I can't stop what I never started, Einstein. Maybe you should quit drinking and start thinking. It might do you good .... :wink:

I think you misunderstand my comment.

I was talking about the "correct" view in historical terms, i.e., the view about "self" actually held by Buddha as opposed to what later Buddhists (and non-Buddhists) believe to have been his view.

In other words, not whether Buddha's view was correct, but what his view was - as far as this can be determined by the evidence available.

Maybe they keep it in the family .... :grin:

In any case, my suspicion is that Muslims do it even more than other religious denominations:

The hypocrisy of child abuse in many Muslim countries - The Guardian

Child abuse also among Senegal's Muslim clergy - Afrol News

Child abuse case rocks Pakistan's clergy - TRT World

But perhaps you should start a thread on it, as I don't think it's got much to do with the OP?

all philosophical or "educated" views are not in agreement. — praxis

Well, if they aren't in agreement this increases the divergence of views and resulting confusion as to which of them is the "correct" view. If even scholars can't agree, one can't expect any better from the uneducated.

If you had only one educated and one uneducated view, the options would be reduced to just two, making it much easier to choose.

* — Wayfarer

I see your point (or asterisk) :smile:

However, I think the current problems tend to be caused by the fact that in a normal world, Europe should be dominated by the continental state with the largest population and strongest economy, and that is Germany.

Unfortunately, as Germany was destroyed after two world wars, there is no proper European balance of power. This has led to a highly anomalous situation with the resulting power vacuum leaving the whole of Europe in a position of subservience to America, China, Turkey, and other non-European (and anti-European) powers.

As for Ukraine, it will never be independent. It will be dominated either by Russia or by Western Europe, i.e., Brussels.

But I wouldn’t be overly concerned over Ukraine as such. I doubt very much that the Russians will round up all Ukrainians and send them to the gas chambers. They’ve been part of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union for centuries and they’ve survived and will continue to survive. Life goes on, after all. And Putin is not Stalin.

A bigger concern seems to be that Western pressure on Russia forces Russia to gang up with China, which can only serve to strengthen China's hand vis-à-vis the West. Ultimately, the US-UK-EU combine may be shooting itself in the foot ....

Russia and China show united front amid rising tensions with West - Sky News

I had a look at the Secular Buddhist forum and there are many sophisticated critiques of it, although I don't see how Buddhism really stacks up without it. — Wayfarer

This is what I was referring to. If you take the case of Tibetan Buddhism and other traditional examples (the Jataka stories, etc.) then rebirth, irrespective of who or what is reborn, seems to be absolutely central to Buddhist teachings.

This much seems to be certain especially in view of the fact that it is consistent with the prevalent Indic religion (Hinduism, Jainism, etc.) of which Buddhism, after all, was a mere offshoot.

So the problem really arises from the divergent interpretations of "rebirth" and "self".

As I was pointing out earlier (page 11), the Dhammapada 277-279 says:

All conditioned phenomena (sankharas) are impermanent";
All conditioned phenomena are dukkha (painful);
All conditioned phenomena are not-Self (anatta)

This is sometimes interpreted to mean that everything (sarvam or sabbe) is not-self, and therefore, "there is no self". But, clearly, the reference is to conditioned phenomena as being "not-self" or perhaps "without self", i.e. without substance or real existence.

However, if Nirvana exists and is a permanent reality, then it may be argued that the state of Nirvana is "with self", i.e. with substance or existence and, by extension, one's real self. If Nirvana is an eternal reality, then it already exists here and now as the background of individual or personal existence and, therefore, it is our "real self".

Obviously, not a personal self, but nonetheless a "self" in the sense of "having existence or reality", somewhat akin to the Platonic "Good or One itself".

The terminology seems to be pretty close as regards Indic atman/atta and Greek autos, and so is the concept of the "impermanence of phenomena" that is fundamental to both traditions.

I think the main confusion arises from the vast range of interpretation and, in particular, from the divergence of popular vs. philosophical or "educated" views.

Well, I don't know any clergymen so I can't tell. But I think that kind of stuff would be more like Nation of Islam style ....

The Western narrative revolves on “human rights and democracy” which, if we think about it, has been used as an umbrella slogan (or pretext) for some questionable international operations. What is certain is that if Ukraine joins the EU it will be ruled not by Kiev but by Brussels. This is precisely why Britain conveniently left the EU!

On its part, Russia is basing its case on the principle of “indivisible security” according to which while NATO has a right to expand its membership, this right should not be absolute, and non-NATO states should have the right to oppose NATO expansion when it affects their own security.

Russia is referring to the 1999 European Security Charter and the 2010 Astana Declaration, both of which were signed by the US and Russia. The 1999 Charter (Article II, Paragraph 8) says countries should be free to choose their own security arrangements and alliances, but that they “will not strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other states”.

- Istanbul Document 1999 – OSCE

So, we can see that though the US has a point in insisting on “human rights and democracy”, Russia also has a point in insisting on security matters which the US chooses to ignore. I don’t know of any states which think that human rights should have precedence over national security. This is why I believe that a reasonable US government ought to be able to come to some kind of compromise. The problem is that it is easy and tempting for political leaders to style themselves “defender of freedom and democracy” in order to boost their ratings in the polls or to push other agendas.

But to revert to the point I was making. Since NATO and the EU are (1) expanding and (2) refusing to set limits to their expansion, I think it is safe to assume that it is their objective to keep expanding. And unlimited expansion ultimately leads to world government.

We can get an idea of the means by which this is achieved by looking at how the EU was formed.

The EU was established in 1993 on the basis of the European Economic Community which in turn was based on the European Coal and Steel Community:

The union and EU citizenship were established when the Maastricht Treaty came into force in 1993. The EU traces its origins to the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) and the European Economic Community (EEC), established, respectively, by the 1951 Treaty of Paris and 1957 Treaty of Rome. The original member states of what came to be known as the European Communities were the Inner Six: Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and West Germany.

- European Union - Wikipedia

The largest member countries with the strongest economies were Germany and France. Germany was under Allied (i.e. US) military occupation and France joined under US pressure.

Germany was controlled by US High Commissioner John McCloy, a Rockefeller lawyer and partner of the same Cravath law firm that initiated the Atlantic movement in America.

Another Rockefeller operative, US Secretary of State Dean Acheson, was a director of the Rockefellers’ Council on Foreign Relations and the main architect of NATO (the establishment of which had been proposed by Nelson Rockefeller in 1945). In 1949, during a meeting of the Allied Occupation Powers in West Germany, he put a gun to French foreign minister Schuman’s head, ordering him to form a United States of Europe with Germany.

Oct 22 1949, Meeting of United States Ambassadors at Paris (attended by McCloy):

As for US policy, it must be directed towards pressing for the acceptance of Germany into the European Councils. We must put pressure on the French to let the Germans come in on a dignified basis…

Foreign Relations of the United States, 1949, Council of Foreign Ministers, Oct. 22

Oct 30 1949, Acheson letter to Schuman (in which he tells Schuman to take action “to promptly and decisively integrate US-controlled Germany into Western Europe”):

Whether Germany will in the future be a benefit or a curse to the free world will be determined, not only by the Germans, but by the occupying powers. … Our own stake and responsibility is also greater. Now is the time for French initiative and leadership of the type required to integrate the German Federal Republic promptly and decisively into Western Europe … We have also reserved to ourselves in the Occupation Statute very considerable powers with respect to the action of the German Federal Republic …

Letter from Dean Acheson to Robert Schuman (30 October 1949) – CVCE

Once Germany and France had been “persuaded” to form the core of European integration, the other smaller countries whose economies depended on German and French industry, had no choice but to join. In fact they were obliged to do so as part of the Marshall Plan deal which stipulated European integration in exchange for financial and other assistance.

And we know that the Marshall Plan and associated schemes were intended to serve US economic interests, because the guys involved – from State Secretary George Marshall to Acheson - openly admitted it!

In a 1947 speech, Acheson himself stated:

These measures of relief and reconstruction have been only in part suggested by humanitarianism. Your Congress has authorized and your government is carrying out, a policy of relief and reconstruction today chiefly as a matter of national self-interest … There is no charity involved in this. It is simply common sense and good business. We are today obliged from considerations of self-interest to finance a huge deficit in the world’s budget … The International Trade Organization must be established … The fourth thing we must do in the present situation is to push ahead with the reconstruction of those two great workshops of Europe and Asia – Germany and Japan ….”.

Dean Acheson, The Requirements of Reconstruction, May 8, 1947 – Truman Library

Both Marshall and Acheson clearly explain in their speeches that the US economy needs to import goods from Europe and it needs Europe as a market for US exports, otherwise US economic growth would be unsustainable. And because US business preferred to deal with one single market, the US government put pressure on European states to form a single market. It was a form of blackmail sugar-coated with loans.

So, we can see under what conditions the “European integration project” came about. EEC and EU enlargement has happened along similar lines, mainly under economic and financial pressure.

US domination over Europe continues as before. London is Europe’s largest financial center, but the largest investment banks operating there (and in other European cities) are mostly American: JPMorgan, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Citi Group.

There is also the issue of cultural domination. Apart from English being increasingly used all over Europe, some Europeans feel that their culture is being gradually replaced with an US-imposed, alien substitute.

According to some observers:

As the unrivaled global superpower, America exports its culture on an unprecedented scale. From music to media, film to fast food, language to literature and sport, the American idea is spreading inexorably, not unlike the influence of empires that preceded it.

- The American world: U.S. culture's dominance is a mixed bag

From a European perspective, it is arguable that European culture is being replaced with US-made violent hip hop, rape rap, and the war drums of the slums. Not by force of arms, of course, but through the overwhelming influence of the US-dominated social media and entertainment industry.

Exactly how “democratic” this process is, is a matter of debate, but I don't think there has been a referendum on it yet .... :smile:

As I understand it, ‘their expansion’ in this case is simply leaving the door open to sovereign nations who wish to join them. NATO partners are not seeking to expand by invading Ukraine of forcibly occupying other nations. The issue at hand is Russia’s ability and implicit threat to do exactly that, whilst then hanging the blame on America for doing it. It’s transparently duplicitous. — Wayfarer

Unfortunately, it isn't quite as simple as you are painting it. Russia has NOT been expanding. NATO and the EU have, by constantly incorporating new countries. NATO had 12 members in 1949. It now has 30. They may not have done this by means of military force, but expanded they have. This is the FACT we need to start with.

Take a look at a map of the region and you will see that NATO and the EU have largely encircled Russia, NOT the other way round.

http://www.socialistaction.net/2022/02/02/a-short-history-of-nato-eastward-expansion-and-the-current-tensions-in-europe/

Given that the EU and NATO (1) have been expanding, (2) have now reached Russia's borders, and (3) are refusing to set a limit to their expansion, I think Russia is perfectly entitled to be concerned. I know that I would be if I were Russia.

At the very least, it is proper to ask why the EU, NATO, and associated organizations are expanding? Where does the logical conclusion of permanent and unlimited expansion (i.e., incorporation of new states) lead to? World government???

We have seen that you are citing Russia as being a "dictatorship", but you omit to mention many other dictatorships that are even more repressive than Russia: China, North Korea, Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, etc., where atrocities against political opposition and religious or ethnic minorities are perpetrated on a daily basis. IMO it doesn't make sense to single out Russia.

