PDA

View Full Version : Russophobia



quincy
09-08-2014, 01:08
Discussion on RT on the upsurge of Russophobia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKsvkJjOGYk

MrJames
09-08-2014, 01:47
I hate the current situation, I'm a complete Russophile, and there is no doubt that I'm in the minority.

Back in May my local paper printed an article that I wrote defending Russia, and current climate of hate that is growing against them.
I expected a little bit of angry backlash, from strangers, from other people writing in to reply. But I got it from so called friends too!

I've been called a traitor, a Judas, even a fascist! It seems that people have no idea what that word means.

It's sad... And I can only hope we move on from this time quickly, and as painlessly as possible.

Russian Lad
09-08-2014, 02:46
Discussion on RT on the upsurge of Russophobia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKsvkJjOGYk

Quincy, are you getting paid for distributing this lame propaganda or it is your good will to distribute it? I am genuinely curious at this point.

robertmf
09-08-2014, 03:15
Quincy, are you getting paid for distributing this lame propaganda or it is your good will to distribute it? I am genuinely curious at this point.

For explanation, look for The Colbert Report segment on VVP (S10xE142) that aired last night.

I'm not sure if the video link (http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/bmd26v/vladimir-putin-s-food-sanctions) is on the sanctions list :rolleyes:

:drink: I will "opine" that the US doesn't not take VVP nearly as serious a threat as do the Europeans.

drbobguy
09-08-2014, 05:15
Meh, I think Russia is having it's "Iraq moment." Just like the US in 2003 it is involved in a foreign military conflict most of the world disapproves of, but with large popular support at home. Americans went through this same thing in the mid-2000s, where many of them told fellow travelers they were Canadian.

vossy7
09-08-2014, 05:49
Americans went through this same thing in the mid-2000s, where many of them told fellow travelers they were Canadian.

Aw come on now......that's like saying the English trying to pretend to be Irish!
First of all Canadians don't dress like people going to play golf and secondly no one can quite get that "aboot" right :nono:

Russian Lad
09-08-2014, 06:52
Meh, I think Russia is having it's "Iraq moment." Just like the US in 2003 it is involved in a foreign military conflict most of the world disapproves of, but with large popular support at home. Americans went through this same thing in the mid-2000s, where many of them told fellow travelers they were Canadian.

There are some essential differences, it is similar only on the surface.

Fantastika
09-08-2014, 07:21
:drink: I will "opine" that the US doesn't not take VVP nearly as serious a threat as do the Europeans.


"...doesn't not take VVP nearly as serious..." - "...does not not take VVP nearly as serious..." :9456:

Double negatives don't like me, :stop: and the "nearly as" kinda makes it a triple negative, but what does it mean ? :nerd: The US takes VVP as more of a threat than the EU, or the opposite? :confused1: :11157:

Fantastika
09-08-2014, 07:39
Discussion on RT on the upsurge of Russophobia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKsvkJjOGYk

I was using the word "Russophobia" way back in February. I picked it up from nowhere, I devised it, I created it, after getting tired of the effete snobs of the media calling everyone in the proletariat who disagreed with "gay marriage" as "homophobes."

Obama's poodle media decreed homosexuals were better than heterosexuals. So I started commenting that such-and-such effete poodle media snob was "heterophobic." Bark! bark! Woof! Woof!

And it was easy to come up with "Russophobic," it sounds like a good psychology term, too. Since last winter I have used "Russophobic" about 100 times, usually like "Russo-phobic media".

So, I was first! It's *my* word.

:queen:

As far as the media's advanced case of "Russophobia" it seems to me that every day, fewer and fewer Western media websites are allowing comments on Russia-centric stories (And I do mean "story" in the sense of "fairy tale"). Guess they don't want anyone to know that the Western world's proletariat disagrees with the Western media's propaganda.

Fantastika
09-08-2014, 07:43
There are some essential differences, it is similar only on the surface.

It's the same thing, only different.

molly picon
09-08-2014, 09:37
I was using the word "Russophobia" way back in February. I picked it up from nowhere, I devised it, I created it, after getting tired of the effete snobs of the media calling everyone in the proletariat who disagreed with "gay marriage" as "homophobes."

