If you were "finished" for the right reasons, I'd have some respect for you. But you are "finished" for all the wrong reasons. Try to think more deeply.

Some of you may have read the exchange between old salty and me on my topic "Putin is Right; America is Wrong": http://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-77830-1.html

Salty opined: "There would never have been a World War 11 if the USSR had not signed a treaty with Hitler..."

My final comment was this:

"KiraSeer2016:

'saltwind 78 wrote:
Kira, Carry on discussion like a lady. I don't believe calling people that disagree with you " punk " doesn't impress anybody. You have not convinced me that Vlad Putin is anything than what he appears to be, a vicious dictator that has imperial ambitions in Eastern Europe, western Asia, and Syria. I'm willing to bet my last greenback that the huge majority of Americans agree with me. When the Russian Federation changes it's behavior, I will be only to happy to reassess my opinion of him!'

"KiraSeer replied: 'I'll never be able to convince you. That is why I do not talk to you. Your mind seems to shut a door when it comes time to engage in rational thought. When you have figured out just why that is, I may "condescend" to refer to you.
In the meantime, mull on this: I wonder if you are Polish, or descended from Polish immigrants, since you seem to, as some Polish leaders do, hang on to feelings of resentment and ill-will towards Russia, both under Stalin and perhaps throughout history (forgetting that Poland in most cases has been the aggressor in history).
I may, however, begin a topic on the Stalin-Hitler Non-Aggression Pact, and how, contrary to your "received wisdom", the pact actually contributed to winning World War II, not starting it.
Please don't reply to this comment.' "


Well, salty, your total ignorance of modern European history is appalling. Your assertion that the Stalin-Hitler Non-Aggression Pact started World War II is beyond absurd; it is insane.

This is what started World War II: Mein Kampf, written by Hitler while he was imprisoned, and published in 1925. An insane concept in the mind of a "deranged paperhanger" [as David Gerrold referred to him]. Hitler dedicated a full chapter titled "Easter Orientation or Eastern Policy" outlining the need for "Lebensraum for Germany and the German people." In this chapter, Hitler related that "Germany must look for expansion to Russia and especially to the Baltic States. And that "No alliance with Russia can be tolerated. To wage war together with Russia against the West would be criminal, for the aim of the Soviets is the triumph of international Judaism."

Need I remind you that Hitler considered the Slavic peoples subhuman? [By the way, in case you don't know it, Hitler rose to power, not only through the application of force, but by appealing to the guilt (war guilt) in the souls of the German people, an otherwise decent people. Just as Ovomit and the Left attempt to use "the white man's burden"---guilt, to remain in power and install Socialism.]

Churchill had read Mein Kampf, and knew that when Hitler came to lead the Third Reich he would do exactly what he said he would do. I believe, though I have no proof, that Stalin read Mein Kampf and knew it as well.

The following are selections from "The Last Lion", Vol. II: "Alone", a biography of Churchill, the years 1932-1940, by William Manchester, pp. 443-461:

1. "On April 15 [1939] therefore, the Soviets received formal proposals from Whitehall and the Quai. [British and French foreign offices]. They found them disappointing. The British merely asked Russia to follow their example and affirm the independence of Poland and Rumania. The French had wanted more. They had proposed that Britain, France, and the Soviet Union come to one another's aid should Germany make war on any one of them, but Chamberlain and Halifax weren't prepared to go that far.
"Litvinov [the Soviet Foreign Commissar] wanted them to go much further. The following Monday he rocked the chancelleries of Europe by handing Sir William Seeds, the British ambassador in Moscow, a formal proposal which, if it succeeded, would assure that any Wehrmacht offensive in the east would be met not only by Poland but also by the much larger resources of the Soviet Union, including the Red Army."

2, "...as Churchill perceived, there was method in Stalin's dementia. In his own twisted way he was a patriot; like Winston he saw the peril in the Reich and wanted his country to survive it. That was his end. Any means was acceptable to him. He was quietly searching for one that would work." [See this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGIl5EeGfyU]

3. "The chief stumbling block [to the burgeoning triple alliance---France, Britain, the Soviets] [Churchill] knew, was Poland. The Poles were adamant that Russian troops never be permitted to cross their territory, not even, say, if Germany attacked France and the Red Army lunged westward to support the French. Beck and his fellow officers in Warsaw not only persisted in regarding the Russians as lepers; they resented anyone who suggested that they be treated as anything else."

4. Churchill wrote that "Ten or twelve days have passed since the Russian offer was made. The British people...have a right, in conjunction with the French Republic, to call upon Poland not to place obstacles in the way of a common cause."

