If you want a good book about the REAL Stalin,I suggest you read memoirs by Vyacheslav Molotov and Lazar Kaganovich.Both of them were Premiers of the USSR at one point,and they were close associates with Stalin.
Both of them look at him in his real light,and not the Evil Tyrant bias Western Historians take him for.Can you honestly think of anyone more credible than them?
I also suggest the book Khrushchev Lied,by Grover Furr,if you want compelling evidence about the true nature of Stalin.
He seems to have little understanding of Soviet history, and makes subjective assumptions.
Much of the lies you hear about Stalin come from Cold War-era Western Historians such as Robert Conquest. Conquest's biggest sources against Stalin would be Kruschev's Secret Speech. However, last year Grover Furr wrote a book that proved with substantial evidence that much of the Secret Speech was false or made to look bad.
Stalinism wasn't secularism? Are you kidding? Chris demonstrating his sophistry yet again. He wants to pick and choose from history--all history, not just Soviet-- to prove a pre-existing prejudice he has. Get real.
@MamaMario13 Thanks but I understood his argument. Problem is that he's drawing no distinction between religion and the cult of personality that Stalin relied upon--it's just such a disingenuous comparison. Like saying "the people who murdered during the French revolution in the name of modernity and reason are just like all these other people who rely on reason over faith like Darwin, Einstein etc.". It's a dishonest co-mingling of separate groups and it's typical ham handed reason from CH
"Problem is that he's drawing no distinction between religion and the cult of personality that Stalin relied upon".
He is making a comparison between the two. The aspect of religion he is examining (namely credulity and servility) is indistinguishable from its counterpart in these cults of personality. There is certainly nothing disingenuous about this comparison.
@automaticSOM Yes.religion demands that one follow rules and be grateful. Stalin demanded following a very different set of rules and that people be grateful to him. The problem with comingling them in this way is that it (deliberately) misses the point: if you follow the rules that religion lays down, in the main,your life will be more harmoniously ordered with the nature of reality. If you follow rules laid down by any of the great atheist-dictators, you'll go into a self imposed hell on earth
@steelyman40 Fucking retard making up words like 'comingling'... religion is social and psychological cancer. It supports the most horrible and immoral things imaginable, from genital mutilation, genocide, rape, discrimination of race, sexual orientation, gender, and denies reality to its followers. You follow religion and you will be a retarded sheep posting shit like this on the INTERNET which SCIENCE and REASON provided you.
@dopeasfuckk Commingling. Look it up you illiterate dipshit. Read some history-prior to Christian revolution rights of the individual were ZERO in law and power/force ruled. Also, universities were set up/sponsored by the Church.I don't condone the crimes of Christians who acted violently.Of course not. How do you react to the violence that was done in the name of "Reason"? It's perfectly analogous and calling it 'retarded' actually doesn't refute what I'm saying. Also, I LOVE science. LOVE IT.
I'm from a former communist country, Romania, who has a lot in common with Rusia. And I agree 100% with Mr Hithcens's statement. Thanks to the ommunists, Romania has today 18.567 large Orthodox churches, 450 hositals and 3567 schools.
The point is not whether the dictator is religious/atheist. The point is that they are irrational and bloodthirsty ideologues. And communism in the 20th century was an irrational and dogmatic ideology when practiced. Maybe communism started off as rational but frankly it mutated into something that can only be discarded.
@AspiringPotato There you go. Therefore no one can blame religion nor irreligion for all, or even many, of the world's problems. Which, in his book "God is not Great", Hitchens does indirectly.
Hitchens says the major religious delusions are dangerously irrational, and therefore poison everything. He NEVER says that ALL irrational ideas are religious. I think that religion causes enough problems to merit his book...
Ok maybe Hitchens doesn't answer the "Stalin is an atheist like you, therefore you are like Stalin" argument, if you can call it that, in the most effective manner. But that hardly invalidates his points against religion.
There is indeed one source to all of the worlds problems...that source is mankind...Very soon his numbers will be reduced...and he will be a problem no more :)
LOL....The Earth doesn't need anyone to speak for her..She has declared loud and clear that this shit mankind is doing will not be tolerated...Its up to us to correct our own mistakes...Greed, stupidity, overpopulation, and disobedience of natures order are punishable by death....Watch and learn as the sentence is passed down
Douglas...Help me to understand why you believe that those of inferior intellect, and aptitude are the wrong people to punish?...Nature rewards successful hunters and gatherers, while those who lack the skills or intelligence to do so are eliminated...The slowest gazelle always gets eaten...Only the fastest cheetah gets to breed...Thats nature...no right or wrong about it
It's easy to go around mouthing off about Stalin, but those who do so have never once said anything as intelligent as Stalin has written or theorized, nor have they come anywhere near an iota of his practical efficiency. You can't just take the generic "They're a hivemind that worship the queen bee lol orwell!" tripe and apply it to anyone other than people like Hitler or Kim Il Sung, Stalin was nothing like that, he was democratically elected, and was judged reasonably, not worshiped.
@thealmightypidgeon He also killed millions of people. I don't know where you get the idea that Stalin was Democratically elected, he was already appointed General Secretary by Lenin prior to his death. He then formed an alliance with Kamenev and Zinoviev against Trotsky, expelling him from the Communist party. No Democracy there, whatsoever. Furthermore, Stalin had syndicated multiple films glorifying himself in an effort to construct a cult of personality. What reasonable judgment?
@UncleFred34 Nobody went around ignoring the fact he killed around 1 million people, the state could have removed him at any time as they did with Kruhschev if the people demanded it. Trotsky lost the majority vote and still he tried to put himself as head of state through a military coup. Trotsky was a former Menshevik, most people killed in the purge were people organizing a coup, including Trotskyites. Stalin's image was advertised, but nobody was forced to like him much like our own leaders.
Stalin was like the Kim il Sung of the USSR. A god like figure. While he might of not of believed in god (I also think he didn't believe in tooth fairies, unicorns and flying pigs) that isn't why he killed millions.
@xn117 No, but many millions were killed by Stalin (and other communists) in the name of atheism (as communism is atheistic by definition). Socialism isn't necessarily (Hitler was a Protestant, if only in name), but communism as propagated by Russia is quite anti-theistic. Stalin is not necessarily bad because he is an atheist. Nor is atheism necessarily bad because Russia was. But this standard must apply for religion and religiously based groups, or it becomes a double standard.
@GenghisKhan44 //No, but many millions were killed by Stalin (and other communists) in the name of atheism//
Oh really? Then you should have no problem pointing out writings, personal note, speeches, etc where Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and other communists attribute their actions to atheism, and not to their belief that the bourgeoisie needed to be destroyed and collectivization implemented.
When we attribute crimes like the crusades or the inquisitions to religion, we do it because religion...
@GenghisKhan44 since you cannot understand obviously I'll just repeat.''hitler wasn't socialist. stalin wasn't even communist. If you only knew the definition you'd know.''
Stalin allowed the Russian Orthodox Church, to operate officially again from 1943 during World War II and after.
Stalin went to Russian Orthodox seminary to be a priest. He persecuted the part of the church that backed the czar/king,but part of the church/priests backed him. He put them in power.
In Stalin's regime the idea was to subsume everything into one centralized aegis, namely the Russian Orthodox Church
A five-decade-old letter from the Soviet Communist Party archives, made available to RFE/RL's Russian Service this week as Kirill was wrapping up his 10-day visit to Ukraine, illustrates the extent to which the patriarch's predecessors were involved in Stalin's efforts to wipe out the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church in the 1940s.
The Communist League was the first Marxist international organization. It was founded originally as the League of the Just by Christian Communists. This was initially a utopian socialist and Christian communist grouping devoted to the ideas of Gracchus Babeuf. It became an international organization, which Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and Johann Eccarius later joined.
32 neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. 35 and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. (King James Version)
New Testament origin of Communist doctrine "each according to his need".
If you want to know what is behind Stalin read his "Commentary on Dialectical and Historical Materialism." Stalin didn't have an ounce of Christian faith in him. He was a Darwinist like Marx. See what you get the the "rationalist" take over. And take note, what is the theme (even termininologically) of his commentary .......CHANGE?...... Hmmm, when have we heard that recently?
