Caustic Logic
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 4,494
Don't forget too some Ukrainians can spot an illegal putsch, even if most of us are determined not to.
I'm getting a lot of ridicule by people who don't get what I'm even saying regarding white supremacist militants vs. Maidan protesters. I'll take one good post to clarify it then.
I do not mean this (Haaretz Feb 28, relevant time frame but not point):
I also do not mean this (Ukraine Business Jan. 26):
Both sides stand accused of general Anti-Semitism problems. Boring.
While every anti-government person in Kiev that day is lumped together in most reports as "protesters," I contend the label is grossly inaccurate in regard to one sector of these people, which is the one I'm talking about.
(Guardian, Feb 20)
The vanguard's overall politics and worldview(s) are unknowable until we get names on individual participants (partly known, could be looked into now...) and see what they've joined and said before. Their violent actions are a separate issue for concern, Nazis or not. But I stand by my assessment.
- These guys behave like the dudes from that movie Romper Stomper, formed into an army, and here operating on a smart and ballsy strategy.
- Neo-Nazi mobs have frequently appeared before at such events, but here at the pivotal one it almost appears like they didn't.
- Did they stay away, or show up in more bland form?
On the day, one white power sign is visible on the Institutskya and otherwise, no political slogans or flags at all really. That makes it about the opposite of peaceful protest, which is a type of speech. This was grim, non-descript, speech-free work of some type. Their men died and they pushed on - it was something extremely serious and crucial, and we (or I) don't know just what it was. The construction helmets were doubly significant in that sense - men at work, toppling a regime with some magic that required their physical presence there, in force, whoever they were.
From what I see, the force used in this push was overwhelmingly non-lethal. One cop died in this, out of hundreds beaten up, shot, burnt, etc. But it was strategic, planned out, took advantage of weaknesses, and captured a nation's capitol. This we call militant. Any of those guys shot by a sniper, knew that was part of the "reconquest of Kiev," as the Right Sector called it, claiming to have taken martyrs already in the process. (see the video CE posted a ways back)
It was not an answer to free speech, not a crime against humanity, and certainly no worse than what an armed mob descending on the capitol building of any of our nations would get.
I hope this is fairly clear finally, so I can just point to this as needed and move on. The only challenge to my theory I'll consider valid and answer is one that actually is a challenge to my theory.
I'm getting a lot of ridicule by people who don't get what I'm even saying regarding white supremacist militants vs. Maidan protesters. I'll take one good post to clarify it then.
I do not mean this (Haaretz Feb 28, relevant time frame but not point):
A label applied to demonstrators, even demonstrators eagerly earning the label, by saying things or displaying symbols. Interesting and all, but boring and well-known and not what I'm talking about. (However a side-point: "In a contemporary context, it is not correct to associate Bandera with neo-Nazis.” Right above, photo proof that it sometimes is fair)
I also do not mean this (Ukraine Business Jan. 26):
Both sides stand accused of general Anti-Semitism problems. Boring.
While every anti-government person in Kiev that day is lumped together in most reports as "protesters," I contend the label is grossly inaccurate in regard to one sector of these people, which is the one I'm talking about.
(Guardian, Feb 20)
"The vanguard" is what I'm talking about. As I mean it, they are the unit that can be seen advancing with metal shields SE on the Instituskya, near but not in the Maidan, getting further from it the closer they drew to the actual government's buildings. Many were shot, dead and otherwise, but they pushed through. But once in charge there ... some death and destruction, some murkiness, and a dramatic change in the political landscape. It warrants more study.
The vanguard's overall politics and worldview(s) are unknowable until we get names on individual participants (partly known, could be looked into now...) and see what they've joined and said before. Their violent actions are a separate issue for concern, Nazis or not. But I stand by my assessment.
- These guys behave like the dudes from that movie Romper Stomper, formed into an army, and here operating on a smart and ballsy strategy.
- Neo-Nazi mobs have frequently appeared before at such events, but here at the pivotal one it almost appears like they didn't.
- Did they stay away, or show up in more bland form?
On the day, one white power sign is visible on the Institutskya and otherwise, no political slogans or flags at all really. That makes it about the opposite of peaceful protest, which is a type of speech. This was grim, non-descript, speech-free work of some type. Their men died and they pushed on - it was something extremely serious and crucial, and we (or I) don't know just what it was. The construction helmets were doubly significant in that sense - men at work, toppling a regime with some magic that required their physical presence there, in force, whoever they were.
From what I see, the force used in this push was overwhelmingly non-lethal. One cop died in this, out of hundreds beaten up, shot, burnt, etc. But it was strategic, planned out, took advantage of weaknesses, and captured a nation's capitol. This we call militant. Any of those guys shot by a sniper, knew that was part of the "reconquest of Kiev," as the Right Sector called it, claiming to have taken martyrs already in the process. (see the video CE posted a ways back)
It was not an answer to free speech, not a crime against humanity, and certainly no worse than what an armed mob descending on the capitol building of any of our nations would get.
I hope this is fairly clear finally, so I can just point to this as needed and move on. The only challenge to my theory I'll consider valid and answer is one that actually is a challenge to my theory.
Last edited:
