EDITORIAL
Russian Schools get an “F”
One of the least well-reported and most under-appreciated facts about Russia is the dismal quality of its education system. Even in Soviet times, huge swaths of analysis and critical thought were bludgeoned into dust, so that Russians had no real understanding of foreign culture or history, or indeed even their own. Only in a tiny band of scientific education did the Soviet system hold its own, and under the continued rule of the KGB even that has utterly collapsed. Indeed, how can people like Vladimir Putin, educated by the miserably failed Soviet system, hope to reform that system? They can’t. It’s impossible. In fact, even those with good intentions often go astray. Today, Russians are among the most barbarically ignorant and backwards of any people in the industrialized world.
Writing in Vedemosti and republished in the Moscow Times, Vladislav Inozemtsev, director of the Centre for Post-Industrial Research and the publisher and editor-in-chief of Svobodnaya Mysl magazine, exposes the horrific failure of neo-Soviet education.
Though Russia spends a larger share of its GDP on education than Japan, its educational system is a total failure chiefly because its universities have been deluged with students since the fall of the USSR. In Soviet times, the government decreed who could and could not go to school, and it compensate professors well. Today, the educational budget is directed away from educators and anyone who wants to attend can do so.
At the same time, Russia could be spending far more on education — the U.S.A. spends nearly twice as much as Russia does as a share of GDP. But Russia has chosen to divert a massive amount of resources into cold war confrontation with the West, the same way the USSR did, leaving the educational system to wallow in corruption, poverty and decline.
There are those who tout the Soviet education system and claim that Russia is in decline because the USSR is no more, pining for the old days of dictatorship. Only morons who came out of the Russian/Soviet education system could conceive such a ridiculous idea! If education was so great in Soviet times, why did the USSR collapse? A nation full of bright, well-educated people does not destroy itself in less than a century, now does it?
The USSR was only able to give high-level education to an elite minority, and it only educated in a tiny band of expertise dealing with math and science. Soviet young people did not learn to think critically, they learned to be mindless robots in the service of the state. The USSR could not innovate, it could not reform itself, and therefore it collapsed. When it did, Russians proved themselves incapable of building a new and better state, and instead fell right back upon their old failed ways, electing a proud KGB spy to lead them. These are the actions of a well-educated cosmopolitan people. These are the actions of lemmings.
Inozemtsev continues chillingly:
The other problem is the subjects that students are studying. In 2008, 35.7 percent of the country’s GDP came from manufacturing, natural resource mining, agriculture, construction and housing and utilities. But only 14 percent of today’s students will major in engineering, 3.2 percent in geology and 2.9 percent in agriculture science. At the same time, 45 percent of students will choose business, management and law as their major focus of study. The problem is that Russia’s financial and legal sectors account for only about 8 percent of GDP. Clearly, there are not enough jobs for all of these students dreaming of becoming wealthy — or even middle-class — bankers and lawyers.
Moreover, higher education has lost much of its value. In Moscow in 2007 and 2008, 10 percent of university graduates — 90 percent of them women — did not work at all after graduating, and another 24 percent took jobs that did not require a higher education. Fewer than 50 percent started careers in their area of study. The situation is the reverse in the United States, where 94 percent of graduates holding degrees in business administration found jobs in their profession, 86 percent of engineers did likewise, as did 76 percent of those specializing in agriculture. What’s more, the percentages were the same for the first three years after graduation. If these statistics apply to Moscow — where an excessively high percentage of the country’s business activity and wealth are concentrated — just imagine how worse the situation is in the regions.
His conclusion: “Russia is churning out far more graduates than it needs, and they are trained in fields that are not in demand.”
Yet, like a typical cowardly Russian Inozemtsev does not say one single word about any fault on the part of the Putin regime for creating this situation. Not a word about the Putin regime’s efforts to pollute Russian history texts with propaganda, not a word about crushing dissent and critical thinking, not a word about the fact that Putin is a proud KGB spy.
There is no call from Inozemtsev to divert resources away from Putin’s crazed cold war policies. Instead, he calls for reviving Soviet elitism, excluding the vast majority of Russians from the halls of academia in favor of selecting out only those few who will properly due the Kremlin’s bidding.
What an idiot. Inozemtsev was obviously educated by the same failed system he has just exposed, and does not realize this disqualifies him from being able to solve such a complex problem.
And so it goes in Russia.
La Russophobe 
> But Russia has chosen to divert a massive amount of resources into cold war confrontation with the West
That’s insanely funny. Let me remind the readers that the entire artificial confrontation between the “West” and modern Russia has been created by US military industrial lobbyists and their politician and journalist lackeys back in the 1990s for the same purpose as the LR blog itself: the purpose of scaring average US taxpayers into giving $hundreds of billions of our hard-earned money to the owners of the military-industrial complex. Just a few years ago Russia was spending 27 times less on defence than USA. While the new US provocations – unilateral withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the intentions of building anti-missile installations in Central Europe – have forced Russia to increase spending for basic defenses, a simple glance at current defence spendings tells a full story as to which country is best at robbing its taxpayers for warmongering purposes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_federations_by_military_expenditures
1 United States 636 bln
3 France 68 bln
4 United Kingdom 65 bln
5 Japan 48 bln
6 Germany 45 bln
7 Italy 40 bln
8 Russian Federation 39 bln
NATO Total 1,050 bln
That is, Russia is spending 16 times less on its military budget than USA, 37 times less than NATO, and much less than even France and UK individually, even though the latter are much smaller countries.
And keep in mind that the US figures don’t include $hundreds of billions being spent on “peacekeeping” in the occupied countries of Iraq and Afghanistan. If we include them, USA will be seen as spending more money on its military than the rest of the World combined.
This is only natural, given that USA has turned into a communist welfare state, but in reverse: the poor supporting the Communist Paradise for the rich; with the majority – taxpayers – slaving to provide a welfare for the rich: politicians, criminal Wall Street gamblers; military-industrial warmongers, oil companies, bankrupt car manufacturers and insurance companies, etc. While $2.4 trillion in taxpayer/printing press money being spent/committed to support Wall Street thieves (who use this support to pay themselves $tens of billions in bonuses as a “reward” for bankrupting their own companies) is too recent to make it to your movie screen, you can watch a detailed analysis of the welfare state for the military industry on your screen, for example in the well-known BBC documentary “Why We Fight”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_We_Fight_(2005_film)
Why We Fight (2005), directed by Eugene Jarecki, is a documentary film about the military-industrial complex. Why We Fight describes the rise and maintenance of the United States military-industrial complex and its fifty-year involvement with the wars led by the United States to date, especially its 2003 Invasion of Iraq. The documentary asserts that in every decade since World War II, the American public was told a lie, so that the Government (incumbent Administration) could take them to war and fuel the military-industrial economy maintaining American political dominance in the world. Why We Fight was first screened at the 2005 Sundance Film Festival on 17 January 2005, exactly forty-four years after President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s farewell address. It won the Grand Jury Prize for Documentary, however, it received a limited public cinema release.
You can download the entire film from:
http://www.archive.org/details/Why-We-Fight
Or watch it on Youtube:
Why we fight 1
A documentary on the commerce of war, and how the military industrial complex profits so much from war, that it must create wars to continue the growth of it’s business.
Back in the mid-1990s, both David Johnson (of the Russia List) and I argued in soc.culture.russian that NATO’s anti-Russian Drang Nach Osten expansion was meant to scare and provoke Russians into replacing democrat Yeltsin with a fascist or communist dictator, thus renewing the Cold War and making the US military complex wealthier than ever. The Cato Institute and the Libertarian Party were of the same opinion. So, now when I see people in USA surprised at Putin’s anti-American rhetoric, all I can say is: “Told ya!”
Putin is the product of NATO’s expansion and of the American rapes of Yugoslavia and Iraq. A self-fulfilling prophecy that allows the military complex to rob US taxpayers. Solution: average American must stop the warmongering madness. Cut the defence spending by a factor of 5. Stop believing lies from demagogues like Ed Lucas or Washington Post or Wall Street Journal. Stop US government from provoking Russia. Stop believing lies like: “Saakashvili wasn’t the one who started last year’s war”. Stop further NATO expansion. Make your government respect international law and the UN Charter. Stop being a rogue nation and a world bully. Force the American government behave like normal countries should behave”. How can this be done, given that the US politics and mass media are controlled by pro-war lobbies and their money? I don’t know.
LA RUSSOPHOBE RESPONDS:
It’s sad that you are such an illiterate baboon as to think the new cold war is funny. Your childish rhetoric only emphasizes that you are not to be taken seriously.
If you could read, you would have seen that the point of this article is that Russia does not have the resources to spend on cold war politics EVEN IF it had real enemies. What is the purpose of Russians destroying themselves from within to protect themselves from a threat from without? But if you are seriously suggesting that Russia faces an imminent threat of attack from the United States, you are a certifiable psychopath.
If you could read, you would see that EVEN THOUGH the USA outspends Russia vastly on military areas, IT STILL ALSO VASTLY OUTSPENDS RUSSIA on education.
The US economy is TEN TIMES LARGER than Russia’s and FAR less corrupt and wasteful. Therefore, it’s simply proportionate for the US to spend sixteen times more than Russia on the military, something the USA can easily do. Russians, meanwhile, don’t rank in the top 130 nations of the world for adult lifespean. They are DYING because their government is squandering their legacy on cold war politics.
All you are doing is blindly repeating the justifications of a proud KGB spy for wrecking his nation the same way his Soviet ancestors did, repeating them like a bleating goat.
First of all, let me repeat to you for the 100th time that your childish name-calling makes you look pathetic, especially when you try to insult the intelligence of people who are orders of magnitude deeper and more logical than you are.
As far as the substance of this discussion goes, here is my brief response:
1. > The US economy is TEN TIMES LARGER…. Therefore, it’s simply proportionate for the US to spend sixteen times
Actually, 16 is larger than 10. Check it out. In any case, even your own argument shows that USA spends 1.6 times larger portion of its GDP on warmongering than Russia. So, if you claim that Russia’s level of spending indicates that it is engaged in a cold war, then surely USA’s spending indicates that USA’s engagement in this cold war is even deeper. Moreover, just 2 years ago USA was spending 27 times more than Russia, and I am sure that in Yeltsin’s times this ratio was even larger. In other words, it was the USA that has re-started the Cold War, and Russia is now simply responding to the American threat.
What history shows us is that starting with the late 1980s, Russia stopped the Cold War and soon cut down its military budget down to nothing. Everybody here in USA expected that USA would do the same. This was called “the peace dividend” (PD for short). However, PD meant that taxpayers would get to keep more of their hard-earned money, while the military-industrial complex (MIC) would get less of taxpayers money, and thus the politicians, who depend on contributions from the MIC, would lose these contributions and thus would lose their re-election campaigns. Thus, the MIC and all the politicians on their payroll went out of their way to re-new the Cold War, in order to scare the taxpayers into paying more for the MIC. And that has been the essence of the US politics in Europe since the early 1990s: to do everything possible to antagonise and scare average Russians into replacing Yeltsin with a hardliner and into renewing the Cold War. That’s what the never-ending waves of NATO’s Drang Nach Osten expansion were meant to accomplish. That’s what motivated the aggression against Yugoslavia and the current plans to place AMDs in Poland/CzechR: a desperate desire on the part of the American establishment to scare average Russian and American taxpayers into a new Cold War in order to keep the American MIC happy.
Let me also remind the readers that the main point in the US-Russian military balance is deterrence. In particular, for Russia this means that Russia must maintain enough strength as to make sure that if USA ever launches a first strike against Russia and Russian facilities, Russia would have enough surviving capacity to be able to retaliate and punish USA. And vise versa, of course.
With Russia spending 16 times less that USA, maintaining this balance of nuclear power and this nuclear deterrence is impossible. In order to prevent Russian cities from meeting the same fate as Hiroshima and Nagasaki (and keep in mind that USA has still not apologized for them and maintains that it is fully justifiable for USA to exterminate millions of foreign civilians in nuclear holocausts in order to save American soldier lives), Russia will have to increase its military spending even further, unless Obama ever decides to reduce USA’s budget.
So, don’t give me this schpiel that Russia should spend less on defence. It is currently spending 6% of what USA is spending, and this is simply not enough for Russia’s self-preservation, especially when facing a rogue and ruthless predator as USA that invades and ruins foreign countries on a whim and a false pretence just for the purpose of slightly increasing Exxon’s and Halliburton’s profits.
Look, when two guys are fighting and one of them weighs 50 lb and the other weighs 800 lb, who do you think is the threatening aggressor and who is a threatened victim? If two countries are engaged in a Cold War and one of them spends on it 16 times more than the other one – who should be the first to reduce his spending in order to stop this cold war? The huge omnipotent behemoth USA or the tiny helpless fly Russia? For heavens sake, Russia is spending less money on defence that Italy! Italy!
Look, you are a russophobe. Your dream is to see USA demolish Russia, drag it into the morass of lawlessness and fratricidal civil war, and to take away all Russian oil, gas and other natural resources to the US oil companies. In other words, to do to Russia what it has done to Iraq. So, you don’t like it that Russia spends 6% of what US spends. You want Russia to stop defending itself at all, so that to make it easy for USA to turn Russia into an Iraq.
And don’t pretend that USA has no desires to do so. Of course it does. And it even has the very same pretext: to bring the same “peace, law, order, freedom and democracy” to Russia that it has brought to Iraq. Judge for yourself:
////////////////////////////
George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin Press Conference
July 15, 2006
PRESIDENT BUSH: It’s not the first time that Vladimir and I discussed our governing philosophies. And I talked about my desire to promote institutional change in parts of the world like Iraq where there’s a free press and free religion, and I told him that a lot of people in our country would hope that Russia would do the same thing . . .
PRESIDENT PUTIN: We certainly would not want to get the same kind of “democracy” as they have in Iraq, I will tell you quite honestly. (Laughter in the press audience)
PRESIDENT BUSH (shouting): Just wait!
////////////////////////////-
Yes, just wait. Or, if you don’t want to wait to become another Iraq – prepare to defend yourself. Not just Russia, but all countries that have a lot of oil or other natural resources that the American corporations crave.
And don’t think that this is just my own opinion all peace-loving and intelligent Americans share this view. You can read volumes and volumes of common sense analyses on this subject in many places, including the Libertarian Party’s and Cato Institute’s sites, where they have been saying what I have been saying since mind-1990s:
http://www.cato.org/researcharea.php?display=13
Cato Institute
Individual Liberty, Free Markets, and Peace
Read for example:
NATO Expansion and the Danger of a Second Cold War
Cato Institute Foreign Policy Briefing no. 38, January 31, 1996
by Stanley Kober, research fellow in foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute
The strong showing by Communists and ultranationalists in Russia’s parliamentary elections emphasizes that the current political environment in that country is extremely delicate. It is vital that the United States and its West European allies not take any action that might make an already bad situation worse. Enlarging NATO to include the nations of Central and Eastern Europe would be an especially unwise step. Enlargement would undermine Russia’s beleaguered democrats, intensify Russian suspicions about Western intentions, and play into the hands of militaristic elements that argue that Moscow must restore the Soviet empire to protect Russia’s security…. The Russians have emphasized that they would regard that as a provocation requiring countermoves on their part. NATO expansion, therefore, would risk recreating the division of Europe.
Or these:
“NATO at 60: A Hollow Alliance,” March 30, 2009
“NATO Expansion Hurts U.S. Security,”, June 3, 2002
Beyond NATO: Staying Out of Europe’s Wars, (1994)
NATO Enlargement: Illusions and Reality, (1998).
“$400 Billion Defense Budget Unnecessary to Fight War on Terrorism,”, March 28, 2005
“Deployed in the U.S.A.: The Creeping Militarization of the Home Front,”, December 17, 2003
“Missile Defense: Defending America or Building Empire?,” May 28, 2003
“Kosovo Tempts the Meddlesome to Incite Another Ethnic War,” Los Angeles Times, January 9, 1998
“U.S. Must Stop Being a KLA Pawn,” , Los Angeles Times, March 5, 2000
“The Real Kosovo,” Washington Times, November 23, 1999
“NATO’s Balkan Disaster: A Year Later,” June 8, 1999
“Kosovo Is America’s War, America’s Pain,” Los Angeles Times, May 21, 1999
“End Bill Clinton’s War,” , May 18, 1999
“Dubious Anniversary: Kosovo One Year Later,”, June 10, 2000
“How to Balance the Budget by Reducing Spending,”, April 22, 1993
“Politics and the National Defense: The 1993 Defense Bill,”, January 20, 1993
“Parting with Illusions: Developing a Realistic Approach to Relations with Russia,”, February 29, 2008
As far as the substance of this discussion goes, here is my brief response:
1. > The US economy is TEN TIMES LARGER…. Therefore, it’s simply proportionate for the US to spend sixteen times
Actually, 16 is larger than 10. Chech it out. In any case, even your own argument shows that USA spends 1.6 times larger portion of its GDP on warmongering than Russia. So, if you claim that Russia’s spending indicates that it is engaged in a cold war, then surely USA’s spending indicates that USA’s engagement in this cold war is even deeper. Moreover, just 2 years ago USA was spending 27 times more than Russia, and I am sure that in Yeltsin’s times this ratio was even larger. What thios shows us is that in starting with the late 1980s, Russia stopped th eCold War and soon cut down its military budget down to nothing.
Good grief, not more drivel from the Cato institute.
What a waste of time.
These “Libertarians” were the same scum who espoused isolationism during WW2, and were supporters of Hitlers policies in the 30’s.
Now they all dribble on about “not provoking Russia”. What BS
Go fight the “horrors of communism”, Andrew, for your lunch hour. People with an IQ below 70, like you, should not waste others’ time.
Stop talking about yourself in such terms Phobophobe, or do you approve of the communist murders of over 144 million people last century?
Oh, thats right, given your constant tossing off over Serbian war crimes, the thought of 144 million dead obviously gives you the big O
> Though Russia spends a larger share of its GDP on education than Japan… At the same time, Russia could be spending far more on education — the U.S.A. spends nearly twice as much as Russia does as a share of GDP.
I admire your usual logic, LR. Russia spends on education more than Japan, the country with the second best secondary education in the World after Korea. And that’s not good: instead, Russia should double its spending in order to emulate USA, the country with a third world education, the laughing stock of the entire world in terms of primary and secondary education. LOL.
It’s not how much you spend, It’s **how** you spend it. And until there is a voucher system, US education will continue to be third world, no mater how much money is (mis)spent on it, especially because almost all of the government’s money goes not to educate students but to support an enormous and growing bureaucratic apparatus and jesuistic political correctness policies. My son is a grade “A” student in 6th grade at a prestigious magnet public school, and his class still doesn’t know how to add fractions, something that any Soviet, Korean or Japanese student studied in 2nd grade.
The only “good news” for USA is that in the mid-1990s, during the period of “irrational exuberance” and love for everything American-made, Russian educational bosses copied many of the American education practices and textbooks, resulting in the tremendous lowering of standards of Russian elementary and high school education in literature, math and sciences.
LA RUSSOPHOBE RESPONDS:
We don’t admire your reading skills. The point is that ALTHOUGH Russia spends more it’s money is wasted. Wasted by an incomptetent regime the people of the country won’t hold responsible. Russians are not as efficient as Japanese, so they need to spend more to deliver the same results. They’re not doing that either, and the country is wallowing ignorance.
Where did you learn to read? A Soviet school? Oh, that explains it!
Meanwhile, there is NOT ONE SINGLE CONSTRUCTIVE SUGGESTION in your entire vomit-like diatribe for improving Russian schools. Instead, you seek to deny the problem and change the subject. You, in other words, WANT Russians to go on failing until they collapse. Again. Gosh, why do you hate Russians that much? What did they ever do to you?
Once again Phobophobe overlooks the fact that the expansion of NATO was driven not by the USA, but by states that had suffered decades (and in the case of the Baltic republics, Ukraine and Georgia) centuries of brutal occupation, mass murder, genocide etc at the hands of Russia.
Butt-plug is the same sort of slimy, lying little pederast that would have been screaming “peace in our time” at Munich, or supporting the Molotov-Ribbentropt pact.
He also obviously self-pleasured all through the Serbian rape and murder spree during the breakup of Yugoslavia.
Small countries have the right to self determination, vermin like butt-plug are quite happy to sacrifice others in their drive for their own version of the new world order, one that ends in the Gulags, or the in Phobophobes case he would settle for a few more Srebrenica’s I guess.
On a more substantive topic, if small countries are supposed to have a full right to self-determination and for choosing any military alliances they want, why did USA try to assasinate Castro, almost went to war over the possible placement of Soviet missiles in Cuba, and is still conducting a full-force blockade of Cuba? How about Grenada? Nicaragua? Chile? Panama? Didn’t these “small countries have the right to self determination” too?
I wonder how USA would react if Russia declared that it is placing its anti-missile radars and defences in Cuba, Nicaragua or Mexico, the way USA plans to do in Poland and Czech R.
LA RUSSOPHOBE RESPONDS:
Russia is quite small compared to the USA. An economy one-tenth the size, less than half the population. So America is free to roll in the tanks, right?
You’re a baboon. You make Russia look like a nation of baboons, with only baboons for her defenders. Think about it. If you can think. Which we doubt.
Hmm, well Castro was a communist dictator, and a huge part of his population voted with their feet.
However, you seem to miss the point, I am also happy to criticise US policy, but this blog is about Russia.
While whining on about the US withdrawing from the ABM treaty, you forget to mention the following facts:
The USA tried to negotiate a revision to the treaty with Russia
The USA offered to allow Russian observers at all sites, and also offered to involve Russia in the system
Russia unilaterally withdrew from the CFE (Conventional Forces in Europe) treaty, which is actually far more important than the ABM treaty, after all, neither the USA or Russia will ever use their nuclear weapons, but nut job states like Iran quite likely will.
Russia has however proved its willingness to use massive conventional force (and irregular Cossack (Neo-Nazi) volunteers) against separatists in the Caucasus, and hypocritcally in support of separatists in other neighbouring states such as Georgia and Moldovia, all the time Russia instigates and supports ethnic cleansing, massive crimes against humanity (filtration camps in Chechnya spring immediately to mind) and mass murder.
