Russia's Sacred Mission: To Defeat Usury and the Anglo-Jewish corrupt order

[JMack]

Kerry Bolton


“The most hated sort [of moneymaking], and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural use of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest. And this term Usury which means the birth of money from money, is applied to the breeding of money, because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore of all modes of making money this is the most unnatural.”1 Aristotle (384-322 B.C.)

Usury through the Ages


Aristotle’s definition of Usury is perhaps the most cogent ever made. Usury, as originally defined, is any money made from a loan. Originally it did not mean excessive interest on a loan, but any interest. Subtle changes in definition helped to corrupt and subvert the traditional ethos on usury and finally make usury victorious. The Christian and particularly Catholic opposition to usury was founded on the dictum in Luke about giving without expecting anything in return, and on the Old Testament precepts against charging interest. The Orthodox Church was no less unequivocal. St. Basil wrote of the usurer:

“If he had been able to make you richer, why would he have sought your doors? Coming for assistance he found hostility... It was your duty to relieve the destitution of the man, but you, seeing to drain the desert dry, increased his need. Just as is some physician, visiting sick, instead of restoring health to them would take away even their little remnant of bodily strength, so you also would make the misfortunes of the wretched an opportunity of revenue... Do you know that you are making an addition to your sin greater that the increase to your wealth, which you are planning from the interest?”

“…The interest, which you take, is full of extreme inhumanity. You make a profit from misfortune, you collect money from tears, you strangle the naked, you beat the famished; nowhere is there mercy, no thought of relationship with the sufferer...2

The Orthodox Church, however, like the Catholic, did become equivocal over the centuries and this allowed for the subversion of the traditional doctrines. Questions arose as to the nature of usury as sin, and other equivocations that provided leeway.3

Opposition to usury has been a perennial feature of traditional cultures across time and space, with an intuition that there is something unnatural, parasitic and outright sinful about it. When a civilisation accepts usury as normal business practice, as does Western Civilisation, it is a symptom of an advanced cycle of decay, as both Brooks Adams and Oswald Spengler explained.

Traditional wisdom has provided warnings and prohibitions since time immemorial. The Vedic scripts of ancient India (2,000-1,400 BC) call the “usurer” kusidin, a lender charging interest. A Brâhmana (priestly) and a Kshatriya (warrior) were prohibited from practicing usury. Vasishtha, The Sacred Laws of the Aryas, states: “God weighed in the scales the crime of killing a learned Brâhmana against the crime of charging interest; the slayer of the Brâhmana remained at the top, the charger of interest sank downwards.”4 However, as in the Western and Classical civilizations, the definition of usury was compromised over time. By the second century A.D. the Laws of Manu defined usury as beyond a “legal” interest rate, after which the interest cannot be recovered. The fact that there was now a legal rate of interest at all, rather than an outright prohibition, indicates compromise of the type that arose in Western Christendom and Classical Greece and Rome. Additionally, like the exemption of the Jews from laws on usury under Mediaeval Christendom, the Hindu merchant caste were permitted trade in usury. “To invest money on interest, to be a jeweller, to tend cattle, tillage and trade, - these are declared as occupations for the Vaisya caste.”5

Siddharta Gautama Buddha returned to an unequivocal stance: “One discerns wrong livelihood as wrong livelihood, and right livelihood as right livelihood. And what is wrong livelihood? Scheming, persuading, hinting, belittling, and charging interest. This is wrong livelihood.”6

Plutarch (46–127 A.D.), in his essay “Against Running In Debt, Or Taking Up Money Upon Usury,” described usurers as “wretched,” “vulture-like,” and “barbarous.” Cato the Elder (234–149 B.C.) compared usury to murder. Cicero (106–43 B.C.) stated “these profits are despicable which incur the hatred of men, such as those of… lenders of money on usury.”

Contemporary financial analysts Sidney Homer, who worked for Salomon Bros., and Professor Richard Sylla, in their historical study of interest rates, state that the first known law on the issue was that of Hammurabi, 1800 B.C., during first dynasty Babylonia, who set the maximum rate of interest at 33⅓% per annum “for loans of grain, repayable in kind, and at 20% per annum for loans of silver by weight.” Sumerian documents, circa 3000 B.C., “show the systematic use of credit based on loans of grain by volume and loans of metal by weight. Often these loans carried interest.” “As early as 5000 B.C. in the Middle East, dates, olives, figs, nuts, or seeds of grain were probably lent to serfs, poor farmers, or dependants, and an increased portion of the harvest was expected to be returned in kind.” “Earliest historic rates were reported in the range of 20–50% per annum for loans of grain and metal.”7 Hence usury is as old as greed, and so are efforts to resist it by those who seek to maintain a connection with Divinity.

In 600 B.C. in Greece Solon established laws on interest when excessive debt caused economic crisis. Likewise, in Rome the “Twelve Tables” of 450 B.C., establishing the foundations of Roman law, after pervasive debt was causing servitude and crisis, established a maximum interest rate of 8⅓% per annum. When Brutus tried to charge the City of Salmais 48% for a loan Cicero reminded him that the legal maximum was 12%. The interest rate was often 4%. Some Greek “loan sharks” charged 25% per annum, and even 25% per day.8

The Old Testament Jews were prohibited from usury among themselves: “Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money; usury of victuals; usury of anything that is lent upon usury.”9 Critically for history, the Jews were given a dual moral code allowing them, among much else, to charge usury to non-Jews, and this has resulted in millennia of tragedy for Jew and Gentile alike: “Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury, that the Lord thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it.”10

Those prohibitions, as well as the general ethical and moral character of the New Testament, and the Classical heritage including the Aristotlean, inherited by the Catholic Church, established the basis for Catholic social doctrine, in which opposition to usury was a key element. In 325 A.D. the Council of Nicaea banned usury among clerics. Under Emperor Charlemagne (768–814 A.D.) the prohibition was extended to laymen. Here usury purely meant the extraction of more than what was lent. That is in accord with what Luke (6: 35) stated in saying that one should not expect back more than one gives. In 1139, the Second Lateran Council in Rome declared that usury is theft, and usurers would have to give restitution. In the 12th and 13th centuries, strategies that concealed usury were also condemned. In 1311 the Council of Vienne declared that anyone claiming usury was not a sin was a heretic and should be excommunicated (Decrees: 29).

Dante (1265–1321) placed usurers in the seventh rung of Hell, where the usurer would spend eternity with a heavy bag of money around his neck: Dante wrote: “From each neck there hung an enormous purse, each marked with its own beast and its own colours like a coat of arms. On these their streaming eyes appeared to feast.”11

But the Church generally allowed the Jews to practice usury, and people high-born and low would become indebted to Jewish usurers, until the strain became intolerable and their would be a pogrom. Moreover, when laws against usury slackened the pretext was an adaptation of Deut. 23:20, allowing Christian lenders to charge usury on loans to non-Christians such as Muslims, who for their part were likewise forbidden usury, which the Koran calls the sin of riba.12 Likewise the loophole for the Muslim lender has been that of being able to charge a “fee” for a loan, rather than interest. The Church attitude from Medieval times became inconsistent, where at some places usury remained prohibited while in other places what was instead called “interest” was permitted, and it was justified for the recovery of “losses” by the lender, such as late payment. Hence the Lombards, who like the Jews, also became identified with money-lending, would not charge “usury” but “interest” as high as 100%. Genoa became a centre of merchant banking where usury was pursued and the Church felt powerless to act.

In Medieval England personal loans could range from 52-120% a year, depending on collateral. Frederick the Fair of Austria was borrowing at 80%, while merchants in Italy could borrow at 5-10%. The Crown of Spain was paying 40% for short-term loans, while Dutch merchants could borrow at 1¼%.13

Usury Triumphant

The Reformation ushered a revolt against the traditional moral order of Europe, and the Protestant attitude towards usury was more equivocal, Zwingli, Luther and Calvin stating that there are circumstances in which usury is acceptable. With the division of Church and State, economic theorists began to write in defence of usury as a “progressive” form of commerce, laying the basis for the amoral merchant outlook that now grips most of the world. Money-lending was defended as a “service,” a concept that is now taken for granted by almost everyone, as argued by the French jurist Molinaeus in his 16th century Treatise on Contracts and Usury. The Church banned Molinaeus’ book and forced him into exile, but his ideas spread. It is significant that England was the first to establish a legal rate of interest, at 10%, in 1545 under Henry VIII, given the revolt in Faith he ushered. Usury was banned seven years later. According to Homer and Sylla: “ During the Reformation many Protestant leaders defended interest and credit. As a result, the usury doctrine, which had held a firm grip on Jews and Christians for 2000 years, was weakened and finally deserted.”14

A century later the focus on economic thinking shifted to Holland where usury was defended as productive and essential by economic theorists such as Claudius Salmasius (1588–1653). Holland became the centre of banking, and the model for the Bank of England, founded as a private institution lending to the state, in 1694. 15 English utilitarian philosophers such as Adam Smith, and Jeremy Bentham who wrote A Defence of Usury, justified the social utility of usury. Other fathers of English economics, David Ricardo, Jean Baptiste Say, and John Stuart Mill, went further in saying that there should be no restraints on contracting parties in money-lending.

The Cromwellian Puritan Revolution completed the work of Henry VIII and usury was legitimised.16

The French Revolution of 1789, paved the way for further inroads by usury on the ruins of what vestiges remained of traditional social order in Europe. As Oswald Spengler pointed out in The Decline of the West, The Hour of Decision, and Prussianism and Socialism, going as far back as classical Rome, “revolutions” in the name of “the people” have generally been manipulated by plutocracy against the traditional social order that has stood against the reign of Mammon. The “colour revolutions” of today, in the name of “democracy”, funded by George Soros and other plutocrats, install plutocracy in states that show signs of resistance. The French Revolution, harbinger of both class-war socialism and free trade liberalism, was a precursor, in the name of “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.” One of the first acts of the revolutionaries was to legalise usury, which had hitherto been forbidden, until the Decree of 2 and 3 October, 1789.17

The Napoleonic war plunged Europe into colossal debt with its subsequent social, moral and political devastation. It set the pattern for the “modern age.” An era of revolutionary upheaval throughout Europe, and reaching to the far off colonies, ending with Napoleon’s defeat in 1815, the several decades of further turmoil, saw the Rothschilds and other money-lenders as the real masters of Europe, while Metternich of Austria tried to re-establish a social order for Europe based around Throne and Altar. Historian Adam Zamoyski writes:

“Every government in Europe taxed whatever it could to pay off war time borrowing. Britain had spent more in real terms than it would on the First World War, and its national debt was astronomical. Russia’s had multiplied by twenty times between 1801 and 1809, and would more than double again by 1822. Austria was technically bankrupt: over the next three decades an average of 30 per cent of state revenue would be siphoned off to service this debt.”18

Zamoyski states that the five Rothschild brothers, (who had been placed strategically throughout the capitals of Europe by their father, Mayer Amschel Rothscild), “and particularly James in Paris and Salomon in Vienna, had lent most of the governments of Europe, and particularly those of Austria and France, large sums of money in return for government bonds… Metternich had close links with Rothschild, who had resolved many difficulties for him in the past and who had now arranged for his mother-in-law’s 400,000-franc debt to be written off.”19

As for the Catholic Church, “The Papal states were bankrupt by 1832, and Metternich saved the pope by persuading the Viennese banking house of Rothschild to provide him with a loan.”20

Russia’s Mission

In an era where the rule of Mammon has culminated and money really is literally the root of “many evils” and the pathway to perdition for entire nations, 21 Russia is being seen increasingly around the world as the Katechon resisting a system that is, in Biblical terms, Antichrist. It is surely of epochal significance that in 2015 the Orthodox Church called for an “Orthodox Financial System” in Russia based on tradition and, like Islam, the repudiation of usury.22 No other issue is more crucial and more urgent. It is hopefully a clarion call that will see Russia lead the way as the only means of liberating humanity away from the universal worship of the Golden Calf.