Stalin's offer was rejected; he then entered into the infamous Non-Aggression Pact in order to buy time for the fight of his life (and the lives of the Russian people.) There was no other choice. In addition, among the terms of the Pact, was an exchange of Russian grains and foodstuffs for German industrial equipment. Stalin needed time for preparation. The Pact was a stall, on both sides, and didn't last long.

Before you denounce Putin, you might read about the Siege of Leningrad and what the Russians endured in order to help defeat Hitler.

"By mid-July 1941, all that remained was for the Russians to give up and accept their fate under Hitler, just like Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Luxembourg, Holland, France, Yugoslavia, and Greece.
But the Russians kept fighting." Go here: http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/defeat/attack-russia.htm

If, salty, you and others persist in your illogical feelings of resentment, you may very well see a re-enactment of events I'd like to believe you are attempting to avoid.

Any questions?

Oh, and by the way, I have explained to you many times the truth about the Donbas and Crimea. Are you telling me I am wrong?

You're not listening, Salty. Please re-read my original post on this thread.

I don't watch American television. And the main reason is that "journalists" report the lies Ovomit wants Americans to know. These journalists and pundits are cowards.

Once more, Vladimir Putin, my man! Tough guy? Watch it and weep, America.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnxeSQUoByg

So they are Leftist?

CB has trouble seeing the "Deeper Picture" or perhaps being able to follow the connections between Ovomit and ISIS. He has a very small brain. I have explained it over and over and he still can't get it. Someone needs to teach him how to think. Apparently that never happened in the Leftist/Liberal grade school he attended.

Are Jews Leftists are just errant capitalists? The Left has co-opted the media; not true capitalists.

The Left has appropriated the media, the pundits and the universities, so as to "empower" politics. Have I not said: "Welcome to the Final Battle?" That which is between an ex-Communist and a Communist and Communism?

Ah, you snuck "The McDonalds" in on the rest of us!

What an idiot you are showing yourself to be, CB!! You say "Putin can relax"? I don't think he's ever been worried. He has me, remember? And I have his protection.

For a link to Solzhenitsyn and Putin:

http://archive.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2008/08/05/toward_end_solzhenitsyn_embraced_putins_russia/

From http://heedingthetimes.net/reviews/alexander-solzhenitsyn.html :


"A Hard Message

Thirty years ago, Solzhenitsyn addressed a crowd at Harvard on “A World Split Apart.” The title referred to the split between two world powers, but he meant much more than the conflict between Communism and the democratic West.

He began by reflecting on Harvard’s motto “Veritas” (Ttruth), which easily eludes us, and that in any case often is unpleasant and even bitter.

The thrust of his message to the elite Harvard audience was that the seeds of the disaster that has befallen the Russian people are also present in the free West. Solzhenitsyn said that he discerned a kind of spiritual, moral sickness in the West that has ominous implications for its future. Here is a summary of the warning signs listed in his Harvard speech.

A decline in Courage. This may be the “most striking feature” of the West, which has lost its civil courage. Such loss is most noticeable among the ruling groups and the intellectual elite. Although there are still many courageous individuals, they have no real influence on public life. History has shown that decline in courage is often the beginning of the end.

Well-Being. The modern Western states were created to cater to the popular desire for happiness, which has resulted in the welfare state. Every citizen is given maximum freedom and material goods. What has been overlooked is that the desire for ever more goods and a still better life gives rise to worry and frustration. Furthermore, when generations are accustomed to seeing their happiness in the good life understood in materialistic terms, why should they risk their life in the defence of common values? (“Better Red than dead.”) An extreme emphasis on safety and well being in today’s welfare state “has begun to reveal its pernicious mask.”

Legalistic Life. Western society is organized around the letter of the law. But this has given rise to applying the law in a manipulative way so that the moral rule is trumped by the desire to win at any cost without any self-restraint. A regime, such as communism, without any legal rules is a terrible one, but a society with no other standard than a legal one is also unworthy of man. It will be impossible to stand through the trials of our threatening age with only the support of a legalistic structure, for it will give rise to “an atmosphere of moral mediocrity, paralyzing man’s noblest impulses.”

The Direction of Freedom. Freedom is now seen and experienced as freedom for good as well as for evil deeds. Statesmen who want to accomplish something important will be confronted with many traps. The emphasis on individual rights has undermined administrative power, but what now needs to be emphasized is not human rights but human obligations.

Destructive freedom has made society defenceless against human decadence and criminality. While this speech was given in 1978, Solzhenitsyn showed real foresight in saying that when a government starts to fight terrorism in earnest, it is accused of violating the terrorists’ civil rights. This tilt of freedom in the direction of evil results from the humanistic belief that there is no evil inherent to human nature. Instead, evil is seen to arise from wrong social systems, which must be corrected.

