Shadow of the President Prevents Air Travel

5a4e40da9ab9b74f174fea55fd4b87a8,5,1.jpg


I see the <s>Vertical Germans</s> Begians are at it too. Just for this, you're not getting the mayo :P

Pascal Kerkhove, chief editor of "Gazet van Antwerpen" stated "the role of the editorial stuff is confined to checking whether the drawing does not feature racist content or does not infringe a persons private integrity
.

I take offense at the eagle being African.
 
Silencer said:
...the entire post-Warsaw Pact bloc.
Indeed.

Brother None said:
I'm still kind of assuming you're kidding. Just in case you're serious: this kind of rhetoric is on Palin's level of political analysis. I can't really reply to it because it assumes something nonsensical of the bat: that the future of a country and its political future depends completely on the past of its intelligentsia. "Spook-ism" is the right word for it, it's not relevant political analysis, it's just meant to sound scary. And I bet it does. But it's not relevant.

Though no doubt your unique insight in the "Chekist" mind allows you insights not available to us misinformed masses. But allow me to simple consider it from a political angle; a country with a decade of terrible mismanagement and corruption swings the other way to over-centralization and de-democratization, worrying reforms of the electoral code and constitution, and general lack of checks and balances. What does the future hold? Dunno, but I'd never even try to analyze it based on "Chekist" rhetoric. That way demagogery lies.
I'm aware of the transformative processes that occurred in Russia in the last two decades. Part of those processes is the rise of a new-old elite composed mostly out of current and former members of the state security apparatus. Mismanagement and corruption of the nineties are not the only failures of the Yeltsin administration - another, and I would argue no less pivotal, is Yeltsin's failure to effectively dismantle KGB in the aftermath of USSR's dissolution, allowing it to remain a powerful factor in Russian society. Worse yet, Yeltsin recruited his own successor out of that snakes' den, and the rise of Putin (who is practically a Chekist archetype) and his clique led to rehabilitation of Soviet-era enforcers as bureaucrats in a new order. They displaced the Yeltsin-era establishment (the oligarchs) by resorting to violence, intimidation and show trials (you know, the Chekist way) and assumed complete control over administration and economy. Centralization of the state and destruction of democratic institutions (which were frail to begin with) are all part of this process of consolidation. The next step, I believe, is reassertion of Russian hegemony over former Soviet republics.

Why do I believe the current Russian leadership will attempt to undermine and subjugate former Soviet republics? Because these people still think, feel and act as if 1991 never happened and they are still part of the all-powerful KGB. This hypothesis is not nearly as irrational as you seem to think. All members of the Soviet security organizations went through extensive indoctrination over the years, which isn't something one can simply shed overnight and wake up a democrat the next morning. Moreover, their loyalty to the State and its ideology is sealed in blood, seeing as they were enforcers of a regime that murdered its own citizens by the millions. Finally, being a Chekist is hereditary. Seriously. Take any FSB operative and you will find that their father/uncle/grandfather was in KGB and is now either retired or holds some lucrative post in administration or business. As the current crop of KGB old guard retires or dies off, they are replaced by their offspring, who inherit their positions as well as their ideology and sociopathic mindset which forgives murder of your own citizens in the name of the State.

I do distinguish myself from your typical Russophobic scaremonger by being firmly convinced that the political project of Putin-era establishment is doomed to fail, and probably before it manages to seriously jeopardize the (dubious) stability and sovereignty of Russia's hapless neighbors. Why? Because it is unsustainable. Sociopaths may be good at amassing power and clinging to it once they are there, but they are not so good at running a country. The rampant and all-consuming corruption and inefficiency of the current administration will eventually bring down the current political system and Chekists will be swept away for good. Hell, the only reason why the system is still going strong is the bountiful income from oil and gas exports, and unfortunately neither oil nor gas are renewable resources.
 
The truth shall set you free!

Reptilian Lizard Lords actually shot it down to cover up the fact that Zionist Jews did 9/11 and the moon landing didn't happen. The Illuminati were partying with aliens because they knew Nirburu was going to crash into us so they shot down the plane for lulz and they knew it would focus attention on the crash and stop people from thinking 9/11=Jews and Moon Landing = fake. They were also trying to prevent us from finding out who dookied in the urinal.

^ Average Conspiracy Theory
 
Ratty said:
This hypothesis is not nearly as irrational as you seem to think. All members of the Soviet security organizations went through extensive indoctrination over the years, which isn't something one can simply shed overnight and wake up a democrat the next morning. Moreover, their loyalty to the State and its ideology is sealed in blood, seeing as they were enforcers of a regime that murdered its own citizens by the millions. Finally, being a Chekist is hereditary. Seriously.

I kind of hate to say it since it's so elaborate, but you're really tipping your hand here. It's a good troll, and I see what buttons you're trying to push, but I know you're smarter than this.
 
Ausdoerrt said:
In response to a post that tried to change the topic. Is it so bad?

:wtf:

Wut? We'd be discussing the Ossetian question for a couple of posts now. If we mods felt it derailing we would've split it by now.