I think that for a better understanding of the situation it is important to understand exactly what the EU and NATO are, because to me they don't look like charitable or philanthropic organizations.

The fact is that NATO (= North Atlantic Treaty Organization) is a product of the Anglo-American Atlantic movement.

Atlanticism manifested itself most strongly during the Second World War and in its aftermath, the Cold War, through the establishment of various euro-Atlantic institutions, most importantly NATO and the Marshall Plan.

Atlanticism - Wikipedia

We also know who was behind the Atlantic movement:

Following World War I, New York lawyer Paul D. Cravath was a noted leader in establishing Atlanticism in the United States. Cravath had become devoted to international affairs during the war, and was later a co-founder and director of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Cravath was a former employee of Standard Oil subsidiary Globe Oil and was presiding partner at Guthrie, Cravath & Henderson, a leading law firm representing banking and oil interests.

Anyway, if you look at the English-language Wikipedia article on Atlanticism, it reads almost like an advertisement. In contrast, the German version offers a much more balanced analysis with a whole section on Criticism of Atlanticism.

Moreover, the German version makes some disturbing claims that I don't think should be simply brushed off:

Research by historian Dov Levin, for example, found that between 1946 and 2000, the United States manipulated the democratic elections of other countries more than 80 times, including in European countries such as Italy and Greece … From a strategic point of view, there is criticism, among other things, that relations between Europe and the USA are unequal, as the US enforces its foreign policy with little consideration for European interests …

- Atlantiker – Wikipedia

So, I think it would be wrong to accept Atlanticism and its manifestations like the EU and NATO too uncritically, as you and @ssu seem to be doing.

The point I was making earlier was that if representatives of oil and banking interests initiated and led the Atlantic movement, then it is incorrect to say that Atlanticism has nothing to do with those interests.

But the main point is that the overarching objective of Atlanticism (a.k.a. Trans-Atlanticism) was to bring North America, Britain, and Europe closer together. Some Atlanticists, especially on the British side, were even advocating union (or re-union) of Britain with America and, above all, world federation or world state. This is an important point to remember because we can see that unlimited expansion of NATO, EU, and associated organizations inevitably leads to world government when taken to its logical conclusion.

This is why the architects of Atlanticism founded all those organizations like NATO, European Coal and Steel Community (precursor to the EU), Organization for European Economic Co-operation (precursor to the OECD), etc., etc.

If you look at these organizations, you will see that their memberships are largely overlapping, especially at the top. For example, among the 29 OECD member states, 16 are also NATO members.

List of OECD member countries - OECD

There is a top tier of the Five Eyes (FVEY) consisting of the Anglophonic sphere, US, UK, OZ, NZ, and Canada, followed by European collaborators like France, puppets like Germany, and the lower ranks of smaller satellites.

The FVEY association itself demonstrates the Atlanticist (i.e. Anglo-American) origins of this highly influential network of organizations. The original (unofficial) association in the early 1900s consisted of the very same countries plus South Africa!

In any case, when you have a wide network of multiple international organizations stretching across the globe, all of which aim for economic, military and political integration of member states, all having the same top tier with America at its apex, and you know that they were founded at America’s instigation, then this can only mean (a) that America is the top dog in all of them and (b) that their primary purpose is to serve US interests.

It was American interest groups that convened the national and international conferences at which they proposed the establishment of the UN, World Bank, IMF, Marshall Plan, European integration, and all the other top intergovernmental organizations that are now organizing the world and setting the rules by which the world has to abide.

For example, according to its own mission statement, the OECD (which was originally set up to administer US Marshall Plan funds) aims to “establish international standards” and “provide advice on public policies and international standard-setting”. Obviously, countries have to abide by those standards if they want to be allowed to join these organizations (which they may do under economic or political pressure) so they are accepting standards, rules, and laws, set or made by others ....

I tend to doubt that "wealth distribution" has anything to do with it. Not all poor people are murderers, are they?

I suspect culture may be a more important factor. For example, in some Muslim countries, there is a tradition of "honor killings". It's just like in street-gang culture, if someone "disrespects" you, then you shoot, stab, or acid them in order to restore your "respect" or "honor". And in some cases the wealthy are more violent than the poor because they tend to be more likely to get away with it.

I would also guess that, in general, Americans tend to be more prone to acting on impulse or emotion than the British. This tendency seems to increase on a geographic scale from north (say, Canada) to south (Central and South America).

And the same tends to apply to Europe. North Europeans, e.g. Scandinavians, tend to be less impulsive and emotional than South Europeans, e.g. Spaniards or Italians.

Possession of guns may or may not induce people to use them, but I think you would need to have the cultural and psychological predisposition before you pick up a gun or some other weapon.

I've sometimes wondered this too. There is so much divergent thinking around what it is to be a Buddhist, it seems almost anything is possible in this space. — Tom Storm

Well, I think either they are trying to confuse us, or else they aren't sure themselves .... :smile:

But you are right, there are many different denominations within Buddhism and different views within each denomination, including subjective idealist ones like Yogācāra. So, I suppose, one may end up with a situation where you are tempted to pick and mix your own personal religion.

My suspicion is that this might be the reason why Buddhism was so popular with the New Age movement and why there was widespread opposition to organized religion in general, and to Western religion in particular, among its followers.

I wasn't denying the doctrine of rebirth myself, — Wayfarer

I didn't mean you, personally. But from what you were saying, I got the impression that reincarnation or rebirth does not always seem to be taken literally, or even seriously, among Western Buddhists.

I understand that, at least according to some interpretations, what is reborn is not a personal entity. But the way Buddha's lives are described in some traditional accounts like the Jataka stories, it sounds very much like that.

Russian agitprop. Russia has economic opportunities for trade and peaceful economic cooperation, or would have, if it managed its affairs properly. In case you haven't noticed, it's a kleptocracy run by a dictator who routinely murders any legitimate political opponent. — Wayfarer

NATO agitprop. In case you haven't noticed, there are lots of similar, or worse, regimes everywhere: China, North Korea, Turkey, Afghanistan, etc.

And you are not answering my question .... :smile:

You don't think the democratic will of the Ukrainian people has any role in to play? — Wayfarer

Of course I do. But if we consider the interests and will of Ukraine, we must also consider the interests and will of Russia.

After all, if two parties go to court over a grievance, it is the duty of the court to hear both claims as impartially as possible. This is why I'm saying that a degree of objectivity is absolutely imperative if we want to have a proper discussion.

And you haven't answered my question. If NATO and the EU refuse to set a limit to their expansion, where will this end? In what position will it leave Russia? And how is Russia supposed to react?

As long as you observe its founders are an assortment of sovereign states, not just few individuals that already have died. — ssu

Well, I see zero consistency or logic in what you are saying.

You first implied that NATO was not a tool of US interests.

Now you are admitting that it was a tool, but a tool of "sovereign states".

I have no doubt that America was a sovereign state when NATO was founded. But you neglect to observe that European states after WW2 were (a) heavily indebted to America and (b) made to comply with American policy as part of the European Reconstruction Program (ERP) a.k.a. Marshall Plan.

The Plan was American and European states obediently complied with it. So you can draw your own conclusions.

And don't forget that not all European states were "sovereign". Germany and Austria joined the Marshall Plan and agreed to the US conditions attached to it while under Allied military occupation.

And it's a process as the leadership in those sovereign states change as does the political situation in Europe. — ssu

Same lack of logic as above.

If the leadership in those states changes and the political situation in Europe changes, it doesn't follow that NATO's (and the EU's) original plan of bringing about the political integration or unification of European states has also changed. On the contrary, the plan clearly remains to increase the political integration of Europe and to keep incorporating new states. Hence the Ukraine debacle.

If you ask me, I think for objectivity's sake (if nothing else) we need to look at Russia's case too, not just what "the West" says.

The fact is that both NATO and the EU have been constantly expanding ever since they were founded. Both of them refuse to set any limits to their expansion. So, what should Russia do? What would you do if you were Russia?

Russia is asking for guarantees that the EU and NATO will not expand any further within its own space or sphere of influence, a guarantee it apparently believes it had already received.

But let's leave Ukraine aside for a second and ask the EU and NATO not if they are prepared to give guarantees on Ukraine but on Russia itself. Are they prepared to guarantee that they will never expand to incorporate Russia?

If the answer is "no", as it is regarding Ukraine, then I think we need to ask ourselves what the EU's and NATO's true intentions are. Where does unlimited expansion lead to if it is carried to its logical conclusion?

Especially with NATO it comes to this: do you see NATO as an extension and a tool of the US or NATO as a security arrangement of European countries and the US? — ssu

Well, why don’t you start with a more logical question like, in what sense could NATO not be a tool of its founders?

Of course NATO is a tool of those who founded it. That’s exactly why they founded it, to serve as an instrument or tool of their interests. Perhaps you would like to argue that they founded NATO for no reason?

And “NATO as a security arrangement of European countries and the US”? Are you suggesting that NATO is just about “security”?

If you are, then you will be surprised to hear that NATO thinks otherwise. It thinks that one of its objectives is the political integration of Europe!

The Alliance’s creation was part of a broader effort to serve three purposes: deterring Soviet expansionism, forbidding the revival of nationalist militarism in Europe through a strong North American presence on the continent, and encouraging European political integration.

- A short history of NATO

BTW, this is from NATO’s own website so I don’t think it is Russian propaganda ....

Sure. I can see nothing wrong with a nice kangaroo burger or crocodile steak washed down with a cool pint of beer. Providing, of course, it isn't a reincarnated neighbor or relative :wink:

But the way I see it, there seems to be a certain tension between the desire to attain “Nirvana”, i.e., a sort of personal annihilation, on one hand, and the belief that there is some personal continuation and repeated existence, on the other.

The original Buddhists seem to have taken reincarnation pretty seriously. In fact, the doctrine is fundamental to the whole system. So, if you start denying reincarnation, this raises the question of where to draw the line and whether it is still Buddhism or something else.

Yes, but even among the newer books there's a big range in the interpretation of the new information, especially with regard to the Lenin-as-German-agent idea. — jamalrob

Correct. However, my view is not that Lenin was a “German agent”. On the contrary, he wanted to extend the revolution to Germany itself, which is why after seizing power he founded the Communist International (COMINTERN) to establish a Socialist United States of Europe which had long been a key objective of European socialists:

In connection with the slogan of “a workers’ and peasants’ government”, the time is appropriate, in my opinion, for issuing the slogan of “The United States of Europe”. Only by coupling these two slogans shall we get a definite systematic and progressive response to the most burning problems of European development…

- Leon Trotsky, The First Five Years of the Communist International

Lenin was particularly interested in a German revolution as he needed German industry to build socialism in Russia and Europe. Russia had neither the industry nor the class of industrial workers a.k.a. “proletariat” to establish a socialist system.

However, unlike Kerensky who wanted to carry on with the war, Lenin and his group hoped that Russia would lose the war as this in his view would have created the conditions for a wider revolution. And it is on this point that his interests coincided with those of the German government.

That Lenin received large amounts of money from the German government seems to be established fact. This does not mean that, from his perspective, he was a “German agent” in the sense that he represented German interests. It only means that the Germans used him for their own purposes in the same way he used them for his own purposes. It happens all the time that rival interests use one another and collaborate on projects that are seen by both sides as advancing their respective interests.

But if the evidence shows that Lenin received money from a foreign power, then it is incorrect to say that he didn’t.

