Russians

[1949threepence 3,367]

48 minutes ago, copper123 said:

I have looked thoroughly through google and they appear to have disapeared from the earth .

I wonder why?

There are so many weird, unanswered inconsistencies regarding that case.   

[copper123 1,425]

'Whenever the Kremlin denies something, you should assume it's true'

Bill Browder, an American investor and prominent critic of the Kremlin, said he believes that Vladimir Putin was responsible for bringing down the plane that killed Yevgeny Prigozhin.

"Whenever the Kremlin denies something, you should assume it’s true," he tells BBC News, saying the Russian government had denied involvement in the shooting down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 in 2014, the murder of former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko, and the Salisbury poisoning.

"So when they come up with these lies the first thing you should do is look at the opposite," he says.

Browder - who has described himself as Putin’s number one enemy - says Prigozhin angered the Russian leader by challenging his power when he launched his short-lived mutiny in June.

"[Putin's] a dictator, nobody is allowed to challenge him. The way that he has succeeded in staying in power is by showing everyone that if you do anything that’s a challenge to his power, anything disloyal, that bad things will happen to you. Terrible things will happen to you," he says.

Edited August 25, 2023 by copper123
This guy sounds like he knows what hes on about - please stay away from windows in towner blocks

[Kipster 188]

1 hour ago, copper123 said:

'Whenever the Kremlin denies something, you should assume it's true'

Bill Browder, an American investor and prominent critic of the Kremlin, said he believes that Vladimir Putin was responsible for bringing down the plane that killed Yevgeny Prigozhin.

"Whenever the Kremlin denies something, you should assume it’s true," he tells BBC News, saying the Russian government had denied involvement in the shooting down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 in 2014, the murder of former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko, and the Salisbury poisoning.

"So when they come up with these lies the first thing you should do is look at the opposite," he says.

Browder - who has described himself as Putin’s number one enemy - says Prigozhin angered the Russian leader by challenging his power when he launched his short-lived mutiny in June.

"[Putin's] a dictator, nobody is allowed to challenge him. The way that he has succeeded in staying in power is by showing everyone that if you do anything that’s a challenge to his power, anything disloyal, that bad things will happen to you. Terrible things will happen to you," he says.

He's not wrong. 

I've been studying a man called Semion Mogilevich, boss of the Russian mob (most likely by proxy for Putin), for some time now. His links to Putin and organised crime, in particular financial crime, are quite alarming. I would not be surprised if the creation and subsequent expansion of the crypto-sphere in the first decade of this century was not orchestrated to defraud vast sums of money, and weaken the financial institutions of opposition countries. In fact, I would say it's a given. There is something deeply insidious here, and we should all have a tiny little bit of worry about it. 

By the way, I'm not a tinfoil hat wearer, just someone who's connecting dots. I wasn't always a gardener.

[Paddy 1,598]

Does anyone else think that the extremes of wokery that are undermining the Western world's entire ethos are also emanating from Russia? 

It would be so easy for them to stoke the crazy ideas through social media and stand back to watch the ensuing chaos in glee.

 

[copper123 1,425]

15 hours ago, Paddy said:

Does anyone else think that the extremes of wokery that are undermining the Western world's entire ethos are also emanating from Russia? 

It would be so easy for them to stoke the crazy ideas through social media and stand back to watch the ensuing chaos in glee.

 

They could easy have used puts and calls on oil grain  etc  to make vast sums of money with their insider information - vast sums of money could have been exported and used to help the war , in effect getting the general public to pay for the instability

[Peckris 2 2,089]

On 8/25/2023 at 8:20 PM, Paddy said:

Does anyone else think that the extremes of wokery that are undermining the Western world's entire ethos are also emanating from Russia? 

It would be so easy for them to stoke the crazy ideas through social media and stand back to watch the ensuing chaos in glee.

 

I've absolutely no idea what you mean by "extremes of wokery that are undermining the Western world's entire ethos"

[copper123 1,425]

11 hours ago, Peckris 2 said:

I've absolutely no idea what you mean by "extremes of wokery that are undermining the Western world's entire ethos"

But it sounds good

[1949threepence 3,367]

On 8/25/2023 at 8:20 PM, Paddy said:

Does anyone else think that the extremes of wokery that are undermining the Western world's entire ethos are also emanating from Russia? 

It would be so easy for them to stoke the crazy ideas through social media and stand back to watch the ensuing chaos in glee.

 

They could be. Or perhaps from the USA.

I'm not convinced Putin has any interest in fanning the flames of wokery. 

[Paddy 1,598]

Anything that undermines the resolve, strength and morale of your enemy is useful to your cause. If Russia decided to invade across Europe now, how many of our present population would actually volunteer to resist them? Compare that to the situation in the last 2 World wars.

Putin is well aware that the British have been the most resolute in resisting tyranny in the past. By taking us out of the equation he makes his ambitions much easier to achieve.