Obama's poodle media decreed homosexuals were better than heterosexuals. So I started commenting that such-and-such effete poodle media snob was "heterophobic." Bark! bark! Woof! Woof!

And it was easy to come up with "Russophobic," it sounds like a good psychology term, too. Since last winter I have used "Russophobic" about 100 times, usually like "Russo-phobic media".

So, I was first! It's *my* word.

:queen:

As far as the media's advanced case of "Russophobia" it seems to me that every day, fewer and fewer Western media websites are allowing comments on Russia-centric stories (And I do mean "story" in the sense of "fairy tale"). Guess they don't want anyone to know that the Western world's proletariat disagrees with the Western media's propaganda.

I remember when my husband first used the word "Russophobia" with me about ten years ago (he's Russian). I thought the idea was so ridiculous and personal to him that he must have made it up. Turns out he hadn't, but I still have never actually run across this terrible scourge, although I have noticed in the last year or two the American media is disproportionately preoccupied with whatever sensational antics Russia is up to.

quincy
09-08-2014, 11:03
I hate the current situation, I'm a complete Russophile, and there is no doubt that I'm in the minority.

Back in May my local paper printed an article that I wrote defending Russia, and current climate of hate that is growing against them.
I expected a little bit of angry backlash, from strangers, from other people writing in to reply. But I got it from so called friends too!

I've been called a traitor, a Judas, even a fascist! It seems that people have no idea what that word means.

It's sad... And I can only hope we move on from this time quickly, and as painlessly as possible.

You are correct. But the public is increasingly getting tired of the media propaganda designed to demonise yet another country and its leader. UKIP has been strongly critical of the EU hierarchy's position on Syria, Russia etc, and as you know the party won the largest vote in the May EU elections.

Good on you to have challenged the negative media campaign

quincy
09-08-2014, 11:19
And it was easy to come up with "Russophobic," it sounds like a good psychology term, too. Since last winter I have used "Russophobic" about 100 times, usually like "Russo-phobic media".

So, I was first! It's *my* word.

:queen:

As far as the media's advanced case of "Russophobia" it seems to me that every day, fewer and fewer Western media websites are allowing comments on Russia-centric stories (And I do mean "story" in the sense of "fairy tale"). Guess they don't want anyone to know that the Western world's proletariat disagrees with the Western media's propaganda.

Yes it is a psychological condition and like all other phobias it needs treatment!

rusmeister
09-08-2014, 11:42
I object mainly to the use of rhetorical terms that work, not to stimulate, but to short-circuit thought.

"Phobia" is a vastly overused term, that casts what one dsagrees with as an irrational fear. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't irrational, and sometimes it isn't even fear.

Thus, "homophobia" is simply a falsehood, for no one has such a shuddering fear when they see a homosexual walk by. It is a rhetorical untruth that anyone who cares about truth ought to ashamed of - and that's the point: the people who use it don't care about truth. They wish to cast their opponents as irrational and to byp**** rather than enourage thought, to reach judgements without thinking (aka "prejudice"). The irony is that the bigotry and prejudice are on the side of the people shouting those accusations against their opponents.

"Russophobia" is much the same, though there IS something of a general and abstract fear that is not rational, fanned by a very privately owned media whose owners wish to both distract and shape our thought and public opinion. The way to pursue truth, then, is to define this fear, what its sources are, what is true and what is false in it, and who is attempting to exaggerate that fear and why.

MrJames
09-08-2014, 13:23
Not sure how well this will work, but for anyone interested this is what I wrote.
This was written in reply to a letter congratulating Prince Charles on his comparison of Putin to Hitler, and Russians as a whole acting as Nazis of the 21st century.

Sorry if it's a little hard to read, I don't have a scanner.

Fantastika
09-08-2014, 14:18
Not sure how well this will work, but for anyone interested this is what I wrote.
This was written in reply to a letter congratulating Prince Charles on his comparison of Putin to Hitler, and Russians as a whole acting as Nazis of the 21st century.

Sorry if it's a little hard to read, I don't have a scanner.

A good read for Hillary Clinton, who is also a little history-challenged.