Stalin allowed the Russian Orthodox Church, to operate officially again from 1943 during World War II and after.
Stalin went to Russian Orthodox seminary to be a priest. He persecuted the part of the church that backed the czar/king,but part of the church/priests backed him. He put them in power.
Exactly. To subvert an existing power structure if it is advantageous to yourself is the atheist thing to do. To dismantle the church simply because it is untrue would be illogical.
In Stalin's regime the idea was to subsume everything into one centralized aegis, namely the Russian Orthodox Church
A five-decade-old letter from the Soviet Communist Party archives, made available to RFE/RL's Russian Service this week as Kirill was wrapping up his 10-day visit to Ukraine, illustrates the extent to which the patriarch's predecessors were involved in Stalin's efforts to wipe out the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church in the 1940s.
Stalin acted exactly as you would expect an Atheist to act. An atheist would take advantage of any resource or use any means to get his way. To do otherwise would be illogical.
@thunderheart226 Neither. If human beings are nothing more than a unique arrangement of atoms, then genocide is the morally equivalent to knocking over a child's sand castle.
@Piddyx If you need morality from an immoral religion (as if any religion is moral) you need not to add your opinions on morality because you just gave up your individuality. Knowing what something is made of doesn't make it less important to you. It actually helps you to understand it and hopefully fix any problems that might come up.
@Piddyx I would never invade a country and in Hitchen's case, the target's own immoral teaching and history is the only needed resource. Unlike theists, Hitchens doesn't need to use lies and twisting of scripture.
to be honest, if i was the leader of a country, i'd espouse a national religion as well. if only to keep the unwashed masses happy and so that i could fuck bitches all day
Stalin's regime the idea was to subsume everything into one centralized aegis, namely the Russian Orthodox Church
A five-decade-old letter from the Soviet Communist Party archives, made available to RFE/RL's Russian Service this week as Kirill was wrapping up his 10-day visit to Ukraine, illustrates the extent to which the patriarch's predecessors were involved in Stalin's efforts to wipe out the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church in the 1940s
Stalin allowed the Russian Orthodox Church, to operate officially again from 1943 during World War II and after.
Stalin went to Russian Orthodox seminary to be a priest. He persecuted the park of the church that backed the czar/king,but part of the church/priests backed him. He put them in power.
The Communist League was the first Marxist international organization. It was founded originally as the League of the Just by Christian Communists. This was initially a utopian socialist and Christian communist grouping devoted to the ideas of Gracchus Babeuf. It became an international organization, which Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and Johann Eccarius later joined
The Communist League was the first Marxist international organization. It was founded originally as the League of the Just by Christian Communists. This was initially a utopian socialist and Christian communist grouping devoted to the ideas of Gracchus Babeuf. It became an international organization, which Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and Johann Eccarius later joined.
Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.
Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right
neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. 35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. (King James Version)
New Testament origin of Communist doctrine "each according to his need".
Be better armed if you think you can take on 2,000 years of Christian thinking. Oh, and another thing, stick with Catholic Theologians. Leave those poor Evangelical Protestants alone, they aren't the brightest folks out there.
This guy is such a moron... only in these intellectually dumbed-downed times could such an idiot about theology be so popular. There is no greater waste of time then listening to this half-ass philosopher, people. Dig a little deeper if you what to even mildly approach any type of true thinking. Check out Anthony Flew and his conversion to higher thinking. Get out of the school-yard of philosophy. You know, we use to have better athesist. Read Thomas Aquinas people.
You think because you know who Aquinas was you're some amazing intellectual? I've seen Hitchen's library in numerous interviews and I would definantly wager it's larger than yours. On that note of philosophy, what do you think of Kant's philosophy of religion? What about Epicurus' ramblings about Atomism? What about Aristotle's four-element theory?
Devil worshippers always want to steal people joys. And they alway start with profanites. You folks want your cake and to eat it too, but you don't want believers to have any at all. It's certain you believe in God, otherwise there wouldn't be any basis for your attacks. You can't attack that which isn't there.
I was simply inquiring as you implied you're already out of the 'playground of philosophy' as to whether or not you knew who Epicurus was. What you seem to be doing is trying to delibrately enrage and/or irritate me..apart from your very last sentiment of 'You can't attack that which isn't there' were you being earnest or condescending with that line?
@Potpiscle I can't attack that which isn't there? All right then. I just want to say that I find Santa Claus childish, the Easter Bunny absurd and leprachauns kind of annoying. Oh, And I find the christian god in particular obnoxious, and I can quote the bible numerous times to support my claim.
Stalin's regime the idea was to subsume everything into one centralized aegis, namely the Russian Orthodox Church
A five-decade-old letter from the Soviet Communist Party archives, made available to RFE/RL's Russian Service this week as Kirill was wrapping up his 10-day visit to Ukraine, illustrates the extent to which the patriarch's predecessors were involved in Stalin's efforts to wipe out the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church in the 1940s
A five-decade-old letter from the Soviet Communist Party archives, made available to RFE/RL's Russian Service this week as Kirill was wrapping up his 10-day visit to Ukraine, illustrates the extent to which the patriarch's predecessors were involved in Stalin's efforts to wipe out the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church in the 1940s
A five-decade-old letter from the Soviet Communist Party archives, made available to RFE/RL's Russian Service this week as Kirill was wrapping up his 10-day visit to Ukraine, illustrates the extent to which the patriarch's predecessors were involved in Stalin's efforts to wipe out the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church in the 1940s
A five-decade-old letter from the Soviet Communist Party archives, made available to RFE/RL's Russian Service this week as Kirill was wrapping up his 10-day visit to Ukraine, illustrates the extent to which the patriarch's predecessors were involved in Stalin's efforts to wipe out the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church in the 1940s
A five-decade-old letter from the Soviet Communist Party archives, made available to RFE/RL's Russian Service this week as Kirill was wrapping up his 10-day visit to Ukraine, illustrates the extent to which the patriarch's predecessors were involved in Stalin's efforts to wipe out the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church in the 1940s
Stalin's regime the idea was to subsume everything into one centralized aegis, namely the Russian Orthodox Church
A five-decade-old letter from the Soviet Communist Party archives, made available to RFE/RL's Russian Service this week as Kirill was wrapping up his 10-day visit to Ukraine, illustrates the extent to which the patriarch's predecessors were involved in Stalin's efforts to wipe out the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church in the 1940s
Stalin's regime the idea was to subsume everything into one centralized aegis, namely the Russian Orthodox Church
A five-decade-old letter from the Soviet Communist Party archives, made available to RFE/RL's Russian Service this week as Kirill was wrapping up his 10-day visit to Ukraine, illustrates the extent to which the patriarch's predecessors were involved in Stalin's efforts to wipe out the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church in the 1940s
Stalin allowed the Russian Orthodox Church, to operate officially again from 1943 during World War II and after.
Stalin went to Russian Orthodox seminary to be a priest. He persecuted the park of the church that backed the czar/king,but part of the church/priests backed him. He put them in power
@NathanJSweet A five-decade-old letter from the Soviet Communist Party archives, made available to RFE/RL's Russian Service this week as Kirill was wrapping up his 10-day visit to Ukraine, illustrates the extent to which the patriarch's predecessors were involved in Stalin's efforts to wipe out the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church in the 1940s
In Stalin's regime the idea was to subsume everything into one centralized aegis, namely the Russian Orthodox Church
A five-decade-old letter from the Soviet Communist Party archives, made available to RFE/RL's Russian Service this week as Kirill was wrapping up his 10-day visit to Ukraine, illustrates the extent to which the patriarch's predecessors were involved in Stalin's efforts to wipe out the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church in the 1940s.
"In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might ... that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross."ADOLF HITLER
I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.
@Conail23 Firstly, we don't know that they don't, elephants have a seemingly symbolic, ceremonial tendency to caress the bones of their dead, they won't have religion because of their lack of language but they could have a concept of a seperate body and soul or spirit.