The incident may not yet be in school books but it is in the mainstream press and on history channels:

How Germany got the Russian Revolution off the ground – Deutsche Welle

Was Lenin a German agent? – New York Times

I for one tend to doubt that DW and the Times are mouthpieces for Putin or peddlers of "conspiracy theories" ….

Well, people do sometimes tend to jump to conclusions. The fact is I've got absolutely no connections with Russia and as I have pointed out in other discussions, I actually disagree with many of Putin's foreign policies, such as collaboration with anti-Western regimes like Turkey.

Yes, the 1917 events in Russia might have happened anyway "as a result of the political and social circumstances", as you say. But they wouldn't necessarily have happened the way they did. For example, it may be argued that without German support, Lenin's group wouldn't have seized power.

Another thing is that historical research is a very slow process and for new evidence or interpretations of evidence to find their way into mainstream opinion can take many years. As a result, text books published decades ago are not always entirely up to date and this may lead to new data being dismissed as "conspiracy theory".

But I agree that this is beyond the scope of this thread .... :smile:

But yet you do talk about Rockefeller's NATO — ssu

Why would I not talk about "Rockefeller's NATO" when the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (RIO Pact), the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO), all were established at the suggestion of Nelson Rockefeller?

And I never said that it is "only" oil and banking interests. It it you who is implying that they have nothing to do with anything. As if industry and finance played no role in the economy and economic interests played no role in foreign (and domestic) policy.

I just noticed that in another post you made a distinction between February and October, stating that Western capitalists supported the former but not the latter. — jamalrob

Correct. IMO it is a very important distinction to make which, unfortunately, a lot of people fail to do.

Anyway, organizations like the Society of Friends of Russian Freedom (SFRF) did not necessarily represent Western elites. They may have simply wanted to free Russia from the czars, which was the main thing.

However, first, this shows that there was an anti-czarist movement in London and New York, where many Russian emigres had settled (and where organizations like SFRF were headquartered).

Second, it shows that anti-czarist organizations existed, which Anglo-American elites could use to influence events in Russia and facilitate the overthrow of the regime, thus serving a double purpose: (1) enforcing economic and social change that was demanded not only by Russian emigres but by the general public in England and America, and (2) opening up Russia to unlimited development by Anglo-American capitalists.

Socialism was becoming increasingly popular in the West and anti-czarist agitation in London and New York also threatened to become a destabilizing factor domestically. Just think of thousands of foreign extremists, with links to armed groups, agitating in your own country at a time when police forces were neither particularly efficient nor very numerous. After all, the British already had India and Ireland on their plate. So it does make sense that Anglo-American elites wanted to solve the Russian problem sooner rather than later.

It is obvious that Britain and America were happy with Kerensky as they provided him with loans after the February revolution. In fact, there was no other alternative to czarism as no large or organized centrist opposition existed. So this point ought to be beyond dispute.

The confusion arises from the November revolution led by Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin, which was backed by Germany in an attempt to take Russia out of the war.

But the confusion is easily dispelled if we consider that there were two rival revolutionary factions in Russia: (1) the more moderate Socialist Revolutionaries led by Kerensky and (2) the radical Social Democrats (later renamed “communists”) led by Lenin and his clique.

The first group was supported by the Allies, the second was supported by Germany. Lenin did take Russia out of the war as his German backers wanted, but America joined the war instead, and that sealed Germany’s fate.

In any case, historical evidence suggests that there was some foreign involvement in bringing about the two revolutions. This does NOT mean that Western powers “controlled” anything. Only that they supported the groups that played a key role in the overthrow of the czars.

In fact, the events of February and November 1917 were not even proper revolutions like those of, say, France or America. In the first place, because the vast majority of the population was not interested in revolution and did not participate in the events. And second, because the February event was more like a breakdown in administration and the November one was more like a coup.

But it is wrong to say that foreign powers had no preference for this or the other revolutionary group or that they were not involved, for example, by providing financial assistance.

The West intervened on the side of the counterrevolution only after Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin had seized power and it had become clear that things were not working out in favor of the liberal elites in the West.

However, Lenin agreed to a compromise by introducing state capitalism (in collaboration with Western industrialists) as the means of achieving socialism, which rendered Western intervention unnecessary. Some foreigners did lose their investments in Russia, but on the whole, the situation was not entirely unfavorable to leading Western capitalists like Ford Motors.

Unfortunately, Lenin died (possibly after being poisoned) in 1924 and Stalin who was basically a gangster and train-robber became Russia’s sole dictator.

Well, to be quite honest, I've always thought of Australia as a place where you have this perpetual sunburn, endless bbq's on the beach (not sure if it's supposed to be crocodile or kangaroo), and everyone sleeps with everyone else's wife.

So it's good to hear that there are some normal people, too. But so long as you're having fun, it can't be too bad. And, fingers crossed, perhaps you won't need to come back as a worm, after all .... :smile:

Well, America financed Britain's war effort (via J P Morgan) which in turn financed France and other allies.

In August 1914, J.P. Morgan & Co. partner Henry Davison (1867-1922) travelled to London to arrange a deal with the Bank of England that made his bank the official sponsor of all credits to the British government floated on American markets. J.P. Morgan & Co. underwrote $1.5 billion in war loans to London over the course of the war. As an investment bank, Morgan was not the largest American bank, but it was the most well-connected. It had already floated credit for London once before, during the Boer War in 1900. In the fall of 1914, the US government initially barred Morgan from floating French government loans in New York, forcing Paris to look to the City of London for credits instead. However, by the spring of 1915, France too was funding itself on Wall Street. Once Russia also picked Morgan as the intermediary for its borrowings on the American market, the House of Morgan had become the credit-broker to the entire Entente. For its services to the alliance it obtained an 8.3 percent commission, which netted it over $200 million in profits.