No wonder its neighbours are fairly keen on joining NATO.
The ABM systems in Europe would be useless against a massive Russian strike on Europe due to the number of missiles the Russians would launch, and useless against a Russian attack on the US as Russian strikes against the US would follow the much shorter “Over the pole” route (do a search for locatons of NORAD balistic missile tracking radars, the mostly look north), but the ABM systems in Europe would be quite effective against missiles from the middle east.
No, Andrew, it is **you** who is missing the point. The issue here is not to criticise USA and/or Russia, but to discuss how Russian and American populations react to the opponent’s build-up on their borders. Just as average Americans would be scared sh*tless if Russian troops and nuclear installations started to build up close to the US borders – be it in Mexico or Cuba or Nicaragua, NATO’s expansion in mid-1990s into Poland, Czech R and Hungary threatened average Russians (who prior to that had been the greatest lovers of USA in the entire world). Any sane person predicted that in advance. In fact, I was pleasantly surprised how relatively mild and delayed the Russian reaction was. Had this been USA, the US public would have immediately fallen into a mass hysteria, demanding that Russia be nuked like Japan and immediately, before the first Russian soldier set foot into Nicaragua.
And don’t give that “Russia was dangerous” stuff. Even the worst russophobes now admit that Yeltsin’s Russia was a decent country. It was USA’s expansions and the rape of UN and Yugoslavia in 1999 that scared the average Russians and brought on Putin. A self-fulfilling prophesy that allowed the military complex to rob US taxpayers with the scare of a new Cold War. That was followed by further NATO expansions, by USA’s unilateral withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, etc. Add to that the fact that during all Russian military exercises near their own, including the one in which the Kursk submarine tragedy occurred, US submarines purposefully interfered, purposefully provoking confrontations and accidents. Add to that the fact that Russia is already surrounded by USA anti-missile forces on all sides, and the placement of new forces in Central Europe is just another rnail in Russia’s coffin:
http://www.siberianlight.net/russia-encircled-by-usa/
Russia surrounded by USA
by Andy on February 20, 2007
How does it look to be encircled by the old enemy? This (rather simplified) map of Russian and US forces might help to put things into perspective. The title, by the way, reads: How Americans control Russian territory.
Andy February 20, 2007 at 8:31 pm:
No, the picture shouldn’t be taken all that seriously – especially as an actual map showing military strength. But I think it does quite nicely illustrate some of the concerns that people in Russia (not just those in the Kremlin) have about becoming encircled by an old foe, which now has vastly more military muscle than Russia.
—————————————————-
Do you get that? Russians feel that they are encircled by an old foe. And Americans would feel the same, if they were in the same position. In fact, while the Russian reaction is restrained and subdued, the American reaction in such a situation would have been the usual redneck hysteria and would have immediately resulted in a nuclear holocaust, making Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings look like child play. I mean, USA invaded Grenada simply for building a small civilian airstrip for small-plane landings, and Iraq was destroyed because the US public couldn’t tell Arabs with facial hair apart and confused Saddam with Bin Laden.
In any case, the above table of military spendings presents an undeniable testimony as to who is the **real** warmonger in the modern world.
LA RUSSOPHOBE RESPONDS:
“the picture shouldn’t be taken all that seriously”
Are you encouaging Russians to be paranoid and irrational? Are you encouraging Americans to pander to and appease Russian paranoia?
Do you even read the things you yourself write?
Numbskull.
Oh Phobophobe, you don’t think Russian submarines monitored/interfered with US/NATO exercises?
Really my retarded friend, you need to stop all the drivel, you are only making yourself look bad.
Why all the hatred for the US military? Hatred for those who protect you from the horrors of communism, who let you sleep safe in your bed abd slag them off?
Did you get rejected for being too small, fat, or retarded?
As for the idiotic comments you make regarding Iraq, sorry dickhead, but the world is a much better place without Saddam.
Just ask anyone who escaped his version of the “Arab workers paradise”, and I have worked with a few who did. They were and are overjoyed at his demise.
Saddam was much, much worse than what they have now. They have been given the chance to build their country into a democatic, pluralistic, and rule of law based society by the USA, and if they screw it up it is not the USA’s fault.
> Why all the hatred for the US military? Hatred for those who protect you from the horrors of communism
Andrew, are you telling me that the US military is “protecting Americans from the horrors of communism”? You are a true retard. This is not meant as an insult. This is a diagnosis. I assure you that even if USA had no military at all, there would be no chance at all that USA would become “communist”.
How do you invision this conversion of USA to the “horrors of communism”? A Cuban occupation? Or do you think that our Canadian and Mexican neighbours are communists?
In any case, arguing with a mental infant like yourself is a waste of time. Googbye.
Should have read “protected” as in the historical context.
Well, I have no problem with the US military from 1970s or 1980s. Neither does the Cato Institute.
But the Communist threat ended 20 year sago. Two thirds of today’s World’s populations were not even born yet when it ended.
Only a retard like yourself would demand US taxpayers to waste $600 billion dollars per year today, in 2009, to fight the “horrors of Communism” from quarter of a century ago.
In any case, your level of discourse, your (and LR’s) infantile ad homiem insults, and your non-stop hallucinatory lies and fabrications (the latest being that Libertarians were Hitler-sympathisers) make it impossible for me to continue arguing with you.
Oh prominent Americans, and particularly “Libertarians” supported Hitlers anti communist drive.
Of course, being libertarians, they were too stupid to translate the whole name of the Nationalist-Socialist Party.
Once again retard boy, I was refering to protected from communism in the historical context, they do now protect you from militant Islam in a big way.
When was the last time you thanked a vet, and did you ever serve your country?
Given your political leanings, I doubt it.
Like I said, a political movement founded by slave owners should (like communism and fascism) have been strangled at birth.
Maybe this is your brand of libertarian party?
http://www.nazi.org/
They seem to be repeating most of your crap.
Why Libertarians = Nazis
1. The Cult of the Superior Man. Both libertarians and fascists think the world is divided into superior and inferior people, ubermenschen and untermenschen, and they both believe that most of the evil in the world comes from inferior people keeping the superior ones down. They both promise to release the best and the brightest from the shackles placed on them by the unworthy – whether the unworthy happen to be the “lazy poor” or “government bureaucrats” or “dirty Jews” or immigrants.
The only difference between libertarians and fascists is that libertarians don’t believe (or they say they don’t believe) that superior people should enforce their will on inferior people. But this is a thin line, easily crossed. Once you’ve convinced yourself that you’re better than everyone else, it’s easy to justify repressing the ignorant masses, for their own good. Which leads us neatly to the second point…
Quote:
“It would be absurd to appraise a man’s worth by the race to which he belongs and at the same time to make war against the Marxist principle, that all men are equal, without being determined to pursue our own principle to its ultimate consequences. If we admit the significance of blood, that is to say, if we recognize the race as the fundamental element on which all life is based, we shall have to apply to the individual the logical consequences of this principle. In general I must estimate the worth of nations differently, on the basis of the different races from which they spring, and I must also differentiate in estimating the worth of the individual within his own race. The principle, that one people is not the same as another, applies also to the individual members of a national community. No one brain, for instance, is equal to another; because the constituent elements belonging to the same blood vary in a thousand subtle details, though they are fundamentally of the same quality.”
— Adolf Hitler, “Mein Kampf”, volume II, chapter 4.
Quote:
“Fascism.. asserts the irremediable and fertile and beneficent inequality of men.”
— The Doctrine of Fascism, authored by Giovanni Gentile, signed by Benito Mussolini
2. Opposition to democracy. Both libertarians and fascists hate democracy because they don’t think inferior people should be able to tell superior people what to do. They both hate democracy because democracy gives power to the “unwashed masses” on the assumption that all people are equal. It’s important to note, however, that libertarians and fascists are not necessarily hostile to the masses themselves – in fact they are often populist, from Mussolini to Ron Paul. They are only hostile to the idea of equality among the masses, and most of all to the idea of equality between the masses and the elite. Libertarians and fascists often genuinely believe that they are working to help the people, the masses, but they believe that salvation can only come from above, from the elite. Which leads us to the third point…
Quote:
“Mankind is not a uniform and equal mass. There are differences between races. The Earth has received its culture from elite peoples; what we see today is ultimately the result of the activity and the achievements of the Aryans. Decisive within each race, however, are the personalities it is able to produce. Personalities have created the cultural shape of mankind and not democratic majorities.”
— Adolf Hitler, quoted in “The rise of the Nazis”, Conan Fischer. Manchester University Press: New York, 1995. Page 139.
3. Belief in Natural Hierarchy. Libertarians and fascists are elitists, and moreover they believe that elitism and hierarchy are part of the natural order of things. The phrase “rebellion against nature” has been used by libertarians and fascists to describe the political views of their enemies – particularly egalitarian views. Libertarians and fascists don’t think their kind of society is the best among a number of competing kinds of viable societies, they believe their kind of society is the ONLY viable, “natural” kind of society. Libertarians and fascists tell the masses that they have to subject themselves to hierarchy for their own good, because hierarchy and inequality is the only way to have a civilized society.
Quote:
“There are three ways of settling the social question: The privileged class rules the people. The insurgent proletariat exterminates the possessing class. Or else our third formula that gives each man the opportunity to develop himself according to his talents.”
— Adolf Hitler, quoted in “Hitler’s Secret Conversations”, translated by Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens. Farrar, Straus and Young: United States, 1953. Page 267.
Those are the fundamental similarities between libertarian and fascist thinking, but there are also many other, less vital parallels:
4. Belief that the unfortunate get what they deserve. If hierarchy is natural, it follows that those at the bottom of the hierarchy are there through their own fault or their own flaws. Libertarians think the poor deserve to be poor. Fascists think oppressed races deserve to be oppressed. Both libertarians and fascists have voiced support for the “IQ and the Wealth of Nations” thesis – the idea that poor countries in Africa and Latin America are poor because their people are stupid.
Quote:
“It is my firm conviction that property rights… must be unconditionally respected. Any tampering with them would eliminate one of the most vital incentives to human activity and would jeopardise future endeavour.”
— Adolf Hitler, quoted in “Hitler’s Secret Conversations”, translated by Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens. Farrar, Straus and Young: United States, 1953. Page 368.
“The individual must be given more latitude and be taught to cultivate a sense of responsibility and a readiness to accept it.”
— Adolf Hitler, quoted in “Hitler’s Secret Conversations”, translated by Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens. Farrar, Straus and Young: United States, 1953. Page 536.
It is true that fascists think poor nations are poor primarily for ethnic reasons. But not only for ethnic reasons. Fascists also always made the argument that certain nations – particularly Russia – are poor because of communism:
Quote:
“Russia could be a land of plenty, but the production of real values is forthwith utterly destroyed by Bolshevism […] and such production cannot be brought into working order again even after twenty years.”
— Adolf Hitler, quoted in “The Speeches of Adolf Hitler”, translated by Norman H. Baynes. Oxford University Press: London, 1942. Page 705.
5. Conspiracy theories. Unlike Marxists, who recognize that different social and economic institutions are appropriate at different stages of history, libertarians and fascists believe that their ideas are always valid, everywhere at all times. The question then arises, if their ideas are so right, and if they’ve always been right, how come they haven’t conquered the world yet? There is only one possible explanation: conspiracy. Libertarians and fascists cannot explain their own failures, so they use all sorts of conspiracy theories to rationalize them. Someone – Jews or evil government bureaucrats – must be conspiring to smear and hide the eternal truth of libertarianism or fascism. New World Order, Federal Reserve controlled by Jews and Communists etc etc.
Right. A conspiracy of Jews is crushing the people in the Nazi case, and a conspiracy of bureaucrats is crushing the people in the libertarian case. The people cannot see their true interests, and it is up to the fascist/libertarian to bring about a glorious rebirth based on old, forgotten values and the practices of the people’s heroic ancestors (that’s 19th century free marketeers or the “Founding Fathers” for you libertarians, medieval heroes for the fascists). And this is to be done by undemocratic means – because democracy is evil – and against the will of the majority if necessary.
6. The Cult of Righteous Violence. Libertarians and fascists love their guns, and they firmly uphold the use of righteous violence (that’s “retaliatory force” in libertarian-speak) against their enemies. They don’t see such “righteous violence” as a necessary evil, the way others may view a just war or a revolution. No, they see this violence as a good thing, something to be embraced and celebrated.
By the way, speaking of mental infants, you really should learn to spell you retarded little piece of crud, your quote “In any case, arguing with a mental infant like yourself is a waste of time. Googbye.” says it all about your mental prowess. LOL
Really Phobophobe, you come up with some real crap.
Yeltsins Russia was a decent country?
Tell that to the tens of thousands of Chechens murdered by the Russian federal forces in the 1st Chechen war of independance, or the tens of thousands of Georgian civillians murdered by Russian federal forces and the Apsu separatists and the nearly 250,000 Georgians ethnicly cleansed from Abkhazia (where they amounted to 50% of the population, and the Apsu only 17%), and the ethnic cleansing by Russian backed separatists in South Ossetia in 1991-1992 or the ethnic cleansing of Romanian Moldovians from Transdenister, and so on and so forth.
Really Phobophobe, you need to get an education you retarded prat.
> Tell that to the tens of thousands of Chechens
What do I know. I live in USA, a country that has brought on death to hundreds of thousands of innocent Vietnmaese and Iraqis, and I still consider USA a decent country. Even USA!
And certainly, compared to your Georgia, ruled by genocidal and fratricidal rulers like Gamsakhurdia, Shevardnadze and Saakashvili, molded in the grand Georgian mental illness traditions started by Stalin and Beria, even USA and Russia look great.
Oh here we go again.
Gamsakhurdia comitted no genocide, nor did Sheverdnadze, or Saakashvili.
Stalin is despised here (they have removed the statue from Gori), while he is idolised in Russia.
Stalin, as described by Lenin, was the ultimate RUSSIAN chauvanist. He may have been born in Georgia (to a Georgian mother and an Ossetian father), but at heart he was a Russian and always referred to himself thus, just like Hitler (by birth an Austrian) considered himself a German.
You are a retarded philistine, like most “libertarians” you have an extremely poor education of and understanding of history (like the fact your movement was founded by slave owners and is continued by sweatshop owners and scum such as yourself).
The overwhelming majority of Vietnamese killed during the wars in SE Asia were killed by the communists, a bit like how today the overwhelming majority of those dead in Afghanistan and Iraq are killed by Islamic extremists.
Once again, Russia was responsible for the death of around 61,911,000 people 1917-1989, have a look at this site here and compare totals (assuming you can actually read of course)
“The greatest source of post-war democide was communism (see the communist death toll). During and after the war communists seized power, or came to power with the help of Soviet military might, as in Eastern Europe. In addition to the USSR, Mongolia, Eastern European regimes, East Germany, and Czechoslovakia, communist regimes eventually also included China, North Korea, North Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Cuba, Grenada, Afghanistan, Angola, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Nicaragua, and South Yemen, or 26 regimes in all. These communist governments and the communist guerrillas they supported in other countries account for about 66,000,000 of the 76,000,000 murdered since the war, or about 87 percent. Clearly, of all regimes, communist ones have been by far the greatest killer. During these years it has been mostly death by Marxism than more generally by government.
Other regimes, however, did from 1946 to 1987 murder about 10,000,000 people. This killing was due to attempts to maintain control over colonies, as by France and Portugal; to rid the country or newly acquired territory of ethnic Germans after the war; as by Poland and Czechoslovakia; to some form of ethnic cleansing, as in Nigeria and Burundi; to hold power, as by the Nationalist government of China and by Pakistan; or to establish a theocracy, as in Iran, or state socialism as in Myanmar.”
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/POSTWWII.HTM
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE4.HTM
Note that the Communist North Vietnamese are considered responsible for 1,669,000 deaths, the South Vietnamese 90,000 and the US around 6000.
You should also note that the US went to great lengths, particularly with restrictive ROE to avoid civillian deaths.
What US “nuclear installations” are being built near Russia?
No new NATO forces have been stationed in Poland, the Baltic republics or the other new members of NATO, it is just more of your pathetic Cato dribble.
I’m smelling “But in USA, they lynch blacks!” argument here… About the Russian education the picture is especially bleak when you watch out the international university comparisons. Although their methodology is never perfect, take a look at Shanghai Jiang-Tou index. Being a Chinese site, I’m not thinking Russia is suffering from a russophobia there.
http://www.arwu.org/
In top 500 world universities there’s TWO Russian universities on the list. Two for a nation of some 140 million people and pretty good status of natural sciences research at the fall of Soviet Union.
In comparison, Finland (5 m.) has SIX universities on this list, Sweden (9 m.) has ELEVEN. Brazil, a country sometimes compared to Russia (although it should not be, Brazil is nowadays really a country destined for success, unlike Russia) has SIX.
And how about the evil anglos? USA: 159 (307 m.) , UK: 42 (61 m.).
Russia has one university per 70 million students at top 500 university list. If that’s not failure, I don’t know what is.
> In top 500 world universities there’s TWO Russian universities on the list.
Jon, all these rankings are based on some old Anglo farts’ chavinist feelings. The proof is in the pudding. Russian Universities are the World’s biggest producers of high tech engineers. Just look at the famous ACM International Collegiate Programming Contest. It is totally dominated by Russian Universities. You’ve read it right: not Chinese, but Russian.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACM_International_Collegiate_Programming_Contest
ACM International Collegiate Programming Contest (abbreviated as ACM-ICPC or just ICPC) is an annual multi-tiered computer programming competition among the universities of the world.
This year, 2009, a Russian University won and 3 out of 4 top Universities were Russian. The best USA team – MIT – was 7th.
In 2008, Russia won. 3 out of top 5 were Russian and the 4th was Ukrainian.
All in all, since Russia’s entering the competition, a Russian University has won 6 out of 10 times. Almost half of top 10 teams as well as 20 teams have been from Russia, with many others being from other Slavic countries of Belarus, Poland and Ukraine.
> And how about the evil anglos? USA: 159 (307 m.) , UK: 42 (61 m.).
US hasn’t won even once ever since Russia entered. The last USA win was back in 1997. And UK has never won. Never.
Or look at the ultimate science award: the Fields Medal in mathematics. Since 1992, Russia has won 5 out of 14 given out, with another 4 going to the fellow mathematics superpower France. USA won only 1.
Phobophobe,
The ARWU ranking, for example, is made in China. So I wonder why would they have the interest of propagandizing for the US or other Western countries?
Yes, the best Chinese students are sent to US & UK universities.
Of course, try explaining this to Phobophobe, you may as well talk to a wall.
For a “proud US citizen” he seems to be a bit of Kim Philby to me. Or should that be Julius Rosenberg??
Dear Jon K,
Facts do not matter for photophobe/dilldohead/tchorta, because kremlin propagandists have a goal to convince people that moscow is “glorious” and all non-rooshans should glorify the kremlin because non-rooshans are “lesser” and rooshans are “greater”.
For centuries, the kremlin has been maliciously stifling and culling the intelligentsia of the territories that they occupied. The kremlin wants to create a planet of sheeple to pay tribute to them, and praise them, and bend over, because they are bored with the sheep.
For decades, the kremlin mandated twelve credit courses to love stalin, the kremlin mandated twelve credit courses to love lenin, the kremlin mandated twelve credit courses to love communism, the kremlin mandated twelve credit courses to love the falsified history by the kremlin, etc., rather than mandating classes to expand the mind of the individual; then they are angry when they try to go to a western University and most of their sheepskin is counted as toilet paper.
For decades, only party members were allowed to attend a university – talent and intelligence did not matter. Only communists were allowed to get a “higher education” – the same fools and idiots that were stupid enough to believe in communism.
Today, they pay bribes, and do not need to learn anything, except how “great” and “glorious” they are, and that they are “greater” than non-rooshans, then they get their placebo sheepskin.
Sincerely,
LES
For decades, only party members were allowed to attend a university – talent and intelligence did not matter. Only communists were allowed to get a “higher education” – the same fools and idiots that were stupid enough to believe in communism.
***
That’s a lie. Should LES be banned?
LA RUSSOPHOBE RESPONDS:
Well, either he should be or YOU should be. Can you read, ape? We require documentation. Where is YOURS? Are you drunk or something? If you prove LES lied, we’ll be happy to warn him. Othewise, we’ll be happy to ban YOU.
OK, how about eyewitness accounts? Will it work as a proof?
LA RUSSOPHOBE RESPONDS:
No. What will work is to follow our rules. If is is fact, is it documented in reporting on the web. The fact that you can’t document it means your statement is totally irresponsible. You should have done the research before calling somebody else a liar, you flaming ridiculous hypocrite.
During the Lenin & Stalin period he is pretty much correct.
Access to university was strictly controlled by the party during the 20’s, 30’s and 40’s.
Later I am not in agreement. My wife was at a polytechnique in Tbilisi and she was certainly not a communist, though that was in the late 80’s under Glasnost. She did say however a lot of pressure was applied to get students to join the party.
I suspect that it was almost impossible to become a party mermber by age of 20, even during the “Stalin period”.
LA RUSSOPHOBE RESPONDS:
You SUSPECT? You DARE call someone a liar based on your own ESP? That is disgusting. You are the worst kind of hypocrite.
No, not at all.
My father in law was a member at 18, so was my mother in laws father, though my father in law did it because he wanted to Moscow university in 1960, and my mother in laws father was in the Red Army (actually the RKKA at the time) and it was a quick route to promotion.
Boba (is that slang for retard) also forgets the Lenin quote “Give us the child for 8 years and it will be a Bolshevik forever.”
You could become a communist after after completeing service Pioneers (compulsory) & Young Communist (voluntary) at 18
Right, plus one needed one year of so-called “кандидатского стажа”. So your father in law put a lot of thought in that important step of his life when he was 17!
He was smart enough to realise that if he wanted a career in engineering that he had to join the party.
Really Boba, you are a prat.
LR, Did I called Andrew a liar? Not yet :) Oh, and, BTW, all my friends and I were admitted to a university when we were still 17. Soviet shcool education during my time lasted only 10 years.
LA RUSSOPHOBE RESPONDS:
You called LES a liar. Keep it up. You’re going the right way for a banning.