 

[1949threepence 3,367]

3 hours ago, Paddy said:

Anything that undermines the resolve, strength and morale of your enemy is useful to your cause. If Russia decided to invade across Europe now, how many of our present population would actually volunteer to resist them? Compare that to the situation in the last 2 World wars.

Putin is well aware that the British have been the most resolute in resisting tyranny in the past. By taking us out of the equation he makes his ambitions much easier to achieve.

 

well yes, I take your point, but he must also know that only a tiny minority take wokeism seriously, nor does it ever affect more than a tiny minority. 

If Putin did decide to attack across Europe he'd be annihilated. As for voluntereering, how many of the Russian population would want to take part in a suicide mission?

[Peckris 2 2,089]

4 hours ago, Paddy said:

Anything that undermines the resolve, strength and morale of your enemy is useful to your cause. If Russia decided to invade across Europe now, how many of our present population would actually volunteer to resist them? Compare that to the situation in the last 2 World wars.

Putin is well aware that the British have been the most resolute in resisting tyranny in the past. By taking us out of the equation he makes his ambitions much easier to achieve.

I don't dispute any of that, but what does it have to do with your crazy "extremes of wokery" phrase?

[Paddy 1,598]

We all have our views as to what would be "extreme" in the woke crusade.

I would say the idea that a biological male, possibly even one convicted of sex offences against women, can one day declare that he now identifies as a woman, and immediately earn the right to hang around in female changing rooms - is extreme.

Or that someone who has passed through puberty as a male, and so gained all the muscular advantages of testosterone, can then declare transgender and thereby be allowed to compete on equal terms with biological women - is extreme.

Or that in some parts of the NHS they are no longer allowed to use terms such as "woman" or "mother" and are expected to use some complex phrase such as "child-bearing capable person" - is extreme.

I am all for the fair treatment of all sexualities and genders, but that should not be at the expense of fair treatment for those who fit into the more traditional gender classifications.

I have probably opened Pandora's box by expressing those views and will incur the wrath of the woke brigade. In their usual form they will seek to silence me as they despise any view that does not concur with their own. Reminds me a bit of the Catholic Church through much of its history.

 

[Peckris 2 2,089]

You see, the very use of the words "crusade" and "brigade" betrays your position, which is - if you'll excuse me - itself extreme. No-one has been able to successfully define what 'woke' actually means; it just seems to be a modern form of 'political correctnesss', which itself was largely a fabrication of the likes of the Mail.

Being disabled, I use the NHS  a lot and I can assure you that "woman" and "mother" - despite the bleatings of the Mail - are still in use.

As for the whole trans debate, yes there are many issues there which are far from resolved.

[Paddy 1,598]

Fair comment that I would place my political views to the right of centre, but I would say well short of extreme. Just as I am aware that your position @Peckris 2 is well left of centre, but presumably would object to being called "extreme".

I think it is the lengths some of the woke supporters go to suppress any view that does not concur with their own that I find most disturbing. Universities "cancelling" any speaker whose viewpoint is not up to date with woke culture smacks of extremism. The essence of a free democracy is freedom of speech, and that seems to be being undermined.

 

[Paddy 1,598]

... and as if by magic, this headline article today. I know from the Daily Mail, so there will be a good deal of bias in choosing to run this topic, but the basic facts are still extraordinary:

[Peckris 2 2,089]

14 hours ago, Paddy said:

I think it is the lengths some of the woke supporters go to suppress any view that does not concur with their own that I find most disturbing. Universities "cancelling" any speaker whose viewpoint is not up to date with woke culture smacks of extremism. The essence of a free democracy is freedom of speech, and that seems to be being undermined.

Oh jesus, where the h*ll have you been the last 50 years? When I was at University in the early 70s, a proposed lecture by Eysenck was cancelled because so many students objected to his views. It's nothing new and you can attempt to repeat 'wokism' until you're blue in the face ballot box, but it doesn't mean anything.

[Peckris 2 2,089]

13 hours ago, Paddy said:

... and as if by magic, this headline article today. I know from the Daily Mail, so there will be a good deal of bias in choosing to run this topic, but the basic facts are still extraordinary:

the Mail? I give it no credence whatever. There may be a grain of truth buried somewhere in there, but NHS Trusts who (voluntarily) listen to Stonewall or other such organisations wouldn't get very far with their patients. As for calling users 'clients', well excuse me but that's widespread everywhere now.

[Paddy 1,598]

I think it is best we just agree to differ. Neither of us is likely to change our viewpoint substantially, so there is no point wasting blood pressure on the debate.

 

[Menger 82]

21 minutes ago, Paddy said:

I think it is best we just agree to differ. Neither of us is likely to change our viewpoint substantially, so there is no point wasting blood pressure on the debate.

