We all know Les Russophobes are idiots (is an idiot), I was replying to this masturbation...

What’s really outrageous about this is that they are arresting people for conspiracy to exercise constitutional rights in a peaceful manner. They are not even willing to let the demonstrators take up their positions, they are that paralyzed with fear of democratic power.

Seems to indicate you are winning, Oleg.

Here is what I wrote...

@ La Russophobe

Here are some peaceful protesters…

And here is more…

I hope your Russian had improved so you can enjoy them in the fullest. There is enough evidence that these people behave worse than chimps in the zoo.

It is not against the law to put an eye on dangerous criminals. After all, you wouldn’t be against tracking down the Caucasus Emirate operatives, wouldn’t you? The so called 'opposition' are criminals, they damage property, attack police and other people, attend unsanctioned rallies in places they have no permission to be in. Even when they get a permit to protest, they create ruckus. Even when the city allows them to do a rally in another place they still go and do it where they see fit.

I call that hubris. I understand many of them are nothing but spoiled kids but even spoiled kids need a meeting with Nemesis.

***

I mean everything I wrote in the above post, including the comparison with the Caucasus Emirate. Caucasus Emirate are also organised nihilists, although much more dangerous. We also know that number of supporters of the "Tragedy 31" support the Caucasian terrorists, both materially and morally. So they are certainly close to each other. If liberasts did not have the Western media behind them, they would already be banned for the behaviour they display. But then again, what would the politics in Russia be without this, this or this? If the liberasts are good for something, it is a steady supply of entertainment. 

***

Something about the videos: There is a myth being created around the liberasts, that they are peaceful, democratic, educated, well behaved types that only want to peacefully demonstrate and the evil state does not let them. Well, they are nothing but a bunch of foulmouthed petty criminals.

The first video is a compilation of old and new shots, we see that a few of the liberasts at any of them fit the description of peaceful. 

Kozlovsky flashes in video with flares. Who brings flares to a peaceful protest? His action gets promptly thwarted and he gets carried into a bus.

There is couple of two extremely violent and foulmouthed women, that look like a couple of lesbians.

Most of the people are spoiled middle class kids and journalists, some people with journalist permits instead of reporting engage in protesting.

There is a special cast of protestors, the pensioners. I heard they pay these grannies and granpas to go and demonstrate and then use them to put pressure on the cops. For instance there is one mendacious old man, who first pushes a cop and then pulls medals out of his pocket and claims the policeman ripped them from his coat. And the young around him join in the chorus.

Another grandpa screams:'Catch me, Catch me!' Typical occurrence at these rallies, the police state is so bad, the liberast masochists actually want to be arrested.

It also says that in 2006 they were allowed to have their rally on Triumfal'naya but instead decided that the rally would be turned into a march down the streets. These people complain about the bad magistrate not letting them do anything but when they get the chance to show themselves, they always do mess. Therefore any claims that allowing the protest to go through, would do away with the problem, do not really mean anything. The liberasts would first need to be well behaved, which they are obviously not.

If you allow the protests to go through you endanger public and private property, examples of liberast treatment of what is not theirs can be seen throughout both videos.

And no, these millions do not come from Soros or NDI, these are very Russian state millions. In the video below, Nemtsov tells how in 1998 (a great year indeed) he bought shares of Gazprom for 10 cents a piece, now they cost $14 dollars. He also said that he invests in Russian companies, because he is a 'Russian patriot.' 

I didn't return to the piece I uttered my comment under until now and found somebody linking to this piece. There is a long list of Russian companies. I am not keen on Russian business, it is not my field of interest, and I have no time to do some research into the companies at the moment, but I suspect many, if not most, of them are 'Kremlin connected.' 

Now, I must certainly commend Nemtsov on good choices of where to invest. But most of these companies made big money under Putin, some even appeared during Putin's era. Simply put, this guy makes money on the economic success of Putin's Russia, all the while publishing pamphlets on how Putin's Russia sucks... 

I do not know why this discovery made me think of this Anatol Lieven's classic...

Tragically however, many Russian liberals in the 1990s-through the policies they supported and the arrogant contempt they showed towards the mass of their fellow Russians-made liberals unelectable for a generation or more across most of Russia; and to judge by these and other writings of liberals like the ones under discussion, they have learnt absolutely nothing from this experience. They think that they form some kind of opposition to the present Russian establishment. In fact, they are such an asset to Putin in terms of boosting public hostility to Russian liberalism that if they hadn't already existed, Putin might have been tempted to invent them.

Hat tip barak obmana 

Update:

I found more of the guy, we will call him Specimen X, here is he after being accused of being a provocateur...

 And here is Specimen X with Ponomarev...

WTF? 

Source

Update II: Ok, read the comments in the above link, Specimen X has a name, its Nadir Fatov, a member of Solidarity who can't drink...

I was wondering where the hybrid title of the schismatic Patriarch originated. Now I have the answer. Translation from Ukrainian, please excuse potential mistakes:

In Galicia, the terms 'Rus'' and 'rus'kiy' were widespread and the name 'Ukraina' was not popular in usage. Then (in 1885) V. Antonovych proposed to unite both names into one, and through this act there soon appeared the very popular term 'Rus'-Ukraine'

One interesting fact about the creator, this Volodymyr Antonovych, or better Włodzimierz Antonowicz, was of the Polish gentry.

Source, a great site by the way...

Soral provides an interesting, class exegesis of feminism. Perhaps influenced by his own intimacies with Marxism. He makes the assertion that Feminism is modelled on Marxism as a form of re-wording of the central, class-war thesis into sex-war. In fact, Feminism is very indigenous to the Marxist thought. Its origins can be traced all the way back to Karl and it expressed itself in the Paris Commune and in the Russian Revolution. Another assertion he makes is that Feminists tend to be bourgeois women. All Marxism is a bourgeois invention. 