Let see. Andrew (obviously not my fan) confirmed that LES statement is not correct for 50-80 period. And the case of physicists from Landau school I think covers the rest. In fact, you need just a simple logic to see why this claim is a lie. Even communists understood that in order to produce (or lets say replicate) an atomic bomb you need brains. So this is why they sometime tolerated even openly disloyal people like Kapitsa.
There certainly were universities even in the 80’s that required young communist membership at the very least.
Much of Russian “technical and scientific” “achievement” was as a result of espionage.
A good example is the Tupelov SST (aka Concordski) which was the result of Soviet espionage on the Franco British Concorde programme.
Unfortunately for the Russians, the British and French had found out about the espionage programme and fed the Russians duff information.
The result was the Tupelov was a deathtrap, breaking up in flight at the Paris airshow, it was also so noisy that it ended up being used as a mail transport.
What is amazing is that of all people here, the people most ignorant of the way things were in USSR and are now in Russia are LR and LES.
This woman is writing a book about Russia, but thinks that LES was correct when he wrote: “For decades, only party members were allowed to attend a university”
Think about it: students start universities at the age of 17. How can any of them be already party members? But all of them?! What a pair of idiots.
Once again Phobophobe, you could be a party member at 18, you basically had to be a comitted member of the “Young Communists” (like hitler youth) to get a place in any major university, and in some periods in any university at all.
Do you actually know anyone who suffered under the system, or are you (as usual) talking out your arse?
> you basically had to be a comitted member of the “Young Communists” (like hitler youth)
Andrew, thank you for telling us that Felix was “a comitted member of the ‘Young Communists’ (like hitler youth)”
I will even generalise to say that not only Felix, but all of you russophobes are like Hitler Youth, only more brainwashed and much-much more laughable.
Take ANY famous soviet mathematician or physicist, and you’ll see that NO ONE was a party member when they were admitted to a university. For instance, look at people who took famous Landau’s “teorminimum”.
Most of them were however members of the “young Communists”, it is like junior/apprentice membership.
A bit like Hitler Youth members not being full members of the Nazi party.
As usual Boba is making a fool of himself.
The diference between a “young communist” and a”party member” is like the difference between a “party member” and a “member of Politburo”. Ask your wife.
while true, not being a “young communist” not only closed doors to the universities (maybe with some exception in Kaunas or Tallinn) – but put you on a black list for any advancement.
Let me remind Felix that according to his own resume, our dear Felix is himself a university student and thus a “young communist”.
To be fair, 99% of all Soviet teenagers – icluding Georgians – were “young communists” and this membership was automatic and meant nothing.
http://www.rabinovich.org/drupal/resume
Felix Rabinovich
Education
1982 – 1989 M.S., Riga Technical University. Riga, Latvia
LOL.
not being a “young communist” not only closed doors to the universities (maybe with some exception in Kaunas or Tallinn) – but put you on a black list for any advancement.
***
I will not argue with that. If you were a dissident life was not easy in USSR for you. But please, just for LR… Felix, how many 25-year old party members did you meet when you lived in USSR?
Well my wife knew quite a few, then again she was working in Moscow.
“Adult party” – very few (I am sure there were more in Russia – but still). In the rotten 70s and 80s you had to have a reason (foreign service, political science major) do join the party.
However, if you count “young communist” – almost everybody.
Universities? Today, the only education that really matters in Russia is the KGB/FSB academy.
It’s now the ticket to everything: top government posts, state-controlled business (also for their sons), organized crime (and what isn’t crime there, really).
Not exactly. Even now after years of brain drain, if you are a graduate with good grades from, say, Moscow State University, School of Mathematics, then any American graduate program will be happy to have you.
.The extent of corrupt practices is difficult to measure due to the nature of the problem and corruption within universities can take on many guises. The most common – and all of which I witnessed – include bribery, cheating, plagiarism, preferential treatment and discrimination. On higher levels, we’re getting into the realm of embezzlement, extortion and fraud. According to Ararat Osipian in his paper “Corruption and Reform in Russian Higher Education”, in 2005 over 3000 economic crimes in the education sector were reported, of which there were 849 cases of bribery and 361 cases of embezzlement of central budget resources. 20% of students used corrupt practices to gain admission to university. This is certainly but the tip of the iceberg.
The article contradicts itself. First it lampoons soviet system and then quotes the explanation why new one is so bad (wrong graduates).
The thing is, Russian technical education was an is superb, especially from top schools; that is the plundering of education during liberalization and propagation of the views of lawyers and mid-level managers as the best professions out there lead to the situation where >50% of Russian graduates go to universities where they study humanitarian and business subjects on levels far inferior than those in Western countries.
That also leads to devaluing of education.
In addition, the blind belief that “you need a diploma” does – my parents told me “you need to get a diploma, and then see”, even though I needed no such motivation; I spoke to a friend who couldn’t program his way out of cardboard box with a flamethrower on ~3rd year of programming major, asking why do you go to this uni at all? He said “I dunno, I just need a diploma, then I’ll figure something out”. I think this cult of high education no matter what is bad part left over from soviet times.
Plus, in modern times, army system also helps – in my group in mid-level Moscow tech university 30-50% of guys (maybe more) had evading army as their major objective.
If anything, I can see someone strong-arm like Putin investing in technical education to focus on what Russia does best (weapons, space, science, and maybe software if ppl stay instead of going to Canada/USA like me). Of course Putin doesn’t, and left to itself technical education suffers from under-funding and devaluation of degrees and we get new worthless “liberal” education that Inozemtsev mentions.
Boba,
Moscow State University as well as St.Petersburg State University are still quite well regarded. Russian kids are not stupid and many of the smartest ones can be found from there.
The problem is that they’re only two universities on list of Top 500 universities for a nation of 140 million. Moscow is situated somewhere around position 70, a respectable position for a top university of a small nation, say Denmark or Finland, while St. Petersburg is situated somewhere at rank 303-401, a respectable position for an up and coming regional university.
Moreover, if you look where the points come they mostly come from past achievements as ARWU ranking heavily scores Nobel prizes even for a 100 years back. Without the impact of past glory Nobel prizes I’m fairly sure St Petersburg would be off the list and Moscow somewhere deep behind.
While one can always argue about the details, the larger picture is very bleak indeed.
Jon, This overall rank is really misleading. How you are going to compare Leningrad University and Princeton? The first one did not have neither Engineering school nor Business one. On the other hand, Princeton does not have a School of Mathematics (and say Department of Topology and Geometry as part of the school, have you heard about Grisha Perelman?). As result, if you want to get an MBA, Princeton is good choice, I’m not so sure that the choice is clear if you want to pursue math. Another observation, it looks like the famous “fiz-teh” is not listed at all, even though almost every good American Physics Department has its graduates. All this makes this ranking meaningless.
BTW, National Research Council tried to rank American departments in different areas (that is, the same university structure, and they compare a math program to another math program). It’s not easy. They are behind the schedule by two years already.
Finally, check wiki, there are not that many Soviet/Russian scientists among the Nobel prize winners. In fact, the list is extremely short. If this factor has a significant weight, it is very surprising that even these two are in top 500.
Umm, I beg to differ about Princeton.
Princeton, and every Ivy League college, does indeed have a “school of mathematics.”
In fact, Einstein worked at Princeton University for quite a while.
The requirements in mathematics are particularly rigorous.
http://www.princeton.edu/main/academics/departments/
http://www.math.princeton.edu/index.html
Requirements for an undergraduate math degree at Princeton:
Click to access MathMajorsInfo.pdf
Not very impressive by Moscow University’s stardards.
Elmer,
Princeton has a math department, a good one. Матмех (School of Mathematics) of St.Petersburg University has 22 departments: Mathematical Analysis, Algebra and Numbers Theory, Geometry, Differential Equations , Mathematical Physics, Theory of Probability and Mathematical Statistics, Computational Mathematics, Parallel Algorithms, Theoretical Cybernetics… It has 6 times more faculty members than Princeton Math Department, 1500 undergraduates and 300 graduate students.
The undergraduate program to which you refer is covered during first five semesters at the SPbU, then you need to work in a particular field. In total it takes 5 years (and a thesis in the chosen specialization) to get a degree. It’s not а PhD, for that one needs 3 more years and a couple of papers. But it is definitely as good as Master Degree in Math from an Ivy League school.
Oh, geez, I did not think I was going to have to explain this.
Each Ivy League school is very selective about the number of students it admits. For example, Harvard has about 24,000 or more applicants for about 2,000 places.
The Ivy League colleges are not factories like Матмех.
And therein lies the difference. Mathematics majors at Princeton have extremely advanced and rigorous requirements, plus they have independent study – to pursue individual interests. And they may take graduate level courses.
Plus, they are required to study outside of their particular field, to make well-rounded individuals.
Harvard calls this “breadth as well as depth.” The other Ivy League schools are in line with that.
As far as the number of students, the idea is quality, not quantity.
Princeton’s goal is to produce mathematicians, or economists, or biologists, or chemists, or English majors, or Slavic Studies majors, etc., who are well-rounded human beings.
Not to mass produce mathematicians, factory style, who have no conception of the world around them.
Or, if you will, to produce mathematicians who can appreciate literature – or know when Putin is leading a country to ruin.
That’s just one of the reasons why Princeton has a higher rating than Матмех.
Each Ivy League school is very selective about the number of students it admits. For example, Harvard has about 24,000 or more applicants for about 2,000 places.
***
Based on SATs? Selection for places like “mehmat” or “fizteh” starts in middle school. Ask Felix, he knows what I mean.
As to producing “well-rounded human beings”, I don’t think it’s really a goal for a university. IMHO, a family is a better route.
How many of these young kids coming out of Russia’s universites are leaving the country?
My guess is plenty. I’m basing that on comments I’ve read on LJ.ru.
That’s the real bottomline. The best and brightest are smart enough to ditch Putin’s Russia. No property rights, little chance of starting a small business, rampant corruption, a diminished civil society, those that can are leaving.
It’s astounding that anyone with an IQ above room temperature can defend the rot that is Russia right now.
Well said, penny. :)
Boba,
One can argue about the details endlessly but the picture itself is very bleak for Russia. Like I wrote, there are many bright students coming out of a population of 140 million. They simply don’t get the education and possibilities of research they deserve. That’s why brilliant Russian researchers in arts and sciences leave Russia and contribute to success of other countries.
How else even small regional Western universities, say, University of Umeå in Sweden which draws it’s students from population base of circa 500, 000 and has to compete with better regarded universities, gains constantly higher international regard with amount of publications in international peer-reviewed journals than University of Moscow, the most coveted institution in a nation of 140 million?
On the weight of Nobel prizes in this particular ARWU comparison, take a look at the website, see the comparison tables by yourself.
Even in field of physics, traditional Soviet area of excellence, the performance is very bad nowadays:
http://www.china-profile.com/data/tab_citations_2a.htm
This comparison takes into account all papers published in a country, regardless of university of their publication. Russia falls well behind West European countries in citations and papers per capita.
On mathematics, which you cited also as a traditional Russian area of expertise, see:
http://sciencewatch.com/dr/cou/2008/08nov20MATH/
Russia is number eleven, well behind Italy or Spain. A per capita analysis is too sorry to be mentioned.
Boba,
You chose a really poor target in Princeton. Not only is Princeton’s Math Department itself one of the best places in the World, with great mathematicians from all over the World teaching there to great math students from all over the World (very few Americans there), but Princeton has the mindbogglingly great Institute for Advanced Study, with Math being especially great.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Advanced_Study
Institute for Advanced Study
The Institute for Advanced Study, located in Princeton, New Jersey, United States, is a center for theoretical research and intellectual inquiry. The Institute is perhaps best known as the academic home of Albert Einstein, John von Neumann, and Kurt Gödel, after their immigration to the United States. Other famous scholars who have worked at the institute include Edward Witten, J. Robert Oppenheimer, Freeman Dyson, Erwin Panofsky, Homer A. Thompson, George Kennan, Hermann Weyl, Paul Erdős, Michael Atiyah, and Michael Walzer.
Look, Boba, of course, Russia has won 5 out of 14 Fileds Medals, with USA winning only 1. So, there is no doubt that Russian math students are head and shoulders above Princeton math students, but the professors at Princeton come from all over the World and they are great.
A minute ago, I just randomly pressed on the name of the latest Russian Field Medal recipient – Andrei Okounkov – and, as I expected – he is now at Princeton, along with University of California, Berkeley and University of Chicago:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Okounkov
And another Fields Medal winner – Vladimir Voevodsky – is at Princeton too.
Of course, Voevodsky and Okunkov are both Moscow University graduates. In fact, there is no doubt that the 200th best math undergrad at Moscow University is better than the 3rd best Princeton undergrad.
I have no doubts that it’s better to be a faculty at Princeton than at “мехмат”. But how to get there? My claim is that entering to “мехмат” is at least as good as getting major in Math from Princeton. Even now. All these people (Voevodsky, Okunkov, Perelman…) get their training in late 80s, yearly 90s. Majority of their teachers are still there. There is a problem however (yes, LR). These teachers are pushing 70, and I’m not sure there are enough younger scientists to keep the high standards when the old generation retires… Though Perelman is still there, it looks like he is done with math.
More on Libertarian nastiness.
Libertarianism and Fascism
Real freedom is economic freedom.
Oswald Mosley,
leader of British fascists in 1930’s
There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order.
Hans Herman Hoppe,
German-American libertarian
The term “libertarianism” is used to describe broad spectre of political philosophies holding individual liberty as the greatest value. In a more narrow sense we are concerned here, libertarianism is a synonymous to propertiarian libertarianism, propertarianism, US-styled libertarianism, sometimes right libertarianism: political philosophy that insists on property rights (“economic freedom”) and believes propery rights lead to free market, wealth and all other liberties.
Libertarianism is still marginal political philosophy, but it appears that Internet significantly contributes to its spreading.
Many people have met the libertarians for the first time on various Internet forums, where they show zeal and dedication typical for sympathisers of extremist ideologies as communism, fascism or anarchism. The libertarians seem to be emotional, but also rational and able to present sophisticated arguments. Although tireless advocates of individual liberties, many libertarians leave the impression of an extreme rightists, similar to fascists. The purpose of this essay is to discuss hypotheis that these two ideologies are relatively close.
Some popular systematizations, accepted or developed by libertarians, define political philosophies in two dimensions, left – right (sometimes called economic freedom), and authoritarian – non-authoritarian (sometimes called political freedom.) These systematizations allow seemingly important distinction between communism and anarchism and introduce libertarianism as a fourth extreme position.
However, many people — including libertarians — believe that anarcho-communist and communist positions are very close. Not infrequently these two groups unite and organize for street fights against fascists (“antifa”) – and for that purpose they even use almost identical symbols. Contrary, the cases of fascists and communists organizing to fight anarchists as a picture above might suggest, do not exist. The question whether similar relation exists on the right side of the square, between libertarians and fascists cannot be avoided.
On the other side, associations with negative ideas and movements, especially with fascism is suspicious, even notorious tactics. Some discussion groups even apply so called “Godwin’s law” that doesn’t allow mentioning Hitler and fascists. Libertarians themselves tend to associate fascism and communism, and frequently they claim that fascism is moderate version of communism. On the other side, libertarianism is sometimes compared with Marxism as well. Nevertheless, it is not excluded that thinking about such comparisons – even if conclusions are rejected – might have some value and arise some awareness.
——————————————————————————–
Economy. Libertarian position on economy is simple: individual property rights are essential, and these rights lead to free market capitalism, unrestricted as much as possible. The fascist position is more dynamic. Once in power, the fascists apply various capitalist economies. Pinochet in Chile and Mussolini in Italy during first few years applied very laissez-faire forms of the capitalist economy. Pinochet’s economy was in fact libertarian economy, “designed” by Milton Friedman and students of libertarian stronghold Chicago School of Economy. If “economic freedom” leads to “political freedom”, then even Chilean Junta could be libertarians.
Mussolini’s economy during that time was even more laissez-faire than economy during rule of Italian [classical] Liberal Party. German Nazi economy was even more rightist one, i.e. state directly supported interests of the large capitalists, who in turn finantially supported Nazis in early 1930’s; Alfried Krupp was in the same time the largest capitalist in Germany and Minister of the War Economy. Late Mussolini and Francisco Franco tried to build some kind of corporative state, i.e. state is seen as mediator between different class interests, trying to establish class collaboration. Both groups, the libertarians and the fascists, although not necessarily due to same reasons, stand on the position of class collaboration. However, the rightist orientation of the fascists developed with time. Early fascists groups, Italian Fascists and German Nazis started as very small groups of militant nationalists and socialists. The nationalist component was much stronger: Fascists and Nazis were extreme nationalists and moderate socialists. They were agressive oponents of more radical, internationalist socialist groups, and gradually attracted support of the traditional anti-socialists: aristocrats, capitalists, clerics, [classical] liberals who in turn required abolishement of the remaining socialist elements for continued support; in the case of Germany, it even resulted in mass muders of the members of the Nazi leftist faction in the “Night of the long knives”. Later fascist governments like Franco’s, quisling governements in occupied countries during WWII, and Pinochet’s Junta appear to skipped over that early phase and started immidietely as primarily anti-socialist movements.
Tradition. The fascists are typically conservatives – they try to preserve traditional institutions like family, church, local communities; they are against homosexuality, drug abuse etc. Libertarians, although not opposed to the traditional values, strongly reject any kind of the pressure and defend individual freedoms. Two groups are on opposite positions. There are important exceptions, however, see Hans Herman Hoppe later.
Fanaticism. Many members of both movements believe in exceptional place of their own ideology is history. Ayn Rand wrote that “the dream of heaven and greatness … should be ours here and now and on this earth.” Barbara Branden in lecture Objectivism and Rage, 2006, wrote “We see everywhere — particularly on the Internet — the spectacle of supposed supporters of reason and free inquiry erupting in fury at the least provocation and hurling abuse at anyone who opposes — even questions—their convictions. “Objectivist Rage” has a peculiar twist to it, unlikely to be found anywhere else except, paradoxically, in religion. It is almost always morally tinged. Those who question our ideas and those who oppose them, we are told, are not merely unintelligent, ignorant, uninformed; they are evil, they are moral monsters to be cast out and forever damned.” Murray N. Rothbard in Epilogue of Libertarian Manifesto “libertarianism will emerge victorious in a remarkably short period of time … the dark night of tyranny is ending, and that a new dawn of liberty is now at hand … Liberty has never been fully tried in the modern world; libertarians now propose to fulfil the American dream and the world dream of liberty and prosperity for all mankind.” Big goals are dangerous because of their potential to justify evil means. And maybe even worse: some people could be attracted to ideology only because it can justify large sacrifices.
Morality. The fascists and the libertarians reject common morality: empathy and protection of weak, old, children, poor, etc. The fascists tend to believe in superior national or racial groups, and libertarians tend to be openly selfish. According to Essentials of Objectivism, Objectivism rejects any form of altruism. Other libertarians appear to be more moderate: they only note that people are selfish, and that they shouldn’t be ashamed of that. Libertarian psychological rejection of altruism appears to be strangely consistent with results of their belief in – as free as possible – free market economy that doesn’t protect those at the very bottom of the society. Some libertarians appear to believe in unlimited self-ownership. Anarchocapitalist Rothbard allow unlimited abortion: for him, mother has the right to reject foetus’s “invasion” of her body at any moment.
Democracy. The fascist position is openly anti-democratic. The libertarian positions deiffer: some moderate libertarians clearly accept democracy. Some libertarians, however, incline toward dictatorship. The most problematic group are probably Objectivists. Group of selfish, smart people have no reasons not to organize and impose their rule over the rest of the society. It is true that Objectivist strongly condemn dictatorship – but they do not use the term dictatorship for negation of democracy, as it is usual, but for a country that does not recognize individual rights (A. Rand, Interview in Playboy), where they define “individual rights.”
Radical but diverse group of anarcho-capitalists (according to “Libertarian FAQ”, there are 25% of them) advocate complete abolishment of the state and replacement of public services with private companies. It is not easy to imagine how their society could look like, and in practice, following their rules might indeed lead to dictatorship or even feudal society. Really, Hans Herman Hoppe from Ludwig von Mises Institute in Democracy: The God That Failed writes “In a covenant concluded among proprietor and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, no such thing as a right to free (unlimited) speech exists, not even to unlimited speech on one’s own tenant-property. One may say innumerable things and promote almost any idea under the sun, but naturally no one is permitted to advocate ideas, such as democracy and communism, contrary to the very purpose of the covenant of preserving and protecting private property. There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society … They, the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centred lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.” Patri Friedman claims that “only without political freedom can economic freedom thrive … With political freedom (democracy) comes a welfare state and loss of economic freedom.”
Nationalism. The fascists are always nationalists and sometimes racists; libertarians are internationalists and globalists. Notable exceptions are again Objectivists who appear to be more militant nationalists than both American mainstream party. Recently, they are known for advocating more violent attacks on Iraq.
Relative importance of elements of the theory cannot be judged from purely theoretical point of view. If adherents do not feel some element of their favorite theory is important, that element can be ignored in practice, and its role in theory can be purely decorative — like a realm of freedom was in Bolshevik practice. There is no conspiracy; humans are mostly true believers, but they cannot attach emotions on their rational choices easily.
The most consistent elements of libertarianism appears to be property rights (“economic freedom”) and rejection of altruism. These elements are independent and can be combined on all other ways: conservatives accept both property rights and altruism; socialists reject property rights and accept altruism. Theoretically, Max Stirner’s type of nihilist would reject both.
The libertarians are less convincing when they advocate freedom; one could suspect that, because freedom is very abstract notion, and it cannot easily attract emotions. Even if we accept that some libertarains are critical about political freedoms, it is strange that they are not rejected by the community because of that. Even adherence toward “economic freedom” appears to be weak. It is well known that economic phenomenon as negative externalities, the most obviously pollution, can strongly ruin property rights. However, libertarians are by far more permisive about pollution than adherents of other political philosophies, although pollution is possibly very strong break of the individual and especially, property rights. The libertarians sometimes explain that only “big state” can prevent such externalities, and that they are anti-statist. However, it is paradoxical that libertarians easily allow breaking of the property rights, causing hundreds of thousands life losses in US or EU, just to stay consistent to their anti-state ideas — if anti-statism is really derived from property rights and not other way around. Such a paradox should at least cause strong emotions and generate heated discussions. But, in reality, libertarians discuss that problem so rarely that only way it can be explained is their lack of genuine emotions for freedom; including economic freedom; that it is instead useful rationalization.