Notes:

1 Aristotle, Politics, Book I: 10: 5).

2 Homily 12 on the Psalms, Saint Basil the Great.

3 “Excursus on usury,” http://orthodoxchurchfathers.com/fathers/npnf214/npnf2121.htm

4 Part II, Ch. 2: 40-42.

5 Parasara smrti 1.63.

6 Siddharta Gautama Buddha, Sermon on the Eightfold Path, Majjhima Nikaya Suttra, 117:5.

7 Sidney Homer and Richard Sylla, A History of Interest Rates, Wiley, 2005, inter alia.

8 Ibid.

9 Deut. 23:19.

10 Deut. 23:20.

11 Dante, Inferno, Canto XVII.

12 Al-Baqarah, 2:275.

13 Homer and Sylla, op. cit.

14 Ibid., p. 77.

15 K R Bolton, The Banking Swindle, Black House Publishing, London, 2013, p. 16.

16 Brooks Adams, The Law of Civilisation & Decay (1896), p. 233, online : http://archive.org/details/lawcivilization00adamgoog).

17 “Usury,” Catholic Encyclopaedia, 1917, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15235c.htm

18 A. Zamoyski, Phantom Terror, Harper Collins, London 2014, p. 97.

19 Ibid., pp. 384-385.

20 Ibid., pp. 473.

21 I Tim. 6: 10.

22 Anastasia Bazenkova, “Orthodox Church Calls for Alternative Financial System in Russia,” The Moscow Times, August 11 2015, http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/orthodox-church-calls-for...


Source: http://katehon.com/article/tradition-and-usury-perennial-conflict

[Lavrentis]

Defeating "usury" and the "Anglo-Jewish" concept by invading and threateing neighboring countries?

[Köstebek]

And establish a pan-slavic one

[Lavrentis]

And establish a pan-slavic one

Most Slavs hate Russia. Especially Poles and Ukrainians.

[Köstebek]

Most Slavs hate Russia. Especially Poles and Ukrainians.

ok. pan-russian then

[Babak]

Nobody can defeat them.

[JMack]

Defeating "usury" and the "Anglo-Jewish" concept by invading and threateing neighboring countries?

Have you read the text?

Russians are fighting against an evil international order that started to establish itself since the Reformation.

You, as a Greek Eastern Orthodox should welcome your cultural brothers in their mission.

As baron Evola used to say: “My principles are only those that, before the French Revolution, every well-born person considered sane and normal.”

[JMack]

Most Slavs hate Russia. Especially Poles and Ukrainians.

LOL

As Dugin explained:

''There are Ukrainians and Western Ukrainians. These are two different social, national, ethnic, and cultural groups. Ukrainians are a West Russian ethnos which recognizes its historic unity with Eastern Slavs and Velikorossy (a historic term meaning “Great Russes,” often translated as “Great Russians”) as the core of the Eastern Slavs and the creators of an autonomous and powerful Eastern Slavic Orthodox State. Thus, Ukrainians are not simply “our people,” they are a part of us and, ultimately, they are we ourselves. They are not different, they are the same.

Western Ukrainians are a sub-ethnos, which historically separated itself from the Western Russian population, formed in Volhynia and Galicia, having experienced significant Polonization and the influence of Catholicism (in the form of the Uniate—Eastern Catholic—Church). Western Ukrainians consider themselves an autonomous group, opposing themselves to other Eastern Slavs (first and foremost, these are Velikorossy, “moskali” (a derogatory term that means “Russians”)), Orthodox peoples, but also Poles and Austrians. Therefore, they have never had (and will never have) statehood, since it is impossible to build a State on the basis of hatred toward all surrounding peoples.''

https://openrevolt.info/2014/03/23/alexnader_dugin_ukraine_russia/

[Lavrentis]

Have you read the text?

Russians are fighting against an evil international order that started to establish itself since the Reformation.

You, as a Greek Eastern Orthodox should welcome your cultural brothers in their mission.

As baron Evola used to say: “My principles are only those that, before the French Revolution, every well-born person considered sane and normal.”

My clueless friend, you have no idea what are you talking about.

1) I'm atheist.

1) Greeks are not Eastern Orthodox, but Greek Orthodox.

3) Russia has nothing to do with Greece, especially on cultural terms.

4) Greeks hate FYROM, an Orthodox country, a lot. So Greeks don't care about Orthodoxy, evident by this.

[Lavrentis]

LOL

As Dugin explained:

''There are Ukrainians and Western Ukrainians. These are two different social, national, ethnic, and cultural groups. Ukrainians are a West Russian ethnos which recognizes its historic unity with Eastern Slavs and Velikorossy (a historic term meaning “Great Russes,” often translated as “Great Russians”) as the core of the Eastern Slavs and the creators of an autonomous and powerful Eastern Slavic Orthodox State. Thus, Ukrainians are not simply “our people,” they are a part of us and, ultimately, they are we ourselves. They are not different, they are the same.

Western Ukrainians are a sub-ethnos, which historically separated itself from the Western Russian population, formed in Volhynia and Galicia, having experienced significant Polonization and the influence of Catholicism (in the form of the Uniate—Eastern Catholic—Church). Western Ukrainians consider themselves an autonomous group, opposing themselves to other Eastern Slavs (first and foremost, these are Velikorossy, “moskali” (a derogatory term that means “Russians”)), Orthodox peoples, but also Poles and Austrians. Therefore, they have never had (and will never have) statehood, since it is impossible to build a State on the basis of hatred toward all surrounding peoples.''

https://openrevolt.info/2014/03/23/alexnader_dugin_ukraine_russia/

Instead of pretending to be a know-it-all and sourcing that retard Dugin, how about going to Ukraine and asking them about their view on Russia?

[JMack]

My clueless friend, you have no idea what are you talking about.

1) I'm atheist.

1) Greeks are not Eastern Orthodox, but Greek Orthodox.

3) Russia has nothing to do with Greece, especially on cultural terms.

4) Greeks hate FYROM, an Orthodox country, a lot. So Greeks don't care about Orthodoxy, evident by this.

I have been to Greece only one time and modern Greeks don't interest me particularly, so I admit I'm not a big expert on Greek affairs, but what I see in real life and in this forum are totally opposite realities. Greeks here want to be ''western'' (in that case it means anglo-american cucks, since they will never be accepted as equals by them anyaway) and brag about how modern Greece came from an incorrupted source since the times of Pericles and Plato and that Greeks are basically swarthy Germans and Anglos. When in reality in the Greek countryside there's a lot of peasants and similar people who will associate themselves with fyromians/Serbs/Russians Orthodox people before any western degenerate homossexual starbucks lover cock sucker.

Greeks hate FYROM due to modern nationalistic pride, a totally artificial creation of the 19th century. It is indeed part of the same corrupt dark forces that have been dominating the world since the end of the Middle Ages. Modernization was way worst for Greece than any Turkish invasion (at least Turks respected the Orthodox church, allowing even the monks of mount Athos to stay independent).

There was never a Greek Orthodox Church separated from the others, technically the Orthodox Church is a reunion of churches and not a centralized entity like the Roman Church, but these Orthodox variants are all very similar in rites and practices. Greek Orthodoxy is closer even to Slavonic church or Syriacs than to the Latin rite church it's a fact, I'm Roman Catholic and know my tradition, I know what I'm talking about.

Don't know how it's called in Greece, but the schism of the two churches (1054) is known in the West as the East-West schism, the separation of the churches from the East.

Culturally, urbanized modern Greeks are Western Europeans in the same way most people in developed or semi-developed countries are (let's say Japanese and Koreans also have modern western lifestyes), but in the heart of Greece beats the sound of a profound difference to modern West.

I would go as far to say that even in the heart of the ''West''* we can find non-western (i.e. non-modernized) communities, like Scottish peasants or the Amish.


*Note: I'm using ''western'' meaning modern anglo-american civilization of the past two centuries, not in a sense of a continuum cultural milieu that commes from the Antiquity.

[Lavrentis]

I have been to Greece only one time and modern Greeks don't interest me particularly, so I admit I'm not a big expert on Greek affairs, but what I see in real life and in this forum are totally opposite realities. Greeks here want to be ''western'' (in that case it means anglo-american cucks, since they will never accepted as equals by them anyaway) and brag about how modern Greece came from an incorrupted source since the times of Pericles and Plato and that Greeks are basically swarthy Germans and Anglos. When in reality in Greek countryside there's a lot of peasants and similar people who will associate themselves with fyromians/Serbs/Russians Orthodox people before any western degenerate homossexual starbucks lover cock sucker.

Greeks hate FYROM due to modern nationalistic pride, a totally artificial creation of the 19th century. It is indeed part of the same corrupt dark forces that have been dominating the world since the end of the Middle Ages. Modernization was way worst to Greece than any Turkish invasion (at least Turks respected the Orthodox church, allowing even the monks of mount Athos to stay independent).

There was never a Greek Orthodox Church separated from the others, technically the Orthodox Church is a reunion of churches and not a centralized entity like the Roman Church, but these Orthodox variants are all very similar in rites and practices. Greek Orthodoxy is closer even to Maronites or Syriacs than to the Latin rite church it's a fact, I'm Roman Catholic and know my tradition, I know what I'm talking about.

Don't know how it's called in Greece, but the schism of the two churches (1054) is known in the West as the East-West schism, the separation of the churches from the East.

Culturally, urbanized modern Greeks are Western Europeans in the same way most people in developed or semi-developed countries are (let's say Japanese and Koreans also have modern western lifestyes), but in the heart of Greece beats the sound of a profound difference to modern West.

I would go as far to say that even in the heart of the ''West''* we can find non-western (i.e. non-modernized) communities, like Scottish peasants or the Amish.


*Note: I'm using ''western'' meaning modern anglo-american civilization of the past two centuries, not in a sense of a continuum cultural milieu that commes from the Antiquity.

1) No one here wants to be 'Western', or to be accepted as equal by Anglo-Saxons. This is what ignorants say. In reality Greece is accepted as the birthplace of the West by Western Europeans themselves. Greeks are Western and they always were. The most important terms in Western European languages are Greek, terms such as "maths", "physics" etc. To give you an idea. I personally don't want Greece to change because of Anatolian migration in 1923. I want us to stay Greek and European in culture. You call me a "Western wannabe" because your ignorant Brazilian mind can't understand that Greece is the West itself and I'm trying to preserve it.

2) No one in Greece would associate himself with Fyromians, and the people who associate themselves to Serbs and Russians are retarded nationalists. Greece is culturally very different from other Orthodox countries. And Russian Orthodoxy is different too, they are Old Believers.

3) The schism of the Churches is something of the past. What has it got to do with our discussion?

[Laberia]

Have you read the text?

Russians are fighting against an evil international order that started to establish itself since the Reformation.

You, as a Greek Eastern Orthodox should welcome your cultural brothers in their mission.

As baron Evola used to say: “My principles are only those that, before the French Revolution, every well-born person considered sane and normal.”

With all the repect because you have made a "great job" with all this copy-paste, stop with this crap because you are bringing yourself at the level of Bosniensis.
Russia has always fought against the evil international order. We know very well this. The last time they fought against the recent form of this "evil international order" called capitalism. It was called Cold War if you remember it. Do you have any idea about the consequences of this war? I mean, forget the rest of the world, what suffered the Russian people.

[JMack]

1) No one here wants to be 'Western', or to be accepted as equal by Anglo-Saxons. This is what ignorants say. In reality Greece is accepted as the birthplace of the West by Western EuropeansT. Greeks are Western and they always were. The most important terms in Western European languages are Greek, terms such as "maths", "physics" etc. To give you an idea. I personally don't want Greece to change because of Anatolian migration in 1923. I want us to stay Greek and European in culture. You call me a "Western wannabe" because your ignorant Brazilian mind can't understand that Greece is the West itself and I'm trying to preserve it

2) No one in Greece would associate himself with Fyromians, and the people who associate themselves to Serbs and Russians are retarded nationalists. Greece is culturally very different from other Orthodox countries. And Russian Orthodoxy is different too, they are Old Believers.

3) The schism of the Churches is something of the past. What has it got to do with our discussion?

See, I'm responding that time only to educate you, not because I respect you. If you continue with this low-level discussion I will not respond to any other post of yours.

''In reality Greece is accepted as the birthplace of the West by Western Europeans. Greeks are Western and they always were''. Not really, Ancient Greeks have been modelled as the birth of the West by 19th classicists and they were always eager to point that modern Greeks and Ancient Greeks were different peoples (e.g. Wilamowitz, Müller, Droysen, Burckhardt, I know you don't know these names, but you can always search and educate yourself).

I disagree with these guys (Ancient Greeks were similar to modern ones in my opinion), but your argument saying modern Western Europeans considered modern Greeks to be the founders of Western Civilization is false, they have always seen Greece as an Orthodox semi-barbaric country. They caused a lot of pain in Greece since the 19th century only for spurious interests, I thought you would know at least these basics.