Hat tip Calin Mihaescu...

During celebrations dedicated to 70 years from the founding of Chernovtsy region [Bukovina], prime minister Nikolay Azarov has shown a complete lack of knowledge of Ukrainian history.

As Komersant-Ukraina reported, the celebrations were taking place in the Marble Hall of Chernovtsy National University by the name of Yuriy Fed'kovych, where the prime minister Nikolay Azarov arrived in a very good mood. "Now I will be like Brezhnev, if somebody remembers" -he said, opening the text of his gratulatory adress, in which it was said that "by the founding of the Chernovtsy region and its inclusion in Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (SSR), the territorial formation of contemporary Ukraine was finalised", "and she will remain like this forever" - said Mr. Azarov.

Information of the UA-Reporter:

Chernovtsy region: Was created in Ukraine (then Ukrainian SSR) on 7 August 1940 after the USSR seized Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, which were until then Romanian, on 30 June of that year.

Transcarpathian region: (Created on 1 January 1946), became part of the Ukrainian SSR on 22 November 1945 after the Czechoslovak parliament ratified a signing of a treaty concerning the ceding these lands to USSR between Czechoslovakia and USSR on June 30 of that year. (1)

Crimea: Became part of the Ukrainian SSR by the giving over of the Crimean region by the Russian Socialist Federal Soviet Republic in 1954. By this act the territorial image of Ukraine was finalised.  

1) In fact Transcarpathia did not become part of Ukraine but USSR in the form of Transcarpathian Ukraine for a short time, a bit later it became a part of Ukraine with its inclusion in it as Transcarpathian region. Rusyn activists argue that the treaty signed between Czechoslovakia and USSR had no Ukraine participating in it and therefore the inclusion of the region into Ukraine was illegitimate.  

One of the primary concerns of contemporary feminists is defending the right to abortion. Pro-lifers are the greatest of enemies. If one reads some of the debates between feminists and the anti-abortionists then it becomes clear that they do not consider sex to be an activity leading to pregnancy. It always makes me wanna say: 'If you wanna have sex as a pleasurable activity, then don't forget to take a pill or make your partner wear a condom, you dumb slut!'

Another, activity, and shall we say, the one in which feminists had been extraordinarily successful at is the attack on traditional marriage. This is where they show their true Marxist roots. The housewife in their discourse is a poor slave waiting to be liberated. However, when there happens to be a woman who supports traditional marriage and states that she enjoys taking care of his partner and his children, then all hell breaks loose. These women get the most hate, men who propagate this are never treated this badly.

No-fault divorce and divorce culture are all feminist creation. Of course, the new laws are not adjusted so the men benefit from them. No, the laws are as they were, child support, alimony and other luxuries for the women. There are other laws that can make men's lives hell now days. You might say that those who suffer are unfortunates. Sadly there are too many of them.

You also often hear that you should not judge women, even if what they do something morally wrong. If you are a man, then you will be denounced as patriarchal, old fashioned, chauvinistic. You are not even allowed to say that men are better at doing certain things then women. No criticism is allowed!

At the same time there seems to be an effort by the feminists to combat phenomena such as prostitution, pornography, nudity, strip-clubs and even beauty pageants. I have heard feminists say that this is not us, it is the radical Dworkinesque fringe doing that. Well, maybe that is true but I have to be convinced about it first, through feminist actions. In London, where I mostly reside, the feminists are very much against even beauty pageants. Saw that in universities with my own eyes. In Iceland, the unashamed feminist in charge banned the strip-clubs. 

But if you think about it. Abortion has greatly facilitated the porn and prostitution industry. Pregnancy is now considered an injury at work, have an abortion and you are back in the business. Lack of shame has made many women wanna do it, nobody tells them anything. I mean the feminists even celebrate being a slut. Only problem they have is with being a slut and getting paid for it, or filmed/photographed at it, watched at it, or whatever. That's 'sexual objectification.'

The men in the current situation make perfect customers. The marriage strike is a real deal, and porn, whores, and stip-clubs are still relatively cheap. Relative to a bad marriage of course. Let's say you are a wealthy man, you visit the best prostitute in town once a month. My humble calculations tell me that she does not cost more than dating an attractive woman (even if you go Dutch, she costs too much time), wedding, divorce settlement, alimony, child support plus all the little (or potentially large) things in between. The only risks remaining are herpes or worse, but you can never be sure what ordinary women today are contaminated with either.

There are several explanations to why feminists are so against pornography etc. Female competition might be one of these. These girls (feminists) and those girls (porn stars, prostitutes) just do not always look alike. But what do we do with those good looking feminists that are so anti. This explanation, while it can definitely be used for opposition towards strip-clubs, nudity and beauty pageants is insufficient.

My own explanation is that feminists want a complete control of the sexual market for the women. Abortion is one of those means of control. However, control also demands making men's access to sex less easy. They do not like seeing men having fun without really pondering to women. They do not really like seeing men having fun at all! The position they hate the most is 'double penetration' and they always project DP on to the screen in their lectures and shows. See, that's two men having fun. I am not sure if they got to 'gang-banging' yet because that's multiple men having fun.

If you have a nagging wife or girlfriend, you do not have to care about her. You will still get sex tonight, the vagina power had been vanquished. It is no wonder most of prostitutes' clients are married men. The divorce culture and feminism has reduced a large part of the ordinary women to whores anyway, the real whores are at least honest. Unfortunately that is the harsh reality the feminist had created. But they cannot have female liberation without reducing women to whores, they cannot have it both ways.