, etc etc etc identities. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 11:59, November 6, 2021 (EDT)

According to this video, [11] Stalin's own son did not speak Russian. The meaning of the term "multicultural" in its Russian context is not properly understood in the U.S. RobS^{Let's Go Brandon!} 16:42, November 19, 2021 (EST)

Well, of COURSE Stalin's son didn't speak Russian, Stalin himself was from Georgia (the country, not the state). Not to mention Napoleon technically isn't even a Frenchman he if anything was an Italian, hailing from Sicily. You're going to need to do a LOT more than claim that Russia's nationalism is different from others, because the way I see it, it's not that much different from Germany/Bavaria or France. Heck, there have been no less than nine Frances as well, among other things, so again, using your argument, the very concept of a singular national identity never existed for literally ANY country, even here in the USA, which if anything destroys your whole argument. Pokeria1 (talk) 13:49, November 21, 2021 (EST)

Technically, using your argument, there hasn't been any singular national identity for any country, as there have been plenty of regime changes, plus multiple different identities in various countries. Even France had portions that spoke German of all things (like Alsace, and in fact, Alsace actually was considered for extermination precisely because they spoke German and not French) and Robespierre was of Irish descent, not to mention Marie Antoinette was of Austrian origin, not French origin. And using your argument, there's no problem with Hitler gobbling up his neighbors, or France gobbling up its neighbors, or heck, China or Japan gobbling up its neighbors. That excuse is just bullcrap and you know it. Especially not when that World Youth Conference was explicitly a Communist group and he expressed solidarity towards those Communists rather than condemning and having them mass-arrested, not to mention made that comparison between Christian saints with Lenin and the Bible with the Communist Manifesto in a glowing manner. And by siding with Putin, you if anything ARE siding with the Marxists and deep-staters. Heck, Putin's allying himself with China according to this article. Pokeria1 (talk) 11:49, November 11, 2021 (EST)

Ok, so you have a point of view. I may think it's wrong, but I doubt I can persuade you. Seems to me you're just pist off at Putin cause he attacks the gay agenda. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 21:25, November 11, 2021 (EST)

Seriously? You think I am somehow upset that he's against the gay agenda? I'm not upset about that at all. For goodness sakes, I myself am against the gay agenda as well, hate gay marriage, want it made illegal, heck, hate the very fact that too many times, they radically alter characters firmly established to be heterosexual to become homosexual like Alan Scott from Green Lantern. In fact, at this point, as much of a stupid term as it is right now, you could say I'm if anything closer to an up and out homophobe as well. However, just because I myself am against the gay agenda doesn't mean I must automatically support literally everyone who claims to be against it, especially not if they are proven to be communists, aka the types of guys who tried to up and out butcher Christians just for even having a religion at all. Let me remind you that Che Guevara was ALSO against the gay agenda as well, yet he's still a communist as well, and a particularly sadistic one as well, one who DOESN'T have my support at all. By your logic, I might as well sing praises for Che