So, it appears that emotionally fundamental aspect of libertarianism is rejection of altruism. Genuine consequences are elitism and anti-socialism, while pro-freedom, pro-market and anti-statist positions are rationalizations adopted to support genuine elements of the theory. That means that libertarian movement can abandon rationalizations if needed, with relatively small drop out of adherent. There is no need for explict abandonment of rationalizations; they can be just ignored and their application can be postponed indefinitely.
It is not impossible that some people attracted to libertarian movement emotionally incline to the fascism, but they are too critical to rationally accept fascism after extremely negative historical experience. So, their emotions pull on one side, and ratio on other side. Some marginal syncretist groups like Libertarian National Socialist Green Party already exist.
Timothy D. Terrell’s theist versions of libertarianism claim that man is God’s creation, and hence, God has the property rights over man. Objectivists appear to be the least distant from the fascist mindset, and some anarchocapitalists are only slightly better. It appears that they might prefer fascism of say, Pinochet’s kind, over democracy. Some groups of libertarians can be good candidates for collaboration with fascists, and source of early recruitment in fascist movement, just as Italian [classical] Liberal Party was one of the first collaborators with Mussolini.On the other side, many libertarians do not show any signs of attraction toward typically fascist ideas.
Libertarian movement has old roots, but it still didn’t penetrated deeper in the society, and remains largely unknown to many people, especially outside of United States. Generally, and especially if its popularity increases, some reshaping of the movement can be expected. As political movement grow, the pressure to adopt pragmatical attitude increases and movements are forced to abandon or neglect emotionally weak parts of the ideology, keeping only emotionally strongest elements.
Andrew, how about linking long articles rather than posting them in full.
It defeats the ease of reading spontaneous comments.
Will do penny. My apologies.
Andrew, I didn’t mean it in any way other than it just makes it so much easier to scroll down and read.
I know, I was apologising for the inconvenience :)
I actually think that Russian schools (both secondary and colleges) deserve much more than F for a country that is 120th in the world economically. The problem (that I mentioned elsewhere; so I apologize for some repetition – but education is an excellent example of what I am talking about) is when people try to compare MFTI (“fizteh”) with MIT.
Indians have every reason to be very proud of their IIT schools as well as Delhi business school. Students are top-notch, and business school graduates actually know more than their American liberal arts counterparts, because they don’t waste time on cultural anthropology, women studies and other political correct BS.
That said, no Indian is offended when you say that IIT prepare them to compete in higher-echelon economies, such as US, Singapore or Western Europe. Russians (not the students, by the way, – but politicians and mass media) take huge offense at that!
What may possibly be offensive in stating that a school prepares students well and makes the graduates able to compete in the West? Actually, I don’t see anything more positive that may be said.
I don’t get it Felix
Andrew wrote:
> My father in law was a member at 18, so was my mother in laws father
Interesting. Since Young Communists are like “Hitler Youth”, according to you, then real Communists like your father in law and “mother in laws father” are like Nazis.
Hardly surprising that you have married into a family of Nazis, Andrew.
> Once again Phobophobe, you could be a party member at 18
No I couldn’t. Not at 18 and not at 40. Not a single member of my own family ever belonged to the Communist Party. That didn’t prevent them from getting university education though.
But your own Georgian family not only could but did. One of them has joined the “Nazis” at the teenager age of 18! And no, you couldn’t join the Party at that age (or at any other age) just for nothing. That was a rare privilege. You had to have dedicated yourself full-time to propaganda of Communism or to KGB work to be allowed to join at 18. How did your father-in-law get such a great privilege at the age of 18? Was he the head of Hitler Youth …. oops, I meant Komsomol… of Georgia? And your “mother in laws father”? Was he in charge of Beria’s KGB execution of Abkhazians when Stalin gave independent Abkhazia as a “present” to his native Georgia, and then Beria and Stalin colonised Abkhazia by settling hundreds of thousands of ethnic Georgians there?
> He was smart enough to realise that if he wanted a career in engineering that he had to join the party.
“Smart enough” to join what you refer to as the “Nazi Party”? Both in Germany and in USSR, you really didn’t have to be smart to realise that Party membership is good for your career. Everybody knew that. But you had to be a real scum and a criminal to join the Nazi Party.
Is there anything your family won’t do for their career?
Oh BTW, much of the above post is meant to be sarcastic, to point out the absurdity of your comparison of Georgian and Soviet Komsomol to Hitler Youth.
Well to be fair, my father in laws library is full of anti-communist writers. 1st edition Solzhenitsyn etc.
It was my father-in-law who stated that Komsomol and Young Communists were the equivalent of the Hitler youth.
Both attempted large scale brainwashing, both encouraged children to betray their families to the state for “anti-state” or “anti-revolutionary” behaviour.
BTW retard boy, Abkhazia was a part of Georgia over 1500 years ago, it was administered as part of the Kutaisi govenorate under the Tsarist empire, and it was an autonomous region of Georgia from 1917-1922, and again from 1923.
Try learning history, oh thats right, you are a Nazi yourself, I mean Libertarian, sorry, same thing. Anarcho Capitalism, Neo-nazi Darwinism which are all part of your creed.
In fact, according to Strabo (have you heard of him Phobophobe, or are you too busy reading up on Neo-nazi libertarian theory? After all, most modern nazi’s and ultra rightists define themselves as “Libertarians” and there are many links between the theories of both repulsive groups) and the Roman empire, Abkhazia was a part of Colchis, later known as the Kingdom of Lazica, and then the Kingdom of Imereti.
The Apsu separatists are the descendants of immigrants from the north Caucasus (hence the fact that they speak a dialect of Adyghe, a north Caucasian language) and not a south Caucasian dialect. This is also nwhy they were always a minority, in every census Russian or Soviet.
This is very similar to the Ossetians, who were described by Russian historians of the 19th and early 20th centuries as recent (18th century) immigrants to the Georgian region of Shvida-Kartli.
It is interesting to note that Tshkinvali (etymologically a Georgian name meaning “Place of the Hornbeam”) is mentioned in 1st century Roman records as a Georgian town, and untill the 1960’s Ossetians were a minority.
In addition, more Ossetians live quite happily in the rest of Georgia than there are in “South Ossetia” there are 40,000 in Tbilisi alone, where they have the option of studying their entire school life in Ossetian language schools with Georgian as a secondary language.
Compare this to the Russian attempts to wipe out education in minority languages.
LA RUSSOPHOBE RESPONDS to Bba:
> Well, either he should be or YOU should be. Can you read, ape? We require documentation.
No, you don’t require documentation, sub-primate. Not from fellow russophobes. In fact your reply here is in defence of LES’ not providing any documentation.
> Where is YOURS? Are you drunk or something? If you prove LES lied, we’ll be happy to warn him. Otherwise, we’ll be happy to ban YOU.
I hope everybody appreciates how funny it is that instead of demanding LES to provide documentation for his original claims, LR demands that Boba provide documentation that LES’ idiotic claim is invalid.
And whom does she want to ban here? No LES for making undocumented claims but Boba for asking LES to document them.
And notice that if Boba proves that LES lied – she will simply WARN Les. But otherwise – she will BAN Bob for life. What a nutcase. She can’t even see her own bias and corruption.
And she has the smugness and gall to call others “numbnuts” and “apes”. People with IQ below 75 should be a bit less critical of others’ intelligence.
As you claim to be Jewish, should you not be careful about calling others subhuman Phobophobe, after all we all know where that sort of thinking leads.
But then again you are probably lying about that too, given that you are a libertarian.
Yes, Andrew, calling others “subhuman” leads to joining the Nazi Party at the age of 18.
Please note that it was you who has used this abhoorent term “subhuman” not I.
What I used was the term “IQ below 75”. But to you, people with IQ below 75 are “subhumans”.
There are a lot of people with IQ of 75 or lower. But only a true Nazi would call them “subhumans”.
You hate Russians, Jews, Ossetians, Abkhazians… You refer to mentally disabled people as “subhumans”. You refer to gays as “butt plug pederasts”. Face it: you are a classic Nazi, Andrew.
Oh I don’t know Phobophobe, where was I anti Jewish? Far from it in fact.
I don’t hate Abkahzians or Ossetians, show me where I said I hate them.
I do hate Russia for the mass murder and misery it has perpetrated for the last several hundered years, just as I despise the German state of the late 19th and early to mid 20th century.
However, the Germans have apologised and are sorry for the crimes their ancestors comitted.
The Russians still glory in their crimes and are beneath contempt.
You however have proven repeatededly that you hate Ukrainians, Georgians, Latvians, Estonians etc with your repeated drivel supporting the imperial power that persecuted them for so long, you also hate Muslims, Croats, Bosnians etc.
You have the usual Nazi style superiority complex.
Like a butt plug (and this is the context I was using it in) you have your head up your arse.
Of course, given your anger at being described in these terms, maybe you are a closet type.
BTW, refering to others as “Sub-primates” is calling them “sub-human”
So, Phobophobe, it is you not me that is the classic Nazi.
Andrew wrote:
> BTW, refering to others as “Sub-primates” is calling them “sub-human”. So, Phobophobe, it is you not me that is the classic Nazi.
So, you accuse LR, who was the one to use the insult “ape” towards Boba, of being a Nazi? I called LR a ‘sub-primate’ just to teach her a lesson her for insulting Boba.
I demand that you clarify your position on LR. Is she a Nazi in your book?
Dear baba, [also photophobe]
Will you recruit nashi and pay them many kopeks and mucho vodka to become your eyewitness accounts?
I know many that pretended to be communists, to go to the University. Will you find others and say only 69%?; 98.456%?; 96.24583%?; 99.9999999%?; therefore, I lied because you assumed 100%?
When I write comments, I try to make my remarks “moron proof”, but I keep forgetting that I deal with kremlinoids that may have the IQ of a rock.
You stated:
o For decades, only party members were allowed to attend a university – talent and intelligence did not matter. Only communists were allowed to get a “higher education” – the same fools and idiots that were stupid enough to believe in communism.
***
That’s a lie. Should LES be banned?
Photophobe stated:
What is amazing is that of all people here, the people most ignorant of the way things were in USSR and are now in Russia are LR and LES.
You should learn English before you try to play spin-doctor semantics. When I wrote “only party members”, a nuance in English may be self understood, as son, daughter, cousin, etc.
Membership in the party ultimately became a privilege, with a small subset of the general population of Party becoming an elite class or nomenklatura in Soviet society. Nomenklatura enjoyed many perquisites denied to the average Soviet citizen. Among those perks were shopping at well-stocked stores, access to foreign merchandise, preference in obtaining housing, access to dachas and holiday resorts, being allowed to travel abroad, sending their children to prestigious universities, and obtaining prestigious jobs (as well as party membership itself) for their children. It became virtually impossible to join the Soviet ruling and managing elite without being a member of the Communist Party.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_the_Soviet_Union
Also, quotation marks {“} may imply other meanings to words. When I wrote “higher education”, it also means Masters, PhD, and career opportunities, etc. After all, life experience, in your selected field, is a continual learning process {PRONUNCED EDUCATION}.
My Father was captured and escaped during the interrogation by the cheka. In fact, He was captured and escaped several times, during the decades. {On two occasions, they lined up about one hundred (100) and started to dismember them. In the second incident, they pulled my Father’s toes out, by the roots, and His toes never grew back. Then they threw the men in a sunless dungeon [WITH RATS AND OTHER…] , and my Father saw His friends, slowly die, from gangrene, infections, etc.}
My Uncle was a General in the red army, and lived near the kremlin.
Another uncle was a priest, and when the moskali came to town, the moskali arrested him and shipped him to Siberia {PRONOUNCED GULAGS}. . .
Another Uncle, who was a Professor at the University, until about thirty years ago, until the KGB came from moscow to pay him a visit, then he died. Today, there is a monument of him at the University, and he is in the encyclopedia.
Several Aunts [and other family members] have been in the gulags, and my family members spent over 50 TOTAL years in the gulags and survived. About 50 % of the Ukrainians that were shipped to the gulags, during the winter months, died during transport.
My Grandfather had the only stone house in town and He stored the family archives, and Ukrainian literature, going back over three hundred (300) years, in that building! When the moskali came to town in the 1920’s, they took over the building, and burned all of the contents, and then they took my Grandfather to hang him.
Yet, photophobe claims that I know nothing about the USSR? Potophobe’s absurd statements prove that he/she is clueless!
Photophobe – when you kill the intelligentsia, and eat their brains, do you think that you are any smarter?
Sincerely,
LES
PS if someone was found anti-party/lenin/stalin/party/communist or sang an anti-moskali song, they could be forbidden to entry a University, or be expelled from a University {OR WORSE}, ETC.
The KGB made sure that students and teachers “thought” in the “right” direction prescribed to Soviet people by the ruling Communist Party.
http://www.kyivpost.com/blogs/bloggers/yuriylukanov/5109
PPS Friends have told me that they saw any diploma [“many”] sold in the moscow subway, in the 1980’s. [With all original seals and watermarks] etc.! {This could be another reason why the kremlin spends less money on education? The kremlin can take a poll and ask the moskali if they have a diploma in their pocket!}
LES wrote:
> I know many that pretended to be communists, to go to the University.
How do you “pretend”? FYI, communists carried red party cards: “partbilet”. So, if you don’t have a “partbilet”, how can you “pretent” that you do?
Why do you continue to lie through your teeth, LES?
> Will you find others and say only 69%?; 98.456%?; 96.24583%?; 99.9999999%?; therefore, I lied because you assumed 100%?
LES, are you for real? The average student enters a university/college at the age of 17. The percentage of Communist Party members among 17-year-olds is less than 0.0001%. Until Andrew here bragged that his Georgian father-in-law had joined at the age of 18, I had never even heard of anybody who became a a Party member (except for the Civil War years of 1918 – 1921) until their mid-20s. My impression is that you have to have amassed a serious resume to be allowed to join.
You are a pathological liar, LES. My impression is that 99 out every 100 claims of yours are intentional falsifications. Are you related to the notorious Bandurist of the Wikipedia notoriety?
Obviously Phobophobe, you purchased your degrees from a cereal packet, or you are once again lying.
Certainly you have no degree in history.
Red Army troops were encouraged to become party members.
My father in law got a scolarship to Moscow University in 1960. However he was told he had to become a party member to attend.
He also finished his engineering course top of the class, and was the no.1 engineering student of his graduation year in the USSR.
Grow up phobophobe, stop being a retard.
Andrew wrote:
> My father in law got a scolarship to Moscow University in 1960… He also finished his engineering course ….
Andrew, try to be more careful when lying. They don’t teach engineering at the Moscow University.
You are such a lying weasel.
:) And I like “no.1”. Remember this competition? You had to hold your breath for half an hour! Only party members could do that!
Wait. Maybe you were referring to my retaliating to LR’s calling Boba an “ape” by calling her “sub-primate”.
In that case:
1. You have just accused LR (who, as I hate to admit, is indeed a Jew like myself) of Nazi tendencies for her using the term “ape” towards Boba.
Get real, Andrew. She meant it as a cheap insult not as a Nazi call.
2. “Sub-human” and “sub-primate” are not the same thing. “Humans” is a subset of “primates”. Thus, “sub-primates” is a subset of “sub-humans”. Their set difference are apes and other non-human primates.
I If humans are a subset of primates….then
sub-humans are a subset of humans which would
also make them a sub-subset of primates.
No, I used the term “sub-primate” to mean all animals who are not primates. Similarly, I presume Andrew’s use of the term “sub-human” means animals other than humans.
Andrew wrote:
> It was my father-in-law who stated that Komsomol and Young Communists were the equivalent of the Hitler youth.
You mean the same father-in-law who joined the Communist Prty itself at the record-breaking age of 18? What a horrible hypocrite he is! What an abominable revolting creature! I am glad he admits that he himself was like a Nazi.
I bet many former dissidents, who like my friend Edik Gudava, Vladimir Bukovsky and Novodvorskaya rotted in Soviet jails, would spit in his Nazi face, if they ever met him. And so would Solzhenitsin.
The man admits that being a Communist is like being a Nazi, and yet he rushed to join this Nazi Party at the age of 18! Think about it: he rushed (!) to join KPSS, thinking they were Nazis!
He voluntarily joined the organization that he considered to be a Nazi party! At the age of 18! I am lost for words. What a scum he is.
I mean, 18 is truly a record-breaker. Even the future KGB spy Putin didn’t join the Party until he was already a University student.
And what is amazing is that you find nothing wrong with this. I bet you respect him as much as you respect Saakashvili.
And speaking of Saakashvili… Let’s look at his biography:
http://www.glavred.info/archive/2004/01/15/145020-1.html
His grandfather worked for the KGB. Saakashvili himself was a student at the Foreign Relations department the Kiev University in the 1980s and a Komsomol member. Twice. So, to use your analogy, Saakashvili was a Nazi Youth.
In fact, so far, each and every Georgian President has been a Soviet university graduate and thus a former Nazi Youth. Interesting, eh?
A bit of clarification here. I personally don’t equate being a Communist to being a Nazi. At least in theory, communist ideals of equality and international brotherhood are not revolting, unlike the Nazi ideals of racial hatred and of subjugation an dextermination of other ethnicities and races. It is the practice of Communism, perverted by the Georgian monster Stalin, that was horrible.
But if Andrew’s father-in-law believed that Communism was as bad as Nazism, and still rushed to join this Communism at the age of 18 (why the rush?) – he is a monster.
And let me repeat – engineering students were not only not required to join the Communist Party but there was no pressure on engineers to do so until much later in their careers. Only when they were being considered for management positions in their late 20s and 30s, was the Party membership a plus. I have never heard of an engineering student in his teens or even early 20s being a Party member.
Well, my mother in laws aunt and uncle both spent decades in the Gulags.
Her father was a Georgian officer in the Tsarist army, when the revolution came he was given the option by his men, join the reds or get shot.
I think it was a fairly easy choice at the time, and one taken by many Tsarist officers.
Once again, with regards to my father in law, he was severely indoctrinated in his youth (1940’s & 50’s) as were all his generation, he was required, due to his family history (nobility) to be a better red than anyone else, and to his credit, once he saw what the party really was he despised it.
Oh another thing, Solzhenitsyn blamed LENIN for the Gulag system, not Stalin.
As Solzhenitsyn said, the Gulag was the heart of communism.
Another thing Phobophobe forgets about communism, and especially Russian communism, was the Russian belief that under communism, all the ethnic minorities would die out and become Russians.
I cannot think of a worse fate than all the worlds cultures degrading and becoming Russian.
Furthermore Phobophobe, if you see no difference between the Nazi desire to exterminate people based on their race, and the Communist desire to exterminate people based on their class, you are a monster and scumbag yourself.
Your “libertarian” viewpoint is as morally bankrupt as both the Nazi and Communist ideologies.
In case I wasn’t emphatic enough, Andrew, let me emphasise that I find you to be no better than your father-in-law.
Leaving aside your russophobia, homophobia and various other similarly abominable phobias, you are a despicable liar. You have proven this once again in this thread, when you wrote:
> My father in law got a scolarship to Moscow University in 1960. However he was told he had to become a party member to attend. He was the no.1 engineering student of his graduation year in the USSR.
You have managed to put in an incredible number of falsifications into just a couple of sentences. Here just a few:
1. You didn’t have to be a party member to attend Universities. Not even in politicised departments like history, law and foreign relations. And certainly engineers and natural scientists didn’t have to do so at all. My own father was a Doctor of Science in Mechanical Engineering and the head of a prestigious automobile research lab and he had never even considered joining the Party. Not at the age of 18, not at the age of 45.
2. There is no such thing as “the no.1 engineering student of his graduation year in the USSR”. For heaven’s sake, with hundreds if not thousands of various disparate engineering colleges around, how could one determine who is “”the no.1 engineering student” in an entire country of 250 million people? Why do you invent such obviously ridiculous lies?
3. There were no engineering departments in Moscow University. No engineering was taught at Moscow University. That was the official idea: no engineering or medicine at the University. Engineering and medicine were taught at numerous engineering colleges, aka “institutes”.
Tell me, Andrew, why do you have to falsify everything? How does the mentality of a pathological liar work? Do you feel compelled to lie?
True, I made a mistake in translation while talking to my father in law. My mistake, these things happen when you are not a native speaker of a language.
It was Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology.
Of course it is semantics as to whether it is a university or not. Tertiary institute covers them all.
As for him being “evil” not at all.
Being the grandson of the Eristavi of Racha, he had to be a member to have any prospects of a career or education at all. In addition he grew up in the 40’s and 50’s when the brainwashing of Soviet youth was extreme.
With regards to dissidents “spitting in his face” not really. He became rapidly disillusioned with communism, especially the corruption and repression, and left the party in the late 60’s.
Believe me, it is much harder to do once you have a family.
I greatly respect him for his being able to overcome his indoctrination.
Of course, being the bigot and communist lover that you are, I guess you have not heard of the concept of changing your views based on experience.
He knew Solzhenitsyn, and several other dissidents, and was widely respected in his circles for his stand against corruption, for which his Russian seniors tried to have him killed twice, in the 70’s and in the 80’s.
He considered, looking back on his experiences, that communism was as bad as nazism (which it was), so get it right reject.
Now, as for your father being “the head of a prestigious automobile research lab”. Respected in Russia maybe, but then again look at the crap he and his compatriots produced. Russian automotive technology was and is pretty much the worst in the world.
As for “Stalin perverting communism” as you inanely believe, utter rot.
It was always corrupt, genocidal, and oriented towards Russian supremacy in the USSR.
The mass killings were not started by Stalin, they were started by Lenin (Russian) and Felix Dezerzhinsky (Polish), and Lenin is responsible for just as many deaths as Stalin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheka
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_terror
You also choose to forget that the great purges were the work of Yhezov and Yagoda both ethnic Russians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yehzov
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purges
Now Phobophope, stop calling yourself a russophile, you are a Russian, and seek to blame all of Russia’s historic evil behaviour on others.
You are an outright racist, you despise Caucasians, Balts, Ukrainians, Bosniaks, Croats etc, etc, etc.
Time to face up to the evils your own people have comitted for centuries.
There is a reason all the neighbors of your motherland hate you.
By thew way Phobophobe, I suspect you are lying when you say not a single member of your entire family was a communist, do you include all your uncles, cousins etc?
If so then you are certainly lying.
Or its a case of denial, a bit like the Germans after the war “Oh no, we never had any Nazi’s in our family….”
Given your idealisation of communism I suspect your family has a skeleton or 2 in the closet.
No, Andrew, I am not lying. I am not a pathological liar like yourself. On occasion after occasion, I have exposed you as a liar. And you always explain this as your misunderstanding. And then you always lash out and try to write that I must be a liar too.
But I don’t lie, Andrew. At least not unless it’s a real-life necessity and somebody’s fate depends on it. I know that this is hard to understand by a clinical liar like yourself. No relative of mine, that I know of, was a Party member. Keep in mind that I am Jewish, and ever since your Georgian Comrade Stalin unleashed the campaign of anti-Jewish terror in the late 1940s, they required from Jews much more effort in order be admitted into the Party. On top of that, half of my relatives were dissidents. That’s why they were forced to emigrate in the 1970s.
My family and your Nazi-like family are the opposite ends of the spectrum. We are people of principle, we are not afraid to speak out for truth and to criticise our government, be it the Soviet government in the 70s or American government today. And some of your relatives freely admit that, in their greed and desire to succeed over the corpses of others, they rushed to join the Commies as teenagers and would join the Nazi Party in Nazi Germany.
But let’s not allow you to change the subject away from you getting caught as a liar again.
> I made a mistake in translation
Given that I have caught you red-handed on numerous other lies of yours, I find it unbelievable that you would innocently confuse Moscow University with the Moscow Phys-Tech Institute, whose names’ only commonality is that they are in Moscow.
But on top of that, we also have your lie that teenage engineering students had to join the Communist Party in order to get engineering education. You haven’t been able to invent an excuse for this fabrication yet.
And if that was not bad enough, we still have your even more fantastic and laughable fabrication about the existence of “the no.1 engineering student of a graduation year in the USSR”. You haven’t been able to invent an excuse for this fabrication yet. Come on, think hard. Invent some excuse quick!
You are a pathological liar, Andrew. I knew that from the very first days I encountered you, especially after you claimed that in the 1930s and 1940s, my Jewish relatives were Nazi-lovers, while 25% of all your male relatives in New Zealand died at the hands of the Nazis, which is a statistical impossibility, given that New Zealand had lost a total of only 11 thousand men in total:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties
Human Losses of World War Two by Country
Total deaths
New Zealand 11,900
Soviet Union 23,954,000
Deaths as % of 1939 population
New Zealand 0.73%
Soviet Union 14.18%
Andrew wrote:
> Know dickhead, I was saying 25% of that generation, including grandfathers, uncles, cousins etc, not just one person.
> How many did your family lose? Or were they […] directly contributing to the deaths of millions through impeding the US entry into the war?
So, New Zealand lost 0.73%, but your family lost 25%? Thirty times more than the average? I am an expert on probability theory, Andrew, I know the odds of that.
Your entire existence here is dedicated to only one purpose: to spread Goebbels-style lies against Russia and Russian people. Your very purpose here is to fabricate lies, and nothing else.
To scumbag Phobophobe,
“So, New Zealand lost 0.73%, but your family lost 25%? Thirty times more than the average? I am an expert on probability theory, Andrew, I know the odds of that.”
Really? There are many families that suffered more than others in WW2, mine was one of them. One shot down and killed Battle of Britain, 2 killed battle of the Atlantic, one killed arctic convoy, one killed Noths Africa, One killed at Cassino, one killed in pacific on ship sunk by Japs, One shot down and killed in Singapore, one working as a coast watcher killed in the solomons.
So, thats 9 killed. Some were New Zealanders serving in the British Royal Air Force, some were in the RN, and some were in the New Zealand Division, one was in the RNZAF.
Like I said, service family.
(9 out of 32 men of that generation, 22 of whom served).
As for Stalin unleashing the “anti-jewish terror” well bucko, maybe thats a case of what goes around comes around, and being part Jewish myself, I cringe at what some Jews were capable of under the banner of “international socialism”
The system of the gulags and cheka under Lenin was predominantly administered by Jews.
Jewish bolsheviks were Stalins trigger men and willing executioners. During the majority of Stalins reign Jews were a much advantaged ethnic/religious group.
“Although in the decades immediately before the Russian Revolution Jews had already made enormous advances in social and economic status, a major contribution of Slezkine’s book is to document that Communism was, indeed, “good for the Jews.” After the Revolution, there was active elimination of any remnants of the older order and their descendants. Anti-Semitism was outlawed. Jews benefited from “antibourgeois” quotas in educational institutions and other forms of discrimination against the middle class and aristocratic elements of the old regime, which could have competed with the Jews. While all other nationalities, including Jews, were allowed and encouraged to keep their ethnic identities, the revolution maintained an anti-majoritarian attitude. (Some might argue that the parallel with post ’65 Civil Rights Act America ironic!)
Beyond the issue of demonstrating that the Jews benefited from the Revolution lies the more important question of their role in implementing it. Having achieved power and elite status, did their traditional hostility to the leaders of the old regime, and to the peasantry, contribute to the peculiarly ghastly character of the early Soviet era?
On this question, Slezkine’s contribution is decisive.
Despite the important role of Jews among the Bolsheviks, most Jews were not Bolsheviks before the Revolution. However, Jews were prominent among the Bolsheviks, and once the Revolution was underway, the vast majority of Russian Jews became sympathizers and active participants.
Jews were particularly visible in the cities and as leaders in the army and in the revolutionary councils and committees. For example, there were 23 Jews among 62 Bolsheviks in the All-Russian Central Executive Committee elected at the Second Congress of Soviets in October, 1917. Jews were leaders of the movement and to a great extent they were its public face.
Their presence was particularly notable at the top levels of the Cheka and OGPU (two successive acronyms for the secret police). Here Slezkine provides statistics on Jewish overrepresentation in these organizations, especially in supervisory roles, and quotes historian Leonard Shapiro’s comment that “anyone who had the misfortune to fall into the hands of the Cheka stood a very good chance of finding himself confronted with and possibly shot by a Jewish investigator.”
During the 1930s, Slezkine reports, the secret police, now known as the NKVD, “was one of the most Jewish of all Soviet institutions”, with 42 of the 111 top officials being Jewish. At this time 12 of the 20 NKVD directorates were headed by ethnic Jews, including those in charge of State Security, Police, Labor Camps, and Resettlement (deportation).
The Gulag was headed by ethnic Jews from its beginning in 1930 until the end of 1938, a period that encompasses the worst excesses of the Great Terror.
They were, in Slezkine’s remarkable phrase, “Stalin’s willing executioners”.
Slezkine appears to take a certain pride in the drama of the role of the Jews in Russia during these years. Thus he says they were
“among the most exuberant crusaders against ‘bourgeois’ habits during the Great Transformation; the most disciplined advocates of socialist realism during the ‘Great Retreat’ (from revolutionary internationalism); and the most passionate prophets of faith, hope, and combat during the Great Patriotic War against the Nazis”.
Sometimes his juxtapositions between his descriptions of Jewish involvement in the horror of the early Soviet period and the life styles of the Jewish elite seem deliberately jarring. Lev Kopelev, a Jewish writer who witnessed and rationalized the Ukrainian famine in which millions died horrible deaths of starvation and disease as an “historical necessity” is quoted saying “You mustn’t give in to debilitating pity. We are the agents of historical necessity. We are fulfilling our revolutionary duty.”
On the next page, Slezkine describes the life of the largely Jewish elite in Moscow and Leningrad where they attended the theater, sent their children to the best schools, had peasant women (whose families were often the victims of mass murder) for nannies, spent weekends at pleasant dachas and vacationed at the Black Sea.
Again, Slezkine discusses the heavily Jewish NKVD and the Jewish leadership of the Great Terror of the 1930s. Then, he writes that in 1937 the prototypical Jewish State official “probably would have been living in elite housing in downtown Moscow . . . with access to special stores, a house in the country (dacha), and a live-in peasant nanny or maid”. He writes long and lovingly detailed sketches of life at the dachas of the elite—the “open verandas overlooking small gardens enclosed by picket fences…”
The reader is left on his own to recall the horrors of the Ukrainian famine, the liquidation of the Kulaks, and the Gulag.
Slezkine attempts to dodge the issue of the degree to which the horrors perpetrated by the early Soviet state were rooted in the traditional attitudes of the Jews who in fact played such an extensive role in their orchestration. He argues that the Jewish Communists were Communists, not Jews.
This does not survive factual analysis.
One might grant the possibility that the revolutionary vanguard was composed of Jews like Trotsky, apparently far more influenced by a universalist utopian vision than by their upbringing in traditional Judaism. But, even granting this, it does not necessarily follow for the millions of Jews who left the shtetl towns, migrated to the cities, and to such a large extent ran the USSR.
It strains credulity to suppose that these migrants completely and immediately threw off all remnants of the Eastern European shtetl culture—which, as Slezkine acknowledges, had a deep sense of estrangement from non-Jewish society, a fear and hatred of peasants, hostility toward the Czarist upper class, and a very negative attitude toward Christianity.
In other words, the war against what Slezkine terms “rural backwardness and religion” — major targets of the Revolution — was exactly the sort of war that traditional Jews would have supported wholeheartedly, because it was a war against everything they hated and thought of as oppressing Jews.
However, while Slezkine seems comfortable with the notion of revenge as a Jewish motive, he does not consider traditional Jewish culture itself as a possible contributor to Jewish behavior in the new Communist state.
Moreover, while it was generally true that Jewish servants of the Soviet regime had ceased being religious Jews, this did not mean they ceased having a Jewish identity. (Albert Lindeman made this point when reviewing Slezkine in The American Conservative [article not on line].)
Slezkine quotes the philosopher Vitaly Rubin speaking of his career at a top Moscow school in the 1930s where over half the students were Jewish:
“Understandably, the Jewish question did not arise there…All the Jews knew themselves to be Jews but considered everything to do with Jewishness a thing of the past…There was no active desire to renounce one’s Jewishness. The problem simply did not exist.”
In other words, in the early decades of the Soviet Union, the ruling class was so heavily a Jewish milieu, that there was no need to renounce a Jewish identity and no need to aggressively push for Jewish interests. Jews had achieved elite status.
But ethnic networking continued nonetheless. Indeed, Slezkine reports that when a leading Soviet spokesmen on anti-Semitism, Yuri Larin (Lurie), tried to explain the embarrassing fact that Jews were, as he said, “preeminent, overabundant, dominant, and so on” among the elite in the Soviet Union, he mentioned the “unusually strong sense of solidarity and a predisposition toward mutual help and support”—ethnic networking by any other name.
Obviously, “mutual help and support” required that Jews recognize each other as Jews. Jewish identity may not have been much discussed. But it operated nonetheless, even if subconsciously, in the rarified circles at the top of Soviet society.
Things changed. Slezkine shows that the apparent de-emphasis of Jewish identity by many members of the Soviet elite during the 1920s and 1930s turned out to be a poor indicator of whether or not these people identified as Jews—or would do so when Jewish and Soviet identities began to diverge in later years: when National Socialism reemphasized Jewish identity, and when Israel emerged as a magnet for Jewish sentiment and loyalty.
In the end, despite the rationalizations of many Soviet Jews on Jewish identity in the early Soviet period, it was blood that mattered.
After World War II, in a process which remains somewhat obscure, the Russian majority began taking back their country. One method was “massive affirmative action” aimed at giving greater representation to underrepresented ethnic groups. Jews became targets of suspicion because of their ethnic status. They were barred from some elite institutions, and had their opportunities for advancement limited. Overt anti-Semitism was encouraged by the more covert official variety apparent in the limits on Jewish advancement.
Under these circumstances, Slezkine says that Jews became “in many ways, the core of the antiregime intelligentsia”. Applications to leave the USSR increased dramatically after Israel’s Six-Day War of 1967 which, as in the United States and Eastern Europe, resulted in an upsurge of Jewish identification and ethnic pride. The floodgates were eventually opened by Gorbachev in the late 1980s. By 1994, 1.2 million Soviet Jews had emigrated—43% of the total. By 2002, there were only 230,000 Jews remaining in the Russian Federation, 0.16% of the population.
Nevertheless these remaining Jews remain overrepresented among the elite. Six of the seven oligarchs who emerged in control of the Soviet economy and media in the period of de-nationalization of the 1990s were Jews. ”
From a review of (Jewish authored) “The Jewish Century” by Yuri Slezkine
http://www.vdare.com/misc/051105_macdonald_stalin.htm
“Lenin, Stalin, and their successors could not have carried out their deeds without wide-scale cooperation of disciplined “terror officials,” cruel interrogators, snitches, executioners, guards, judges, perverts, and many bleeding hearts who were members of the progressive Western Left and were deceived by the Soviet regime of horror and even provided it with a kosher certificate.”
and
“And us, the Jews? An Israeli student finishes high school without ever hearing the name “Genrikh Yagoda,” the greatest Jewish murderer of the 20th Century, the GPU’s deputy commander and the founder and commander of the NKVD. Yagoda diligently implemented Stalin’s collectivization orders and is responsible for the deaths of at least 10 million people. His Jewish deputies established and managed the Gulag system. After Stalin no longer viewed him favorably, Yagoda was demoted and executed, and was replaced as chief hangman in 1936 by Yezhov, the “bloodthirsty dwarf.”
Yezhov was not Jewish but was blessed with an active Jewish wife. In his Book “Stalin: Court of the Red Star”, Jewish historian Sebag Montefiore writes that during the darkest period of terror, when the Communist killing machine worked in full force, Stalin was surrounded by beautiful, young Jewish women.
Stalin’s close associates and loyalists included member of the Central Committee and Politburo Lazar Kaganovich. Montefiore characterizes him as the “first Stalinist” and adds that those starving to death in Ukraine, an unparalleled tragedy in the history of human kind aside from the Nazi horrors and Mao’s terror in China, did not move Kaganovich.
Many Jews sold their soul to the devil of the Communist revolution and have blood on their hands for eternity. We’ll mention just one more: Leonid Reichman, head of the NKVD’s special department and the organization’s chief interrogator, who was a particularly cruel sadist.
In 1934, according to published statistics, 38.5 percent of those holding the most senior posts in the Soviet security apparatuses were of Jewish origin. They too, of course, were gradually eliminated in the next purges. In a fascinating lecture at a Tel Aviv University convention this week, Dr. Halfin described the waves of soviet terror as a “carnival of mass murder,” “fantasy of purges”, and “essianism of evil.” Turns out that Jews too, when they become captivated by messianic ideology, can become great murderers, among the greatest known by modern history.
The Jews active in official communist terror apparatuses (In the Soviet Union and abroad) and who at times led them, did not do this, obviously, as Jews, but rather, as Stalinists, communists, and “Soviet people.” Therefore, we find it easy to ignore their origin and “play dumb”: What do we have to do with them? But let’s not forget them. My own view is different. I find it unacceptable that a person will be considered a member of the Jewish people when he does great things, but not considered part of our people when he does amazingly despicable things.
Even if we deny it, we cannot escape the Jewishness of “our hangmen,” who served the Red Terror with loyalty and dedication from its establishment. After all, others will always remind us of their origin.”
http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3342999,00.html
So it looks to me like you are telling porkies again Phobophobe.
I bet you do have commies in the closet.
Just read Solzhenitsyn for his comments about the Jewish domination of the Gulag system.
However, like Georgians, the majority of Jews suffered under the system.
So blaming everything on the Georgians is an outrageous lie, just as outrageous as blaming everything on Jews.
LES wrote:
> You should learn English before you try to play spin-doctor semantics. When I wrote “only party members”, a nuance in English may be self understood, as son, daughter, cousin, etc.
Thank you, LES, for teaching the readers proper English. Next time I will indeed take the term ““only party members” to mean “son, daughter, cousin, etc.” As in: “Hillary had two party members from her first husband and two more from her second husband” or “Many women consider giving birth to party members as their most important goal in life”. Or “George W. Bush is the party member of George Bush Sr.” The English language is full of nuances, isn’t it, party member?
I will also interprete the word “flower” to mean “fish cheeks” and the term “LES” to mean “the most pathetic moron around, who will say the stupidest things in order to weasel out of having been caught as a liar with his pants down”.
If you say that someone is lying when they are telling the truth, that makes you the liar! By the way, the louder you scream doesn’t make what you say any more true. To the contrary, the louder you scream, the more desperate you must be to shout down the truth! Truth is not dependent on volume or the power of your lungs. Truth is not mindless repetition of rhetoric. The Nazis were big believers in slogans and loud lying. They started out strong and look where they ended up. The arrogance of power deludes you into thinking you get to define the truth, as if truth were some kind of malleable commodity, subject to be determined by those in power. Those in power may believe, may hope that to be the case, but truth is not determined by consensus or by majority vote. And truth is not what you hear on TV just because the mainstream media are broadcasting a message the current administration wishes to promote. In case you don’t know, that’s not truth, that’s propaganda. That’s not informing people, that’s indoctrinating people. And it damn sure isn’t enlightenment–it’s manipulation! Thank God–and I do mean that literally!—we still have enough freedom in this country to express our concerns.
LES,
All this Brezhnev-style verbal diarrhea can’t hide the fact that you are a liar. But I am tired of arguing about the obvious. Let me instead ask you an aside-question. You wrote:
> this country …
You live in Australia, right?
boba, the selection process for Ivy League schools, and many, many other schools in the USA, is definitely NOT based on SAT scores alone.
Applicants are reviewed for their academic accomplishments, as well as for their extra-curricular, community and other activities and accomplishments. They are required to submit essays with their application, and undergo an interview.
Each candidate is reviewed on a very comprehensive basis.
As far as “well-rounded” is concerned, I don’t know of any families who are able to run colleges that are accredited.
Families do indeed have a role to play in education.
But the Ivy League and other academic institutions seek to produce scholars at the undergraduate who are indeed “well-rounded.”
Again – mathematicians who can do more than just count, and who are able to recognize when someone like Putin is ruining a country.
LES – THANK YOU. Thank you very much for sharing your family’s tragic history.
People need to know what Russia/maskva/the kremlinoids did.
Elmer,
Honestly, do you really want to send you kids to be brainwashed by leftist professors from Political “science” and Women’s “studies”? Maybe it’s better to stick with biology?
As to “extra-curricular, community and other activities and accomplishments”, I can see a shock that American students get when they try to enter a graduate program and suddenly all this sh… stuff does make any difference!
Actually all that PC BS is a product of Russian Communist attempts to undermine western values.
Of course the Russians had no values to begin with, so its easy for them to destroy those of others.
Yes, Andrew, American political correctness is an evil world-wide Russian/Jewish conspiracy to destroy America.
Do you know that there may be some drugs you can take to diminish the severity of your paranoia and your conspiracy theories?
Andrew, you are well educated.
Phobophobe, you live in a closet.
Russia/Soviet has raped so many countries I can hardly count them.
Budapest -56, soviet attacks civilians with tanks.
The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact between soviet and the nazis. Shame on them!!
The war against Finland.
And many more…
I like russians but I hate the russian government. May russia crumble and grow up to be a great nation.
Excuse me Phobophobe,
How can you (dare to) live in America when you love Russia so much?
I mean really, Russia needs unidimesionals more than ever right now…
Wal, it is you who is so unidimensional that you can’t even understand how being a US citizen, I “dare” criticise the foreign policy of my country of USA.
It is you who should move to some country that doesn’t tolerate dissent, like Iran, Saudi Arabia or North Korea, unless you already live there.
You don’t think that Americans should be allowed to “dare” to criticise their government? No surprise here. All of you, russophobes in this blog (except for Robert and Andrew), hate the freedom of speech. No wonder LR loves so much to ban dissidents here, like when she banned me for “daring” to write that Sharapova’s bad play is due to her shoulder injury and operation. And what is amazing is that some of you, freedom-of-speech haters, actually live in USA! LR sure does.
Which simplistic freedom-hating hell-hole do you live in, Wal?
Well, boba, you must clearly have some extremely superior information to dismiss the Ivy League schools out of hand like that.
Now, it’s true that the Ivy League schools are not the be-all and end-all of education or knowledge.
But it seems that you are a minority of one.
As far as graduate school – well, boba, they don’t really look at high school activities.
Once again – graduate school entrance exams, or for the professional schools – MCATs and LSATs, academic accomplishments in college, interview, etc.
I guess that literature, history, social science, humanities simply don’t count for you.
Again – you are a minority of one.
It is true that the political climate tends towards the liberal side at some of the Ivy League school.
But both the professors and the students are smart enough, for the most part, to put politics aside in the classroom.
Even in the biology classes.
I wrote on September 14, 2009 at 10:25 am:
>> A bit of clarification here. I personally don’t equate being a Communist to being a Nazi. At least in theory, communist ideals of equality and international brotherhood are not revolting, unlike the Nazi ideals of racial hatred and of subjugation and extermination of other ethnicities and races. It is the practice of Communism, perverted by the Georgian monster Stalin, that was horrible.
Andrew replied to me on September 14, 2009 at 3:34 pm:
>>Furthermore Phobophobe, if you see no difference between the Nazi desire to exterminate people based on their race, and the Communist desire to exterminate people based on their class, you are a monster and scumbag yourself.
Andrew, you pathetic liar pathological liar, why do you have to always accuse people of the very reverse of what they say? When I write that I don’t equate Nazism and Communism, you immeditaely reply to me claiming that I equate them. When I talk about anti-fascists, you immediately accuse them of fascism. You claim that love for individial liberties is fascism, and pacifism is love for war.
You are truly the most despicable person I have ever encountered.
Ooops, by “pathetic liar pathological liar: I meant “pathetic little pathological liar”
I meant to say that if you think there is a difference between the Nazi desire to exterminate people based on race, and the communist desire to exterminate people based on their class, you are a monster.
So, your point is that your father-in-law was as bad as a Nazi? At the age of 18? Does he agree?