Secondly, not all humans have faith or spirituality and they are no less human so this can't be distinguishing feature of humanity.
thirdly, your view is a very platonistic one; 'there is an ideal human, their is an ideal rabbit, an ideal chimp' but on a biological level this is simply not the case. There was never an precise shift where a bipedal ape gave birth to a primitive man, the evolutionary changes are subtle and not very noticeable when comparing one generation to it's immediate successors or predecessors. This is why there is such support for the cladistic system of taxonomy.
@Conail23 point three continued: so when you try to say "what separates man from beast?" it is a bad question as the first 'human' would have not been very different from it's 'beast' parents. The question is a hallmark of 'homo sapien chauvinism', 'humans are so much better than other animals, but why?' the difference between a man and a mongoose is the number of generations and mutations between us and our latest common ancestor with the mongoose.
Stalin allowed the Russian Orthodox Church, to operate officially again from 1943 during World War II and after.
Stalin went to Russian Orthodox seminary to be a priest. He persecuted the park of the church that backed the czar/king,but part of the church/priests backed him. He put them in power.
In Stalin's regime the idea was to subsume everything into one centralized aegis, namely the Russian Orthodox Church
A five-decade-old letter from the Soviet Communist Party archives, made available to RFE/RL's Russian Service this week as Kirill was wrapping up his 10-day visit to Ukraine, illustrates the extent to which the patriarch's predecessors were involved in Stalin's efforts to wipe out the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church in the 1940s.
This is the kind of pseudo-scientific propaganda that right-wing loons use to advance their pseudo-fascistic agenda.
Sweden doesn't bow before muslims... and they've never done so. The reason to why Sweden is so secular is because of the semi-socialistic way it was developed.
I've a commitment to ending private schools, and thereby ending religious schools (including islamic ones).
Have you actually been to Sweden? I live here, and there is no muslim invasion.
@ColdCypher There is no invasion... Asylum seekers are coming to Europe because the western countries bomb over there... and because we deny them the wealth we have - It's Capitalism that makes Christianity and Islam flourish. Kill Capitalism and you'll kill Islam.
@MazdakTV ROFL kill capitalism. That will never happen. You dont need to kill capitalism to kill Islam. Just some nukes or a large amount of conventional weaponry used indiscriminately against the Islamic peoples.
@MazdakTV Why should prosperous secular societies give away their wealth to failed, impoverished Muslim nations? The West's wealth was won by discarding superstition and embracing science and reason; the Muslim's world's desperate misery's just desserts for squandering the minds on millions on religious lunacy. Let Muslims starve in squalor, look upon the West with bitter envy and, like the Japanese with Perry, draw the clear lesson. Embrace reason and grow rich; cling to religion and perish!!
Sure, the main source of USA culture ( I refuse to equate America & USA) was from england...
But, English culture is not the same as USA culture, because the inheritor changes and so does the one inherited from.
The person above me was making a point about cultures... Hitchens probably needs his tea and so forth, and he grew up in England (not that it matters what your culture is).
He's saying that the US is founded on the notion of the separation of church and state and that faith has no place in the governance of the nation, unlike the previous countries he spoke about.
That wasn't put on our money untill after the founding fathers. The pledge of allegiance saying "under god" wasn't put in until 1950 something. So... religious people took over our secular government and forced it in there, giving people the false impression we're a "Christian" nation. Their wrong. Secularists support the founding fathers!!!!!
Yes, but only since 1956, it had nothing to do with the founding fathers. It first emerged on coins in 1864 during amidst a great deal of Christian sentiment during the Civil War. 'PairOfRaggedClaws' is right, the US is based on secularism. Some of the founders were religious, some were not, it doesn't really matter. They all agreed that the church and state should have nothing to do with each other.
I accept and agree on that US is based on secularism... but this is no longer lived up to... So why be so proud of what a society is based on when the current status is appalling?
Sure... it is honorable that it is so secularist in principle... But policy and practice should match to earn respect ( in my opinion ).
I understand the wish to think (and that it is the source of the pride) "We had it then, we can get it again."
Absolutely, the disintegration of secularism in the US is a great shame (though I'm sure Obama will help). In some ways, I envy Americans because they at least have secularism in principle while we in Britain still have an official religion and a monarch who's head of the church. In practice, though, I'd say our society is far more secular. There are still stupid little things but religion very rarely affects my life.
If someone attests to religion here, they are glared at with wonder.
I wouldn't trust Obama too much... The democratic system of USA has disintegrated much the same as secularism in USA.
In Sweden, we have almost removed the last traces of the Church of Sweden in law (there is a law that says that everyone has to pay a funeral tax, but that is all)
Hitchens' arguments are weak. Stalin and the Bolsheviks were secular, non-religious. The fact that their are similarities between the psychological control of the masses by a religious theocratic/monarchy and the methods of a totalitarian marxist regime should prove that RELIGIOUS BELIEF IS NOT THE PROBLEM. But Hitchens spins it at tries to extrapolate an opposite conclusion - ie. Marxism is the same as Theocracy. C'mon, that's weak.
His argument is that the problem is the acceptance of a society centered on a supposedly infallible figure who must never be questioned and be loved and feared at the same time. If that is not religious, then I don't know what is.
@darkhyena Atheism is a central tenet of Marxism, it is required to further the notion of meta-ethical subjectivism, which is at the root of a Materialist worldview, without which Marxism crumbles. So why do atheists get to say, "Oh but Stalin doesn't really represent atheism!" And Christians have to be held responsible for the sins of all "Christians", and aren't allowed to renounce them as disingenuous to their religion? What if human beings are the problem, not the worldviews? That has sense.
@NathanJSweet Meta-ethical subjectivism is a religious tenet. God by being a conscious intentional being is by definition an arbitrator of truth and morality, who can change the meaning of these things at will. The "true word" of God was carved into stone tablets saying "do no murder" by a people who were later ordered by God to commit genocide. The USSR was founded on leninism, which was called by the socialist Bertrand Russel a "religious cult" in his "theory and practice of bolshevism"
@lesnem Meta-ethical subjectivism is hardly religious! It is about the only provable moral standard in the world. Do yourself a favor and wikipedia "meta-ethical subjectivism" before you open your mouth and sound like an idiot. If meta-ethical subjectivism is a religious belief then there is no way Atheism isn't. Meta-ethical subjectivism is FAR more provable than Atheism. Almost every philosopher and scientist accepts some level of meta-ethical subjectivism as true.
@NathanJSweet You're the one who sounds like an idiot when you try and link meta-ethical subjectivism to Marx, who repudiated the subjectivist philosophy of Hegel and the proto-Nietzschean Max Stirner, and based his dialectical method on the study of the objective. It is the religious who take this same tenet that you say is accepted by however many " philosopher and scientist" hacks, and collectivized it by force, a tactic re-employed by Lenin, whose philosophical ideas were more Nietzschean.
His arguments are not weak. Theocratic dictatorship and Soviet-style communist dictatorship are effectively the same thing. Hitchens argues against religion because it discourages independent thought and promotes the infallibility of men, books and institutions eg. the Tsar, the Roman Catholic Church, the Qur'an etc. The same was true of Soviet Russia with regards to Lenin, Stalin and the Communist state as a whole. They are the same problem and the same danger under different guises.
Well, he's broadening out the definition of religion to an absurd degree then. If he tries hard enough he can probably discredit his own FAITH in "progress", "rationality" and the superiority of "independent thought" as an essentially totalitarian or religious world-view too. Or anything else he pleases. But really, it's wise to point out similarities but foolish to push the case that the two things are essentially identical. But that's only my opinion, and I find Hitchen's unconvincing.
But "progress, rationality and the superiority of independent thought", by definition, aren't governed by any authority, nor can they be, religion, on the other hand places utter, unquestioning trust in its sources of authority, That's its problem. That's the difference between secular thought and religion. I think it's hard to say with Hitchens. He certainly very eloquent, and he strikes me as intelligent but his contempt for religion has clouded his judgement of the Iraq war.
Well of course neither claimed divinity. But Communist Party propaganda encouraged the notion that both were infallible figures of strength and leadership, and dissent was severely punished, perhaps more so in Stalin's case. You're right, Marxism isn't a religion, and neither was the Communist Party in Russia, but it employed religionesque (sorry for inventing word) tactics. Totalitarianism is present in religion as it was in Soviet Russia, though Marx never stated or implied any need for it.