- War Finance - International Encyclopedia of the First World War

America may have been "nobody" because it had no world empire but it had the cash to fund the war. So, it was a "nobody" without whom there would have been no war! :grin:

Russia was an absolute monarchy up to the Revolution of 1905, after which a semi-constitutional government was introduced that was merely nominal. The czar still had absolute power. The British and American liberal capitalists saw this as a form of dictatorship compared with their own forms of government.

Obviously, had the czar wanted to introduce reforms, he would have done so of his own accord, and there would have been no revolutions.

Likewise, had British and American liberal capitalists been happy with the czar, they wouldn't have supported revolutionary movements in Russia.

These guys were capitalist monopolists but they were liberals. Britain was run by the Liberal Party (which was the party of the capitalist elite) either on its own or in coalition with the Conservatives (the party of the aristocracy). Russian society was seen by both as one of the most backward on the planet. The Western liberals wanted economic and social reforms that went far beyond what the czar was prepared or able to accept.

The American and British press which was controlled by the liberal capitalists was anti-Russian. There were millions of Russian emigres in New York and London calling for revolution and inciting the locals. There were revolutionary organizations like the Society of Friends of Russian Freedom with branches in London and New York, sponsored by liberal capitalists like Schiff, agitating for revolution, etc., etc.

Society of Friends of Russian Freedom - Wikipedia

The anti-czarist movement on both sides of the Atlantic was massive. Public opinion alone put pressure on liberal capitalist leaders to do something.

Academic David Bentley Hart (who identifies as Eastern Orthodox) argues they are not Christian so much as new cults of reward and punishment. — Tom Storm

He is probably right. Like politicians, some may genuinely believe what they are preaching, but many are obviously fake. There is a lot of counterfeit stuff out there from fake watches to fake news, cosmetic surgery, and artificial intelligence.

Which tends to make it increasingly difficult to distinguish between appearance and reality until one day all distinctions are blurred. But some, apparently, call it "progress" ....

I'm sure that's an esoteric symbol of illumination. — Wayfarer

Christian writings do use fire, sun, moon, etc., as a symbol of purification, illumination, perfection, or simply spiritual guidance, depending on the context.

Your wife's hymn seems to have originated in the 1904–1905 Welsh revival movement. She mustn't be particularly interested in the Pali suttas then .... :smile:

Neoliberalism is post WW2. And there couldn't be any explanation of Russia until after 1987. — frank

There is no need for neoliberalism to have existed in 1917 as there was liberalism at the time to do the job. The motives were the same: to open up Russia to Western exploitation. The czar was opposed to this and that's why he had to go ....

Well, if you want to rewrite history, feel free to do so! :smile:

In the meantime, the events of February/March 1917 are referred to in history books and in the mainstream media as "February/March Revolution" (depending on the calendar used):

The October Revolution along with the February Revolution comprised the Russian Revolution of 1917, and led to the creation of the world’s first socialist state and the formation of the Soviet Union in 1922.

- March 8, 1917 | Russia’s February Revolution Begins in St. Petersburg - New York Times

Neoliberalism is post WW2. And there couldn't be any explanation of Russia until after 1987. — frank

There is no need for neoliberalism to have existed in 1917 as there was liberalism at the time to do the job. The motives were the same: to open up Russia to Western exploitation. The czar was opposed to this and that's why he had to go ....

The initial revolution was just social breakdown in St Petersburg. There were a number of reasons for it. Western capitalists did not instigate it and were never in control of what happening. — frank

Well, historians call it "February/March Revolution" not "just social breakdown". Kerensky's party called itself "Socialist Revolutionary" and there was an earlier revolution in 1905 after Russia lost the war with
Japan.

1905 Russian Revolution - Wikipedia

No one says Western capitalists were in control. But they created the conditions that facilitated the February revolution, they financed anti-czarist propaganda in Russia, they provided Kerensky with loans, etc.

You stated the reasons yourself:

but the real engine behind it is the need to crack Russia open for neoliberal exploitation. — frank

But you said the Russian revolution was supported by American and British capitalists. Why do you think that? — frank

It isn't about what I think as I wasn't there. It's about what historians say. :smile:

There was a Western effort to contain Russia and, if possible, to overthrow the czars. Western capitalists held mining, oil, and other interests in Russia and they wanted more as that's what monopolistic capitalists do.

They supported Kerensky's socialist revolution of February/March 1917 but the communists (Bolsheviks) under Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin staged a coup in October/November and took over.

The liberal capitalists wanted the March revolution, not the October one. The Anglo-Japanese Alliance against Russia, the Russo-Japanese War, the French, British, and American loans to Russia's rival Japan, etc., all paved the way for Kerensky to launch his revolution.

The US doesn't need Russia's resources. — frank

It isn't a matter of needing them as a nation. It's a matter of some groups who have a lot, wanting more.

The British and French established banks and industry in Russia prior to revolution. The same British and French were preoccupied with a world war when the shit hit the fan. After the revolution, western Europe had no Influence over events in Russia. — frank

Not quite. The British and the French had set their sights on Russia long before the revolution of 1917. Don't forget the Russo-Japanese War of 1904 in which the French, British and Americans supplied Japan with war loans, the Anglo-Japanese Alliance of 1902 before that, etc., etc.

See:

R Smethurst, Takahashi Korekiyo, the Rothschilds and the Russo-Japanese War, 1904–1907 - Rothschild Archive

G D Best, Financing a Foreign War: Jacob H. Schiff and Japan, 1904–05, American Jewish Historical Quarterly Vol. 61, No. 4 (JUNE, 1972) - JSTOR

I've long had an interesting book A Different Christianity, by Martin Amis, which was composed over many years of visits to Mt Athos. — Wayfarer

Mt Athos is definitely a very interesting place.

