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)

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)

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)