Definitions of Western Civilization can change as well, some, as Spengler, consider the ''West'' as the culture born after the decline of the Roman Empire in the Western Parts of Europe around the Latin speaking church. In this definition Greece doesn't even come close to be a ''western country''. By the way, the discussion I plan in the thread is not about Greece or any related subject, so stop with your off-topic pollution as well. You always start with personal attacks on those who disagree with you. What I'm being Brazilian have to do with my opinions about Greece? And even so, ethnically I'm 3/4 Italian and 1/4 Iberian so more close to be ''western'' than Greeks in almost all definitions. But I'm not an Anglo-Saxon bitch anyway, I don't care about the ''West''.

Your points 2 and 3 expose you don't know anything about the subject since you're probably a urban modern young man who thinks religions are things of the past and doesn't have anything to do with your life. You're in fact right, but religion plays a key role in the lives of millions around the world, including thousands of Greeks. You disrespect them trying to impose your modernized view about what is Greek identity at the expense of their beliefs.

If you had even a little glimpse of the Orthodox tradition in Greece you would know it is 1000x close to Romanian, Russian, Serbian and even Syriac and MENA Orthodox churches than it is to Latin rite Catholicism. But it doesn't matter, they are all children of God.

Go read a bit about religions, even about your own country predominant religion, before saying this nonsense. Religion (or the lack of it) is one of the most important cultural identities people have around the world, if not the most important.

Young liberals/progressives who live in secular societies/urban aglomerations usually think the world turns around their faggot sodomized asses and their secular problems when to most people around the world (even in ''Western'' countries, in the countryside) the spiritual powers are a strong reality.


Now I'm finished. I don't want this thread to be turned in a shitty discussion/trolling about Greek identity. If it stays this way soon thousands of Albanian trolls will jump here.

[JMack]

With all the repect because you have made a "great job" with all this copy-paste, stop with this crap because you are bringing yourself at the level of Bosniensis.
Russia has always fought against the evil international order. We know very well this. The last time they fought against the recent form of this "evil international order" called capitalism. It was called Cold War if you remember it. Do you have any idea about the consequences of this war? I mean, forget the rest of the world, what suffered the Russian people.

Bosniensis threads are always pure nonsense and I base all my threads and comments on sources and high level discussion. If you don't have the will or the capacity to discuss, go out. Your comment doesn't have anything to do with the article on the OP, so I assume you didn't read a single line of it.

Bye, bye.

[Lavrentis]

See, I'm responding that time only to educate you, not because I respect you. If you continue with this low-level discussion I will not respond to any other post of yours.

''In reality Greece is accepted as the birthplace of the West by Western Europeans. Greeks are Western and they always were''. Not really, Ancient Greeks have been modelled as the birth of the West by 19th classicists and they were always eager to point that modern Greeks and Ancient Greeks were different peoples (e.g. Wilamowitz, Müller, Droysen, Burckhardt, I know you don't know these names, but you can always search and educate yourself).

I disagree with these guys (Ancient Greeks were similar to modern ones in my opinion), but your argument saying modern Western Europeans considered modern Greeks to be the founders of Western Civilization is false, they have always seen Greece as an Orthodox semi-barbaric country. They caused a lot of pain in Greece since the 19th century only for spurious interests, I thought you would know at least these basics.

Definitions of Western Civilization can change as well, some, as Spengler, consider the ''West'' as the culture born after the decline of the Roman Empire in the Western Parts of Europe around the Latin speaking church. In this definition Greece doesn't even come close to be a ''western country''. By the way, the discussion I plan in the thread is not about Greece or any related subject, so stop with your off-topic pollution as well. You always start with personal attacks on those who disagree with you. What I'm being Brazilian have to do with my opinions about Greece? And even so, ethnically I'm 3/4 Italian and 1/4 Iberian so more close to be ''western'' than Greeks in almost all definitions. But I'm not an Anglo-Saxon bitch anyway, I don't care about the ''West''.

Your points 2 and 3 expose you don't know anything about the subject since you're probably a urban modern young man who thinks religions are things of the past and doesn't have anything to do with your life. You're in fact right, but religion plays a key role in the lives of millions around the world, including thousands of Greeks. You disrespect them trying to impose your modernized view about what is Greek identity at the expense of their beliefs.

If you had even a little glimpse of the Orthodox tradition in Greece you would know it is 1000x close to Romanian, Russian, Serbian and even Syriac and even MENA Orthodox churches than it is to Latin rite Catholicism. But it doesn't matter, they are all children of God.

Go read a bit about religions, even about your own country predominant religion, before saying this nonsense. Religion (or the lack of it) is one of the most important cultural identities people have around the world, if not the most important.

Young liberals/progressives who live in secular societies/urban aglomerations usually think the world turns around their faggot sodomized asses and their secular problems when to most people around the world (even in ''Western'' countries, in the countryside) the spiritual powers are a strong reality.


Now I'm finished. I don't want this thread to be turned in a shitty discussion/trolling about Greek identity. If it stays this way soon thousands of Albanian trolls will jump here.

You bring stupid points to the discussion, this conversation shouldn't continue. You are an ignorant Brazilian who masturbates to Putin invading countries who are 100 times smaller than Russia. You being Brazilian has of course nothing to do with this discussion, but since you are both ignorant and Brazilian, I said that you are an ignorant Brazilian. I didn't meant to target your ethnicity.

But please, stop talking about my country as if you know everything, okay? Talk for the things you know for now on.

[Wanderer]

Russians are fighting against an evil international order



Does Putin accomplish this by robbing his country blind? Putin is rumored to be the richest man in the world. He systematically extorted his way to amassing such a vast fortune. You should see the testimony Bill Browder has given. Putin puts whatever "evil international order" you envision to complete shame.

[Köstebek]

I personally don't want Greece to change because of Anatolian migration in 1923. I want us to stay Greek and European in culture. You call me a "Western wannabe" because your ignorant Brazilian mind can't understand that Greece is the West itself and I'm trying to preserve it.


So none of the Greek scolars were from Anatolia or Egypt? Greek alphabet wasnt derived from Phoenician? Cretan genes just proven big portion of it is from Anatolia also. Of course all the forum would think you are a western wannabe. Because you dont know what Greek means. you define it like a small Euro-State identity to exclude it to 'eastern world' in your mind.

[Köstebek]

Btw Russia is as evil as Anglos. But maybe not as systematic and smart politically

[Lavrentis]

So none of the Greek scolars were from Anatolia or Egypt? Greek alphabet wasnt derived from Phoenician? Cretan genes just proven big portion of it is from Anatolia also. Of course all the forum would think you are a western wannabe. Because you dont know what Greek means. you define it like a small Euro-State identity to exclude it to 'eastern world' in your mind.

1)What I don't want is Anatolian influences in Greek culture. Ancient Greek scholars and their origins have nothing to do with this.

2) How can someone be a "Western wannabe" when he and his country are already Western?

[nightrider+]

So none of the Greek scolars were from Anatolia or Egypt? Greek alphabet wasnt derived from Phoenician? Cretan genes just proven big portion of it is from Anatolia also. Of course all the forum would think you are a western wannabe. Because you dont know what Greek means. you define it like a small Euro-State identity to exclude it to 'eastern world' in your mind.

It's hilarious because he admited he has black hair unlike all the Minoans and Mycenaeans from that latest study. I'm telling you this guy is a recent addition to the Greek gene pool from Middle East.

[JMack]

Does Putin accomplish this by robbing his country blind? Putin is rumored to be the richest man in the world. He systematically extorted his way to amassing such a vast fortune. You should see the testimony Bill Browder has given. Putin puts whatever "evil international order" you envision to complete shame.


Putin is not a saint, no way he could be. But at least he is doing the right things in Russia like promoting traditional religion, incentivating Russians to have kids, banning Soros backed Open Society and progressive NGOs, stoping faggot propaganda and impeding big conglomorates related to Jewish money to be installed in Russia.

And the liberal media is very biased against Russia as we can see here:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwWMaJJ_MSg

[Köstebek]

1)What I don't want is Anatolian influences in Greek culture. Ancient Greek scholars and their origins have nothing to do with this.

2) How can someone be a "Western wannabe" when he and his country are already Western?

With the West he means West Europe you MORON

Btw nobody cares what you want in Greece. Greek identity has eastern side also. And not located in West Europe.
I know you only tolerate the Anatolian ones. You even never speak about Cretans Anatolian roots, you obviously dont want to associate yourself not only culturally but also genetic sense

[Laberia]

Bosniensis threads are always pure nonsense and I base all my threads and comments on sources and high level discussion. If you don't have the will or the capacity to discuss, go out. Your comment doesn't have anything to do with the article on the OP, so I assume you didn't read a single line of it.

Bye, bye.
How dosen`t have to do nothing? You are talking here about the french revolution. We can not talk about the Russian revolution and his consequences? SU, i.e. Russia invaded half of Europe and caused so much tragedies in the history of this countries and in the personal life of many people in this countries. We have to ignore this facts? It was a war against the evil capitalism. How do you explain this?

[JMack]

And please stop with this things about Anatolian Greeks, Greek Identity and related bullshit here...

I will ask some moderator to remove these comments if you guys don't stop this shit.

[Köstebek]

It's hilarious because he admited he has black hair unlike all the Minoans and Mycenaeans from that latest study. I'm telling you this guy is a recent addition to the Greek gene pool from Middle East.

Maybe he came with an Ottoman Jordanian trader of something. Who knows... He says your family roots and language doesnt matter to be a Greek, so his family maybe wasnt

[Lavrentis]

It's hilarious because he admited he has black hair unlike all the Minoans and Mycenaeans from that latest study. I'm telling you this guy is a recent addition to the Greek gene pool from Middle East.

Anatolian impostor, even If I was a full gypsy I would still be more Greek in culture than you. Btw didn't the latest study say that only a minority had light hair? And trust me, Greeks like me are a common face.

[JMack]

Anatolian impostor, even If I was a full gypsy I would still be more Greek in culture than you. Btw didn't the latest study say that only a minority had light hair? And trust me, Greeks like me are a common face.

I would like to ask you and your Greek friends to stop with this discussion here if you can.

This have nothing to do with the thread.

[Ülev]

how many of you knows russian language and watch russian tv or yt channels? what do you know about Russia, their people, culture, "the deepest inside" etc.?

[Lavrentis]

With the West he means West Europe you MORON

Btw nobody cares what you want in Greece. Greek identity has eastern side also. And not located in West Europe.
I know you only tolerate the Anatolian ones. You even never speak about Cretans Anatolian roots, you obviously dont want to associate yourself not only culturally but also genetic sense

1) The West is not only Western Europe. And who said that Greece is located in Western Europe?

2) Greek identity never had an Eastern side, dear Greek-wannabe Turk. It is some Eastern people who had a Greek identity.

3) Cretans are culturally and genetically Greek, if what we model as Greek is ancient origins.

[Lavrentis]

I would like to ask you and your Greek friends to stop with this discussion here if you can.

This have nothing to do with the thread.

Next time make sure to speak about things you know. Most of the reason I'm still in this thread is because of your claims on Greece.

[Köstebek]

Lavrentis, do a favor to the World and dont post about the politics. Look you have messed his thread

[Wanderer]

Putin is not a saint, no way he could be. But at least he is doing the right things in Russia like promoting traditional religion, incentivating Russians to have kids, banning Soros backed Open Society and progressive NGOs, stoping faggot propaganda and impeding big conglomorated related to Jewish money to be installed in Russia.

He also dismantled Russian ethno-nationalism and facilitated the mass migration of Central Asian Muslims right into the heart of Russia. He also weaponized the migrant crisis as a geopolitical tool to weaken Europe.

[nightrider+]

Anatolian impostor, even If I was a full gypsy I would still be more Greek in culture than you. Btw didn't the latest study say that only a minority had light hair? And trust me, Greeks like me are a common face.

All but one had brown hair, not black, my nigga. There's a difference. You are indeed a true modern Anatolian, congrats.

[JMack]

He also dismantled Russian ethno-nationalism and facilitated the mass migration of Central Asian Muslims right into the heart of Russia. He also weaponized the migrant crisis as a geopolitical tool to weaken Europe.

Well, as I said, Putin is no saint. But better someone with minor mistakes than a total cuck, right?