It was essentially created to criticize Fascism and was an accusation thrown at Mussolini for wanting to create a "Stato Totalitario".
With: total representation of the nation and total guidance of national goals..
It was then extended to also include class (see Wikipedia)... So the current definition was almost "invented" for to smear Marxism (link it to Fascism/Nazism, which is quite outrageous).
The religionesque (nice word) had severely more impact during Stalin's rule. Especially compared to Lenin... where I find none of it (or extremely slight).
One should say that the Communist Party was like it's leaders at the given times, sadly :(
You can see the policies being vastly different before and after Stalin.
One of the critics of Capitalism can be found in the classical humorist picture of the pyramid-of-capitalism... where one step in hierarchy is sloganized as: "We fool you". This is a display of how religion & capitalism co-exists.
This is a bit unrelated, but you may find it worthy of thought or laughter ;)
The bolsheviks forced churches to lace their sermons with soviet propaganda. That's certainly a violation of the church state separation, so the regime was not secular. When Stalin took power he RESTORED THE ORTHODOX CHURCH as the official state church and hand picked the bishops, who told the congregation that stalin was chosen by God. That is Czarism, not Marxism.
1) I reject the notion that USSR was adhering to Marxism. It is even said by Lenin, a little while after the revolution, that it may to adhere to Marxism.
2) I reject the term "totalitarian" which was more or less invented to pair Fascism & Marxism together in order to smear Karl Marx's theory ( and not "socialism reala").
3) While Stalin did play the "servant of God" trick, I don't think you can say USSR did so.
Why would someone with a name like makecakenotwar post clips of speeches from a man who supports military intervention against Islamic fundamentalist theocratic regimes?
You do know that he supported the war in Iraq right?
Because this speech has nothing to do with war? So who cars about his other views? Seriously... disagreeing with someone on one point doesn't automatically invalidate their other points :-)
The biggest movement these days to replace reason with faith is the holocaust movement which relies on the faith that the Jews are God's chosen people and rejects the reason of the 'holocaust deniers'.
This has been flagged as spam show
"the true nature of Stalin"??? "Both of them look at him in his real light,and not the Evil Tyrant bias Western Historians take him for"???
Sounds like you really believe that Stalin might've been the greatest humanitarian in the history of the world....
firemedic947 3 days ago
@Per
If you want a good book about the REAL Stalin,I suggest you read memoirs by Vyacheslav Molotov and Lazar Kaganovich.Both of them were Premiers of the USSR at one point,and they were close associates with Stalin.
Both of them look at him in his real light,and not the Evil Tyrant bias Western Historians take him for.Can you honestly think of anyone more credible than them?
I also suggest the book Khrushchev Lied,by Grover Furr,if you want compelling evidence about the true nature of Stalin.
havee3333333 6 days ago
can someone simplify his argument with Stalin. I have limited knowledge of history but I'm really interested.
PerpetualMotion3 3 weeks ago
@PerpetualMotion3
He seems to have little understanding of Soviet history, and makes subjective assumptions.
Much of the lies you hear about Stalin come from Cold War-era Western Historians such as Robert Conquest. Conquest's biggest sources against Stalin would be Kruschev's Secret Speech. However, last year Grover Furr wrote a book that proved with substantial evidence that much of the Secret Speech was false or made to look bad.
-continued-
havee3333333 6 days ago
Stalinism wasn't secularism? Are you kidding? Chris demonstrating his sophistry yet again. He wants to pick and choose from history--all history, not just Soviet-- to prove a pre-existing prejudice he has. Get real.
steelyman40 8 months ago
@steelyman40 stalin made himself into a God, so did Mao Tzetung, Pol Pot and Kim Il sung etc.
so in a way they made their own religions, that is what hes saying
MamaMario13 7 months ago
@MamaMario13 Thanks but I understood his argument. Problem is that he's drawing no distinction between religion and the cult of personality that Stalin relied upon--it's just such a disingenuous comparison. Like saying "the people who murdered during the French revolution in the name of modernity and reason are just like all these other people who rely on reason over faith like Darwin, Einstein etc.". It's a dishonest co-mingling of separate groups and it's typical ham handed reason from CH
steelyman40 7 months ago
@steelyman40
"Problem is that he's drawing no distinction between religion and the cult of personality that Stalin relied upon".
He is making a comparison between the two. The aspect of religion he is examining (namely credulity and servility) is indistinguishable from its counterpart in these cults of personality. There is certainly nothing disingenuous about this comparison.
automaticSOM 1 month ago
@automaticSOM Yes.religion demands that one follow rules and be grateful. Stalin demanded following a very different set of rules and that people be grateful to him. The problem with comingling them in this way is that it (deliberately) misses the point: if you follow the rules that religion lays down, in the main,your life will be more harmoniously ordered with the nature of reality. If you follow rules laid down by any of the great atheist-dictators, you'll go into a self imposed hell on earth
steelyman40 1 month ago
@steelyman40 Fucking retard making up words like 'comingling'... religion is social and psychological cancer. It supports the most horrible and immoral things imaginable, from genital mutilation, genocide, rape, discrimination of race, sexual orientation, gender, and denies reality to its followers. You follow religion and you will be a retarded sheep posting shit like this on the INTERNET which SCIENCE and REASON provided you.
dopeasfuckk 1 month ago
@dopeasfuckk PEACE THE FUCK OUT
dopeasfuckk 1 month ago
really? REALLY? I'm debating with someone who says something so unbelievably hipster lame as "PEACE THE FUCK OUT". Really. Now I'm embarrassed....
steelyman40 1 month ago
@dopeasfuckk Commingling. Look it up you illiterate dipshit. Read some history-prior to Christian revolution rights of the individual were ZERO in law and power/force ruled. Also, universities were set up/sponsored by the Church.I don't condone the crimes of Christians who acted violently.Of course not. How do you react to the violence that was done in the name of "Reason"? It's perfectly analogous and calling it 'retarded' actually doesn't refute what I'm saying. Also, I LOVE science. LOVE IT.
steelyman40 1 month ago
he doest talk about Stalin at all..its a part of discussion of religion..
IloveUSA1941 9 months ago
what a douuuche
Dougalastyle 9 months ago
I'm from a former communist country, Romania, who has a lot in common with Rusia. And I agree 100% with Mr Hithcens's statement. Thanks to the ommunists, Romania has today 18.567 large Orthodox churches, 450 hositals and 3567 schools.
TheThordir 9 months ago
audio sync fail
eslubin 9 months ago
@eslubin - and?
narcotect 9 months ago
Stalin was an atheist because Sarah Palin said so
tylertyler82 9 months ago
The point is not whether the dictator is religious/atheist. The point is that they are irrational and bloodthirsty ideologues. And communism in the 20th century was an irrational and dogmatic ideology when practiced. Maybe communism started off as rational but frankly it mutated into something that can only be discarded.
AspiringPotato 10 months ago
@AspiringPotato There you go. Therefore no one can blame religion nor irreligion for all, or even many, of the world's problems. Which, in his book "God is not Great", Hitchens does indirectly.
GenghisKhan44 9 months ago
@GenghisKhan44
Hitchens says the major religious delusions are dangerously irrational, and therefore poison everything. He NEVER says that ALL irrational ideas are religious. I think that religion causes enough problems to merit his book...
Ok maybe Hitchens doesn't answer the "Stalin is an atheist like you, therefore you are like Stalin" argument, if you can call it that, in the most effective manner. But that hardly invalidates his points against religion.
AspiringPotato 9 months ago
@GenghisKhan44
There is no one "source of all the world's problems." But religious delusion is one, and it's one that can be plugged, maybe within the century.
AspiringPotato 9 months ago
@AspiringPotato
There is indeed one source to all of the worlds problems...that source is mankind...Very soon his numbers will be reduced...and he will be a problem no more :)
timetodepop 9 months ago
@timetodepop your wack i hope you dont tell people this school boy faggot shit
Dougalastyle 9 months ago
@Dougalastyle
Dougalas....Your lack of vision fails to change the truth of my statement...Man is, and has always been THE problem here on the planet
timetodepop 9 months ago
@timetodepop so your speaking for the earth now lol does she have you do her taxes too?