The way I see it, Christianity is inextricably linked with the Roman Empire - which was really a Greco-Roman entity – and, in particular, with the Hellenistic areas of the eastern parts.

Not only was Greek the original common language of Christianity, but the very backbone of Christian spirituality was located in the Greek-speaking churches, monasteries, and hermitages of Greek-controlled Egypt, Syria, and Anatolia.

When Islam conquered these territories, the Christian spiritual centers there continued to operate for some time but eventually disappeared, with only a handful of them surviving due to their remote location, such as St Catherine’s, St Antony’s, and St Paul’s monasteries in the Egyptian desert.

It was at this time that Mt Athos in Greece began to grow into a spiritual center on Greek soil and it has remained a focus for the contemplative traditions of the Orthodox Church to this day.

Incidentally, some of the monasteries on Mt Athos, e.g., Simonopetra, are quite similar, even in architecture, to the Buddhist monasteries of Tibet.

What is also interesting is that when the leaders of the monastic orders of Mt Athos published The Philokalia in the 1700’s, they didn’t neglect to also translate and publish some of the writings of leading figures from the Catholic tradition, like Loyola’s Spiritual Exercises and Scupoli’s Spiritual Warfare. Clearly, there was an awareness at Mt Athos of a continuation of spiritual practices present in other parts of the Christian world.

The Philokalia itself was translated from Greek into Slavonic and a Russian version based on the spiritual exercises of the tradition appeared in a 1930 English translation entitled The Way of a Pilgrim. Apparently, it was at this point that Western Europe “discovered” the contemplative practices of Orthodox Christianity as a living tradition.

In any case, it is indisputable that the concept of spiritual light and illumination is central to Christian spirituality.

In addition to references to light in the Gospels where Jesus himself says he is “the Light of the World”, the earliest extant Christian hymn is Phos Hilaron (Gladdening Light) and the very practice of the hesychast tradition is said to lead to an experience of God’s “uncreated light”. In fact, a whole light-based or "illuminist" philosophy could be constructed on the basis of the available ascetic and mystical texts of the tradition.

If I were to characterize Christian spirituality in two words, it would be silence and light. It begins with the hermits of the desert, among whom John the Baptist is an early example. The word “hermit” from Greek eremites, “desert dweller” refers to the solitude (eremia) and silence (hesychia) of the desert or wilderness which stands for the state of inner stillness in which the light of knowledge and truth can dawn on the seeking soul or nous.

I think back to J. D. Salinger. Sweet Franny illumined the meditative path - repetition of any name of god - in my hour of desperation two decades ago. And although I don't always find content - or seek content - in that pliable and procrustean word, its quake-and-tremble powers continue to console. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Unfortunately, I haven’t read any of Salinger’s books, but apparently his wife had a copy of The Way of a Pilgrim which was based on the hesychast tradition of the Orthodox Church, and may have been an influence on Salinger himself.

I don’t suppose God would be too concerned over what we call him. What matters is the inner attitude with which one approaches the divine. In any case, spiritual exercises do seem to stimulate some form of energy in the practitioners that has a transformative effect on their lives.

I agree. There really are human rights concerns, but the real engine behind it is the need to crack Russia open for neoliberal exploitation. The notion that naive idealism is up against realpolitik here is overlooking this. — frank

Correct. It's a well-known fact (or ought to be) that Western, especially Anglo-American, interests have always been after Russia's resources. It was England's and America's "liberal" capitalist monopolists who supported a socialist revolution in Russia so that they could bring the whole country under their economic and financial control.

See Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution by A. Sutton

The problem with the average American is (a) that he or she has zero understanding or knowledge of international relations and (b) they don’t care about other countries as long as US foreign policy serves the perceived interests of America - which are usually the interests of the political and economic establishment rather than of the American people.

The result is that America has screwed up much of the world in the same way former empires like Spain, France, and England did that in the past. And the same applies to the EU which sees itself as a reconstructed Roman Empire controlled by financial interests and their political collaborators.

Strangely you seem to think that no other reasons are in play especially in security policy, but everything is just the machinations of the banks and the powers at be. — ssu

Well, how about Russia's security when it is being surrounded by Nelson Rockefeller's NATO?

And I never said “everything is just the machinations of the banks and the powers at be”. That’s your own spin that you keep putting on it.

The fact is that oil already stands at a seven-year high of more than $90 a barrel and top banks and oil companies are saying it may soon pass $100.

Obviously, someone is making an awful lot of money from the crisis and it is preposterous to try to deny it.

We also need to remember that British prime minister Boris Johnson is fighting for his political survival after being stabbed in the back by his own party and attacked by the opposition, so the crisis comes in handy. He didn’t order the intelligence services to claim that “Russia poses a threat to Europe and Britain” for nothing. And I bet Biden wouldn’t mind presenting himself as the “savior of America” after not doing much about China and the US economy not doing so well, etc., etc.

Plus don’t forget the many billions of $'s the West could seize if it finds a convenient pretext to freeze Russian assets in London and elsewhere.

So, the situation is far more complex than you are alleging, and not everything can be “Russia’s fault”.

One can be cynical, but I just am amazed how in their criticism of the US some people are outright contemptuous and how much they show disdain and disregard for others when it comes to things like their rights and their hopes of economic prosperity. — ssu

Well, your pro-EU and anti-Russia stance is well-known, which isn't in the least surprising coming from someone from Finland, a country that depends on EU subsidies and loans, and that thinks that it is about to be swallowed up by the "bad Russian ogre".

Strangely, you seem to systematically ignore the role played by economic interests. However, the reality is that you can't separate economy from politics, especially in America where economic interests have long dominated foreign policy. Leading industries like oil and defense have always had and continue to have influence on US foreign policy.