Ask him: does he agree with you that his idealist Communist beliefs in equality and brotherhood at the age of 18 were **really** as bad as hateful racist ideals of the Nazi Party? I want to see your father-in-law punch you in your lying smug face for even suggesting this.
Oh he is truly repentant about having been taken in by the brainwashing he received.
He spent most of his life trying to atone for his youth.
Now phobophobe, if you want to see someone punch me in the face, come to Tbilisi and do it yourself.
You might find it does not work out as you expect however.
Like all “Libertarians” you are a gutless coward.
Not to mention a lying little Russian vermin.
Go on, show what a big man you are.
Andrew, I certainly am not going to waste my time and money on flying across the Globe just to bloody my knuckles at some insignificant bigoted vermin like you. If you want to vent your frustrations with me exposing your lies and fabrications, you can come to California and try to punch me here, if you can.
Now please Phobophobe, dont project your own inferiority complexes onto me.
Your insignificance is incredible.
Besides, your inability to recognise the crimes of your Russian homeland is very Nazi like indeed.
Now Phobophobe, if everything Russian is so perfect, why do you live in Russia?
You are starting to sound awfully like Tower Bolshevik to me.
Another Russophile liar, and probably one of your intimate friends.
Now another thing Phobophobe, or should that be “Gutless wonder”, the only blood will be yours.
And btw, stop telling me what you think your father-in-law will say. Ask him. Ask him if he thinks that at the age of 18, his communist beliefs in equality and brotehrhood were as bad as nazi beliefs.
You don’t have to tell me his real answer. I know you will lie anyway. But as I said, I want him to physically do to you what you deserve for your claiming that a rasist monster believing in Nazi racial hatred is no worse than a teenager believing in Marxism, the Utopia, the French Commune, and the “Workers Paradise”.
Oh he says it was just as bad as the Nazi ideology, because all that BS about Marxism, Utopianism etc, was just a facade, the real communism was Lenin’s red terror, and the Gulags (also courtesy of comrade Lenin, and Trotsky for that matter).
Like he said to me, all those ideals were lies, that resulted in the deaths of millions.
Thats why he left the party.
Now of course he admits the errors of his youth, unlike your lying scumbag family (Oh no communists in my faimly ever, honest….Yeah right, every family had one at least).
Go back to Russia Phobophobe, have you ever visited that stinking cesspool of racism, corruption and mass murder?
Of course, a lying anti Ukrainian, anti-Georgian, anti-Latvian/Estonian/Lithuanian, anti-Chechen/Dagesh/Ingush (is there anyone you do like aside from your verminous Russians and slimy Serbs?) imperialist and genocide loving scumbag that you are, would fit right in there.
> real communism was Lenin’s red terror, and the Gulags
How was your father-in-law supposed to know all that in the 1960s at the age of 18?
When he and others joined the the Communist party, he thought he was joining the force for equality and brotherhood.
When German men joined the Nazi Party, they knew they were joining the party whose open and main purpose was to assert Aryan supremacy and to physically exterminate Jews.
Your insistence that being a Nazi is like being a Marxist is truly disturbing.
He was 18 in 1960.
After marrying my mother in in 1967, he was introduced to her uncle, a survivor of the gulags (1946-1966 imprisonment), his descriptions resulted in Rezo becoming involved in the dissident movement opened his eyes to the true evil of “the Party”.
As for “Your insistence that being a Nazi is like being a Marxist is truly disturbing” only if you are a hypocrite like yourself. I think you have a hankering for communism Phobophobe, you certainly defend it strenuously.
Communism (Marxist Lenninism, Maoism, call it what you will. I like the term “Internationalist Fascism”) killed far more people (about 7 times as many in fact) as Nazism ever did.
They are both abominations.
Phobophobe says “When he and others joined the the Communist party, he thought he was joining the force for equality and brotherhood”
I don’t disagree, but as Rezo would tell you, that was a big fat Russian lie.
The truth was mass killings, repression, corruption, political assassinations, invasion and repression of neighboring states, mass deportations etc.
Ethnic minorities were targeted as enemies of the state in the same way that Nazi Germany targetted the Jews. However they tended to be deported to Siberia and worked or shot to death instead of the Nazi’s practice of gassing.
Also remember that during the Nazi-Soviet alliance, German SS officers were sent to Russia to study the Gulag system. Their concentration camps started as a carbon copy of the system invented by the Russians under Lenin.
However, the situation was the same in pre war Germany
LA RUSSOPHOBE RESPONDS:
> Can you read, ape? We require documentation. If you prove LES lied…
What is there to “prove”? LES wrote:
> For decades, only party members were allowed to attend a university
Look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_the_Soviet_Union#Membership
The entire number of Party members varied from the minimum of 1.9 mln in 1939 to the maximum of 19 mln in 1986:
“By 1933, the party had approximately 3.5 million members but as a result of the Great Purge party membership was cut down to 1.9 million by 1939. In 1986, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union had over 19 million members or approximately 10% of the USSR’s adult population. Over 44% of party members were classified as industrial workers, 12% were collective farmers.”
So let’s look at the three time points – 1933, 1939 and 1986 – for which we know the exact Party membership figures.
There must have been at least 20 million Soviet intelligentsia people who went to college in the late 1920s and in 1930s. How could all 20 million Soviet intelligentsia people be Party members in these 1930s, if the entire Party membership was 1.9 to 3.5 million and most of those were peasants and workers?
LR, tell me, I know you hate human logic, but don’t you think that 20 is a little larger than 3.5?
Look at 1986. The percentage of intelligentsia was no more than 44%, and 44% of 19 mln is about 8 mln. Total! From age 18 to age 95! And I bet there had been at least 30 million Soviet intelligentsia people who went to college in the late 1980s. So, how can all these 30 million have joined the Party while in college, if the total number of Party members among intelligentsia was less than 8 million?
Or look at it this way: on average, only 10% of Soviet adults – and about 10% of Soviet intelligentsia – belonged to the Party. Since with passing years, many join and very few leave, the percentage of party members increases with age. And most people, who ever joined the Party, did so way after graduation from college. So, the percentage of Party members among college-age intelligentsia (i.e., college students) was definitely less than 5%, more likely: less than 1%.
And since LES claims that it was 100% and 5% is a much smaller number than 100% – LES is a liar.
OK, I know that LR and the rest of russophobes here don’t have the brains to understand simple mathematics and logic. So, they need more proof that LES lied? OK, look at all my relatives, who were never Party members and all were college graduates.
You don’t believe me? Then go through the biographies of tens of thousands of dissidents, scientists, musicians, modern leaders of Baltic and other ex-Soviet republics and all other notables in Wiki – you will see that almost all of them were college graduates and few have ever been members of the Party.
Start with the greatest man of the 20th century: Academician Andrei Sakharov, who entered college in 1938 and got his PhD in 1947. And continue with the Wiki link to the biographies of Soviet dissidents, 115 in total:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Soviet_dissidents
Go over this list and see that 98% of these top dissidents were college graduates and were not Party members while in college.
Or here is another category:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People%27s_Artists_of_the_USSR
Category:People’s Artists of the USSR
Go over the 239 names and see that a99% were college graduates and few if any were Party members in college.
Here are 103 Soviet scientists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Soviet_scientists
And so on.
Is that enough proof that it is a lie to say that “only party members were allowed to attend a university” in any decade?
LA RUSSOPHOBE RESPONDS:
> Can you read, ape? We require documentation.
No, you don’t. if you required documentation, pathological liars like LES and Andrew would have been banned.
And I leave it up to the readers to decide who is more like an ape here: Boba or LR.
Andrew wrote:
> Yezhov, the “bloodthirsty dwarf.”… Yezhov was not Jewish but was blessed with an active Jewish wife… Jewish historian Sebag Montefiore… Mao’s terror in China… Tel Aviv University… Soviet security apparatuses were of Jewish origin… Jewishness of “our hangmen,”…
> So blaming everything on the Georgians…
What Georgians? Where did I “blame” or even mention Georgians in my preceding post? Like all Soviets, Georgians made 100 times more sacrifices per capita to defeat the Nazis than did your New Zealand relatives.
And my post was not about the War anyway. Nor about Stalin’s purges. My post was to expose your fabrications about your family’s biography and your vicious lies that my Jewish relatives were Nazi-lovers.
What do Jews, China, Tel Aviv University, Stalin’s purges, Georgians or Ezhov’s wife have to do with the fact that I have caught you lying about you father-in-law’s college career 3 times in 2 sentences? Why a smoke screen? Do you think that by blaming Jews for the crimes of your Georgian monster Stalin, you will somehow prove your earlier vicious lie that American Jews were Nazi-lovers in the 1930s?
Why post thousands of irrelevant words about irrelevant subjects like Ezhov’s wife and Jewish crimes just to cover up the fact that I have exposed you as a pathological liar once again?
Don’t change the subject!
Actually Phobophobe, you frequently accuse Georgians of being responsible for the crimes of Russia.
You accuse them of genocides (ehich are figments of your imagination).
Besides, as you frequently stated, you are a RUSSIAN Jew, not an American one.
Big difference.
No, Andrew, I accuse Georgians of “genocides” only in response to your constant accusations that Ossetians and Abkhazians are “genocidists”.
And when you accused my Jewish relatives of being Hitler-lovers, you thought I was an American.
But this is not the point here. The point has nothing to do with Georgians or Ossetians. It’s about you. The point is that I have exposed you as a liar again, and you are trying to deflect attention from this.
Now Phobophobe, I did not accuse the Apsu & Ossetian separatists of “genocide” I accused them (and Russia) of well documented ethnic cleansing of the indigeonous population of both provinces.
Apsu, Russian, and Ossetian crimes are well documented.
17% of the population of Abkhazia ethnicly cleansed the largest part of the population, the Georgians.
Last year in Shvida Kartli, the name the Russians used for South Ossetia untill the Bolshevik revolution, the native population, the Georgians, were driven from their ancestral lands by Russian & Ossetian forces.
Get your facts right Phobophobe.
Andrew wrote:
> German SS officers were sent to Russia to study the Gulag system.
I would be interested to read the reference for this.
In any case, let me remind you that concentration camps were invented by you, British chaps, to exterminate Boers and Blacks in South Africa:
Concentration camps (1900 – 1902)
Boer women and children in a concentration camp
The English term “concentration camp” was first used to describe camps operated by the British in South Africa during this conflict.
As Boer farms were destroyed by the British under their “Scorched Earth” policy—including the systematic destruction of crops and slaughtering of livestock, the burning down of homesteads and farms, and the poisoning of wells and salting of fields— many tens of thousands of women and children were forcibly moved into the concentration camps..
No one paid much attention to what was going on in the camps that held African refugees. It is thought that about 12% of all black African inmates died (about 14,154) but the precise number of deaths of Africans in concentration camps is unknown as little attempt was made to keep any records of the 107,000 black Africans who were interned.
This was not the first appearance of internment camps. The Spanish had used internment in the Ten Years’ War that led to the Spanish-American War, and the United States had used them to devastate guerrilla forces during the Philippine-American War. But the Boer War concentration camp system was the first time that a whole nation had been systematically targeted, and the first in which some whole regions had been depopulated.
That was from Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Boer_War
@In any case, let me remind you that concentration camps were invented by you, British chaps, to exterminate Boers and Blacks in South Africa:
Haha. What.
The British internment camps were more similiar to the “protected settlements” of the Vietnam War or the French tactics in rural Algeria more than half century later. Extermination? Of blacks in South Africa? I told you you’re a funny a guy.
Btw the Soviet tactics in Afghanistan were more simple: try and bomb the insurgent-stronghold populated areas of rural Afghanistan until they’re driven away to Pakistan – let the others handle the camps for them. (It didn’t work as good as they it would, but created millions of refugees anyway.) Also mine everything.
But the first Konzentrazionlager camps were indeed in Africa, but the East Africa – in the German colony Tanganyika (governed by another Adolf, Adolf von Gotzen) around the same time. The father of Josef Mengle was involved (also a doctor), as was the father of Goering if I remember correctly. Three hundred thousand (300,000) blacks were killed in two years of the uprising – and only 15 Germans died!
Read the preface of Anne Aplebaum’s GULAG – A History for more about this.
A small correction:
It was an another of the German colonial campaigns, in the German South-West Africa under von Trotha, that involved the first KLs.
“German enterprises were able to rent Hereros in order to use their manpower, and workers’ deaths were permitted, and even reported to the German authorities. Forced labour, disease, and malnutrition killed an estimated 50–80% of the entire Herero population by 1908, when the camps were closed.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_and_Namaqua_Genocide#Concentration_Camps
In Tanganyika it was mostly simply scorched earth tactics and not camps.
And yes, in the German Konzentrazionlagers 100 years ago, under the German Empire regime, they not just concentrated people here. They used them for lethal slave labour for German companies – just like in IIIrd Reich. Most of the camps’ prisoners died – just like in IIIrd Reich (and in short time). And yes, they experimented on them, too (the Mengeles – like father, like son). Rape camps. Everything (un)imaginable.
The first Holocaust
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1138299/The-Holocaust-Horrifying-secrets-Germanys-earliest-genocide-inside-Africas-Forbidden-Zone.html
Well, try reading what Denis Reitz, Jan Smuts and others had to say about the concentration camps.
The objective of the camps was not extermination or mass murder, unlike the Russian camps.
Once again you show an incredible lack of historical knowledge.
And after the Boer surrender the British spared no expense on reconstruction and restoration of the destroyed farms.
Compare this to Russian and German behaviour.
No similarity at all.
Reference for
> German SS officers were sent to Russia to study the Gulag system
please!
> The objective of the camps was not extermination or mass murder, unlike the Russian camps.
Stalin’s GULAG camps were meant for “extermination and mass murder”?
Refernces please!
When Stalin and his men wanted to murder, they murdered on the spot. The purpose of GULAGs was to exploit free labor, until these “free laborers” died from exhaustion.
Hi photophobe.
You = ???!
>> 1930’s [+ or -] Most Ukrainians have had relatives in the gulags! There were about 18,000,000+ people sent to the gulags, and some of the camps were 90% Ukrainian! You do the math.
HOLODOMOR was not the only GENOCIDE orchestrated by the kremlin against the Ukrainians! In their continuing GENOCIDE of the Ukrainian people, culture and language, they called Ukrainians “ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE”, rather than Ukrainians, to rationalize their GENOCIDE of the Ukrainian people. Or, the kremlin called Ukrainians “kulaks”, in order to exterminate {PRONOUNCED GENOCIDE} the Ukrainians.
Although more than three decades have passed since the winter of 1974, when unbound, hand-typed samizdat versions of Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s “The Gulag Archipelago” began circulating in what used to be the Soviet Union, the emotions they stirred remain today. Usually, readers were given only 24 hours to finish the lengthy manuscript — the first-ever historical account of the Soviet concentration camp system — before it had to be passed on to the next person. That meant spending an entire day and night absorbed in Solzhenitsyn’s sometimes eloquent, sometimes angry prose, not an experience anyone was likely to forget.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn STATED THAT ABOUT FORTY MILLION (40,000,000) WERE shipped to the GULAGS.
My 90% figure comes from a book “ZA POLYRNYM KOLOM”, Lviv-Poltava, 2001.
The transit death rate in winter deportation to the gulags, in cattle cars, was reported as high as 50%.
PS Several of my family members were sent to the gulags. Most of them were Ukrainian teenage girls. None of them were able to give birth when they returned. If you can think, then you can figure out the reasons. [I would explain, but vulgar language is not allowed in this forum.] How many Ukrainian children missed the opportunity to be born in Ukraine?
Andrew –
Phobophobe is a troll.
You are arguing with a kremlinoid, masking as a Jew.
Why does he defend Stalin?
“Communism was not as bad as nazism.”
Wrong.
Andrew – the kremlinoids like to throw in lots of Jewishness and talk about anti-semitism.
He is not who he claims to be.
Quite simply – he is a kremlinoid.
In a discussion about the merits, or demerits of the sovok – oops, Russian educational system – why does he bring up all sorts of stuff about concentration camps, and who was or was not a member of the communist party, and how he is a fierce Jew?
“On the Internet, noone knows you’re a dog.”
I wrote:
> When Stalin and his men wanted to murder, they murdered on the spot.
Elmer replied:
> Why does he defend Stalin?
No, Elmer, you don’t understand. Unlike russophobes and other psychopaths, I don’t apporve of murder.
When I wrote: “When Stalin and his men wanted to murder, they murdered on the spot”, I meant this as a condemnation.
Unlike you, I am against murderers.
Well actually Phobophobe, the Russian government wwas usuing the camps for killing.
It was deliberate policy to work “enemies of the state”, “Class enemies” whatever you will, to death through starvation and overwork in an extremely hostile climate.
A bullet was more merciful.
I suggest you actually read “The Gulag Archipelago”.
You are a moron.
phobodud, in a post about the very poor state of the educational system in Rasha, your very first comment was about how Rasha needs nuclear deterrence.
You then very explicitly launched into a defense of communism, and started foaming at the mouth about how it was not as bad as nazism.
You then told us all how you are a proud and fierce Jew.
You’re not that clever, phobocrud.
nazis murdered on the spot, just like communists did, phobomud.
And to state the obvious – your twisted logic about me being in favor of murder is just kremlinoid pap.
What else do you expect from such an unrepentant liar as Phobophobe?
He shows all the Nazi/Communist tendency to twist words beyond all recognition.
Andrew,
You haven’t given me the reference yet for your claim:
> German SS officers were sent to Russia to study the Gulag system
Andrew,
I am still waiting…
Yes I did dickhead, check the other threads.
Which threads exactly? Do you expect me to conduct research over **all** threads in the LR blog in order to find your documentation, do you?
Please humour me and give me either the link to this documentation or the link to the thread in which you gave me this documentation.
See below you lazy neo-fascist loving hypocrite.
And you still have not answered the question:
How do you, Phobophobe, as a self proclaimed Jew, feel about your Russian motherlands supply of weapons (high and low tech) and intelligence to Iran, Syria, Hizbollah and Hamas which directly effects the survival of Israel, not to mention Russia’s supply of nuclear tech to Iran and the shielding of Iran from international sanctions.
Furthermore, as a US citizen, how do you feel about the supply of advanced Russian RPG systems such as the RPG-29 Vampyr which has been used by Islamist militants in Iraq and Afghanistan to kill your fellow US citizens, and to kill your fellow Jews in the IDF?
Not to mention all the Israelis killed by Russian supplied MLRS weapons such as Katushya’s and Grads from Hizbollah.
The high tech devices used to control roadside bombs.
Etc, etc, etc.
If you support any of the above you are a traitor to the US, and a traitor to the Jewish people.
Once again, if you love Russia so much, I suggest you go and live there.
The meetings were held in the portion of Poland that had been annexed by Russia
Starting from the October of 1939 there were some meetings betwen officers from NKVD and Gestapo. They took place in Polish city of Zakopane placed in the Tatra mountains, in villas “Telimena” and “Pan Tadeusz” and also in other city – Cracow.
http://www.polandsholocaust.org/1939.html
“December 7 – Gestapo-NKVD conference
takes place in a Polish resort town to plan the
joint liquidation of Polish resistance. In 1939
the Gestapo employs 7,500 people while the
NKVD numbers 366,000.”
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/Summaries/V71I6P62-1.htm
[…]…In March-April 1940, for example, after some six months of joint occupation, the Gestapo and NKVD held an extended conference in Cracow…
…Apparently the NKVD methods for combating our underground were greatly admired by the Gestapo, and it was suggested that they should be adopted in the German zone,” Russian methods being “a hundred times 60 more dangerous and efficient” than those of the Germans…
…Margarete Buber, a German-Jewish Communist handed over by the NKVD to the Gestapo at that time, has described in her memoir Under Two Dictators (1949) how Soviet secret police officers crossed the Brest-Litovsk bridge in front of their prisoners, to return with SS officers, the two commanders saluting each other before the reading out of names and the handing over of Jews to the Nazis…
…About 15,000 captured Polish officers who had refused to collaborate were tied with Russian ropes and shot in the back of the head with German bullets at Katyn and elsewhere by the NKVD in the spring of 1940, or at about the same time as the Gestapo-NKVD conference in Cracow…
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-vetscor/1000151/posts
There had been meetings in March 1940, during which the Soviet NKVD shared its well-practiced terror and extermination technology with the Nazi SS. (The only Nazi “improvement” over Soviet extermination methods was the use of poison gas.) Professor George Watson has concluded that the fate of the interned Polish officers may have been decided at this conference, which according to him was held in Cracow.
In his 1991 book, Stalin: Breaker of Nations, historian Robert Conquest stated that the conference had taken place at Zakopane in the Winter of 1939/40.
The Gestapo/SS & NKVD conferences were very real, and cooperation was quite close.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestapo-NKVD_Conferences
Andrew, stop stalling. Please provide the documentation for the following cliam:
> Also remember that during the Nazi-Soviet alliance, German SS officers were sent to Russia to study the Gulag system. Their concentration camps started as a carbon copy of the system invented by the Russians under Lenin.
Where exactly in Russia were these SS officers were sent and how exactly did they “study the Gulag system” there? And where did you get the idea that the Nazi “concentration camps started as a carbon copy of the system invented by the Russians under Lenin”?
Before you rush to new lies, let me tell you that what you refer to as “the Nazi-Soviet alliance” was started in 1939, while the Nazi concentration camps were started in 1933-34:
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/index.php?ModuleId=10005263
And as far as what they were modeled after, don’t be so modest: weren’t the Nazi concentration camps based on the earlier “work” in concentration camps done by you, Brits, in Africa along with Spaniards in Cuba.
@weren’t the Nazi concentration camps based on the earlier “work” in concentration camps done by you, Brits, in Africa along with Spaniards in Cuba.
No.
German camps in Europe were based on their (German) camps in Africa and (yes) on the Soviet camps.
British concentration camp:
Soviet concentration camp:
German concentration camp:
And btw, the Soviets even used the ex-Nazi camps after the war. For example 30,000 people died in the SS-run Sachsenhausen (many/most of them Soviet “traitor” POWs) and 12,000 in the NKVD-run Sachsenhausen (1945-1950).
> @weren’t the Nazi concentration camps based on the earlier “work” in concentration camps done by you, Brits, in Africa along with Spaniards in Cuba.
> No.