Fantastika
09-08-2014, 14:27
...
Thus, "homophobia" is simply a falsehood, for no one has such a shuddering fear when they see a homosexual walk by. It is a rhetorical untruth that anyone who cares about truth ought to ashamed of - and that's the point: the people who use it don't care about truth. They wish to cast their opponents as irrational and to byp**** rather than encourage thought, to reach judgements without thinking (aka "prejudice"). The irony is that the bigotry and prejudice are on the side of the people shouting those accusations against their opponents.

"Russophobia" is much the same, though there IS something of a general and abstract fear that is not rational, fanned by a very privately owned media whose owners wish to both distract and shape our thought and public opinion. The way to pursue truth, then, is to define this fear, what its sources are, what is true and what is false in it, and who is attempting to exaggerate that fear and why.

Absolutely. And the "phobia" suffix is attached to give it respectability. "Homophobia" -it sounds as if there is some scientific basis for it, so who can argue that such a condition really exists? Who can argue with "Science"?

"Science" should apply to Math, Chemistry, Physics, etc. It should not be misused by the Social Sciences crowd for behavior modification and to sway public perceptions of reality.

robertmf
09-08-2014, 20:15
I remember when my husband first used the word "Russophobia" with me about ten years ago (he's Russian). I thought the idea was so ridiculous and personal to him that he must have made it up. Turns out he hadn't, but I still have never actually run across this terrible scourge, although I have noticed in the last year or two the American media is disproportionately preoccupied with whatever sensational antics Russia is up to.

I've never heard of "Russophobia" used here. :10310: I think it must be coined by the Russians to blend with their well-known xenophobic tendencies.

:brush: The sensational antics are a favorite target of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.

rusmeister
10-08-2014, 07:36
So when will people make the next step, and follow the money?
The media are owned by....
Who are themselves financed by.....

rusmeister
10-08-2014, 10:35
I object mainly to the use of rhetorical terms that work, not to stimulate, but to short-circuit thought.

"Phobia" is a vastly overused term, that casts what one dsagrees with as an irrational fear. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't irrational, and sometimes it isn't even fear.

Thus, "homophobia" is simply a falsehood, for no one has such a shuddering fear when they see a homosexual walk by. It is a rhetorical untruth that anyone who cares about truth ought to ashamed of - and that's the point: the people who use it don't care about truth. They wish to cast their opponents as irrational and to byp**** rather than enourage thought, to reach judgements without thinking (aka "prejudice"). The irony is that the bigotry and prejudice are on the side of the people shouting those accusations against their opponents.

"Russophobia" is much the same, though there IS something of a general and abstract fear that is not rational, fanned by a very privately owned media whose owners wish to both distract and shape our thought and public opinion. The way to pursue truth, then, is to define this fear, what its sources are, what is true and what is false in it, and who is attempting to exaggerate that fear and why.


[COLOR="DarkRed"]I've never heard of "Russophobia" used here. :10310: I think it must be coined by the Russians to blend with their well-known xenophobic tendencies.


Oh, yeah. Need to add "xenophobia" to that list. The number of people with extreme irrational fear of foreign people (as such) in the entire Western world as such can be counted on the fingers of one hand, if that. This term is used rhetorically, again, with the effect of short-circuiting thinking, so that we should not ask what exactly people are afraid of, whether they are afraid at all, or whether they have objections that might be found to have a reasonable basis. As I said, it is to cast them as unreasonable and as in need of special mental care/correction without thought. The term as such is highly condescendent.

Such terms basically turn us into Pavlov's dogs.

annasophia
10-08-2014, 11:46
It is sad and ridiculous isn't it? Why do governments and their various lapdog media promote disharmony and distrust when they could just as easily do the opposite, and everyone would be much better off in the long and short run both. Why do we prefer disharmony and strife to goodwill and cooperation?

What the actual hell is wrong with the hard wiring of the human condition that we would prefer to hate each other rather than trying to make do and get along??

It cannot be understood. Yet people seem perfectly happy to distrust and hate each other where ever possible.

rusmeister, how do you explain this preference for discord over cooperation? I cannot grasp mankind's desire to hate his fellows right off the bat, and then force every effort to make sure this hatred stays alive and passes along for as long as possible. Nothing about it benefits any living thing.

Humankind, you mystify me. Perhaps we are some kind of uniquely self-destructive creature in this universe.