Dougalastyle 9 months ago
@Dougalastyle
LOL....The Earth doesn't need anyone to speak for her..She has declared loud and clear that this shit mankind is doing will not be tolerated...Its up to us to correct our own mistakes...Greed, stupidity, overpopulation, and disobedience of natures order are punishable by death....Watch and learn as the sentence is passed down
timetodepop 9 months ago
@timetodepop the wrong people are feeling the punishment though
Dougalastyle 9 months ago
@Dougalastyle
Douglas...Help me to understand why you believe that those of inferior intellect, and aptitude are the wrong people to punish?...Nature rewards successful hunters and gatherers, while those who lack the skills or intelligence to do so are eliminated...The slowest gazelle always gets eaten...Only the fastest cheetah gets to breed...Thats nature...no right or wrong about it
timetodepop 9 months ago
@timetodepop good point timetodepop I just feel for the people i think we can change
Dougalastyle 9 months ago
It's easy to go around mouthing off about Stalin, but those who do so have never once said anything as intelligent as Stalin has written or theorized, nor have they come anywhere near an iota of his practical efficiency. You can't just take the generic "They're a hivemind that worship the queen bee lol orwell!" tripe and apply it to anyone other than people like Hitler or Kim Il Sung, Stalin was nothing like that, he was democratically elected, and was judged reasonably, not worshiped.
thealmightypidgeon 11 months ago
@thealmightypidgeon He also killed millions of people. I don't know where you get the idea that Stalin was Democratically elected, he was already appointed General Secretary by Lenin prior to his death. He then formed an alliance with Kamenev and Zinoviev against Trotsky, expelling him from the Communist party. No Democracy there, whatsoever. Furthermore, Stalin had syndicated multiple films glorifying himself in an effort to construct a cult of personality. What reasonable judgment?
UncleFred34 11 months ago
@UncleFred34 Nobody went around ignoring the fact he killed around 1 million people, the state could have removed him at any time as they did with Kruhschev if the people demanded it. Trotsky lost the majority vote and still he tried to put himself as head of state through a military coup. Trotsky was a former Menshevik, most people killed in the purge were people organizing a coup, including Trotskyites. Stalin's image was advertised, but nobody was forced to like him much like our own leaders.
thealmightypidgeon 11 months ago
Stalin was like the Kim il Sung of the USSR. A god like figure. While he might of not of believed in god (I also think he didn't believe in tooth fairies, unicorns and flying pigs) that isn't why he killed millions.
xn117 1 year ago
@xn117 No, but many millions were killed by Stalin (and other communists) in the name of atheism (as communism is atheistic by definition). Socialism isn't necessarily (Hitler was a Protestant, if only in name), but communism as propagated by Russia is quite anti-theistic. Stalin is not necessarily bad because he is an atheist. Nor is atheism necessarily bad because Russia was. But this standard must apply for religion and religiously based groups, or it becomes a double standard.
GenghisKhan44 9 months ago
@GenghisKhan44 //No, but many millions were killed by Stalin (and other communists) in the name of atheism//
Oh really? Then you should have no problem pointing out writings, personal note, speeches, etc where Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and other communists attribute their actions to atheism, and not to their belief that the bourgeoisie needed to be destroyed and collectivization implemented.
When we attribute crimes like the crusades or the inquisitions to religion, we do it because religion...
Drgamedood 9 months ago
@GenghisKhan44 was explicitly used as justification. Whereas with Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot, we find no such justifications with atheism.
Drgamedood 9 months ago
@GenghisKhan44 hitler wasn't socialist. stalin wasn't even communist. If you only knew the definition you'd know.
fenix144 9 months ago
One word I have to all of you:
BULLSHIT.
GenghisKhan44 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GenghisKhan44 since you cannot understand obviously I'll just repeat.''hitler wasn't socialist. stalin wasn't even communist. If you only knew the definition you'd know.''
fenix144 9 months ago
@GenghisKhan44 not in the name of atheism, they were called in the name of totalitarianism.
dontleademsomuch 7 months ago
Jefferson had slaves
moomin468 1 year ago
Stalin allowed the Russian Orthodox Church, to operate officially again from 1943 during World War II and after.
Stalin went to Russian Orthodox seminary to be a priest. He persecuted the part of the church that backed the czar/king,but part of the church/priests backed him. He put them in power.
qaplatlhinganmaH 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In Stalin's regime the idea was to subsume everything into one centralized aegis, namely the Russian Orthodox Church
A five-decade-old letter from the Soviet Communist Party archives, made available to RFE/RL's Russian Service this week as Kirill was wrapping up his 10-day visit to Ukraine, illustrates the extent to which the patriarch's predecessors were involved in Stalin's efforts to wipe out the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church in the 1940s.
qaplatlhinganmaH 1 year ago
The Communist League was the first Marxist international organization. It was founded originally as the League of the Just by Christian Communists. This was initially a utopian socialist and Christian communist grouping devoted to the ideas of Gracchus Babeuf. It became an international organization, which Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and Johann Eccarius later joined.
qaplatlhinganmaH 1 year ago
Acts 4:32-37:
32 neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. 35 and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. (King James Version)
New Testament origin of Communist doctrine "each according to his need".
qaplatlhinganmaH 1 year ago
"Moving to Marxism"" and moving to Leninism".
He was talking more about Marx-Leninism and not them as separate entities.
TheAnonymouz 1 year ago
If you want to know what is behind Stalin read his "Commentary on Dialectical and Historical Materialism." Stalin didn't have an ounce of Christian faith in him. He was a Darwinist like Marx. See what you get the the "rationalist" take over. And take note, what is the theme (even termininologically) of his commentary .......CHANGE?...... Hmmm, when have we heard that recently?
Marxisto1 1 year ago
Fucking pseudo leftists will never accept that Stalin was just another bloody Pope. And don't have the nerve to defend him openly, either.
danielrep 1 year ago
Stalin went to Russian Orthodox seminary to be a priest.
In Stalin's regime the idea was to subsume everything into one centralized aegis, namely the Russian Orthodox Church
qaplatlhinganmaH 1 year ago
Hitchens' intellect is beautiful.
DarkAngelSupreme 1 year ago
Stalin allowed the Russian Orthodox Church, to operate officially again from 1943 during World War II and after.
Stalin went to Russian Orthodox seminary to be a priest. He persecuted the part of the church that backed the czar/king,but part of the church/priests backed him. He put them in power.
qaplatlhinganmaH 1 year ago
@qaplatlhinganmaH
Exactly. To subvert an existing power structure if it is advantageous to yourself is the atheist thing to do. To dismantle the church simply because it is untrue would be illogical.
Piddyx 1 year ago
In Stalin's regime the idea was to subsume everything into one centralized aegis, namely the Russian Orthodox Church
A five-decade-old letter from the Soviet Communist Party archives, made available to RFE/RL's Russian Service this week as Kirill was wrapping up his 10-day visit to Ukraine, illustrates the extent to which the patriarch's predecessors were involved in Stalin's efforts to wipe out the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church in the 1940s.
qaplatlhinganmaH 1 year ago
Stalin acted exactly as you would expect an Atheist to act. An atheist would take advantage of any resource or use any means to get his way. To do otherwise would be illogical.
Piddyx 1 year ago
@Piddyx are u trolling or just dumb?
thunderheart226 1 year ago
@thunderheart226 Neither. If human beings are nothing more than a unique arrangement of atoms, then genocide is the morally equivalent to knocking over a child's sand castle.
Piddyx 1 year ago
@Piddyx If you need morality from an immoral religion (as if any religion is moral) you need not to add your opinions on morality because you just gave up your individuality. Knowing what something is made of doesn't make it less important to you. It actually helps you to understand it and hopefully fix any problems that might come up.
clipsryan 1 year ago
@clipsryan I think you make an incorrect assumption as to why I am leaving comments.
Piddyx 1 year ago
@Piddyx .........go on.........
clipsryan 1 year ago
@Piddyx Yes like god slaughtering rebels and first borns to get his way. Yeah that's a much better tactic.
clipsryan 1 year ago
@clipsryan Imagine that you have decided to take over the USSR. Why not use every resource available to you?