Only the act of outlaw Jewish based capital and Open Society (Soros) is worth of any mistake. I don't know who are the ''good guys'' in our world, but these ones are definitely the bad guys.

[Köstebek]

All but one had brown hair, not black, my nigga. There's a difference. You are indeed a true modern Anatolian, congrats.

He is an Anatolian Greek-wannabe :rolleyes:

[Lavrentis]

All but one had brown hair, not black, my nigga. There's a difference.

Wasn't it the nobility?

[nightrider+]

Wasn't it the nobility?

Not really but your question is funny. You'd rather be Greek peasantry than MENA nobility? :icon_lol: I'd switch nationality in your position.

[Laberia]

how many of you knows russian language and watch russian tv or yt channels? what do you know about Russia, their people, culture, "the deepest inside" etc.?

It`s not against Russian people. The russian culture is incredible. This culture is part of the world heritage. Russian people from what i have heard are incredible persons. But the problem in Russia is the terrible military-political-burocratic elite. But first of all this is an internal problem of Russia.
The problem here is this kind of discussion that can be made between childrens not among adults in a forum.

[Wanderer]

Well, as I said, Putin is no saint. But better someone with minor mistakes than a total cuck, right?

Only the act of outlaw Jewish based capital and Open Society (Soros) is worth of any mistake. I don't know who are the ''good guys'' in our world, but these ones are denitely the bad guys.
I would not call the things I referenced "minor mistakes." I don't know how you reasonably could. The problem is Putin admirers in the West seem to WANT to idolize the man. Therefore, any information that seriously contradicts their image of Putin as some kind of savior is dismissed or branded as a lie.

"Cuck" is a term devoid of any real significance. To some people, undermining your own nation's ethno-nationalism and bringing in millions of immigrants may be "cuskish" behavior. In the case of Putin, it's all about image over substance for his alt-right admirers.

[JMack]

I would not call the things I referenced "minor mistakes." I don't know how you reasonably could. The problem is Putin admirers in the West seem to WANT to idolize the man. Therefore, any information that seriously contradicts their image of Putin as some kind of savior is dismissed or branded as a lie.

"Cuck" is a term devoid of any real significance. To some people, undermining your own nation's ethno-nationalism and bringing in millions of immigrants may be "cuskish" behavior. In the case of Putin, it's all about image over substance for his alt-right admirers.

As I said, Putin is no saint. My point is that he is better than a leader totally submissive to jews, financial capital, progressive organizations etc.

The act of outlaw an organization like Open Society from Russia is a very courageos act. The Muslim immigration to Russia is only a problem if you see Russians in a way some westernized Russians want to see, something like Western Europeans who live in the East. But as Russian Constitution recognizes, Islam is one of the traditional Russian religions. Dugin, probably one of the great Russian thinkers alive started to develop his ideas together with a Muslim traditionalist philosopher called Geyder Dzhemal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geydar_Dzhemal).

Russia is a pan-ethnic state with many religions, not only Orthodoxy (which is the pillar of Ethnic Russians anyway).

I personally would prefer to live side by side with conservative muslims than with progressive cocksucker atheists. I'm not ''alt-righter'', in fact I despise it as a bunch of nonsense emanating from a lot of racist kids who didn't read even a little bit about politics, religion or culture. Some of them, like Alex Kurtagic or some of the guys involved in Counter-Currents, have good points and do a good job, but most are childish guys who think internet insults are forms of political action.

Since you're probably an honest man, I would like to share some articles with you about Russian traditionalism:

https://epiphaniusblog.com/2016/02/20/traditionalism-as-a-russian-phenomenon/

https://sputniknews.com/russia/20130919183591728-Putin-Hails-Traditionalism-as-Core-of-Russias-National-Identity/

[Wanderer]

As I said, Putin is no saint. My point is that he is better than a leader totally submissive to jews, financial capital, progressive organizations etc. It seems like Putin's primary issue is rather that he is not leading this in the first place.


The Muslim immigration to Russia is only a problem if you see Russians in a way some westernized Russians want to see, something like Western Europeans who live in the East. But as Russian Constitution recognizes, Islam is one of the traditional Russian religions. WTF? You're starting to sound like a Western liberal now, who would argue that Islam is a traditional or fitting religion in our own societies as well. Just replace "Russians" with some Western nation or ethnicity.


Dugin, probably one of the great Russian thinkers alive started to develop his ideas together with a Muslim traditionalist philosopher called Geyder Dzhemal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geydar_Dzhemal). That explains a lot...


Russia is a pan-ethnic state with many religions, not only Orthodoxy (which is the pillar of Ethnic Russians anyway). Again, you sound like a Western liberal at this point.

[Herr Abubu]

Ouroboros, Kerry Bolton is an important contemporary intellectual and always good to read, but you are really throwing pearls to swine here. The people here who may appreciate the work of someone such as him and who are even capable of reading it and reasoning through it properly can barely be counted on a hand. When people don't even know how to respond to your points it is better to give up on them.

[JMack]

Ouroboros, Kerry Bolton is an important contemporary intellectual and always good to read, but you are really throwing pearls to swine here. The people here who may appreciate the work of someone such as him and who are even capable of reading it and reasoning through it properly can barely be counted on a hand. When people don't even know how to respond to your points it is better to give up on them.

You're right, maybe is a waste of time try to discuss these things in this forum.

But maybe it can serve to open the eyes of some, we never know, haha.

[jackrussell]

You're right, maybe is a waste of time try to discuss these things in this forum.

But maybe it can serve to open the eyes of some, we never know, haha.

you and Erdogan seem to have same opinion of usury ; hope that was an eye opener for some too .

:D

[Sacrificed Ram]

Bolsonaro 2018! Mais foda que Putin! Brasil maior potência militar do mundo com nióbio e grafeno!

[Loki]

Defeating "usury" and the "Anglo-Jewish" concept by invading and threateing neighboring countries?

In what parallel universe are you?

[Loki]

You're right, maybe is a waste of time try to discuss these things in this forum.

But maybe it can serve to open the eyes of some, we never know, haha.

Don't despair, what you post is useful and very necessary. Of course, the enemy is here and you will always have those who will deride and laugh at the truth. It is easy to spot them. But that should not deter us from spreading the truth, friend. :)

[Miekka]

He also dismantled Russian ethno-nationalism and facilitated the mass migration of Central Asian Muslims right into the heart of Russia.

:laugh: What did you expect the man tasked with the top level of power in Russia to do, feverishly support Slavic ethno-nationalism?! To do so would be antithetical to the very concept of Russia itself, as an entity historically comprised of innumerable ethnicities. What were you looking for in Putin, the Eastern Slavic equivalent of Adolf Hitler? :picard1:


He also weaponized the migrant crisis as a geopolitical tool to weaken Europe.

Explain the dynamics behind this assertion. In what ways did he “weaponize” it?

Sincerely,
The Curious Observer

[Drawing-slim]

It is pretty amazing how much interest americans pay on their homes and cars though. All working small income class.

[PixieDust]

Don't despair, what you post is useful and very necessary. Of course, the enemy is here and you will always have those who will deride and laugh at the truth. It is easy to spot them. But that should not deter us from spreading the truth, friend. :)

This is an inspirational quote. I might steal it for my sig if you don't mind :p

[catgeorge]

Kerry Bolton



22 Anastasia Bazenkova, “Orthodox Church Calls for Alternative Financial System in Russia,” The Moscow Times, August 11 2015, http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/orthodox-church-calls-for...


Source: http://katehon.com/article/tradition-and-usury-perennial-conflict

:cheers:

Banks should only make money through talent and skill and that is investment returns - not make majority of revenue by charging interest. Should only charge monthly administrative fee and EOY fee at whatever the cash rate was.. banks do not work to make this money and should not get paid for it either.

[Sebastianus Rex]

Does Putin accomplish this by robbing his country blind? Putin is rumored to be the richest man in the world. He systematically extorted his way to amassing such a vast fortune. You should see the testimony Bill Browder has given. Putin puts whatever "evil international order" you envision to complete shame.

Maybe you are too young to remember but when Putin came to power Russia was a complete mess, 100% in the hands of the mafias and the worst kind of oligarchs. He's doing a monumental job puting that huge country back togheter.

Can you imagine any other politician bitch slapping an oligarch billionare like he did with Deripaska ? Surely 90% of the politicians (and 99,9% of those who are in "power") are puppets of the big capital, when they meet someone with a personal fortune of 5.2 billion USD they go there to kiss their ass, Putin one of the very few exceptions and he cares for the people. At least in Russia the people know who is in power.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48Kk7kobMQY

[Sebastianus Rex]

Defeating "usury" and the "Anglo-Jewish" concept by invading and threateing neighboring countries?

Actually a significant portion of Eastern Ukraine is majority ethnically Russian, and many families are of mixed "Soviet" background and Russia can not afford let some Ukrainian ultra nationalist maniacs to simply do whatever they want and join NATO, that would mean Russia would become strategically extremely vulnerable. There was a pact between the USA and Russia that territories like Ukraine would be a buffer/neutral zone, guess who blew away that pact ?

[Profileid]

It reassures me to know all the anti-America people are legit insane or retarded.

[Profileid]

Defeating "usury" and the "Anglo-Jewish" concept by invading and threateing neighboring countries?

Oh that doesn't count. It's okay when Russia does it.

[Kamal900]

Maybe you are too young to remember but when Putin came to power Russia was a complete mess, 100% in the hands of the mafias and the worst kind of oligarchs. He's doing a monumental job puting that huge country back togheter.

Can you imagine any other politician bitch slapping an oligarch billionare like he did with Deripaska ? Surely 90% of the politicians (and 99,9% of those who are in "power") are puppets of the big capital, when they meet someone with a personal fortune of 5.2 billion USD they go there to kiss their ass, Putin one of the very few exceptions and he cares for the people. At least in Russia the people know who is in power.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48Kk7kobMQY

The red mafia and the oligarchs that used to control Russia in the past were predominately Jewish. Glad that Putin kicked them out of power. Wish that the Americans did the same thing.

[Сербо Макеридов]

I have been to Greece only one time and modern Greeks don't interest me particularly, so I admit I'm not a big expert on Greek affairs, but what I see in real life and in this forum are totally opposite realities. Greeks here want to be ''western'' (in that case it means anglo-american cucks, since they will never be accepted as equals by them anyaway) and brag about how modern Greece came from an incorrupted source since the times of Pericles and Plato and that Greeks are basically swarthy Germans and Anglos. When in reality in the Greek countryside there's a lot of peasants and similar people who will associate themselves with fyromians/Serbs/Russians Orthodox people before any western degenerate homossexual starbucks lover cock sucker.

Greeks hate FYROM due to modern nationalistic pride, a totally artificial creation of the 19th century. It is indeed part of the same corrupt dark forces that have been dominating the world since the end of the Middle Ages. Modernization was way worst for Greece than any Turkish invasion (at least Turks respected the Orthodox church, allowing even the monks of mount Athos to stay independent).

There was never a Greek Orthodox Church separated from the others, technically the Orthodox Church is a reunion of churches and not a centralized entity like the Roman Church, but these Orthodox variants are all very similar in rites and practices. Greek Orthodoxy is closer even to Slavonic church or Syriacs than to the Latin rite church it's a fact, I'm Roman Catholic and know my tradition, I know what I'm talking about.

Don't know how it's called in Greece, but the schism of the two churches (1054) is known in the West as the East-West schism, the separation of the churches from the East.

Culturally, urbanized modern Greeks are Western Europeans in the same way most people in developed or semi-developed countries are (let's say Japanese and Koreans also have modern western lifestyes), but in the heart of Greece beats the sound of a profound difference to modern West.

I would go as far to say that even in the heart of the ''West''* we can find non-western (i.e. non-modernized) communities, like Scottish peasants or the Amish.


*Note: I'm using ''western'' meaning modern anglo-american civilization of the past two centuries, not in a sense of a continuum cultural milieu that commes from the Antiquity.

Greeks committed genocide agains Macedonian Slavs in Aegean Macedonia.


https://youtu.be/lRfrgu2qtXA

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

[Sebastianus Rex]

It reassures me to know all the anti-America people are legit insane or retarded.


Oh that doesn't count. It's okay when Russia does it.

USA bombs and invades countries on the other side of the World, that don't pose any direct threat to US territory for much worse reasons. When are you going to develop some brain activity ?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-G9I3BPi6VQA/U4pkZ7A0lQI/AAAAAAAANio/RHmxomhixi4/s1600/Let%27s+be+honest+-+USA+Wars.jpg

[Hexachordia]

Renegade westerners you can sympathize Russia or China if you like, but in a war you should know where you belong. I do not think western sympathizers are doing more good for peace by appeasing their potential killers than their soldiers at their borders. Please read some history of the East, from Mongol era to current era, in case you are just happened to be ignorant not indifferent.

[Profileid]

USA bombs and invades countries on the other side of the World, that don't pose any direct threat to US territory for much worse reasons. When are you going to develop some brain activity ?



we were invaded in at least 5 of those wars

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

Maybe you are too young to remember but when Putin came to power Russia was a complete mess, 100% in the hands of the mafias and the worst kind of oligarchs. He's doing a monumental job puting that huge country back togheter.

Can you imagine any other politician bitch slapping an oligarch billionare like he did with Deripaska ? Surely 90% of the politicians (and 99,9% of those who are in "power") are puppets of the big capital, when they meet someone with a personal fortune of 5.2 billion USD they go there to kiss their ass, Putin one of the very few exceptions and he cares for the people. At least in Russia the people know who is in power.

[video=youtube;48Kk7kobMQY]https://www.youtub]

Do you realize how much Putin is worth? Do you know how much he was worth before coming into power? The difference is in the billions. He cares about his power. He cares about Russia's future role in the world. He doesn't care for rule of law or people speaking their minds. If you haven't noticed his opposition tend to, um, die. That's what dictators do to stay in power. That's not what someone who cares about the rule of law does and if you undermine the rule of law anything and everything is permissible. Like a cancer it will eat away at a government and undermine future governments cuz niggas will be doing whatever they want, ya heard?

As for usury... Usury involves abuse. Moneylending in of itself is how many poor farmers, for example, are able to buy what they need for that year's harvest. Someone or a group of people lending you money takes a risk they'll never see that money again. What person would allow a stranger to borrow money without considering they may never get repaid? No one. There is a need for people to borrow money and so obviously there needs to be an incentive to lend money. That incentive is in the interest. They need to earn a profit off the risk being taken. If there is a high rate of loss (of people not paying back what they owe with interest) the interest will be higher for others to cover for the loses or otherwise the moneylender goes broke. If they go broke there is no money floating around for those in need.

Some of you people simply don't understand how it works and believe me when I say you'll prefer a bank or some other institution that is within the law lending money because you may need a loan some day for a car, business, etc. Otherwise you can go to some goon who will extort you and you wont have any legal protection.

[Laberia]

USA bombs and invades countries on the other side of the World, that don't pose any direct threat to US territory for much worse reasons. When are you going to develop some brain activity ?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-G9I3BPi6VQA/U4pkZ7A0lQI/AAAAAAAANio/RHmxomhixi4/s1600/Let%27s+be+honest+-+USA+Wars.jpg

And what Spaniards did in the other parts of the world?

[Sebastianus Rex]

we were invaded in at least 5 of those wars

Not true, even if so your history is much more of the aggressor than the defender.


Do you realize how much Putin is worth? Do you know how much he was worth before coming into power? The difference is in the billions. He cares about his power. He cares about Russia's future role in the world. He doesn't care for rule of law or people speaking their minds. If you haven't noticed his opposition tend to, um, die. That's what dictators do to stay in power. That's not what someone who cares about the rule of law does and if you undermine the rule of law anything and everything is permissible. Like a cancer it will eat away at a government and undermine future governments cuz niggas will be doing whatever they want, ya heard?


So what if he worths billions ? Better to be in the hands of a man who is actually a patriot who cares for his country than in the hand of ruthless mafia oligarchs who would plunge Russia into chaos again, that would be very convenient for certain american elite interests...like politicians everywhere (including of course the USA) don't have millions/billions stached on swiss bank accounts...

You can live happily with the idea that a democracy works fine in the USA but Russia is a different story, that country is only maneagable having an authoritarian rule, and a leader will only be respected if he is the top alfa or else everybody will try to fuck him up, it's that simple.

People speaking their minds ? What the hell is that supposed to mean ? Freedom of speeh for everyone, those PussyRiot whores dissecrating churches, faggots putting on a gay carnival in the streets of Russian cities, oligarchs bitching about they can't speak freely (aka having their own controled media) ?

Let the Russian people decide for themselves and stop acting like the champions of democracy, having a two party system is hardly very democratic and or pluralist, even in a flawed democracy like Russia there's much more latitude for different political expressions. Putin won the elections with almost 2/3 of the votes so stop being hypocrites.


As for usury... Usury involves abuse. Moneylending in of itself is how many poor farmers, for example, are able to buy what they need for that year's harvest. Someone or a group of people lending you money takes a risk they'll never see that money again. What person would allow a stranger to borrow money without considering they may never get repaid? No one. There is a need for people to borrow money and so obviously there needs to be an incentive to lend money. That incentive is in the interest. They need to earn a profit off the risk being taken. If there is a high rate of loss (of people not paying back what they owe with interest) the interest will be higher for others to cover for the loses or otherwise the moneylender goes broke. If they go broke there is no money floating around for those in need.


LOL, you talk like the finantial system lends money to anyone without guarantees and like there is not an absurd manipulation of the mechanisms and rules thes created and control as they please, wrecking the lifes of millions and the economy of entire countries to make profits.


Some of you people simply don't understand how it works and believe me when I say you'll prefer a bank or some other institution that is within the law lending money because you may need a loan some day for a car, business, etc. Otherwise you can go to some goon who will extort you and you wont have any legal protection.

don't be naive, the OP was not talking about small scale and/or well regulated finantial system.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

USA bombs and invades countries on the other side of the World, that don't pose any direct threat to US territory for much worse reasons. When are you going to develop some brain activity ?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-G9I3BPi6VQA/U4pkZ7A0lQI/AAAAAAAANio/RHmxomhixi4/s1600/Let%27s+be+honest+-+USA+Wars.jpg

That list is missing six small scale conflicts, actually, and a significant conflict in the Philippines from 1901 to 1903 and didn't mention the Korean War. This person is clearly not a student of American military history but rather a faggy hippy.

btw, those countries we invade and bomb are incredibly faggy.

[Sebastianus Rex]

And what Spaniards did in the other parts of the world?

I was not not the one pointing the finger, so follow the context, Americans are the champions of democracy and of course all their wars are defensive and perfectly justified. :rolleyes:

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

we were invaded in at least 5 of those wars

And our bros in South Korea were attacked. We can't let bros down. The American chick who who had a show on RT, Abby Martin, pissed me off once when she talked about civilian deaths in the Korean War and said the US invaded North Korea. I was tempted to get a twitter account and correct her while verbally abusing her but getting a twitter account seems like a waste of time. She's hawt as fuck, tho. Maybe she'd be, "Oh, you're right" and we'd have a friendly conversation on twitter and then I meet her and knock her up and then I'm all like, "I can't handle this stress" and leave and my only communication with my illegitimate child is through twitter.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

I was not not the one pointing the finger, so follow the context, Americans are the champions of democracy and of course all their wars are defensive and perfectly justified. :rolleyes:

Sometimes you just got to fuck shit up. That way the bitches know what's up.

[Profileid]

Not true, even if so your history is much more of the aggressor than the defender.


.

revolutionary war
war of 1812
mexican-american war
civil war wasn't an invasion,but close enough

[al-Bosni]

Muslims are better, because not only is usury forbidden in sharia, but interest is forbidden. Christians will use the excuse that not all interest is usury. Muslims on the other hand kill the root problem, and that is interest. And Muslims are already fighting and dying against these Russians along with 70+ different countries.

[Sebastianus Rex]

revolutionary war

British colony, absurd to call it an invasion when they were trying to preserve their territory.


war of 1812

Can be considered the following of the same dispute as the above mentioned...


mexican-american war

Nice joke, is that what you learned watching the pawnshop channel ?!


civil war wasn't an invasion,but close enough

How the hell a civil war can be remotely considered an invasion ?!:picard2:

[Profileid]

British colony, absurd to call it an invasion when they were trying to preserve their territory.



Can be considered the following of the same dispute as the above mentioned...



Nice joke, is that what you learned watching the pawnshop channel ?!



How the hell a civil war can be remotely considered an invasion ?!:picard2:

We were independent long before 1812 you fucking moron.
also i left out WWII

[N1019]

Russia's sacred mission?

Yeah, sure.

If anything, Putin is somehow on board with the Anglo-Zionists.

For one, you won't see Russia ever attack Israel.



how many of you knows russian language and watch russian tv or yt channels? what do you know about Russia, their people, culture, "the deepest inside" etc.?

lol... very few

The foreign champions of Russia have other motives which don't require much knowledge about Russia.


revolutionary war
war of 1812
mexican-american war
civil war wasn't an invasion,but close enough

Revolutionary war and war of 1812 were the "colonists'" own fault. I love America but the fact is, the colonists got lucky.


It reassures me to know all the anti-America people are legit insane or retarded.

They are the same people referred to above. They love the opponents of the countries they hate, without knowing much about them. So many America haters love Russia, and almost all Saudi and Israel haters love Iran. There's nothing rational about it, but rationality is not the leftist anti-imperialists' strong point.


Btw Russia is as evil as Anglos. But maybe not as systematic and smart politically

Yep... for all the evil charged against the Anglos, take a look at how the Russians have treated their own people over the past century.


Nobody can defeat them.

Reality

[Wanderer]

Maybe you are too young to remember but when Putin came to power Russia was a complete mess, 100% in the hands of the mafias and the worst kind of oligarchs. He's doing a monumental job puting that huge country back togheter.

Can you imagine any other politician bitch slapping an oligarch billionare like he did with Deripaska ? Surely 90% of the politicians (and 99,9% of those who are in "power") are puppets of the big capital, when they meet someone with a personal fortune of 5.2 billion USD they go there to kiss their ass, Putin one of the very few exceptions and he cares for the people. At least in Russia the people know who is in power.

Yes, it's a case of smaller thieves robbed by the bigger thief. That kind of dynamic plays out all the time. Either way, I don't see how ordinary Russians benefit. However, I acknowledge that their mentality is quite different from ours, hence Putin's undeniable popularity.

The Russian economy isn't doing too great at the moment. Putin's antics have earned his country sanctions, which have damaged the Russian economy over time. Plus, the sanctions just got massively upgraded. I think Putin's ego is too big to stand down and take steps that might result in an easing of sanctions. It's the same massive ego, then again, that's garnered him popularity at home, so he may remain personally successful, regardless of the consequences.


Actually a significant portion of Eastern Ukraine is majority ethnically Russian, and many families are of mixed "Soviet" background and Russia can not afford let some Ukrainian ultra nationalist maniacs to simply do whatever they want and join NATO, that would mean Russia would become strategically extremely vulnerable. There was a pact between the USA and Russia that territories like Ukraine would be a buffer/neutral zone, guess who blew away that pact ?

It's been Putin's aggression towards Ukraine that has massively shifted popular opinion in Ukraine towards joining NATO. Without it, it's doubtful Ukraine would be pursuing that option, like it is now. If Ukraine does ever join NATO, it will be because of Putin's aggression. If preventing Ukrainian accession to NATO was Putin's goal, then in the long-term his policies may well prove to be a spectacular failure.

[catgeorge]

I'm with Russia on this.

Glory to the Russian White Army.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_WmTT8SAS4

[Lavrentis]

In what parallel universe are you?

1) Russia created Transnistria in order to stop Romania and Moldova from uniting.

2) Russia invaded Georgia.

3) Russia started a civil war in Ukraine (the Russian rebels are funded by Russia) and Russia took Crimea from Ukraine.

[Wadaad]

Putin is a jew btw

[Sebastianus Rex]

Yes, it's a case of smaller thieves robbed by the bigger thief. That kind of dynamic plays out all the time. Either way, I don't see how ordinary Russians benefit. However, I acknowledge that their mentality is quite different from ours, hence Putin's undeniable popularity.

He was preventing oligarchs from shuting down industries in Russia and causing the loss of thousands of jobs, how is that robbing the people ? No western leader speaks like that to big capitalists, in fact they are very subservient to them because they are totally dependant of them, not the case with Putin.