Uncle Wally
10-08-2014, 12:41
It is sad and ridiculous isn't it? Why do governments and their various lapdog media promote disharmony and distrust when they could just as easily do the opposite, and everyone would be much better off in the long and short run both. Why do we prefer disharmony and strife to goodwill and cooperation?

What the actual hell is wrong with the hard wiring of the human condition that we would prefer to hate each other rather than trying to make do and get along??

It cannot be understood. Yet people seem perfectly happy to distrust and hate each other where ever possible.

rusmeister, how do you explain this preference for discord over cooperation? I cannot grasp mankind's desire to hate his fellows right off the bat, and then force every effort to make sure this hatred stays alive and passes along for as long as possible. Nothing about it benefits any living thing.

Humankind, you mystify me. Perhaps we are some kind of uniquely self-destructive creature in this universe.



Read the Art Of War and you will understand. Divide and conquer. This small group of people who think they know better and want to make sure that their family or should I say blood line rules. They control banks, markets, news, food, medicine, energy,..... to do this they lie, cheat, rob and kill playing on peoples greed and insecurity.

fenrir
10-08-2014, 13:43
Read the Art Of War and you will understand. Divide and conquer. This small group of people who think they know better and want to make sure that their family or should I say blood line rules. They control banks, markets, news, food, medicine, energy,..... to do this they lie, cheat, rob and kill playing on peoples greed and insecurity.

And who might these people be?

Uncle Wally
10-08-2014, 15:31
And who might these people be?



What? Like you want me to give you their phone number? They're the people who make all the US policy the same no matter who you elect. They are the ones who determine who you get to vote for because cause it's a two horse race and they own both horses and to tell you the truth the own you too. Take a good look at your birth certificate and it will read JOE SHOMO in all capital letters. Why?

MrJames
10-08-2014, 15:56
And who might these people be?

To coin a phrase, the 1%.

The 85 richest people in the world have equal wealth to the worlds poorest 3,500,000,000 people.

They control countries, governments, media... And of course, us.

robertmf
10-08-2014, 16:41
To coin a phrase, the 1%.

The 85 richest people in the world have equal wealth to the worlds poorest 3,500,000,000 people.

They control countries, governments, media... And of course, us.

For background try the conclusion and preface of Thomas Piketty's "Capital" tome or watch Robert Reich's "Inequality For All" documentary short film.

fenrir
10-08-2014, 17:16
What? Like you want me to give you their phone number? They're the people who make all the US policy the same no matter who you elect. They are the ones who determine who you get to vote for because cause it's a two horse race and they own both horses and to tell you the truth the own you too. Take a good look at your birth certificate and it will read JOE SHOMO in all capital letters. Why?

These people wouldn't happen to be of one religious persuasion, would they?

rusmeister
10-08-2014, 17:40
These people wouldn't happen to be of one religious persuasion, would they?

It's no longer religion. The Holocaust marked the end of that dynamic, although ethnicity and family still play a role.

It's no longer about a tiny minority of dominant Jewish families that never represented ordinary decent hard-working Jews anyway. It's now much more strictly about wealth.

rusmeister
10-08-2014, 17:55
It is sad and ridiculous isn't it? Why do governments and their various lapdog media promote disharmony and distrust when they could just as easily do the opposite, and everyone would be much better off in the long and short run both. Why do we prefer disharmony and strife to goodwill and cooperation?

What the actual hell is wrong with the hard wiring of the human condition that we would prefer to hate each other rather than trying to make do and get along??

It cannot be understood. Yet people seem perfectly happy to distrust and hate each other where ever possible.

rusmeister, how do you explain this preference for discord over cooperation? I cannot grasp mankind's desire to hate his fellows right off the bat, and then force every effort to make sure this hatred stays alive and passes along for as long as possible. Nothing about it benefits any living thing.

Humankind, you mystify me. Perhaps we are some kind of uniquely self-destructive creature in this universe.

In one word - sin.
(brokenness with God, our Creator and the source of our life.)

In one sentence - because we want to be our own gods.

The solution is to, as individuals and nations, to turn back to God. But that's the one thing almost no one is willing to do.