Dude, weirdest excuse ever.
 
Brother None said:
I kind of hate to say it since it's so elaborate, but you're really tipping your hand here. It's a good troll, and I see what buttons you're trying to push, but I know you're smarter than this.
Okay, so maybe I'm trolling... a bit. The theory that I espouse is actually proposed in an Economist article from 2007 (Economist being probably the most unabashedly Russophobic mainstream magazine out there) and it's become my new favorite conspiracy theory. I do believe that former security officials of totalitarian regimes (such as Putin) should not be allowed to occupy positions of power in a democratic system, but the claim that three quarters of all Russian officials are ex-KGB and GRU is based on little but wild imagination.
 
Brother None said:
Wut? We'd be discussing the Ossetian question for a couple of posts now. If we mods felt it derailing we would've split it by now.

Dude, weirdest excuse ever.

Bleh, I was tired when I wrote that, I'm not sure what I meant to say. :?

I guess what I meant to say is, you keep emphasizing the 91-92 conflict (frankly, I'm too young to remember it, so my knowledge of it isn't hands-on) because that helps your argument, while I was trying to discuss the 08 one. Sure, the national minority problem is still the same, but the context is different, and so are the people. Russian involvement then and now are two different things. Not to mention that this time around it went way past any reasonable necessary measures. If not for international pressure, Georgia would be one of the Republics, today.

But yeah, lame excuse. Although I didn't just repeat my point. I had little to add to the argument, since that's the opinion I've formed and unlikely to change until I see hard facts disputing it. I am still curious what you meant by US "reconsidering if it's worth it" back there - you haven't answered this yet. I mean, what would you suggest Obama do? (I know it's me trying to derail the topic a bit this time around, but I'm curious.)


@Ratty: I don't think it has much to do with ex-KGB people taking positions. I mean, not everyone who worked in the organization was a brainwashed maniac or anything, and higher-ups even less likely than those taking lower positions. I've known a few ex-KGB people myself, and they're nothing like what you see in the movies ^__^

The issue remains, though, that the old generation either doesn't really want democracy (and wants to revert to socialism) or doesn't understand it enough, and the young generation doesn't have the skills and experience to turn their ideals to practice. Thus, it's hard to find a balance between the two, and due to superior governing skills, the old guard ends up in power (not to mention that on lower levels little changes anyway). The have skill but no will because the old regime brought more personal benefits. Thus corruption, lack of transparency, human rights issues and the rest of the mess that interferes/d with the transition process in post-Warsaw bloc, especially in the countries that didn't have a strong new anti-socialist political core in existence on the moment of breakup. But, on the other hand, even if you could completely prohibit the old guard from being in power (impossible), that'd still be a bad decision, because you always need someone with hands-on experience.

But still, remove the troll and state it a bit more seriously, and your point starts looking a lot better.
 
1271095470_by_Bjoern_500.jpg


Joseph Stalin. Master of long-term planning.

Although he can't be credited with creating the KGB. That was a Polish invention (hence, Ratty, there really is nothing to fear but fear itself).

Also, a Q to the Brasileiros here:
Your country is ATM in mourning.

Is it because of the mudslides, the crash, or both?
 
Ausdoerrt said:
@Ratty: I don't think it has much to do with ex-KGB people taking positions. I mean, not everyone who worked in the organization was a brainwashed maniac or anything, and higher-ups even less likely than those taking lower positions. I've known a few ex-KGB people myself, and they're nothing like what you see in the movies ^__^
But they are much more badass with the stereotype D: !!

double_detente_red_heat_1988_reference.jpg
 
Ok, so Lech Kaczynski's burial is over. In Wawel, nonetheless, the traditional resting place of Polish Kings and Commander-in-Chiefs, and not Warsaw St. John's Cathedral, the traditional resting place of Polish Presidents.

And I ain't ever seen him crowned. Which begs the question, is it customary in your countries to break traditional norms in order to accomodate the need to create national heroes?

Not that we have many Presidents who died in office outside the last (only two I think, and only one of them tragically from assassination.) But I wonder - if, say, Obama crashed tomorrow and died - would he get an Obama Memorial or rather be buried in a cemetary in his home area like McKinley?

Eyjafjallajokull's eruption and distruption of air travel clearly demonstrates Hephasteus' opinion of that.

To top it all off, press revealed today that the black box, which is in fact an orange box, recorded that "screams of terror were heard in the plane just prior to the crash". Strange. I always thought that those about to die clap their hands and sing happy songs. :roll:
 
probably cause he died in Russia. Maybe thats enough for them to make him a hero ?

What do I know ...
 
It's the right-wing nutjobs, who want to reinvent Kaczynski as some sort of national hero, to create a conservative legend and icon people will flock to.

It's pathetic. One of our most significant landmarks (both culturally and historically) has been taken over by conservative, right wing wannabe fascists.

This will only make sense if all presidents of the 3rd Republic will be buried on Wawel.

The first one? General Wojciech Jaruzelski.
 
Back
Top