 

I have always thought the “agree to differ” conclusion to discussion misplaced; and that point of discussion is not necessarily to “change viewpoints”, but perhaps to sharpen one’s own ideas by articulating them and testing them against the quality of feedback.  Moreover the back and forth can be entertaining. So while it may not stop people disappearing down woke rabbit holes with bad ideas, open debate may also serve to keep a sizable minority sane. 

[Diaconis 706]

2 hours ago, Menger said:

I have always thought the “agree to differ” conclusion to discussion misplaced; and that point of discussion is not necessarily to “change viewpoints”, but perhaps to sharpen one’s own ideas by articulating them and testing them against the quality of feedback.  Moreover the back and forth can be entertaining. So while it may not stop people disappearing down woke rabbit holes with bad ideas, open debate may also serve to keep a sizable minority sane. 

…or end up with one having to imbibe a draught of hemlock😂

[oldcopper 283]

6 hours ago, Paddy said:

I think it is best we just agree to differ. Neither of us is likely to change our viewpoint substantially, so there is no point wasting blood pressure on the debate.

 

The trouble is there's no debate because when you put the Daily Mail clipping to Peckris, he pulls out the cliched lazy get-out clause so beloved of the Left:

"The Daily Mail, you can't believe a word they say etc etc etc!" 

Which is very convenient, because a person with even less self-awareness than Peckris can see that cancelling the words mother and woman is not a good look. So isn't that lucky he doesn't have to discuss it with you.

And the Cabinet Minister and the other MPs who are complaining about it, and who are probably referred to on page 6 - that's all completely made up by the Mail as well?

Let's analyse this. If the Mail either made up the story or got it completely wrong, let's consider what would happen? Firstly, they'd get a complaint in writing from one or more of the involved parties and would then have to issue a subsequent apology and retraction at the very least. If this were not enough, or it was not forthcoming, they would then be referred to the press regulator.and perhaps be taken to court.

Thus any newspaper is going to have to be pretty sure that what they print about any organisation or powerful people like politicians is based on facts, unless it's obviously opinion. They cannot afford it not to be. So presumably Peckris has examples of hundreds of cases of the Mail being sued for printing false stories about powerful people or organisations? Because they do it all the time, right?

No of course he doesn't. There may have been a few over the decades but that's true of every paper. It's his way of avoiding the subject.

And Peckris airily assures us that NHS "users" are referred to as "clients". But this story is specifying maternity clinics, not just general "users" of health services, who will usually have non-sexually specific conditions. So he changes the story to fit his narrative. And when was the last time he hung out in a Maternity Ward?

And where does this one come from? - "NHS Trusts who (voluntarily) listen to Stonewall or other such organisations wouldn't get very far with their patients"

I'm so glad that the first question that Mrs Spriggs and her haemorrhoids will have is to ask the receptionist is how involved that NHS trust is with Stonewall, because if it is, she's going to march out of the door and find another hospital to have her operation (in 6 months time).

We can safely say that Peckris talks nothing but complete nonsense.

 

Edited August 29, 2023 by oldcopper

[Peckris 2 2,089]

14 hours ago, Paddy said:

I think it is best we just agree to differ. Neither of us is likely to change our viewpoint substantially, so there is no point wasting blood pressure on the debate.

 

I would agree to differ if it was just a matter of opinion, but you are ignoring facts.

[Menger 82]

5 hours ago, Peckris 2 said:

I would agree to differ if it was just a matter of opinion, but you are ignoring facts.

This may be a difference in perspective. Iain McGilchrist looks at it in terms of left-brain and right-brain perspectives: from the one, things can appear more binary when stripped of the context and nuance that comes from the other.  This may be an inherent problem with top-down technocracies where certain narratives are treated as “fact”.  The dichotomy between the theories of the “experts” and the real life experiences of the people being analogous to the left and right brain. This then creates division between those that have faith in that narrative as “fact” and those that see a different perspective or a broader picture.  McGilchrist argues that a structural shortcoming of the left-brain is that is it is unable to perceive the nature of the right-brain. 

Edited August 30, 2023 by Menger

[Paddy 1,598]

10 hours ago, Peckris 2 said:

I would agree to differ if it was just a matter of opinion, but you are ignoring facts.

... and are you not also ignoring facts - as displayed in the Daily Mail - simply because of your bias against that paper? 

As @oldcopper puts it, much better than I could: "when you put the Daily Mail clipping to Peckris, he pulls out the cliched lazy get-out clause so beloved of the Left".

Before you say "Why hasn't the BBC repeated the story?", that organisation has become so woke, left wing and anti Brexit it has ceased to publish any news that contradicts their viewpoint.

I am wasting blood pressure again - I'm out of here.

 

[Bronze & Copper Collector 406]

Genesis 2:22-23

 

22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

23 The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.”

 

 

I just want to know if the "WOKESTERS" plan to rewrite the Bible in order to make it "Politically Correct".

Perhaps they intend to challenge the ""Word" of GOD"

Edited August 30, 2023 by Bronze & Copper Collector