Piddyx 1 year ago
@Piddyx I would never invade a country and in Hitchen's case, the target's own immoral teaching and history is the only needed resource. Unlike theists, Hitchens doesn't need to use lies and twisting of scripture.
clipsryan 1 year ago
Comment removed
servantofsaber 1 year ago
to be honest, if i was the leader of a country, i'd espouse a national religion as well. if only to keep the unwashed masses happy and so that i could fuck bitches all day
southsydney 1 year ago
This is incredible. Hitchens is saying what is obviously true. Hugo Chavez also played on religion.
TomStrong08 1 year ago
Damn it man!! Don't you know the cake is a lie?!?!
MrSalamander7 1 year ago
Stupid people ARE STUPID!
It is a known fact!
Smart people ARE SMART!
THIS MAN IS SMART, and VERY SEXY TO BEGIN WITH
themooddisorders 1 year ago
@themooddisorders
Hope you're not serious on your logic here.
007rosin 1 year ago
Stalin's regime the idea was to subsume everything into one centralized aegis, namely the Russian Orthodox Church
A five-decade-old letter from the Soviet Communist Party archives, made available to RFE/RL's Russian Service this week as Kirill was wrapping up his 10-day visit to Ukraine, illustrates the extent to which the patriarch's predecessors were involved in Stalin's efforts to wipe out the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church in the 1940s
qaplatlhinganmaH 1 year ago
Stalin allowed the Russian Orthodox Church, to operate officially again from 1943 during World War II and after.
Stalin went to Russian Orthodox seminary to be a priest. He persecuted the park of the church that backed the czar/king,but part of the church/priests backed him. He put them in power.
qaplatlhinganmaH 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Communist League was the first Marxist international organization. It was founded originally as the League of the Just by Christian Communists. This was initially a utopian socialist and Christian communist grouping devoted to the ideas of Gracchus Babeuf. It became an international organization, which Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and Johann Eccarius later joined
qaplatlhinganmaH 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Communist League was the first Marxist international organization. It was founded originally as the League of the Just by Christian Communists. This was initially a utopian socialist and Christian communist grouping devoted to the ideas of Gracchus Babeuf. It became an international organization, which Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and Johann Eccarius later joined.
qaplatlhinganmaH 1 year ago
Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people.
qaplatlhinganmaH 1 year ago
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.
Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right
qaplatlhinganmaH 1 year ago
Acts 4:32-37:
neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. 35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. (King James Version)
New Testament origin of Communist doctrine "each according to his need".
qaplatlhinganmaH 1 year ago
Be better armed if you think you can take on 2,000 years of Christian thinking. Oh, and another thing, stick with Catholic Theologians. Leave those poor Evangelical Protestants alone, they aren't the brightest folks out there.
Potpiscle 1 year ago
This guy is such a moron... only in these intellectually dumbed-downed times could such an idiot about theology be so popular. There is no greater waste of time then listening to this half-ass philosopher, people. Dig a little deeper if you what to even mildly approach any type of true thinking. Check out Anthony Flew and his conversion to higher thinking. Get out of the school-yard of philosophy. You know, we use to have better athesist. Read Thomas Aquinas people.
Potpiscle 1 year ago
@Potpiscle
Fuck you're a complete spastic mate...
You think because you know who Aquinas was you're some amazing intellectual? I've seen Hitchen's library in numerous interviews and I would definantly wager it's larger than yours. On that note of philosophy, what do you think of Kant's philosophy of religion? What about Epicurus' ramblings about Atomism? What about Aristotle's four-element theory?
BelfastAtheist 1 year ago
@BelfastAtheist
Devil worshippers always want to steal people joys. And they alway start with profanites. You folks want your cake and to eat it too, but you don't want believers to have any at all. It's certain you believe in God, otherwise there wouldn't be any basis for your attacks. You can't attack that which isn't there.
Potpiscle 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Potpiscle
What on earth are you babbling about my good man?
BelfastAtheist 1 year ago
Comment removed
BelfastAtheist 1 year ago
@Potpiscle
What on earth are you babbling about my good man?
I was simply inquiring as you implied you're already out of the 'playground of philosophy' as to whether or not you knew who Epicurus was. What you seem to be doing is trying to delibrately enrage and/or irritate me..apart from your very last sentiment of 'You can't attack that which isn't there' were you being earnest or condescending with that line?
BelfastAtheist 1 year ago
@Potpiscle I can't attack that which isn't there? All right then. I just want to say that I find Santa Claus childish, the Easter Bunny absurd and leprachauns kind of annoying. Oh, And I find the christian god in particular obnoxious, and I can quote the bible numerous times to support my claim.
x2thay 1 year ago
Stalin's regime the idea was to subsume everything into one centralized aegis, namely the Russian Orthodox Church
A five-decade-old letter from the Soviet Communist Party archives, made available to RFE/RL's Russian Service this week as Kirill was wrapping up his 10-day visit to Ukraine, illustrates the extent to which the patriarch's predecessors were involved in Stalin's efforts to wipe out the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church in the 1940s
qaplatlhinganmaH 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A five-decade-old letter from the Soviet Communist Party archives, made available to RFE/RL's Russian Service this week as Kirill was wrapping up his 10-day visit to Ukraine, illustrates the extent to which the patriarch's predecessors were involved in Stalin's efforts to wipe out the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church in the 1940s
qaplatlhinganmaH 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A five-decade-old letter from the Soviet Communist Party archives, made available to RFE/RL's Russian Service this week as Kirill was wrapping up his 10-day visit to Ukraine, illustrates the extent to which the patriarch's predecessors were involved in Stalin's efforts to wipe out the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church in the 1940s
qaplatlhinganmaH 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A five-decade-old letter from the Soviet Communist Party archives, made available to RFE/RL's Russian Service this week as Kirill was wrapping up his 10-day visit to Ukraine, illustrates the extent to which the patriarch's predecessors were involved in Stalin's efforts to wipe out the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church in the 1940s
qaplatlhinganmaH 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A five-decade-old letter from the Soviet Communist Party archives, made available to RFE/RL's Russian Service this week as Kirill was wrapping up his 10-day visit to Ukraine, illustrates the extent to which the patriarch's predecessors were involved in Stalin's efforts to wipe out the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church in the 1940s
qaplatlhinganmaH 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Stalin's regime the idea was to subsume everything into one centralized aegis, namely the Russian Orthodox Church
A five-decade-old letter from the Soviet Communist Party archives, made available to RFE/RL's Russian Service this week as Kirill was wrapping up his 10-day visit to Ukraine, illustrates the extent to which the patriarch's predecessors were involved in Stalin's efforts to wipe out the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church in the 1940s
qaplatlhinganmaH 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Stalin's regime the idea was to subsume everything into one centralized aegis, namely the Russian Orthodox Church
A five-decade-old letter from the Soviet Communist Party archives, made available to RFE/RL's Russian Service this week as Kirill was wrapping up his 10-day visit to Ukraine, illustrates the extent to which the patriarch's predecessors were involved in Stalin's efforts to wipe out the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church in the 1940s
qaplatlhinganmaH 1 year ago
August 07, 2009
By Brian Whitmore
Patriarch Kirill's recent high-profile visit to Ukraine was interrupted by an unwanted visitor from the past: Josef Stalin's ghost.
qaplatlhinganmaH 1 year ago
Is this video from a DVD. I would love to hear the whole thing...???
AmorBravo 1 year ago
Stalin allowed the Russian Orthodox Church, to operate officially again from 1943 during World War II and after.
Stalin went to Russian Orthodox seminary to be a priest. He persecuted the park of the church that backed the czar/king,but part of the church/priests backed him. He put them in power
qaplatlhinganmaH 1 year ago
@qaplatlhinganmaH Okay you clearly have never studied Russian history.