The Russian economy isn't doing too great at the moment. Putin's antics have earned his country sanctions, which have damaged the Russian economy over time. Plus, the sanctions just got massively upgraded. I think Putin's ego is too big to stand down and take steps that might result in an easing of sanctions. It's the same massive ego, then again, that's garnered him popularity at home, so he may remain personally successful, regardless of the consequences.

Very amusing, the USA shits wherever they want around the World, fails to comply signed treaties, doesn't respect the pollution emissions and who sanctions them ? Please open your eyes and don't use double standards.



It's been Putin's aggression towards Ukraine that has massively shifted popular opinion in Ukraine towards joining NATO. Without it, it's doubtful Ukraine would be pursuing that option, like it is now. If Ukraine does ever join NATO, it will be because of Putin's aggression. If preventing Ukrainian accession to NATO was Putin's goal, then in the long-term his policies may well prove to be a spectacular failure.


What Putin's aggression? You're clearly not informed about the problem and simply reproduce what is told on western media.

[Fantomas]

Kerry Bolton

Russia’s Mission

In an era where the rule of Mammon has culminated and money really is literally the root of “many evils” and the pathway to perdition for entire nations, 21 Russia is being seen increasingly around the world as the Katechon resisting a system that is, in Biblical terms, Antichrist. It is surely of epochal significance that in 2015 the Orthodox Church called for an “Orthodox Financial System” in Russia based on tradition and, like Islam, the repudiation of usury.22 No other issue is more crucial and more urgent. It is hopefully a clarion call that will see Russia lead the way as the only means of liberating humanity away from the universal worship of the Golden Calf.


The sustained recession has led to a social crisis, which is made very clear in the figures of indebtedness for private households. Forty million Russians, almost a third of the population of 140 million, are currently indebted. Large sections of the working-age population are affected.

According to the national bureau of credit history, private debt has more than doubled since 2008. It currently stands at 10.2 billion roubles (roughly $159 billion). According to the New York Times, the percentage of unpaid debts increased by 50 percent in 2015, to reach $15 billion. In the same year, real wages decreased by 10 percent. The number of debtors in default, who have paid nothing in three months, rose from 6 million in March 2015 to 7.5 million in March 2016.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/05/07/russ-m06.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/30/world/europe/russia-debt-collectors-mob.html

Russia should reinstate the monarchy, the regional head of Russia’s internationally unrecognized government in Crimea declared in a television interview on Tuesday night.

Sergey Aksyonov, who was appointed head of the Crimea region after Russia annexed it from Ukraine in 2014, shared his thoughts on Russian Crimean channel Perviy Krimsky.

"We do not need the democracy in the form in which it is presented by the Western media,” Aksyonov said. “We have our own traditional Orthodox spiritual values​​... Today, in my opinion, Russia needs the monarchy," said Aksenov
http://www.newsweek.com/putins-crimea-chief-calls-restoring-russian-monarchy-568361

Russia should reinstate the monarchy, and appoint Vladimir Putin as royal emperor, says an influential Moscow churchman.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4079962/Russia-reinstate-monarchy-appoint-PUTIN-royal-emperor-says-influential-Moscow-churchman.html

If Putin promises Russians to get rid'em of debts, they'll re elect him to the post of tsar....sorry presidency

[Sebastianus Rex]

1) Russia created Transnistria in order to stop Romania and Moldova from uniting.

That territory has a significant Russia population, Romania and Moldavia can unite if they want anyway.


2) Russia invaded Georgia.


Is that a joke ? It was Georgia who tried to annex Osetia and Abjasia in the first place.


3) Russia started a civil war in Ukraine (the Russian rebels are funded by Russia) and Russia took Crimea from Ukraine.

You're seriously brainwashed, Crimea is ethnically majority Russian wich belonged to Russia for centuries but was incorporated to the Ukraine Republic by a nonsensical decision of the Soviet Union in 1954. After the collapse of the USSR there has been strong popular and political Crimean support to join their fatherland Russia wich have been always denied by the Ukranian government. The referendum showed that Crimeans voted massively to rejoin their fatherland Russia.

[Fantomas]

What Putin's aggression? You're clearly not informed about the problem and simply reproduce what is told on western media.
I agree with you Putin is not aggressor. He's just tryin to stop ways of changes from "west"and defend his way of life ...like Gaddafi, Saddam, ISIS,Mao, Hitler, Assad, Kim Il-sung, etc. But unfortunately, this struggle is futile

[Profileid]

Revolutionary war and war of 1812 were the "colonists'" own fault. I love America but the fact is, the colonists got lucky.



They are the same people referred to above. They love the opponents of the countries they hate, without knowing much about them. So many America haters love Russia, and almost all Saudi and Israel haters love Iran. There's nothing rational about it, but rationality is not the leftist anti-imperialists' strong point.





Reality

Yes, but let's be real. They only rly hate the "Anglo-Jewish order" because it happens to be the dominant one. If the roles were reversed, the title of this thread would be "America's Sacred Mission".
I oppose imperialism of any sort, either American or Russian(both are guilty) but I am not schizophrenic and don't feel the need to make up crazy shit about the freemasons. The reality is there's no grand conspiracy and 90% of this shit can be deduced through observation, as you've done.

[Sekarotuinen]

Putin is part Jew, associated eith many Jews, and is no enemy of Israel.

[Sebastianus Rex]

I agree with you Putin is not aggressor. He's just tryin to stop ways of changes from "west"and defend his way of life ...like Gaddafi, Saddam, ISIS,Mao, Hitler, Assad, Kim Il-sung, etc. But unfortunately, this struggle is futile

Ok, but we can not compare Putin with most of those you mentioned.


Putin is part Jew, associated eith many Jews, and is no enemy of Israel.

What's your claim to say Putin is part Jew, and anyway why would he had to be enemy of Jews and of Israel ? Most people who slander Jews haven't met one in their entire life.

[Sebastianus Rex]

Yes, but let's be real. They only rly hate the "Anglo-Jewish order" because it happens to be the dominant one. If the roles were reversed, the title of this thread would be "America's Sacred Mission".
I oppose imperialism of any sort, either American or Russian(both are guilty) but I am not schizophrenic and don't feel the need to make up crazy shit about the freemasons. The reality is there's no grand conspiracy and 90% of this shit can be deduced through observation, as you've done.

You're mixing everything and using a kind argumentation method that was typically marxist, by saying that being critical against America foreign affairs policies makes one anti-american, that's a complete demagogy, many Americans share that criticism also, are they anti-american for being able to see with neutrality beyong the intoxication of the mainstream media and wanting their governments to act with dignity instead of pissing and shitting all over the World?

I am not anti-american at all nor I align with most conspiracy theories, I just point facts, too bad so many people are still to mentally lazy to search the truth behind the official versions and prefer to act like brainwashed militants.

[Lavrentis]

That territory has a significant Russia population, Romania and Moldavia can unite if they want anyway.



Is that a joke ? It was Georgia who tried to annex Osetia and Abjasia in the first place.



You're seriously brainwashed, Crimea is ethnically majority Russian wich belonged to Russia for centuries but was incorporated to the Ukraine Republic by a nonsensical decision of the Soviet Union in 1954. After the collapse of the USSR there has been strong popular and political Crimean support to join their fatherland Russia wich have been always denied by the Ukranian government. The referendum showed that Crimeans voted massively to rejoin their fatherland Russia.

1) So Hitler's invasion of Czechoslovakia was justified because Sudetenland had a significant German population?

2) Ossetia and Abkhazia were already parts of Georgia. You really didn't know this?

3) Yeah sure, I'm the brainwashed. This decision to incorporate Crimea into Ukraine happened though. Russia didn't seem to care up until Ukraine elected a pro-US government. Crimea was a legitimate part of Ukraine up until Russia got mad.

And you didn't answer about the fact that Russia has started a war in Ukraine.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

Muslims are better, because not only is usury forbidden in sharia, but interest is forbidden. Christians will use the excuse that not all interest is usury. Muslims on the other hand kill the root problem, and that is interest. And Muslims are already fighting and dying against these Russians along with 70+ different countries.

It's actually why states where Islam was taken seriously couldn't compete economically with other states unless it pillaged (Barbary pirates, for example). People need access to money and if there is no gain to lend money then there is no reason to take the risk of lending money. If it wasn't for the moneylending practices of the Jews (and later bankers from northern Italy city states) Europe would have economically stagnated in the late Middle Ages.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

Not true, even if so your history is much more of the aggressor than the defender.

And you're looking to the Russians as being better? Perhaps you're not as familiar with Russian history as you are of American history.




So what if he worths billions ? Better to be in the hands of a man who is actually a patriot who cares for his country than in the hand of ruthless mafia oligarchs who would plunge Russia into chaos again, that would be very convenient for certain american elite interests...like politicians everywhere (including of course the USA) don't have millions/billions stached on swiss bank accounts...

You miss the point completely: he's worth billions because he stole it. You seem fine with corruption if it's 'your guy/s' but against it when it's not 'your guy/s.' Perhaps you should realize that neither should be 'your guy/s.' He has no issue with ruthless people if they follow his line.

No, an economically and politically unstable Russia doesn't suit American interests because it's bad for business to deal with a nation where chaos and arbitrary laws can exist and so you don't now what the hell to expect. Chaos is not good for business for that simple reason: you don't know what to expect. You don't know if the laws will be respected. You don't know if tomorrow an industry will be nationalized. American businessmen do not like doing business in nations where everything is up in the air. On the political front a chaotic nation with nukes makes everyone nervous when everything is up in the air. You don't know who will rise to power in that country. It could be a mad man or it could be someone like Putin who you can work with because you can understand his motivations and those motivations are rational.


You can live happily with the idea that a democracy works fine in the USA but Russia is a different story, that country is only maneagable having an authoritarian rule, and a leader will only be respected if he is the top alfa or else everybody will try to fuck him up, it's that simple.

There is no democracy anywhere in the world and I believe that some countries have people who are more child-like (in that they look at the state as a father figure) than others but I don't believe Russia is only manageable if it's led by a dictator.


People speaking their minds ? What the hell is that supposed to mean ? Freedom of speeh for everyone, those PussyRiot whores dissecrating churches, faggots putting on a gay carnival in the streets of Russian cities, oligarchs bitching about they can't speak freely (aka having their own controled media) ?

You do not realize that limiting other people's freedom of speech means your own can eventually be limited. You also don't understand the concept of freedom of speech: church property is not public property and so those chicks didn't have a right to go into a church and jam.

No one forces you to go to gay pride parade, dude.

You're fine with freedom of speech being restricted (like so many people) until the tables turn and you have your speech restricted (like so many people). The purpose of Freedom of Speech is to allow the free flow of ideas. If you feel the need to stop people from speaking their minds then you're acknowledging your own ideas are too weak to combat the ideas of others. Ironically you allow those ideas you want restricted to become popular because nothing attracts people more to an idea than it being a symbol of rebellion against the state and you make it a symbol of rebellion when you try to repress it.


Let the Russian people decide for themselves and stop acting like the champions of democracy, having a two party system is hardly very democratic and or pluralist, even in a flawed democracy like Russia there's much more latitude for different political expressions. Putin won the elections with almost 2/3 of the votes so stop being hypocrites.


You want the Russian people to decide but earlier you said Russians are not suited for democracy and need a hard man to rule over them.

Putin won 2/3rd of the election... true. Opposition leaders have also been murdered... also true. The Russian state also controls the media. That means Putin controls the media.


LOL, you talk like the finantial system lends money to anyone without guarantees and like there is not an absurd manipulation of the mechanisms and rules thes created and control as they please, wrecking the lifes of millions and the economy of entire countries to make profits.

The guarantee is in the interest. I talk like someone who knows what he's talking about; hence why I can speak in specifics, while you speak in generalities.


don't be naive, the OP was not talking about small scale and/or well regulated finantial system.

The OP is as ignorant as you are on the subject. The OP believes he has access to esoteric knowledge. If you want to jump in bed with crazy then feel free to do so.

[Sebastianus Rex]

1) So Hitler's invasion of Czechoslovakia was justified because Sudetenland had a significant German population?


It had not a significant German population, it had a clear German majority for centuries and its incorporation to the newly created Czechcoslovakia was another obvious imbecility of the Versailles treaty that clearly provoked the envirnment and events that triggered WWII 20 years later. And btw the anexation of the Sudetenland had a massive popular support among the inhabitants of the region, that is not even debatable.

Besides, in the Crimea case there was a referendum wich clearly stated the people wanted to go back to their fatherland.

And anyway, in the Greek-Turkish wars, Greece invaded Smyrna for the same reasons don't you think ?


2) Ossetia and Abkhazia were already parts of Georgia. You really didn't know this?

Story is not that simple because it was another mess of the collapse of the USSR, those regions wanted to become independent states but Georgia did not allowed it. Just south Ossetia remained in fact governed by Georgia, Ossetia was divided in two and Abkhazia remained as an authonous region that never became internationally recognized as an independent nations because of Georgia influence wich notiated their adhesion to NATO in exchange for support about those territorial disputes.


3) Yeah sure, I'm the brainwashed. This decision to incorporate Crimea into Ukraine happened though. Russia didn't seem to care up until Ukraine elected a pro-US government. Crimea was a legitimate part of Ukraine up until Russia got mad.

Wich means that despite having a strong territorial claim and popular support to re-incorporate Crimea to Russia, Putin was not interested in creating a conflict over with, he respected the agreements and the status quo. What is the part that the treaties signed between Russia and USA/NATO for a neutral area in between the two shepre of influences and non-proliferation of nuclear arsenals were broke by USA/NATO aggressive expansionism and that Russia can not allow NATO expansion into its borders and let them be equipped with nuclear weapons or else with will be in a strategical very weak position that you don't understand ?



And you didn't answer about the fact that Russia has started a war in Ukraine.

Follow the context, Ukraine and NATO diplomatical attitudes were clearly provokative and lead to an inevitable Russian response to not allow things to progress further and create a protentially bigger conflict later on. Didn't the USA invaded Cuba during Cuban missile crisis ? And they were right to do so.

[N1019]

Yes, but let's be real. They only rly hate the "Anglo-Jewish order" because it happens to be the dominant one. If the roles were reversed, the title of this thread would be "America's Sacred Mission".
I oppose imperialism of any sort, either American or Russian(both are guilty) but I am not schizophrenic and don't feel the need to make up crazy shit about the freemasons. The reality is there's no grand conspiracy and 90% of this shit can be deduced through observation, as you've done.

The winners are always get hate mail, and there are always champions of the underdogs.

As for imperialism, it has been the way of the world for a very long time and I don't see it ending in my lifetime. The reason I stopped opposing it is because I had to accept that it cannot be stopped. The game of empire will not be ended voluntarily. If I became a revolutionary helped tear down my empire it would either reform itself as a new one, like the Russian Empire did when it became the USSR, or it would be replaced by a new imperial player, and probably a much nastier one at that.

Does anyone really want Russia or China to be the top dog? I don't think so. The reality is, there is no realistic better option that what we have now. We are as good as it gets. But we have to understand that that game of empire means we will continue to seek resources in foreign lands, and to influence the behaviour of other peoples. There's no way out of it. Either we do it or someone else will.

[Sebastianus Rex]

And you're looking to the Russians as being better? Perhaps you're not as familiar with Russian history as you are of American history.

Both the USA and Russia/Soviet Union have a very aggressive military record as all the superpowers do troughout history, it is not the case of Russia under Putin, all his actions have been strickly defensive and preventive. Do not mix things up dude, try to see objectively.




You miss the point completely: he's worth billions because he stole it. You seem fine with corruption if it's 'your guy/s' but against it when it's not 'your guy/s.' Perhaps you should realize that neither should be 'your guy/s.' He has no issue with ruthless people if they follow his line.

He stole it from the previous established mafia oligarchs, do I have a problem with it ? Absolutely not, it ended up being for the greater good and the majority of the Russian people aknowledge it. Anyway he gave back to the country alot that had fallen in the hands of the oligarchs after the collapse of the USSR by nationalizing many companies of strategical sectors and resources.

You talk like there's no corruption in a two party system like the USA, the american elite is extremely corrupt and often blatantly against the best interests of their people, at least Putin is a patriot, so I fail to see your point.


No, an economically and politically unstable Russia doesn't suit American interests because it's bad for business to deal with a nation where chaos and arbitrary laws can exist and so you don't now what the hell to expect. Chaos is not good for business for that simple reason: you don't know what to expect. You don't know if the laws will be respected. You don't know if tomorrow an industry will be nationalized. American businessmen do not like doing business in nations where everything is up in the air. On the political front a chaotic nation with nukes makes everyone nervous when everything is up in the air. You don't know who will rise to power in that country. It could be a mad man or it could be someone like Putin who you can work with because you can understand his motivations and those motivations are rational.


That's a bit naive, the period when Russia was in chaos was very convenient to American (or should I say the elite that rules it rather than the people) interests because it was an opportunity to seize major strategical resources and they viewed the dismantlement of a superpower as perfect to expand their strategy of domination. One less big player to deal with.


There is no democracy anywhere in the world and I believe that some countries have people who are more child-like (in that they look at the state as a father figure) than others but I don't believe Russia is only manageable if it's led by a dictator.

Putin is not a dictator, there are free elections in Russia but since he is non-aligned with western globalism and has such a higher approval rating and popular support western controled media portrays him as anti-democractic, populist and even dictator wich is a complete nonsense.

Was the USA not a democracy 50 years ago when leftist militants were openly persecuted and black people segregated and limited on their civil rights in half of the country ?
Is the USA not a democracy even now, when the creation of a communist party is still forbidden ?

So if there are not real democracies anywhere and obvious restrictions of freedoms in the USA also, what makes Putin more of a dictator than the American system/elite ?



You do not realize that limiting other people's freedom of speech means your own can eventually be limited. You also don't understand the concept of freedom of speech: church property is not public property and so those chicks didn't have a right to go into a church and jam.

So ? People in Russia have freedom of speech, even those Pussyriot whores despite numerous outrageous actions and insults to Putin were not arrested and charged of hooliganism before they started desecrating churches.


No one forces you to go to gay pride parade, dude.

The banning of the Gay pride parade was a local decision of the city councils, a few other cities adopted the same banning becaused it was badly viewed by a significant part of the population and was creating posing grave security concerns and potential riot situations. If the majority of the voters think that they should have a gay pride parade in their city they can always elect an executive with more liberal views on that department.

Try to understand that the Russian people have a different mindset and are more traditionalist about these issues and want to live according to their own moral standards. Just a few decades ago a gay parade would not be accepted by the people in western cities also.


You're fine with freedom of speech being restricted (like so many people) until the tables turn and you have your speech restricted (like so many people). The purpose of Freedom of Speech is to allow the free flow of ideas. If you feel the need to stop people from speaking their minds then you're acknowledging your own ideas are too weak to combat the ideas of others. Ironically you allow those ideas you want restricted to become popular because nothing attracts people more to an idea than it being a symbol of rebellion against the state and you make it a symbol of rebellion when you try to repress it.

Freedom of speech is limited to some degree everywhere, I could give you thousands of examples of persons from those democracies who always point the finger and accuse others of being anti-democratic who had their life and carreers ruined for exercising their freedom of speech.



You want the Russian people to decide but earlier you said Russians are not suited for democracy and need a hard man to rule over them.

Yes, alfa peoples like a hard man in power that's why redneck republicans elected that bozo Trump, of course they were mistaken because he is a complete clown and not a genuine bad ass sexy modafucka like Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin.


Putin won 2/3rd of the election... true. Opposition leaders have also been murdered... also true. The Russian state also controls the media. That means Putin controls the media.

So what ? Who puts John cuckface Oliver on prime-time anyway? Telling me about Fox and their comercials featuring children who didn't understood why America was being attack to legitimize the invasion of Iraq ? Pure propaganda.


The guarantee is in the interest. I talk like someone who knows what he's talking about; hence why I can speak in specifics, while you speak in generalities.

[QUOTE]

Nice joke, please indulge me, you are going to hit a wall on that one.

[QUOTE]The OP is as ignorant as you are on the subject. The OP believes he has access to esoteric knowledge. If you want to jump in bed with crazy then feel free to do so./QUOTE]

When you open your eyes, you'll be able to see your own arrogance.

[Fantomas]

Does anyone really want Russia or China to be the top dog? I don't think so. The reality is, there is no realistic better option that what we have now. We are as good as it gets. But we have to understand that that game of empire means we will continue to seek resources in foreign lands, and to influence the behaviour of other peoples. There's no way out of it. Either we do it or someone else will.
The "current world system" is the best one invented by western civilization. A multipolar world which our enemies are striving for, is unacceptable. That's what we have already passed not so long time ago with many millions of victims. So offensive and pressure on aggressive, corrupted dictator regimes over the world must go on and increased, ideologically, economically and militarily.

[N1019]

The "current world system" is the best one invented by western civilization. A multipolar world which our enemies are striving for, is unacceptable. That's what we have already passed not so long time ago with many millions of victims. So offensive and pressure on aggressive, corrupted dictator regimes over the world must go on and increased, ideologically, economically and militarily.

Yeah. Most people who advocate moving to a different system, either more multipolar or anti-imperialist haven't really thought it through. Many of them are delusional leftists with utopian dreams of ending empires or dreams of gaining power - they are useful idiots who would be lined up and executed by their own communist masters if they ever did participate in a revolution and it succeeded.

[epirot]

Most Slavs hate Russia. Especially Poles and Ukrainians.

BS

[Profileid]

You're mixing everything and using a kind argumentation method that was typically marxist, by saying that being critical against America foreign affairs policies makes one anti-american, that's a complete demagogy, many Americans share that criticism also, are they anti-american for being able to see with neutrality beyong the intoxication of the mainstream media and wanting their governments to act with dignity instead of pissing and shitting all over the World?
I have been critical of America's foreign policy for some time and posted about it in here a lot. Where have you been?

[TEUTORIGOS]

Kerry Bolton


“The most hated sort [of moneymaking], and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural use of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest. And this term Usury which means the birth of money from money, is applied to the breeding of money, because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore of all modes of making money this is the most unnatural.”1 Aristotle (384-322 B.C.)

Usury through the Ages


Aristotle’s definition of Usury is perhaps the most cogent ever made. Usury, as originally defined, is any money made from a loan. Originally it did not mean excessive interest on a loan, but any interest. Subtle changes in definition helped to corrupt and subvert the traditional ethos on usury and finally make usury victorious. The Christian and particularly Catholic opposition to usury was founded on the dictum in Luke about giving without expecting anything in return, and on the Old Testament precepts against charging interest. The Orthodox Church was no less unequivocal. St. Basil wrote of the usurer:

“If he had been able to make you richer, why would he have sought your doors? Coming for assistance he found hostility... It was your duty to relieve the destitution of the man, but you, seeing to drain the desert dry, increased his need. Just as is some physician, visiting sick, instead of restoring health to them would take away even their little remnant of bodily strength, so you also would make the misfortunes of the wretched an opportunity of revenue... Do you know that you are making an addition to your sin greater that the increase to your wealth, which you are planning from the interest?”

“…The interest, which you take, is full of extreme inhumanity. You make a profit from misfortune, you collect money from tears, you strangle the naked, you beat the famished; nowhere is there mercy, no thought of relationship with the sufferer...2

The Orthodox Church, however, like the Catholic, did become equivocal over the centuries and this allowed for the subversion of the traditional doctrines. Questions arose as to the nature of usury as sin, and other equivocations that provided leeway.3

Opposition to usury has been a perennial feature of traditional cultures across time and space, with an intuition that there is something unnatural, parasitic and outright sinful about it. When a civilisation accepts usury as normal business practice, as does Western Civilisation, it is a symptom of an advanced cycle of decay, as both Brooks Adams and Oswald Spengler explained.