Then why does it say so here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=sPH4NyyUlmAC&pg=PA70&lpg=PA70&dq=nazi+german+concentration+camps+were+modeled+british+south+africa+boer&source=bl&ots=tBPCRIoidy&sig=WqmoB6fSSdP0hNEo4LiMzFIDT4E&hl=en#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Understanding Erich Maria Remarque By Hans Wagener
“German concentration camps were modeled on internment camps first built by the Spanish during the 1895 revolution in Cuba and by the British in the South African Boer War. “
@Then why does it say so here
Because the author (who’s a German Germanist) was stupid.
British camps were more like some refugee camps:
Than this:
They were internment and not prison camps.
And the first German European camps (such as Dachau, at first run by the SA) were set up by Goering, whose father presided over the German camps in East Africa in the first decade of the century.
Robert wrote:
> the author (who’s a German Germanist)
Well, wouldn’t a German Germanist know better which countries served as models for his fellow a German Germanists?
And if you don’t like this particular book, here is another one, with quite a few pictures to boot:
http://books.google.com/books?id=Jn21v9Yp4h8C&pg=RA2-PA177&lpg=RA2-PA177&dq=concentration+camp+south+africa+boer+OR+afrikaaner+OR+afrikaner+victims&source=bl&ots=FNPaRLezy8&sig=kHOnF-FabElRf7K2UJJ-ooWhxbA&hl=en#v=onepage&q=&f=false
The Germanic isle: Nazi perceptions of Britain
By Gerwin Strobl
Read it. You will see various atrcoties (including pictures) committed by the fellow British Aryans and will read as to how these British concentration camps affected Nazi Gemrany.
Or watch:
BBC: The Boer War – Part 1
The Boer War was by modern terms a genocide with some of the most horrific acts of barbarism against the Boer People. Concentration camps where invented by the English during the Boer War and in fact the Boers were to be histories 1st holocaust victims!
> British camps were more like some refugee camps:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Konsentrasiekamp
Why do you quote Wiki without reading the main Wiki article on these concentration camps that I have already quoted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Boer_War
Concentration camps (1900 – 1902)
The English term “concentration camp” was first used to describe camps operated by the British in South Africa during this conflict.
As Boer farms were destroyed by the British under their “Scorched Earth” policy—including the systematic destruction of crops and slaughtering of livestock, the burning down of homesteads and farms, and the poisoning of wells and salting of fields— many tens of thousands of women and children were forcibly moved into the concentration camps..
No one paid much attention to what was going on in the camps that held African refugees. It is thought that about 12% of all black African inmates died (about 14,154) but the precise number of deaths of Africans in concentration camps is unknown as little attempt was made to keep any records of the 107,000 black Africans who were interned.
But the Boer War concentration camp system was the first time that a whole nation had been systematically targeted, and the first in which some whole regions had been depopulated.
————————-
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/African+victims+of+the+Anglo-Boer+War:+there+are+thousands+of+victims…-a0171687364
We also now know that the Boers were not alone in being forced into concentration camps by the British. An estimated 100,000 Africans were imprisoned in the dozens of camps set up by the British army. These camps then became readymade labour pools for the British who forced Africans to grow food and provide labour for the army. Ironically, the Africans themselves were poorly fed and had extremely high mortality rates inside the camps, where it is estimated that up to 20,000 of them died. It is not lost on even the most casual observer that the practice established during the war by the British of removing Africans en massee from their homes and forcing them to work with little or no compensation, would later become integral to the operation and maintenance of apartheid.
You want images?
> British camps were more like some refugee camps
Oh I see, what kind of refugees are these living skeletons? Refugees from the British “Scorched Earth” policy? Or refugees from the British genocide against Boers and Blacks, in which “whole regions had been depopulated”?
Why were they starved to death? Because of “the systematic destruction of crops and slaughtering of livestock”?
This is total bull*hit and you know it.
If you don’t know, read on but now pay attention.
The British concentration camps meant to, guess what: (suprise, surprise) concentrate people in order to isolate the guerrillas – until the end of the hostilities. And then release them when the war is over.
And this is precisely what happened there. There was no NO policy of murder, NO torture, NO slave labor for British companies – now mind you the early German concentration camps in Africa (under Goering senior, no less) DID have all of this. And also some bonus human experimentation (under Mengele senior).
The 1930s Germans adopted only the British NAME. Their camps were:
– prison camps (for normal and political prisoners – and often with actually sentences to serve, followed by release)
– forced labour camps (not merely peopel conscripted for forced labour – this was Organisation Todt – but rather policy of the extermination through labour)
– POW camps (many Soviet and some other POWs, also resistance members), and
– extermination camps, made specifically to kill people quickly and orderly in massive numbers, and then dispose of their bodies without trace.
Now mind you the Jews were already concentrated – in the walled-off ghettos (with VERY little food and medical care already, forced labour alright, and also plenty of wanton murders) – but then were sent to death camps to be killed.
Now, the Soviet GULAG were prison, labour, and POW camps (also often at once) – they of course lacked the top-secret extermination camps, as this was a German invention (called Vernichtungslager, not Konzentrazionlager). Human experimentation was also more similar to the Japanese specialised camps – for example the Soviet “Kamera” laboratory charged with developing and testing poisons, instead of being attached to major regular camps. Otherwise GULAG was very similar to the basics of the KL system (see listed above). That’s also why they would adopt and use the ex-German camps so easily.
It’s only a name. The British invented the term and then the Germans changed its meaning.
If someone will adopt the Russian (actually predating Yeltsinism-Putinism, there were for filtration camps during and after WWII too) term of “filtration camp” and then use it not merely for mass detention and interrogation of suspects/civilians (and also wanton torture and murder and extortion, including of dead bodies), but (let’s say) rather for forced labor, and organized them in fact completely differently, will it mean they “based it” on the Russian camps too? Because they just used the name? Well, I think not.
And this is really the end of this stupid discussion.
Well, considering the meetings took part in Russian annexed Poland, its semantics.
And no, the Nazi concentration camps were not modelled after the camps in South Africa, where Boers were fed, housed, and not subject ot forced labour. In addition, after the Boer capitulation the British government spent huge sums on reconstruction. Also note that Boers became very staunch supporters (in general) of the British Empire after the war, supporting Britian in WW1 & WW2 (See Jan Smuts & Louis Botha for details).
There is a lot of evidence that the Nazi’s based thier original system on reports given by escapees from Russia during the 1920’s and early 30’s.
However as both Robert Conquest and George Watson have both researched, the Germans learned and applied principles of camp management and opression taught to them by the NKVD in 1939 & 1940 during the joint training courses run in Russian annexed Poland
Actually they were more likely based on the camps used by the Russians during the Circassian genocide in the north caucasus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circassian_genocide
Also interesting to note is that Polish Jews were handed over to the Nazi’s by Russian Jews in the NKVD. Charming bunch you Russians.
Concentration camps
The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed. defines concentration camp as: a camp where non-combatants of a district are accommodated, such as those instituted by Lord Kitchener during the South African war of 1899-1902; one for the internment of political prisoners, foreign nationals, etc., esp. as organized by the Nazi regime in Germany before and during the war of 1939-45.
Similar camps existed earlier, such as in the United States (concentration camps for Cherokee and other Native Americans in the 1830s), in Cuba (1868–78) and in the Philippines (1898–1901) by Spain under the Restoration and the US respectively[5]. The term finds its roots in the “reconcentration camps” set up in Cuba by Valeriano Weyler in 1897 to quell opposition to Spanish rule in Cuba. During the Second Boer War (1899-1902), the term “concentration camp” was used to describe camps operated by the British in South Africa.[6] Ostensibly conceived as a form of humanitarian aid to the families whose farms had been destroyed in the fighting, the camps were used to confine and control large numbers of civilians as part of a scorched earth tactic.
Polish historian Władysław Konopczyński has suggested the first concentration camps were actually created in the 18th century, during Bar Confederation, when Russians organized 3 concentration camps in Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth for Polish rebel captives, where internees awaited deportation on to Siberia. [7]
Use of the word concentration comes from the idea of concentrating a group of people who are in some way undesirable in one place, where they can be watched by those who incarcerated them. For example, in a time of insurgency, potential supporters of the insurgents are placed where they cannot provide them with supplies or information.
Nazi and Soviet camps
Main articles: Nazi concentration camps and Gulag
In the 20th century the arbitrary internment of civilians by the state became more common and reached a climax with Nazi concentration camps (1933-1945) and the practice of forced labor camps (1918-1991) (nominally, the Gulag (1929-1960)) of the Soviet Union.[8] As a result of this trend, the term “concentration camp” carries many of the connotations of “extermination camp” and is sometimes used synonymously. A concentration camp, however, is not by definition a death-camp. For example, many of the slave labor camps were used as free sources of factory labor for the manufacture of war materials and other goods.
Because of these negative connotations, the term “concentration camp”, originally itself a euphemism, has been replaced by newer euphemisms such as internment camp, resettlement camp, detention facility, etc., regardless of the actual circumstances of the camp, which can vary a great deal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_camp#Concentration_camps
So it seems you Russians had concentration camps in poland in the 18th century. Interesting but not surprising really, given the genocidal tendencies of Russians.
Andrew wrote:
> Well, considering the meetings took part in Russian annexed Poland, its semantics.
Stop weaseling. First of all, the German concentration camps were started in 1933, and these meetings took place in 1939-40.
Second, there were no Stalin’s or anybody else’s GULag camps in Poland in 1939-40 and no SS officers were sent to “study” GULag camps.
So, when you wrote:
> “Also remember that during the Nazi-Soviet alliance, German SS officers were sent to Russia to study the Gulag system. Their concentration camps started as a carbon copy of the system invented by the Russians under Lenin.” –
– You lied.
Now dickhead, you don’t have to go to the camps to study them, you can study administration of camps and brutality in a classroom just as easily.
Besides, there is plenty of evidence of SS/Gestapo & NKVD cooperation.
Its quite well documented.
See the links Phobodunce.
And you still have not answered the question
How do you, Phobophobe, as a self proclaimed Jew, feel about your Russian motherlands supply of weapons (high and low tech) and intelligence to Iran, Syria, Hizbollah and Hamas which directly effects the survival of Israel, not to mention Russia’s supply of nuclear tech to Iran and the shielding of Iran from international sanctions.
Furthermore, as a US citizen, how do you feel about the supply of advanced Russian RPG systems such as the RPG-29 Vampyr which has been used by Islamist militants in Iraq and Afghanistan to kill your fellow US citizens, and to kill your fellow Jews in the IDF?
Not to mention all the Israelis killed by Russian supplied MLRS weapons such as Katushya’s and Grads from Hizbollah.
The high tech devices used to control roadside bombs.
Etc, etc, etc.
If you support any of the above you are a traitor to the US, and a traitor to the Jewish people.
Once again, if you love Russia so much, I suggest you go and live there.
Oh, in case you forgot, here are 3 more lies of yours in 2 sentences. You sort-of apologised for the third one, but still haven’t for the other two:
> My father in law got a scolarship to Moscow University in 1960. However he was told he had to become a party member to attend. He was the no.1 engineering student of his graduation year in the USSR.
You have managed to put in an incredible number of falsifications into just a couple of sentences. Here just a few:
1. You didn’t have to be a party member to attend Universities. Not even in politicised departments like history, law and foreign relations. And certainly engineers and natural scientists didn’t have to do so at all. And especially not around 1960, the time of Khruschev’s temporary thawing of the USSR.
2. There was no such thing as “the no.1 engineering student of his graduation year in the USSR”. For heaven’s sake, with hundreds if not thousands of various disparate engineering colleges around, how could one determine who is “”the no.1 engineering student” in an entire country of 250 million people? Why do you invent such obviously ridiculous lies?
3. There were no engineering departments in Moscow University. No engineering was taught at Moscow University.
Oh, he was the no.1 in his discipline.
Not hard to determine really, comparative abalysis of students is not that hard phobophobe.
Some students from certain ethnic (nor Russian) or class backgrounds had to “be more red” than others, especially if they had parents or grandparents considered class or politically unreliable.
Considering mt father in laws Uncle was:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolay_Chkheidze
And one of his other relatives was:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandre_Chkheidze
And his Grandfather and father were Georgian nobility, well you can see the problem.
Besides Phobophobe, you lie all the time.
And you lie in defence of a murderous state, that killed far more people than the Nazi party ever did.
Andrew, I don’t lie. I know that you cannot understand it, but not only I, but many other people have mental blocks that prevent us from lying, unless it’s a life-and-death matter.
We are born with these blocks, you aren’t. Let’s leave it at that.
I have wasted way too much time on you. I really have no time to try to point out all your lies and fabrications anymore. This is like trying to drain the ocean with a teacup.
So let’s try to stay away from each other’s posts as much as possible from now on.
You repratedly lie Phobophobe.
And these fabrications of yours have been repeatedly pointed out by others.
At least when I make a mistake I apologise, unlike you you lying f#$k
Answer the question Phobophobe
How do you, Phobophobe, as a self proclaimed Jew, feel about your Russian motherlands supply of weapons (high and low tech) and intelligence to Iran, Syria, Hizbollah and Hamas which directly effects the survival of Israel, not to mention Russia’s supply of nuclear tech to Iran and the shielding of Iran from international sanctions.
Furthermore, as a US citizen, how do you feel about the supply of advanced Russian RPG systems such as the RPG-29 Vampyr which has been used by Islamist militants in Iraq and Afghanistan to kill your fellow US citizens, and to kill your fellow Jews in the IDF?
Not to mention all the Israelis killed by Russian supplied MLRS weapons such as Katushya’s and Grads from Hizbollah.
The high tech devices used to control roadside bombs.
Etc, etc, etc.
If you support any of the above you are a traitor to the US, and a traitor to the Jewish people.
Once again, if you love Russia so much, I suggest you go and live there.
Actually, as a Jew, I feel very bad about Russians selling weapons to Syria, Iran etc., and i hope that this is part of their bargaining strategy and they will give up their sales of weapons to nations that are unpleasant to USA and Israel, in return for USA stopping selling weapons countries that are unpleasant to Russia and for USA stopping using unfair business practices to limit Russian weapons sales to normal countries, e.g., in Latin America and the Far East.
And as an American, I feel bad about USA’s sales of weapons to the militant Saudi Arabian dictatorship, which has sworn to destroy Israel, as well as about the American aggressions all over the World, in Iraq in particular. USA’s other “friend and ally” – Pakistan – full of extremists, worries me a lot too.
In case you have any doubt as to which countries pose the most threat to Israel, just look at military spending:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
America’s client – Saudi Arabia – spends on weapons almost as much as does Russia: $31,050,000,000. That’s double of what Israel spends. Try to guess which Jewish country is the intended victim of the Saudi war machine. And try to guess which North American country sells all these weapons to Saudi Arabia. (Hint: it’s not Canada or Mexico)
So, the Russian weapons sales to the anti-Israeli powers in the Middle East are miniscule compared to the American weapons sales to the anti-Israeli powers in the Middle East.
Look at per GDP military spendings here:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2034rank.html
While I have found some questionable numbers there, I will take them at face value and list the top countries:
Rank country (% of GDP)
1 Oman 11.4% .
2 Qatar 10%
3 Saudi Arabia 10.00%
4 Iraq 8.6%
5 Jordan 8.6%
As you can see, all five top warmongers are Arab countries, all intend to use their weapons against Israel, and all friends of USA, not of Russia.
And Iran? Iran is in 67th place:
67 Iran 2.5%
“USA stopping using unfair business practices to limit Russian weapons sales to normal countries, e.g., in Latin America and the Far East”
What you want the US to stop producing superior weapons?
As for “normal countries in Latin America and the Far East”, the normal countries (ie the ones with stong democracies) are not interested in Russian weapons and the strings that come with them. Only Chavez (not exactly a democrat) of Venezuela and the Cubans and Nicaraguans are interested in close cooperation with Russia.
Oman, Qatar, and Saudia Arabia are more concerned with the Iranian threat than with Israel. They have not taken offensive action against Israel, and are not likely to do so, although Saudi Arabia did send some token forces in 1973, Iraq sent a single squadron of Hunter Jets, while Cuba sent 1500 combat troops and aircrew who took part in combat operations.
Then you have the Russian contribution, which was immense, particularly in supply, but also in personnell including many who took part in combat operation.
Saudia Arabia in fact would vastly prefer good relationships both political and economic with Israel, and is the author of several comprehensive peace plans. As Sadat said, the Saudis pay lip service to the Palestinians, but would only fight to the last Egyptian.
Jordan has a peace treaty, and good political relations with Israel.
The real threats to Israel are Iran and Syria (and Russia as always).
As for expenditure, try and remember that the figures you quote for Iran are only an estimate, particularly as the Revolutionary Guards are heavily involved in both industry and the black economy.
So once again Phobophobe, as in all things you lie.
> What you want the US to stop producing superior weapons?
The issue is not “superiority”. The issue is htat for the same level of quility or “superiority”, Ameircan weapons are much more expensive and less reliable. But otherc outries are pressured by USA into buying US-made stuff.
Actually they are much more reliable, just ask the Morrocans and Indians who are in the process of sueing Russian arms manufacturers over quality issues.
Not to mention all the groundings of Russian jets due to structural failures.
Then there is the T-72 family of tanks (and the descendants the T-80 & T-90) nicknamed “The blowtorch” due to their persistant tendency to explode in flames when hit (See 1st & 2nd Gulf wars, Chechnya etc).
The list goes on.
As for countries “being pressured” into purchasing US made equipment, in fact many countries wish to purchase US equipment but are prevented from doing so due to security/human rights concerns.
US & European equipment is more expensive, but you get what you pay for in this field.
Russian equipment is plentiful and cheap, but given the rate at which it is destroyed by western equippment on the battlefield, it damn well needs to be. LOL
LR wrote:
> Today, Russians are among the most barbarically ignorant and backwards of any people in the industrialized world.
Ooh, eeh… Hate to break it to you, but you couldn’t be more wrong. As today’s Colbert Report program pointed out, Russia actually happens to be the number one country in the entire World in terms of student reading skills:
http://gia.info.gov.hk/general/200711/29/P200711290121_0121_33971.doc.
PIRLS is administered by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) in a five-year cycle to assess the reading literacy (in mother tongue) of students aged 9 to 10 in the fourth grade.
Rank Countries / Regions Mean Score
1 Russia 565
2 Hong Kong 564
4 Singapore 558
6 Luxembourg 557
8 Italy 551
8 Hungary 551
10 Sweden 549
11 Germany 548
12 Netherlands 547
15 Denmark 546
17 Latvia 541
18 United States 540
19 England 539
Congratulations to Andrew: Georgia finished 9th from the bottom, right above such reading powerhouses as Macedonia and Trinidad and Tobago.
37 Georgia 471
Andrew’s New Zealand too performed quite poorly:
24 New Zealand 532
Next, Colbert talked about math. Here are the rankings:
http://www.queuenews.com/hidden/hidden-ERRnews-ffffflf&atjfjgiiakljas67684657Jan09.html
TIMSS, the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study, is the largest assessment of international student achievement in the world
Mathematics Achievement at the 4th Grade
Country Score
Hong Kong 607
Singapore 599
Chinese Taipei 576
Japan 568
Kazakhstan 549
Russian Federation 544
England 541
Latvia 537
Netherlands 535
Lithuania 530
United States 529
Germany 525
Denmark 523
Australia 516
Hungary 510
Italy 507
Austria 505
Sweden 503
TIMSS Scale Average 500
Notice that just as in reading, Russian (and Kazakhstani) students are better at math than any European or NATO country. NATO-bound Ukraine and Georgia scored near the bottom again:
Ukraine 469
Georgia 438
Iran, Islamic Rep. of 402
Since these two are genetically similar to Russia and Kazakhstan, the explanation seems to be that the rulers of these two countries devote all their countries’ energies and resources to provoking Russia while leaving their children in ignorance. Of course, the more ignorant their children are – the more they will believe the anti-Russian brainwashing that they receive.
Again, congratulations to Andrew, as his New Zealand finished below the average:
New Zealand 492
The picture in Science is pretty much the same:
Science Achievement at the 4th Grade
Country Average Scale Score
Singapore 587
Chinese Taipei 557
Hong Kong SAR 554
Japan 548
Russian Federation 546
Latvia 542
England 542
United States 539
Hungary 536
Italy 535
Kazakhstan 533
Germany 528
Australia 527
Slovak Republic 526
Austria 526
Sweden 525
Netherlands 523
Slovenia 518
Denmark 517
Czech Republic 515
Lithuania 514
TIMSS Scale Average 500
Again, congratulations to Andrew, as his New Zealand finished way down the list:
New Zealand 504
But New Zealanders are einsteins compared to:
Ukraine 474
Iran, Islamic Rep. of 436
Georgia 418
Colombia 400
Yes, Georgians know less science than even Iranians. Looks like the only thing they get taught in school are vicious lies that Russia has always been the enemy of Georgia.
So, Nazi Germany had the highest rates of literacy in the world at the time, the most advanced scientific knowledge, and some of the most advanced medical science.
However, like the Russians of today, they were barbaric and backwards in their attitude to other races, blinkered in their outlook, and ultimately self destructive (while dragging a lot of people down with them).
The Russian state has been heavily criticised for its racist attitude towards Georgians in the recent report on the August war, including in the education system.
Russian students appear to be taught that Georgians are the enemy of Russia.
However, given the high levels of corruption in the Russian education system, and the constant falsification or hiding of negative statistics that is endemic in Russia, I would be highly suspicious of any data about Russian literacy.
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/8/2/3/3/p182331_index.html
Then there is the fact that although Russian PRIMARY school children perform well, their high school children are well below average.
“The Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) showed that Russian primary school students are the most literate in the world. However, Russian 15-year-olds, according to the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), a study under the auspices of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), performed significantly below average.
Reading Proficiency
PIRLS, which assesses reading skills on a five-year cycle, was designed to provide comparative information on the literacy levels of students in their fourth year of formal schooling, with a particular focus on social factors at home and in school that encourage literacy in young children.
In a survey of 44 countries, Russia was represented by 4,955 students from 232 schools in 45 parts of the country. It ranked first with 565 points. Hong Kong came in second and Singapore was third. To compare: in 2001, Russia placed 12th among 35 countries surveyed.