NathanJSweet 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NathanJSweet A five-decade-old letter from the Soviet Communist Party archives, made available to RFE/RL's Russian Service this week as Kirill was wrapping up his 10-day visit to Ukraine, illustrates the extent to which the patriarch's predecessors were involved in Stalin's efforts to wipe out the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church in the 1940s
qaplatlhinganmaH 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In Stalin's regime the idea was to subsume everything into one centralized aegis, namely the Russian Orthodox Church
A five-decade-old letter from the Soviet Communist Party archives, made available to RFE/RL's Russian Service this week as Kirill was wrapping up his 10-day visit to Ukraine, illustrates the extent to which the patriarch's predecessors were involved in Stalin's efforts to wipe out the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church in the 1940s.
qaplatlhinganmaH 1 year ago
"In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might ... that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross."ADOLF HITLER
I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 2
qaplatlhinganmaH 1 year ago
the one thing that makes us different than other primates? Wait? Other primates have faith and spirituality? I think not.
Conail23 1 year ago
@Conail23 Firstly, we don't know that they don't, elephants have a seemingly symbolic, ceremonial tendency to caress the bones of their dead, they won't have religion because of their lack of language but they could have a concept of a seperate body and soul or spirit.
Secondly, not all humans have faith or spirituality and they are no less human so this can't be distinguishing feature of humanity.
ImmanuelKunt1993 1 year ago
@Conail23
thirdly, your view is a very platonistic one; 'there is an ideal human, their is an ideal rabbit, an ideal chimp' but on a biological level this is simply not the case. There was never an precise shift where a bipedal ape gave birth to a primitive man, the evolutionary changes are subtle and not very noticeable when comparing one generation to it's immediate successors or predecessors. This is why there is such support for the cladistic system of taxonomy.
ImmanuelKunt1993 1 year ago
@Conail23 point three continued: so when you try to say "what separates man from beast?" it is a bad question as the first 'human' would have not been very different from it's 'beast' parents. The question is a hallmark of 'homo sapien chauvinism', 'humans are so much better than other animals, but why?' the difference between a man and a mongoose is the number of generations and mutations between us and our latest common ancestor with the mongoose.
ImmanuelKunt1993 1 year ago
@Conail23 Have you asked them?
omsct 1 year ago
Stalin allowed the Russian Orthodox Church, to operate officially again from 1943 during World War II and after.
Stalin went to Russian Orthodox seminary to be a priest. He persecuted the park of the church that backed the czar/king,but part of the church/priests backed him. He put them in power.
qaplatlhinganmaH 1 year ago
In Stalin's regime the idea was to subsume everything into one centralized aegis, namely the Russian Orthodox Church
A five-decade-old letter from the Soviet Communist Party archives, made available to RFE/RL's Russian Service this week as Kirill was wrapping up his 10-day visit to Ukraine, illustrates the extent to which the patriarch's predecessors were involved in Stalin's efforts to wipe out the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church in the 1940s.
qaplatlhinganmaH 1 year ago
Its all cheap shit and we pay the price in blood! as did our fathers and theirs
mobilechief 1 year ago
?????
aweiss 1 year ago
what is this lecture from? anyone know? anyone have a link to the full thing? i love Hitchens, want to hear the full thing.
grodzilla2 2 years ago 24
@grodzilla2
Type "Hitchens," "McGrath" and "debate" and you'll see the whole thing.
Narwal88 2 years ago 3
@grodzilla2 Poison or Cure? Religious Belief in the Modern World.
Look on google video
beerbeerbear742 1 year ago
@grodzilla2
I believe this is the "Hitchens - Fry - Widdecombe" debate on religion or God, you'll find it with those three names.
walrusmonkey 1 year ago
Comment removed
zmunk 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@grodzilla2 Possibly from his 2007 debate with Alister McGrath
zmunk 10 months ago
@demarch77
This is the kind of pseudo-scientific propaganda that right-wing loons use to advance their pseudo-fascistic agenda.
Sweden doesn't bow before muslims... and they've never done so. The reason to why Sweden is so secular is because of the semi-socialistic way it was developed.
I've a commitment to ending private schools, and thereby ending religious schools (including islamic ones).
Have you actually been to Sweden? I live here, and there is no muslim invasion.
MazdakTV 2 years ago
@MazdakTV There is a Muslim invasion of the UK and of the United States. I personally see them everywhere. A few years back they did not exist.
ColdCypher 1 year ago
@ColdCypher There is no invasion... Asylum seekers are coming to Europe because the western countries bomb over there... and because we deny them the wealth we have - It's Capitalism that makes Christianity and Islam flourish. Kill Capitalism and you'll kill Islam.
"Religion is the opium of the people."
MazdakTV 1 year ago
@MazdakTV ROFL kill capitalism. That will never happen. You dont need to kill capitalism to kill Islam. Just some nukes or a large amount of conventional weaponry used indiscriminately against the Islamic peoples.
ColdCypher 1 year ago
@MazdakTV Why should prosperous secular societies give away their wealth to failed, impoverished Muslim nations? The West's wealth was won by discarding superstition and embracing science and reason; the Muslim's world's desperate misery's just desserts for squandering the minds on millions on religious lunacy. Let Muslims starve in squalor, look upon the West with bitter envy and, like the Japanese with Perry, draw the clear lesson. Embrace reason and grow rich; cling to religion and perish!!
Hottides 1 year ago
@MazdakTV Watch sam harris
45means45 1 year ago
OMG HITCHENS RULES!
aweiss 2 years ago 13
Hitchens could not find his butt with both hands behind his back.
MrJetco 1 year ago
@MrJetco :( He is cool!
aweiss 1 year ago
Sure, the main source of USA culture ( I refuse to equate America & USA) was from england...
But, English culture is not the same as USA culture, because the inheritor changes and so does the one inherited from.
The person above me was making a point about cultures... Hitchens probably needs his tea and so forth, and he grew up in England (not that it matters what your culture is).
MazdakTV 2 years ago
Culturally (which is of importance here), he is English.
MazdakTV 2 years ago
Also, what on earth is he saying about the USA ? The motto of the USA is "In God We Trust" !
JoeFraze 2 years ago
He's saying that the US is founded on the notion of the separation of church and state and that faith has no place in the governance of the nation, unlike the previous countries he spoke about.
PairOfRaggedClaws 2 years ago 2
This is also true about Sweden, Norway...
Atheism is at 85% @ Sweden, and roughly the same in Norway.
However, one can say about USA, that the "secularist ideal" (Idealism is bad, if you thought I was adhering to that) has failed.
So, the constitution is not enough... the constitution of USA is essentially meaningless since it is not backed up, and not defended.
It has been hijacked for to play in the game of the capitalist (& fascist) wall-street theocrat.
MazdakTV 2 years ago
That wasn't put on our money untill after the founding fathers. The pledge of allegiance saying "under god" wasn't put in until 1950 something. So... religious people took over our secular government and forced it in there, giving people the false impression we're a "Christian" nation. Their wrong. Secularists support the founding fathers!!!!!
Militarized 2 years ago
christ research the history of that phrase please, i dont know how many times I have to explain it to people.
Prohass 2 years ago
I thought it was
"hands of my sister boy, she's mine"
tool69tool69 2 years ago
Yes, but only since 1956, it had nothing to do with the founding fathers. It first emerged on coins in 1864 during amidst a great deal of Christian sentiment during the Civil War. 'PairOfRaggedClaws' is right, the US is based on secularism. Some of the founders were religious, some were not, it doesn't really matter. They all agreed that the church and state should have nothing to do with each other.
93parklife 2 years ago
I accept and agree on that US is based on secularism... but this is no longer lived up to... So why be so proud of what a society is based on when the current status is appalling?
Sure... it is honorable that it is so secularist in principle... But policy and practice should match to earn respect ( in my opinion ).
I understand the wish to think (and that it is the source of the pride) "We had it then, we can get it again."
MazdakTV 2 years ago
Absolutely, the disintegration of secularism in the US is a great shame (though I'm sure Obama will help). In some ways, I envy Americans because they at least have secularism in principle while we in Britain still have an official religion and a monarch who's head of the church. In practice, though, I'd say our society is far more secular. There are still stupid little things but religion very rarely affects my life.
93parklife 2 years ago
You should visit Sweden ^^
If someone attests to religion here, they are glared at with wonder.
I wouldn't trust Obama too much... The democratic system of USA has disintegrated much the same as secularism in USA.