Traditional wisdom has provided warnings and prohibitions since time immemorial. The Vedic scripts of ancient India (2,000-1,400 BC) call the “usurer” kusidin, a lender charging interest. A Brâhmana (priestly) and a Kshatriya (warrior) were prohibited from practicing usury. Vasishtha, The Sacred Laws of the Aryas, states: “God weighed in the scales the crime of killing a learned Brâhmana against the crime of charging interest; the slayer of the Brâhmana remained at the top, the charger of interest sank downwards.”4 However, as in the Western and Classical civilizations, the definition of usury was compromised over time. By the second century A.D. the Laws of Manu defined usury as beyond a “legal” interest rate, after which the interest cannot be recovered. The fact that there was now a legal rate of interest at all, rather than an outright prohibition, indicates compromise of the type that arose in Western Christendom and Classical Greece and Rome. Additionally, like the exemption of the Jews from laws on usury under Mediaeval Christendom, the Hindu merchant caste were permitted trade in usury. “To invest money on interest, to be a jeweller, to tend cattle, tillage and trade, - these are declared as occupations for the Vaisya caste.”5

Siddharta Gautama Buddha returned to an unequivocal stance: “One discerns wrong livelihood as wrong livelihood, and right livelihood as right livelihood. And what is wrong livelihood? Scheming, persuading, hinting, belittling, and charging interest. This is wrong livelihood.”6

Plutarch (46–127 A.D.), in his essay “Against Running In Debt, Or Taking Up Money Upon Usury,” described usurers as “wretched,” “vulture-like,” and “barbarous.” Cato the Elder (234–149 B.C.) compared usury to murder. Cicero (106–43 B.C.) stated “these profits are despicable which incur the hatred of men, such as those of… lenders of money on usury.”

Contemporary financial analysts Sidney Homer, who worked for Salomon Bros., and Professor Richard Sylla, in their historical study of interest rates, state that the first known law on the issue was that of Hammurabi, 1800 B.C., during first dynasty Babylonia, who set the maximum rate of interest at 33⅓% per annum “for loans of grain, repayable in kind, and at 20% per annum for loans of silver by weight.” Sumerian documents, circa 3000 B.C., “show the systematic use of credit based on loans of grain by volume and loans of metal by weight. Often these loans carried interest.” “As early as 5000 B.C. in the Middle East, dates, olives, figs, nuts, or seeds of grain were probably lent to serfs, poor farmers, or dependants, and an increased portion of the harvest was expected to be returned in kind.” “Earliest historic rates were reported in the range of 20–50% per annum for loans of grain and metal.”7 Hence usury is as old as greed, and so are efforts to resist it by those who seek to maintain a connection with Divinity.

In 600 B.C. in Greece Solon established laws on interest when excessive debt caused economic crisis. Likewise, in Rome the “Twelve Tables” of 450 B.C., establishing the foundations of Roman law, after pervasive debt was causing servitude and crisis, established a maximum interest rate of 8⅓% per annum. When Brutus tried to charge the City of Salmais 48% for a loan Cicero reminded him that the legal maximum was 12%. The interest rate was often 4%. Some Greek “loan sharks” charged 25% per annum, and even 25% per day.8

The Old Testament Jews were prohibited from usury among themselves: “Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money; usury of victuals; usury of anything that is lent upon usury.”9 Critically for history, the Jews were given a dual moral code allowing them, among much else, to charge usury to non-Jews, and this has resulted in millennia of tragedy for Jew and Gentile alike: “Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury, that the Lord thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it.”10

Those prohibitions, as well as the general ethical and moral character of the New Testament, and the Classical heritage including the Aristotlean, inherited by the Catholic Church, established the basis for Catholic social doctrine, in which opposition to usury was a key element. In 325 A.D. the Council of Nicaea banned usury among clerics. Under Emperor Charlemagne (768–814 A.D.) the prohibition was extended to laymen. Here usury purely meant the extraction of more than what was lent. That is in accord with what Luke (6: 35) stated in saying that one should not expect back more than one gives. In 1139, the Second Lateran Council in Rome declared that usury is theft, and usurers would have to give restitution. In the 12th and 13th centuries, strategies that concealed usury were also condemned. In 1311 the Council of Vienne declared that anyone claiming usury was not a sin was a heretic and should be excommunicated (Decrees: 29).

Dante (1265–1321) placed usurers in the seventh rung of Hell, where the usurer would spend eternity with a heavy bag of money around his neck: Dante wrote: “From each neck there hung an enormous purse, each marked with its own beast and its own colours like a coat of arms. On these their streaming eyes appeared to feast.”11

But the Church generally allowed the Jews to practice usury, and people high-born and low would become indebted to Jewish usurers, until the strain became intolerable and their would be a pogrom. Moreover, when laws against usury slackened the pretext was an adaptation of Deut. 23:20, allowing Christian lenders to charge usury on loans to non-Christians such as Muslims, who for their part were likewise forbidden usury, which the Koran calls the sin of riba.12 Likewise the loophole for the Muslim lender has been that of being able to charge a “fee” for a loan, rather than interest. The Church attitude from Medieval times became inconsistent, where at some places usury remained prohibited while in other places what was instead called “interest” was permitted, and it was justified for the recovery of “losses” by the lender, such as late payment. Hence the Lombards, who like the Jews, also became identified with money-lending, would not charge “usury” but “interest” as high as 100%. Genoa became a centre of merchant banking where usury was pursued and the Church felt powerless to act.

In Medieval England personal loans could range from 52-120% a year, depending on collateral. Frederick the Fair of Austria was borrowing at 80%, while merchants in Italy could borrow at 5-10%. The Crown of Spain was paying 40% for short-term loans, while Dutch merchants could borrow at 1¼%.13

Usury Triumphant

The Reformation ushered a revolt against the traditional moral order of Europe, and the Protestant attitude towards usury was more equivocal, Zwingli, Luther and Calvin stating that there are circumstances in which usury is acceptable. With the division of Church and State, economic theorists began to write in defence of usury as a “progressive” form of commerce, laying the basis for the amoral merchant outlook that now grips most of the world. Money-lending was defended as a “service,” a concept that is now taken for granted by almost everyone, as argued by the French jurist Molinaeus in his 16th century Treatise on Contracts and Usury. The Church banned Molinaeus’ book and forced him into exile, but his ideas spread. It is significant that England was the first to establish a legal rate of interest, at 10%, in 1545 under Henry VIII, given the revolt in Faith he ushered. Usury was banned seven years later. According to Homer and Sylla: “ During the Reformation many Protestant leaders defended interest and credit. As a result, the usury doctrine, which had held a firm grip on Jews and Christians for 2000 years, was weakened and finally deserted.”14

A century later the focus on economic thinking shifted to Holland where usury was defended as productive and essential by economic theorists such as Claudius Salmasius (1588–1653). Holland became the centre of banking, and the model for the Bank of England, founded as a private institution lending to the state, in 1694. 15 English utilitarian philosophers such as Adam Smith, and Jeremy Bentham who wrote A Defence of Usury, justified the social utility of usury. Other fathers of English economics, David Ricardo, Jean Baptiste Say, and John Stuart Mill, went further in saying that there should be no restraints on contracting parties in money-lending.

The Cromwellian Puritan Revolution completed the work of Henry VIII and usury was legitimised.16

The French Revolution of 1789, paved the way for further inroads by usury on the ruins of what vestiges remained of traditional social order in Europe. As Oswald Spengler pointed out in The Decline of the West, The Hour of Decision, and Prussianism and Socialism, going as far back as classical Rome, “revolutions” in the name of “the people” have generally been manipulated by plutocracy against the traditional social order that has stood against the reign of Mammon. The “colour revolutions” of today, in the name of “democracy”, funded by George Soros and other plutocrats, install plutocracy in states that show signs of resistance. The French Revolution, harbinger of both class-war socialism and free trade liberalism, was a precursor, in the name of “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.” One of the first acts of the revolutionaries was to legalise usury, which had hitherto been forbidden, until the Decree of 2 and 3 October, 1789.17

The Napoleonic war plunged Europe into colossal debt with its subsequent social, moral and political devastation. It set the pattern for the “modern age.” An era of revolutionary upheaval throughout Europe, and reaching to the far off colonies, ending with Napoleon’s defeat in 1815, the several decades of further turmoil, saw the Rothschilds and other money-lenders as the real masters of Europe, while Metternich of Austria tried to re-establish a social order for Europe based around Throne and Altar. Historian Adam Zamoyski writes:

“Every government in Europe taxed whatever it could to pay off war time borrowing. Britain had spent more in real terms than it would on the First World War, and its national debt was astronomical. Russia’s had multiplied by twenty times between 1801 and 1809, and would more than double again by 1822. Austria was technically bankrupt: over the next three decades an average of 30 per cent of state revenue would be siphoned off to service this debt.”18

Zamoyski states that the five Rothschild brothers, (who had been placed strategically throughout the capitals of Europe by their father, Mayer Amschel Rothscild), “and particularly James in Paris and Salomon in Vienna, had lent most of the governments of Europe, and particularly those of Austria and France, large sums of money in return for government bonds… Metternich had close links with Rothschild, who had resolved many difficulties for him in the past and who had now arranged for his mother-in-law’s 400,000-franc debt to be written off.”19

As for the Catholic Church, “The Papal states were bankrupt by 1832, and Metternich saved the pope by persuading the Viennese banking house of Rothschild to provide him with a loan.”20

Russia’s Mission

In an era where the rule of Mammon has culminated and money really is literally the root of “many evils” and the pathway to perdition for entire nations, 21 Russia is being seen increasingly around the world as the Katechon resisting a system that is, in Biblical terms, Antichrist. It is surely of epochal significance that in 2015 the Orthodox Church called for an “Orthodox Financial System” in Russia based on tradition and, like Islam, the repudiation of usury.22 No other issue is more crucial and more urgent. It is hopefully a clarion call that will see Russia lead the way as the only means of liberating humanity away from the universal worship of the Golden Calf.


Notes:

1 Aristotle, Politics, Book I: 10: 5).

2 Homily 12 on the Psalms, Saint Basil the Great.

3 “Excursus on usury,” http://orthodoxchurchfathers.com/fathers/npnf214/npnf2121.htm

4 Part II, Ch. 2: 40-42.

5 Parasara smrti 1.63.

6 Siddharta Gautama Buddha, Sermon on the Eightfold Path, Majjhima Nikaya Suttra, 117:5.

7 Sidney Homer and Richard Sylla, A History of Interest Rates, Wiley, 2005, inter alia.

8 Ibid.

9 Deut. 23:19.

10 Deut. 23:20.

11 Dante, Inferno, Canto XVII.

12 Al-Baqarah, 2:275.

13 Homer and Sylla, op. cit.

14 Ibid., p. 77.

15 K R Bolton, The Banking Swindle, Black House Publishing, London, 2013, p. 16.

16 Brooks Adams, The Law of Civilisation & Decay (1896), p. 233, online : http://archive.org/details/lawcivilization00adamgoog).

17 “Usury,” Catholic Encyclopaedia, 1917, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15235c.htm

18 A. Zamoyski, Phantom Terror, Harper Collins, London 2014, p. 97.

19 Ibid., pp. 384-385.

20 Ibid., pp. 473.

21 I Tim. 6: 10.

22 Anastasia Bazenkova, “Orthodox Church Calls for Alternative Financial System in Russia,” The Moscow Times, August 11 2015, http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/orthodox-church-calls-for...


Source: http://katehon.com/article/tradition-and-usury-perennial-conflict

Wow, that is a good syntopically researched essay that one wouldn't see in the mainstream media here in the USA. Not sure if I agree with it , yet, as it goes against my current political outlook but that can change.

One correction though :

"
A century later the focus on economic thinking shifted to Holland where usury was defended as productive and essential by economic theorists such as Claudius Salmasius (1588–1653). Holland became the centre of banking, and the model for the Bank of England, founded as a private institution lending to the state, in 1694. 15 English utilitarian philosophers such as Adam Smith, and Jeremy Bentham who wrote A Defence of Usury, justified the social utility of usury. Other fathers of English economics, David Ricardo, Jean Baptiste Say, and John Stuart Mill, went further in saying that there should be no restraints on contracting parties in money-lending."

Adam Smith was Scottish not English and the only direct complete alternative to his book "Wealth of Nations" is Karl Marx's "Das Kapital". If it comes down to "Das Kapital" vs "Wealth of Nations" I am going to have to side with Adam Smith as Communism can't work as it goes against a law of nature. Any philosophy that goes against the laws of nature is doomed to failure. The law that Communism tries to repeal is that people work for reward and the more reward they get the harder they work. I know usury is not necessary and does its abolition does not constitute a gross violation of the laws of nature, per se, but that is only the ostensible message of the essay. I see deeper problems as "Das Kapital" being the only real counterpart to "Wealth of Nations".

[TEUTORIGOS]

This reminds me of Winston Churchill quotes :

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others." --Churchill

The samething can probably said of Capitalism.

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." --Churchill

I know Russia, like China, is currently ostensibly autocratic Capitalist rather than Democratic Capitalist but I can't see how Russia can truly be Capitalist without usury hence the Socialism quote.