The Direction of the Press. Here too the emphasis is on the letter of the law, but there is no moral responsibility for deformation or disproportion. Every day the public is exposed to hasty, immature, superficial and misleading judgments. Thus we see terrorists treated as heroes, secret matters pertaining to a nation’s security publicized, or the privacy of well-known people intruded with the false slogan: veryone is entitled to know everything.”

“Enormous freedom exists for the press, but not for the readership because newspapers mostly give enough stress and emphasis to those opinions which do not too openly contradict their own and the general trend.”

A Fashion of Thinking. Without formal censorship in the West, there has nevertheless developed a trend in which certain fashionable ideas always predominate in the media and literature. “This gives birth to strong mass prejudices, blindness, which is most dangerous in our dynamic era.” This self-deluding interpretation of the contemporary world becomes a petrified armor around people’s minds.” (Although Solzhenitsyn did not use the term, here he is obviously referring to what is now called “political correctness.”)

Socialism. Although the West has experienced unprecedented economic development and prosperity, many living in the West are dissatisfied with their own society. Some of them have turned to socialism, but it is a false and dangerous current. The Soviet mathematician Shafarevich has written a brilliant book, The Socialist Phenomenon, showing that socialism in any type and shade “leads to a total destruction of the human spirit and to a leveling of mankind into death.”

Shortsightedness. Many in the West believe that we cannot apply moral criteria to politics. But such a position implies that we mix good and evil, right and wrong, and that we pave the way for the triumph of absolute Evil in the world. The truth is that only moral criteria can help the West against communism’s well-planned strategy. Without such criteria, confusion will remain, and we will not even recognize the enemy for what it is.

This explains the ignorance about the real meaning of the Vietnam War and the betrayal of Far Eastern nations that caused untold suffering and death to millions. American pacifists thought that they had won, but their contribution was to immobilize the nation’s courage. It was the same ignorance that thought the Soviet Union was an ally against Nazi Germany. In fact, Western democracies helped to nurture the Soviet Union with a large number of admirers in the West as a “fifth column.”

Los of Willpower. The current state of the West is one of psychological weakness marked by a refusal to defend itself. Hence the possibility that the next war will bury Western civilization. How has such a sad sate come about?

Humanism* and its Consequences. Solzhenitsyn asks: “How did the West decline from its triumphal march to its present sickness?” His answer is bound to alienate most if not all of the Western elite, because he traces the problem back to the prevailing view of the Western world as it developed in the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. This is the view that humans are supreme, self-sufficient, and therefore are not subject to any authority above themselves. Solzhenitsyn refers to this as “rationalistic humanism” or “humanistic autonomy,” which can also be called “anthropocentricity.”

While the Middle Ages had exhausted itself in repressing man’s physical nature in favour of the spiritual, the Enlightenment took the opposite turn. Then the worship of man and his happiness became the goal by means of unlimited freedom in the use and control of the physical world. As a result man’s sense of responsibility to God has grown dimmer and dimmer, allowing evil to have free reign.

Karl Marx could say, Communism is naturalized humanism.” He was right, and that is why the communist regime in the East “could stand and grow due to the enthusiastic support of an enormous number of Western intellectuals who felt a kinship and refused to see communism’s crimes.”

By placing our hope in political and social reforms, we deprived ourselves of our most precious possession, our spiritual life. Both the communist East and the democratic West are facing a crisis that can only be resolved by turning away form the current, dominant materialistic ideology.

Solzhenitsyn concluded his speech by saying that we have reached a turn in the road that is similar {in impact) to the turn from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance:

It will exact from us a spiritual upsurge, we shall have to rise to a new height of vision, to a new level of life where our physical nature will not be cursed as in the Middle Ages, but, even more importantly, our spiritual being will not be trampled upon as in the Modern era. This ascension will be similar to climbing onto the next anthropologic stage. No one on earth has any other way left but – upward."


Haven't I been telling you that America is weak, decadent and matriarchal? And deceptive.

However, the author, Harry Antonides, is wrong on one account: About Solzhenitsyn, Antonides said that he "...grossly misjudged the character of Vladimir Putin." In actuality, Solzhenitsyn got the character of Putin and Russia exactly right!!

Gee, I suppose there's nothing else they COULD do, right? In your feeble little Lib mind anyway. Frightened of ghosts, too, are you?

Who would be a great guest? I don't care for Dr. Phil myself. He feels too self-important for my tastes.