“Two types of reading were evaluated,” Galina Kovaleva, coordinator of the survey in Russia and head of the Education Standards Research Center at the Education Methodology Institute affiliated with the Russian Academy of Education, told The Moscow News. For PIRLS, reading literacy for fourth-grade students is defined as: “the ability to understand and use those written language forms required by society and/or valued by the individual. Young readers can construct meaning from a variety of texts.”
For example, an assignment to read a text entitled “Lump of Clay” evaluated students’ ability to find essential information that is not explicit. It is about an old lump of clay lying at the bottom of a box, in total darkness and wondering when its turn would come. The question was, what that lump of clay wished. One student answered: “the lump of clay wished to be used.” 84 percent of Russian students were able to answer it with the average international benchmark of 68 percent.
Experts say there are several factors in the high performance by Russian school students. First, the average age of children finishing primary school has increased – from 10.3 years in 2001 to 10.8 in 2006. That is a significant difference for child development at this stage. Also, the quality of education improved when primary education was extended by one year (in 2001).
Yet another factor is a relatively higher preschool education level. Russia remains the world’s leader in the number of students reading fiction regularly (50 percent, as compared to an international average of 32 percent). In addition, the proportion of children from financially strapped families has fallen considerably (by 17 percent).
“Pure” Knowledge
However, the brilliant proficiency scores shown by Russia’s fourth graders were followed by the discouraging results of a different survey (PISA) that assessed the knowledge and skills of 15-year olds.
PISA, a triennial survey, draws on international expertise to develop valid comparisons across countries and cultures. More than 400,000 students from 57 countries making up close to 90 percent of the world economy took part in PISA 2006. The focus was on science but the assessment also included reading and mathematics and collected data on student, family and institutional factors that could help to explain differences in performance.
For the PISA assessment, reading literacy for 15-year-olds is defined as: “understanding, using, and reflecting on written texts, in order to achieve one’s goals, to develop one’s knowledge and potential, and to participate in society.”
“The goal of the test was to understand whether school students can distinguish between scientific and pseudo scientific arguments – to see whether they can apply their knowledge and skills in practice, in their life,” Galina Kovaleva explained.
For countries participating in both studies, PIRLS provides a wealth of information that can be used not only to improve the reading curriculum and instruction for younger students, but also to help in interpreting the results of PISA for 15-year-old students.
For fourth-grade students, PIRLS emphasizes the typical environment in which they read. Furthermore, while PISA stresses students’ readiness to participate in the larger society, PIRLS emphasizes students’ ability to participate in “communities of readers….” (for example, home and classroom).
According to this survey, Russian students performed “statistically significantly below the OECD average.” Teenagers from Finland placed first. They were followed by students from Hong Kong, Canada and Taiwan. Twenty-two countries ended up on the list of outsiders, including Russia (a range of 33rd-38th).
Russian students placed 33rd-38th in science literacy, 32nd-36th in mathematics literacy, and 37th-40th in reading literacy. The conclusion is discouraging: the level of Russian students’ science literacy does not match the international benchmark.
“This means that our school students are inferior to their peers from many countries in the ability to use their knowledge in practice, make conclusions, understand the essence of things, and even display civil activism in dealing with science related problems,” Kovaleva said.
Some experts say that the traditional strengths of Russian schooling in the natural sciences cannot be revealed in such a survey, since it has other goals, mainly dictated by the needs of a modern information society. This suggests that Russia’s current education system provides students with a substantial amount of theoretical knowledge, but does little to develop an ability to go outside the curriculum and apply it in practical life.
http://www.mnweekly.ru/national/20071227/55299962.html
Never the less, despite New Zealands “below average” rating at the “4th Grade” we produce some of the most advanced agricultural technology and practices in the world, are leaders in environmental science, and so on.
There are more Georgians working on the CERN project than Russians, so they
> Never the less, despite New Zealands “below average” rating at the “4th Grade” we produce some of the most advanced agricultural technology and practices in the world
Of course you do. You are world famous peasants. That’s why you are bad at reading and science but good at growing food. You do produce good food stuffs, but can’t send a man into Space.
We, Russian-Jewish emigrants, move to USA and create Google. You, Andrew, move to Georgia to do construction work.
> Russia ranked first with 565 points. Hong Kong came in second and Singapore was third.
Exactly what I wrote. Thanks for repeating.
As usual Phobodunce/Mike is unable to read….
Did you miss the fact that Russian high school students are remarkably below par DESPITE the excellent performance of primary school children.
“According to this survey, Russian students performed “statistically significantly below the OECD average.” Teenagers from Finland placed first. They were followed by students from Hong Kong, Canada and Taiwan. Twenty-two countries ended up on the list of outsiders, including Russia (a range of 33rd-38th).
Russian students placed 33rd-38th in science literacy, 32nd-36th in mathematics literacy, and 37th-40th in reading literacy. The conclusion is discouraging: the level of Russian students’ science literacy does not match the international benchmark.
“This means that our school students are inferior to their peers from many countries in the ability to use their knowledge in practice, make conclusions, understand the essence of things, and even display civil activism in dealing with science related problems,” Kovaleva said.
Some experts say that the traditional strengths of Russian schooling in the natural sciences cannot be revealed in such a survey, since it has other goals, mainly dictated by the needs of a modern information society. This suggests that Russia’s current education system provides students with a substantial amount of theoretical knowledge, but does little to develop an ability to go outside the curriculum and apply it in practical life.”
The last bit sounds awfully like most Russian expats I have met.
Mainly they tend to drive taxi’s or work in supermarkets in the west.
So Michael, obviously you are so uneducated that you have not heard of William Hayward Pickering, the man who was a director of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
He was responsible for the Ranger missions to the moon which set the stage for the Apollo landings, and the Mariner missions to Venus.
In 1993 Pickering was awarded the inaugural Francois-Xavier Bagnoud Aerospace Prize for his contribution to space science. In presenting him with the Prize the then current president of Caltech Thomas E. Everhart said:
“More than any other individual, Bill Pickering was responsible for America’s success in exploring the planets – an endeavour that demanded vision, courage, dedication, expertise and the ability to inspire two generations of scientists and engineers at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Hayward_Pickering
Then there is Sir Ernest Rutherford, described by Einsein as the second Newton and the father of nuclear physics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Rutherford
Or Alexander Aitken described as the geatest mathematician of his generation.
ROBERT SIEGEL, host:
From NPR News, it’s ALL THINGS CONSIDERED. I’m Robert Siegel. The Soviet Union once boasted its education system was the best in the world. That was until the collapse of Communism left schools to fend for themselves and now the government is finally paying attention. Educators worry, though, that corruption and pressure to toe the official line are threatening Russia’s school system. NPR’s Moscow correspondent Gregory Feifer reports.
(Soundbite of school)
GREGORY FEIFER: Students rush between classes in central Moscow’s school number 57. Ten years ago, the green Soviet-era paint here was peeling and the wood floors creaking and unvarnished. Now bright colors and new lighting makes it seem a different place. School 57 isn’t just any state school, it’s one of the country’s best. But Deputy Director Baris Davidovich(ph) says until recently even this place was struggling to survive.
Mr. BARIS DAVIDOVICH (Deputy Director, School 57, Moscow): (Through Translator) The government has been allocating a certain amount of money for each student. That’s transformed our situation. Teachers are now paid a $1,000 a month instead of five or ten.
FEIFER: When the government lifted Soviet era controls in the 1990s, it also effectively stopped enforcing standards. Yevgeny Bunimovich, a former teacher, who’s now a member of the Moscow legislature, says the Soviet legacy kept the school system alive during those difficult years, but he disputes the claim Soviet schools were the world’s best.
Mr. YEVGENY BUNIMOVICH (Moscow Legislature Member): (Through Translator) That’s a myth. In mathematics and chemistry, yes, the education was good, but not history, which was subject to propaganda. Today the negative influence of Soviet control over students is still very large.
(Soundbite of music class)
Unidentified People: (Singing in foreign language)
FEIFER: A music class in school 1331, a more typical Moscow school. Even in the relatively wealthy capital, this school looks rundown. Across Russia’s much poorer regions, schools are still struggling just to survive and the level of education is falling. As competition for access to good public schools increases, parents complain about having to pay for their children to get into the best ones and then bribe teachers to give good grades.
Ms. TATIANA BALUCHITITNA(ph): (Foreign language spoken)
FEIFER: Tatiana Baluchititna whose daughter is in public school says a friend of hers had to pay up to $500 to get good grades for her son. Baris Davidovich, the deputy head of school 57, says that kind of bribery is seriously damaging.
Mr. DAVIDOVICH: (Through translator) Corruption is lowering the level of education. It’s one of our biggest problems, but the state of our schools reflects society in general and it hurts all of us.
(Soundbite of children playing)
FEIFER: As children play soccer outside, 10-year-old Sofia Pavlova(ph) says she likes studying.
Ms. SOFIA PAVLOVA: (Foreign language spoken)
FEIFER: Sofia says her favorite classes are English language and math. The government may be spending more on schools like hers, but with the new funding has come pressure to teach officially approved lessons. Suggested new textbooks have muted criticism of Soviet crimes and praise dictator Joseph Stalin as an effective manager. Legislator Yevgeny Bunimovich says the education system is hostage to a dichotomy in Russian life, between what the government says and what it does.
He says President Dmitry Medvedev makes admirable speeches about the urgent need to improve education, but heads a political system in which criticism isn’t tolerated.
Mr. BUNIMOVICH: (Through Translator) Medvedev says our future depends on bringing up a new generation of critical thinkers, but how can you raise them in a society in which newspapers are censored? You simply can’t have both.
FEIFER: Compared to schoolchildren around the world, Bunimovich says the average Russian student now ranks close to the average American student, but he says that’s not something either country should be proud of.
Gregory Feifer, NPR News, Moscow.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102353828
Andrew wrote:
> Did you miss the fact that Russian high school
Of course I did, Andrew.
Do you **really** think that your terrorist tactics of cut-and-pasting thousands of lines of irrelevant drivel don’t repel the readers? As I said many times before, nobody reads your ocean of crap. When I see your cut-and-paste crap, I just take one paragraph at random and read it just to find out what’s it’s about. Then I move on.
If you ever want me or anybody else to read your posts, you will make them at least 300 times shorter, reduce their number by a factor of 5, and instead of cut-and-pasting, you will present your arguments in your own words, succinctly and logically.
> Did you miss the fact that Russian high school students are remarkably below par DESPITE the excellent performance of primary school children.
Of course I did “miss” it. It’s hogwash. The very same TIMSS also gives the scores for 8th graders. And the picture is similar:
http://www.queuenews.com/hidden/hidden-ERRnews-ffffflf&atjfjgiiakljas67684657Jan09.html
Mathematics Achievement at the 8th Grade
Country Average Scale Score
Chinese Taipei 598
Korea, Rep. of 597
Singapore 593
Hong Kong SAR 572
Japan 570
Hungary 517
England 513
Russian Federation 512
United States 508
.
.
.
Georgia 410
Iran, Islamic Rep. of 403
Bahrain 398
Indonesia 397
Science Achievement at the 8th Grade
Country Average Scale Score
Singapore 567
Chinese Taipei 561
Japan 554
Korea, Rep. of 553
England 542
Hungary 539
Czech Republic 539
Slovenia 538
Hong Kong SAR 530
Russian Federation 530
United States 520
Lithuania 519
Australia 515
Sweden 511
TIMSS Scale Average 500
Scotland 496
Italy 495
Armenia 488
Norway 487
.
.
.
Tunisia 445
Indonesia 427
Oman 423
Georgia 421
Kuwait 418
Colombia 417
You may ask why Russia’s superiority over USA in 8th grade smaller than in 4th grade, but you yourself gave us the reason:
Andrew wrote:
> In 2006 Russia ranked first with 565 points. To compare: in 2001, Russia placed 12th among 35 countries surveyed.
See? In 2001 Russia was in 12th place, but in 2006 it climbed all the way to the top. A remarkable improvement!
Why? Very simple. The 1990s were the Yeltsin years, the years of blind imitation of the United States. In particular, Yeltsin people dismantled the traditional Soviet methodology of teaching – which emphasized accomplishment and excellence – and adopted the American methodology, which emphasized political correctness and mandated that the rate of learning be so slow that students with IQs of 80 feel comfortable.
But in the 2000s, Russia has gradually returned to sanity. Thus, it is returning to be the best in the World in terms of education.
The 2001 reading test measured Yeltsin year education but the 2006 has started to reflect the Putin era education. That’s why Russia shot up from 12th to 1st. And this is only a beginning.
Similarly, the 4th graders performed in math and science a little better than 8th graders: Yeltsin era vs. Putin era.
In a few years, both 4th and 8th graders will be Number One in the World.
BTW, you didn’t answer my question: why is Georgia doing so poor? It looks like the worst European country, on par with Middle Eastern Islamic dictatorships….
Well Tal, thats not what the OECD has to say in its PISA report, which focusses on the students ability to use said learning and be an active and useful participant in society.
They have found, as the Moscow News article stated, that Russian high school students are remarkably sub par.
Once again (and remember this is from a Russian publication…..)
““According to this survey, Russian students performed “statistically significantly below the OECD average.” Teenagers from Finland placed first. They were followed by students from Hong Kong, Canada and Taiwan. Twenty-two countries ended up on the list of outsiders, including Russia (a range of 33rd-38th).
Russian students placed 33rd-38th in science literacy, 32nd-36th in mathematics literacy, and 37th-40th in reading literacy. The conclusion is discouraging: the level of Russian students’ science literacy does not match the international benchmark.
“This means that our school students are inferior to their peers from many countries in the ability to use their knowledge in practice, make conclusions, understand the essence of things, and even display civil activism in dealing with science related problems,” Kovaleva said.
Some experts say that the traditional strengths of Russian schooling in the natural sciences cannot be revealed in such a survey, since it has other goals, mainly dictated by the needs of a modern information society. This suggests that Russia’s current education system provides students with a substantial amount of theoretical knowledge, but does little to develop an ability to go outside the curriculum and apply it in practical life.””
Nice stats, Michael. Thanks for quoting.
Andrew wrote:
> Russia remains the world’s leader in the number of students reading fiction regularly
Not just students. Russia is famous as the most reading nation on Earth.
Russian people read profound books, while American and New Zealand students are now too lazy even to read Superman comic books.
Russian people read sublime poetry and listen to bard music. Americans listen to hip-hop and consider it to be the height of poetry.
“Russian people read sublime poetry and listen to bard music”
Have you watched Russian TV recently Mr Tal?
Just look at Russian popular music on say RTV, and the various music channels.
Russians listen to just as much hip-hop, both US produced and Russian (BTW, it is highly amusing to watch skinny white Russian geeks play at LA gangster rap LOL).
As for reading “sublime poetry” well people in the west do that too. However the majority of fiction sold in Russia seems to be blood & guts “kill the Chechens” military fiction, and sci-fi where Russia has a great space empire blah, blah, blah.
Still the same old BS from you Mr Tal.
BTW, here is a link to the current Russian top 20.
Lots of “bard” music there…..NOT!!
http://www.top40-charts.com/chart.php?cid=45
Andrew wrote:
> However the majority of fiction sold in Russia seems to be blood & guts “kill the Chechens” military fiction, and sci-fi where Russia has a great space empire blah, blah, blah.
Andrew, you are a very sick compulsive liar. What compels you to constantly manufacture fabrications and sick militaristic fantasies? I am not even going to ask you to provide documentation here. I know by now: whenever you omit documentation – you are falsifying.
Here is what all Russians are REALLY required to read:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/09/ap/extras/main5296824.shtml
MOSCOW, Sep. 9, 2009
‘Gulag Archipelago’ Now Required Reading In Russia
Russia Makes Parts Of Once-banned ‘The Gulag Archipelago’ Now Required Reading In Schools
(AP) A Russian news agency says parts of the once-banned book “The Gulag Archipelago” have been declared required reading for upper-level students in the country’s schools.
The sprawling book, regarded as Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s masterwork, recounts the brutality and despair of the prison camp system set up under Soviet dictator Josef Stalin. The book was banned in the Soviet Union and Solzhenitsyn was forced into exile.
According to the state-run news agency RIA Novosti, the Education Ministry on Wednesday ordered that passages from the book become required reading in order to deepen students’ understanding of Russia’s history.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press.
Quote/”Not just students. Russia is famous as the most reading nation on Earth.
Russian people read profound books, while American and New Zealand students are now too lazy even to read Superman comic books.
Russian people read sublime poetry and listen to bard music. Americans listen to hip-hop and consider it to be the height of poetry.”\-Quote
What an uneducated assumption you make with generalities of both nations. These things are true of every nation on earth….do you think the Russians have a monoply?
It is the usual practice of Russian students of all levels to copy the work of other classmates…even on test…with the teachers knowledge and acceptance. I have a close friend who is a surgeon that paid his professor to graduate, which is also a common and accepted practice. Individual merit is not taught….the collective is strength…orso they are still reared to think.
Andrew wrote:
> Russia’s current education system provides students with a substantial amount of theoretical knowledge, but does little to develop an ability to go outside the curriculum and apply it in practical life.””
Not true. Quite the opposite. Russia is the World leader in developing microbiologists, computer scientists and other high tech experts. Since entering the most prestigious ACM/IBM International Collegiate Programming Contest – the world championship in computer programming, Russia has totally dominated it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACM_International_Collegiate_Programming_Contest
Here are the winners:
2009 – Saint Petersburg University of Information Technologies, Russia
2008 – Saint Petersburg University of Information Technologies, Russia
2007 – University of Warsaw, Poland
2006 – Saratov State University, Russia
2005 – Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China
2004 – Saint Petersburg University of Information Technologies, Russia
2003 – University of Warsaw, Poland
2002 – Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China
2001 – St. Petersburg State University, Russia
2000 – St. Petersburg State University, Russia
Here are the top placers in recent years:
2008
1 St. Petersburg University of IT
2 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
3 Izhevsk State Technical University , Russia
4 Lviv National University
5 Moscow State University
2009
St. Petersburg State University of IT (GOLD, WORLD CHAMPION)
Tsinghua University, (GOLD, 2nd Place)
St. Petersburg State University, (GOLD, 3rd Place)
Saratov State University, (GOLD, 4th Place)
http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/04-21-2009/0005010043&EDATE=
Students of St. Petersburg State University of IT Crowned World Champions of the IBM-sponsored ‘Battle of the Brains’
IBM Corporation, ARMONK, NY UNITED STATES
Award Ceremony at Stockholm Concert Hall Where the Nobel Prizes Are Presented
STOCKHOLM, April 21 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ — Students from St. Petersburg State University of IT are crowned the 2009 ACM World Champions in the Stockholm Concert Hall where the Nobel Prizes are presented every year. Sponsored by IBM (NYSE: IBM), the competition took place today at KTH, the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH).
The 100 teams in the World Finals in Stockholm were selected from 7,109 teams of 1,838 universities from 88 countries on six continents. Since 1997, the IBM-sponsored ICPC has grown 800% in size.
The ACM ICPC is a global competition among the world’s university students, nurturing new generations of talent in the science and art of information technology
Referred to as “The Battle of the Brains,” the ACM ICPC World Finals challenged the world’s top 100 university teams to use open standard technology in designing software that solve real-world problems.
———————
Solve real-world problems!
Actually retard, that was a quote from “Moscow News” of an interview with Galina Kovoleva PRILS & PISA researcher.
You also fail to mention how, with all their “excellent” education, Russians cannot construct a properly working missile for their (still seriously malfunctioning) new SSBN (Strike Submarine Ballistic Nuclear), as the missile keeps falling out of the sky, along with Russian jet fighters, and also Russian inability to even remotely maintain its infrastructure.
Sounds awfuly like the failure of “pure knowledge” as opposed to “practical application of knowledge” to me.
Andrew,
Certainly the Americans and Russians can hardly compete in the area of missiles and rockets with the intellectual giants like Tonga, New Zealand, Namibia, Georgia and Rwanda.
However, if we are to compare the modest US and Russian space programs, we would see that Russian rockets and space shuttles are much more reliable than American ones, so that most of the time, Americans have to rely on Russia to get them into space and to the International Space Station (ISS) in one piece:
————————
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Columbia_disaster
The Space Shuttle Columbia disaster occurred on February 1, 2003, when the Space Shuttle Columbia disintegrated over Texas during re-entry into the Earth’s atmosphere, with the loss of all seven crew members
Space Shuttle flight operations were delayed for two years by the disaster, similar to the Challenger disaster. For 29 months the station relied entirely on the Russian Federal Space Agency for resupply and crew rotation.
————————
http://www.space-travel.com/reports/The_US_Has_No_Option_But_To_Use_Russia_Soyuz_Craft_999.html
The US Has No Option But To Use Russia’s Soyuz Craft
After 2010, the United States will likely be unable to deliver its astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS) on its own. For several years Russia’s Soyuz craft will remain the only vehicle available to do that, and the U.S. may find it hard to do without Russian cooperation.
The American concern has not a leg to stand on: Russia has always been noted for the scrupulous observance of its commitments. It never broke them even during the Cold War.
If worst comes to worst, Russia and the European Space Agency could together run the ISS without American participation. Aside from Russia’s facilities for transporting astronauts and supplies to the station, the European Automated Transfer Vehicle – Advanced Return Vehicle (ATV-ARV) system could chip in. Russia and the ESA are also working jointly on a manned transport system expected to be developed by 2015.
According to Vladimir Solovyov, flight director for the Russian segment, ISS systems are already capable of supporting a six-member crew, and in the future with new Russian modules, of bringing it to 10-member strength.
————————
So, once again, Russia is king in Space, while USA is about to be dropped from the ISS altogether and replaced by EU.
Russia is the one that builds new modules for the ISS and the only country that can get astronauts and cosmonauts to the ISS in one piece.
BTW, I just bought New Zealand’s greatest intellectual contribution – its honey – and have to admit it tastes great.
With Russia – land of science- supplying space travel, and New Zealand – land of peasants – supplying honey and lamb – the World is in good shape. And let’s not forget those wonderful Georgian tangerines and pomegranates.
that was aussm perfect yah thanks gys thanks gys thank
tanks gys thanks
Pingback: Andrew’s Stupidity | Lerussophob's Blog