I can understand your concern for Ukrainians, even though it doesn't seem to extend to other European nations including Russia, but I think your analysis would be more credible if you didn't deliberately leave some key factors out of the equation ....

That's the way to view conflicts, I think. From the perspective of each states' elite interests. That's what drives foreign policy. — Manuel

Exactly. And the states that are most powerful (economically and militarily or both) dominate international relations either on their own or with the assistance of their satellites, as the case may be in a given situation.

US, UK, OZ, NZ, and CANADA is one such international group that only needs to put pressure on Germany and other European puppets to get a "majority" in all the key international organizations and dictate world policy. And that's called "freedom and democracy" ..... :grin:

I think Ukraine should stay out of the EU and NATO as by joining them not only it puts itself in the anti-Russian camp but it loses its own freedom in the process. The EU is relatively easy to join but almost impossible to leave as shown by the case of Britain. It would be much more difficult for countries that are economically weaker like Ukraine. They would have to turn to China or other countries with a strong economy and sooner or later lose their independence anyway.

You need to name those 'certain interests' if you want to be taken seriously. The oil companies are owned by a million stock holders — magritte

So, what exactly are you suggesting?

Are you seriously arguing that if (a) a corporation has "a million stockholders" (which would need to be established in the first instance) then (b) it has neither interests nor influence on foreign or domestic policy?

The fact is that both Atlanticism and NATO have represented oil (and banking) interests from the start.

Atlanticism was a joint project of America, Canada, and England, designed to represent oil interests. The Atlanticist Movement was headed by Paul Cravath who was an employee of Standard Oil.

The creation of NATO was suggested at the 1945 UN Conference on International Organization in San Francisco by Nelson Rockefeller who together with other Rockefeller men was advising Secretary of State Edward R. Stettinius, Jr.

So let’s not pretend that oil interests have no influence on US foreign policy or that they would have nothing to gain from selling oil and gas to Europe at higher prices.

In fact, they are at it already:

U.S. LNG Cargoes Flock To Europe Amid Record-High Gas Prices

It's not unlike Venezuela in some respects. Why do major powers care about Venezuela so much and not Colombia? They rabble on and on about "communism", but it's about oil. No oil, no big power would care about Venezuela. — Manuel

Absolutely correct. Venezuela, Iraq, and many other places ...

We know that the "Ukraine crisis" is not happening in a geopolitical vacuum, because there was US opposition to Russia building a gas pipeline to Europe already in the 80's under Reagan.

At the time there was US opposition because "Russia was communist", now it's because "Putin is a dictator". But China's Xi is a dictator, too (as well as a communist) so why not topple him first? Because China hasn't got oil and because US corporations have made large investments in China (which is why China has become a regional power and is now on the way to becoming a global power)!

So, communist or not, America objects all the same to Russia selling gas and oil to Europe because it's about billions of dollars that US energy corporations could pocket while at the same time putting up oil and gas prices at home. A nice double profit for the monopolist clique, in other words.

And we know (1) that NATO has been constantly expanding since its formation and (2) that the EU has been equally expanding and even tried to incorporate Russia. See the 1997 EU–Russia Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA), that included financial, economic, and cultural cooperation as well as political dialogue, and expressly aimed to “provide an appropriate framework for the gradual integration between Russia and a wider area of cooperation in Europe”.

If Putin hadn't come to power in 1999, Russia would now be part of the EU and do as ordered by Brussels, whilst its vast resources (oil, gas, aluminium, gold, etc.) would be exploited by the likes of American Chevron, ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, and others that are already in next-door Kazakhstan.

So Putin may be a kind of dictator, but I think it is fair to say that he is defending Russia's interests (as well as his own). In any case, it is wrong to say that it's got nothing to do with oil and gas.

As I pointed out on the other thread, what tends to happen is that certain interest groups in America or Britain decide to label someone “enemy”, after which they mobilize NATO followed by scores of smaller countries that depend on the bigger guys for financial assistance or military “protection”.

And that's how an international crisis leading to military intervention and "regime change" happens. But if people are fixated on Ukraine which is what the US-UK propaganda and disinformation is trying to achieve, then they are completely oblivious of what is really happening in the world and why .... :smile:

As regards Ukraine, its economic situation isn't exactly brilliant, so it is doubtful that it would be any worse under Russian control. What EU membership usually means for a country like Ukraine is that millions will emigrate to Germany, France, and other EU countries with stronger economies whilst its own economy will be taken over by multinational (mainly Anglo-American) corporations.

There's also political maneuvering going around, with the US never wanting a lack of enemies - soon after the disaster in Afghanistan. And Putin is wanting to shift attention away from pretty bad conditions in Russia do to the COVID pandemic and rising prices. — Manuel

It would be nice if it was that simple. Unfortunately, I don’t think it is.

Prices may be rising in Russia, but they are also rising elsewhere, especially oil and gas prices. And this is what it really is about.

The fact is that Russia is a major exporter of oil and gas to Europe.

This means three things:

1. America would prefer Europe to buy American oil and gas.

2. Europe would prefer to control Russia’s oil and gas (or at least prices) by incorporating Russia into the European Union (EU).

3. If Russia loses a war with NATO and its regime is toppled, US and UK energy corporations will be the first to get their hands on Russian resources. And, possibly, China, if China remains neutral or sides with NATO.

The EU already tried to incorporate Russia in the 90’s. It didn’t succeed because of opposition from the Putin government. But the EU and NATO have been constantly expanding and the only logical conclusion to permanent expansion is the incorporation of Russia and the resulting control over Russian resources.

If we think about it, Ukraine has nothing to do with the North Atlantic or NATO, and Russian occupation or control of Ukraine poses absolutely no threat to the national security of America or Britain. So, why are these two countries leading the crusade against Russia, with some even calling for regime change?