The Christian story of the Fall of Man makes sense of everything. Once admit that we are Fallen, that we were made for eternal life and happiness, but couldn't even keep one commandment, and everything else becomes lucid. Why we die, yet desperately don't want to die, why we want everyone else to love us even when it's hard or them, but don't want to love others when it is hard for us.
Why evil is so pervasive. Solzhenitsyn was right when he said that the line between good and evil runs through every human heart. It's because we were made for happiness in obedience to God, but rebelliously don't want to obey anyone, especially God.

The offer to become our own gods is something we don't want to turn down.

Uncle Wally
10-08-2014, 19:47
These people wouldn't happen to be of one religious persuasion, would they?



No they wouldn"t and if you knew anything about Jews you would know they are peaceful people.

Fantastika
10-08-2014, 19:55
Oh, yeah. Need to add "xenophobia" to that list.


Reading the past threads in this forum, by certain people, I would add Церко-phobia to the list. :)

rusmeister
10-08-2014, 20:06
No they wouldn"t and if you knew anything about Jews you would know they are peaceful people.

I think they are people. As are we all. We are ALL peaceful - until we feel our homes, families and lives are threatened.

But yes, the modern plutocracies masquerading as democracies are not united by religion, unless it be the religion of avarice. Judaic faith has very little to do with even what the Jewish members of those plutocracies do.

Uncle Wally
10-08-2014, 21:01
I think they are people. As are we all. We are ALL peaceful - until we feel our homes, families and lives are threatened.

But yes, the modern plutocracies masquerading as democracies are not united by religion, unless it be the religion of avarice. Judaic faith has very little to do with even what the Jewish members of those plutocracies do.


Please give me a break. You really trying to tell me that they feel threatned by people with mostly sticks and stones? You know seeing how the world is today I'm not so sure that it is Hamas shooting rockets at this multi million dollar iron dome, you'd have to be really stupid to waste a good rockets on something you are 99% sure you won't hit, better to save them for new year or that neighbor with the dog that keeps barking all night long. That is unless you need a good excuse to go kill someone because you don't like them and want to take their land. Then you have your buddy shoot them at you and blame them, that's how it's been lately in this world and it wouldn't be the first time.

rusmeister
10-08-2014, 22:22
Please give me a break. You really trying to tell me that they feel threatned by people with mostly sticks and stones? You know seeing how the world is today I'm not so sure that it is Hamas shooting rockets at this multi million dollar iron dome, you'd have to be really stupid to waste a good rockets on something you are 99% sure you won't hit, better to save them for new year or that neighbor with the dog that keeps barking all night long. That is unless you need a good excuse to go kill someone because you don't like them and want to take their land. Then you have your buddy shoot them at you and blame them, that's how it's been lately in this world and it wouldn't be the first time.

Well, you can invent an argument and attribute it to me and I can hardly stop you.
I said "We are ALL peaceful until we feel our homes, families and lives are threatened."
That is a general truth. I will say that, in all my experience, Russians, Italians and even Americans are peaceful people, on the whole. So it's not very helpful to say that the Jews are a peaceful people. Of course they are, under ordinary circumstances.

I think what is really being alluded to is that historically, a SMALL group of Jews - note: nobody is saying "all", "many" or even "some" - did indeed take control of much of global finance. To pretend that there is no such thing as the Rothschild family, for instance, would be self-deceptive, to not know about them would be ignorance of the topic at hand.
In our time they are not the sole owners, but are major players in global finance. I speak of them, not as Jews (which is nearly irrelevant today), but as plutocrats.

You might be misreading me, and may see things that are not there.

Fantastika
13-08-2014, 09:12
Please give me a break. You really trying to tell me that they feel threatned by people with mostly sticks and stones? You know seeing how the world is today I'm not so sure that it is Hamas shooting rockets at this multi million dollar iron dome, you'd have to be really stupid to waste a good rockets on something you are 99% sure you won't hit, better to save them for new year or that neighbor with the dog that keeps barking all night long. That is unless you need a good excuse to go kill someone because you don't like them and want to take their land. Then you have your buddy shoot them at you and blame them, that's how it's been lately in this world and it wouldn't be the first time.

A good-sized rock, to the head, can kill someone.

Anyway, you are taking Israel out of context. The larger context is Islamo-fascism, or whatever you want to call it, Mecca's war on everyone else - :AngelPray: The Religion of Peace :AngelPray: (http://www.thereligionofpeace.com)