Comments on: Iran’s “Green Revolution” in Russia

By: Candide

Candide — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:50:04 +0000

For some dark Satanic reason, Emerson Lake & Palmer original rendition of “Jerusalem” is nowhere on YouTube.

By: Candide

Candide — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:34:59 +0000

Tim,

Please note I didn’t speak of modern jihadis but eternal jihad mindset, which is a personal duty for spiritual struggle against wrongs of the world, augmented by physical fight if necessary. I think the verse

“I shall not cease from mental strife
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand…”,

captures this spirit precisely.

By: Chris Von Doom

Chris Von Doom — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:28:22 +0000

Hold one: Doom has done research, and it appears that the original title of “Jerusalem” was “Blood for Our Dark God.”

By: Chris Von Doom

Chris Von Doom — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 10:12:00 +0000

Quit apologizing for Blake and his British jihadis.

By: Tim Newman

Tim Newman — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:41:32 +0000

I wonder what the author and readers here think Russia’s path is?

Massive underachievement, huge potential wasted.

I heard it remains an unofficial English anthem to this day…

It’s a William Blake poem turned into a hymn. It’s about as relevant to jihad as “dark satanic mills” is to devil worship.

By: Chris Von Doom

Chris Von Doom — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 07:09:45 +0000

“What complicates this, however, is that they conclude by arguing that democracy is a long-term Russian goal.”

People assert this of everybody. “Democracy” is supposedly the teleological end of mankind, toward which everything is supposedly moving.

At the end of days, Democracy, having been crucified when Caesar crowned himself Emperor, will arise again and be everywhere. The mountains will be made flat, and the rough places plain.

By: Chris Von Doom

Chris Von Doom — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 06:50:22 +0000

“As to Russian liberals, considering that for years we’ve been hearing that they are irrelevant and inept it’s ironic that they they elicit such a disproportionate and vehement response… as if they are indeed important.”

It’s because of their disproportionate presence in various Western narratives.

By: Candide

Candide — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 04:49:42 +0000

Green is a color of Islam. Jihad has no color.

By the by, the most perfect encapsulation of jihad mentality I ever came across was written by an Englishman,

“I shall not cease from mental strife
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand
Till we have built Jerusalem
In England’s green and pleasant land.”

I heard it remains an unofficial English anthem to this day…

By: Kolya

Kolya — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 19:42:36 +0000

I don’t know much about this, but even if for the sake of argument we concede that most Iranian protesters are devout Muslims who do not want to jettison all of the principles of their Islamic Republic it is clear that they would prefer a much less restrictive and open society (by that, I mean, that most of them would prefer women to have the freedom to chose how much–if at all–their heads should be covered, couples to have the freedom to hold hands in public, etc, etc.)

As to Russian liberals, considering that for years we’ve been hearing that they are irrelevant and inept it’s ironic that they they elicit such a disproportionate and vehement response… as if they are indeed important.

By: Kevin Rothrock

Kevin Rothrock — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 19:17:31 +0000

“Habermas’ idea, and Kolesnikov embrace of it, is based in the historical teleology that state’s political development follows a singular path toward liberalism.”

I wonder what the author and readers here think Russia’s path is? If Russia is not a liberal country today (which the state of its liberal parties clearly demonstrates it isn’t), then what exactly are the sacred tenets of its sovereign democracy?

I was thinking about this last week after reading the Public Projects Institute’s working paper about democratization in Russia (http://www.inop.ru/files/4n_tezisi_2009_06_11.doc). The main thesis is the familiar idea that democracy is not and should not be Russia’s main priority today. What complicates this, however, is that they conclude by arguing that democracy is a long-term Russian goal.

This raises questions like: Is this just a different means to the same end? Is it that there are multiple paths to liberalism, or that there are multiple paths to multiple ‘isms?

The liberal parties in Russia are certainly peripheral and their members are ‘miserable,’ but what should we make of United Russia? What are they building, exactly? Also, I wonder if it is safe and secure to argue against democracy in the present and for it in the long term. What happens when some schmuck decides the hour has arrived?