In Sweden, we have almost removed the last traces of the Church of Sweden in law (there is a law that says that everyone has to pay a funeral tax, but that is all)
MazdakTV 2 years ago 3
Hitchens' arguments are weak. Stalin and the Bolsheviks were secular, non-religious. The fact that their are similarities between the psychological control of the masses by a religious theocratic/monarchy and the methods of a totalitarian marxist regime should prove that RELIGIOUS BELIEF IS NOT THE PROBLEM. But Hitchens spins it at tries to extrapolate an opposite conclusion - ie. Marxism is the same as Theocracy. C'mon, that's weak.
JoeFraze 2 years ago
His argument is that the problem is the acceptance of a society centered on a supposedly infallible figure who must never be questioned and be loved and feared at the same time. If that is not religious, then I don't know what is.
darkhyena 2 years ago 23
So, how about poly-theism?
MazdakTV 2 years ago
It is not religious, but it is bad...
MazdakTV 2 years ago
@darkhyena Atheism is a central tenet of Marxism, it is required to further the notion of meta-ethical subjectivism, which is at the root of a Materialist worldview, without which Marxism crumbles. So why do atheists get to say, "Oh but Stalin doesn't really represent atheism!" And Christians have to be held responsible for the sins of all "Christians", and aren't allowed to renounce them as disingenuous to their religion? What if human beings are the problem, not the worldviews? That has sense.
NathanJSweet 1 year ago
@NathanJSweet Meta-ethical subjectivism is a religious tenet. God by being a conscious intentional being is by definition an arbitrator of truth and morality, who can change the meaning of these things at will. The "true word" of God was carved into stone tablets saying "do no murder" by a people who were later ordered by God to commit genocide. The USSR was founded on leninism, which was called by the socialist Bertrand Russel a "religious cult" in his "theory and practice of bolshevism"
lesnem 1 year ago
@lesnem Meta-ethical subjectivism is hardly religious! It is about the only provable moral standard in the world. Do yourself a favor and wikipedia "meta-ethical subjectivism" before you open your mouth and sound like an idiot. If meta-ethical subjectivism is a religious belief then there is no way Atheism isn't. Meta-ethical subjectivism is FAR more provable than Atheism. Almost every philosopher and scientist accepts some level of meta-ethical subjectivism as true.
NathanJSweet 1 year ago
@NathanJSweet You're the one who sounds like an idiot when you try and link meta-ethical subjectivism to Marx, who repudiated the subjectivist philosophy of Hegel and the proto-Nietzschean Max Stirner, and based his dialectical method on the study of the objective. It is the religious who take this same tenet that you say is accepted by however many " philosopher and scientist" hacks, and collectivized it by force, a tactic re-employed by Lenin, whose philosophical ideas were more Nietzschean.
lesnem 1 year ago
@darkhyena stalin was god?
runner784 1 year ago
@runner784
No, he replaced him
darkhyena 1 year ago
His arguments are not weak. Theocratic dictatorship and Soviet-style communist dictatorship are effectively the same thing. Hitchens argues against religion because it discourages independent thought and promotes the infallibility of men, books and institutions eg. the Tsar, the Roman Catholic Church, the Qur'an etc. The same was true of Soviet Russia with regards to Lenin, Stalin and the Communist state as a whole. They are the same problem and the same danger under different guises.
93parklife 2 years ago 2
Well, he's broadening out the definition of religion to an absurd degree then. If he tries hard enough he can probably discredit his own FAITH in "progress", "rationality" and the superiority of "independent thought" as an essentially totalitarian or religious world-view too. Or anything else he pleases. But really, it's wise to point out similarities but foolish to push the case that the two things are essentially identical. But that's only my opinion, and I find Hitchen's unconvincing.
JoeFraze 2 years ago 2
But "progress, rationality and the superiority of independent thought", by definition, aren't governed by any authority, nor can they be, religion, on the other hand places utter, unquestioning trust in its sources of authority, That's its problem. That's the difference between secular thought and religion. I think it's hard to say with Hitchens. He certainly very eloquent, and he strikes me as intelligent but his contempt for religion has clouded his judgement of the Iraq war.
93parklife 2 years ago
Please leave Lenin out of this... Lenin clamed no divinity... and "Communist state" is an oxymoron.
Hitchens doesn't say: "Marxism is a religion".
MazdakTV 2 years ago
Well of course neither claimed divinity. But Communist Party propaganda encouraged the notion that both were infallible figures of strength and leadership, and dissent was severely punished, perhaps more so in Stalin's case. You're right, Marxism isn't a religion, and neither was the Communist Party in Russia, but it employed religionesque (sorry for inventing word) tactics. Totalitarianism is present in religion as it was in Soviet Russia, though Marx never stated or implied any need for it.
93parklife 2 years ago
About totalitarianism (check previous comments).
It was essentially created to criticize Fascism and was an accusation thrown at Mussolini for wanting to create a "Stato Totalitario".
With: total representation of the nation and total guidance of national goals..
It was then extended to also include class (see Wikipedia)... So the current definition was almost "invented" for to smear Marxism (link it to Fascism/Nazism, which is quite outrageous).
MazdakTV 2 years ago
The religionesque (nice word) had severely more impact during Stalin's rule. Especially compared to Lenin... where I find none of it (or extremely slight).
One should say that the Communist Party was like it's leaders at the given times, sadly :(
You can see the policies being vastly different before and after Stalin.
MazdakTV 2 years ago
One of the critics of Capitalism can be found in the classical humorist picture of the pyramid-of-capitalism... where one step in hierarchy is sloganized as: "We fool you". This is a display of how religion & capitalism co-exists.
This is a bit unrelated, but you may find it worthy of thought or laughter ;)
MazdakTV 2 years ago
haha. both :)
93parklife 2 years ago
The bolsheviks forced churches to lace their sermons with soviet propaganda. That's certainly a violation of the church state separation, so the regime was not secular. When Stalin took power he RESTORED THE ORTHODOX CHURCH as the official state church and hand picked the bishops, who told the congregation that stalin was chosen by God. That is Czarism, not Marxism.
lesnem 2 years ago
1) I reject the notion that USSR was adhering to Marxism. It is even said by Lenin, a little while after the revolution, that it may to adhere to Marxism.
2) I reject the term "totalitarian" which was more or less invented to pair Fascism & Marxism together in order to smear Karl Marx's theory ( and not "socialism reala").
3) While Stalin did play the "servant of God" trick, I don't think you can say USSR did so.
MazdakTV 2 years ago
Why would someone with a name like makecakenotwar post clips of speeches from a man who supports military intervention against Islamic fundamentalist theocratic regimes?
You do know that he supported the war in Iraq right?
GaiusIuliusTaberna 2 years ago
Because this speech has nothing to do with war? So who cars about his other views? Seriously... disagreeing with someone on one point doesn't automatically invalidate their other points :-)
WanderingTimelord 2 years ago
i have a slight man crush on hitchens.
fraserdldavidson 2 years ago
This is the best argument I've heard against the pathetic premise that atheism leads to Hitler/Stalin like regimes.
frenzyfol 2 years ago
Well, you shouldn't even put Hitler in there, as he wasn't an atheist.
MazdakTV 2 years ago
stalin was a jude, born from a jude mother
444Tonga 2 years ago
Keke Jugashvili was an orthodox christian of Georgian descent
darkhyena 2 years ago
Sounded like "Pierre Bayle". He was a late 1600's French philosopher.
M3CHW4RR10R 2 years ago
stalin was a firm atheist
superdubman999 2 years ago
You fail to understand the point he is making.
gminasyan 2 years ago
Sorry, did anyone make out the name he mentions between that of Einstein and Jefferson?
PinkoPapist89 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hitchens hates stalin but loves trotsky! HAHAHAH!!!!!!
Trotsky's name was Bronstein, an urban jew. Hitchens is jewish. He extends the love from he jewish mother to these lunatics.
Hitler responded to the starvation of Germanic farmers by the jewish urban lunatics with christian collectivism. the rest is history.
socratic1968 2 years ago
Lysenko might be vindicated after all. Biology is stranger than your imagination can handle.
FrankinHolland 2 years ago
I love the Spinoza name drop!
rs40licks1 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The biggest movement these days to replace reason with faith is the holocaust movement which relies on the faith that the Jews are God's chosen people and rejects the reason of the 'holocaust deniers'.
1thousandways 2 years ago