To think, "Well said Prince Charles!"

[FrancesNiadova]

I agree with the news commentators who say he shouldn't be writing to cabinet ministers, trying to influence policy. However, Putin, invading countries & handing out Russian passports, is behaving like a land-grabbing dictator.
Prince Charles is not the King, yet, so he is maximising his opportunity to say, well, what we're all thinking, basically.
I remember the controversy of the State Visit of the Chinese President. Instead of joining the formal greeting party & banquet, he booked himself to attend a much more minor event in Cornwall, to show his disgust for human rights abuses. The snub was not missed by the Chinese & the media.
Is it unreasonable to be pleased that he speaks out & a bit by the bad press he's getting for it!

Charles was absolutely right to say what he said if this is what he thinks. It was a private conversation and for once I am in total agreement with him.

Putin walks a very similar path Hilter walked. Russia's human cost of WWII has nothing to do with what Putin is up to now and everything to do with how well Russia was prepared for the Nazi attack in 1941 and how much regard the top commanders had for their soldiers and civilians (I am thinking Leningrad in particular here) in the first months of the war. Those who bring Russian victims into their "Putin is no Hitler" argument, please leave those people alone and remember that Stalin was an ally of Hitler 1939-1941.

Lazy Europe swallows many thing. Georgia, Magnitsky, appalling human rights especially of the gay community and orphan children, who became hostages to their own political elite. It allows hoards of Russian corrupt officials come to the UK, plunge their funds into the London housing market, shop-till-they-drop, educate their children in UK boarding schools and universities... fine. "Money has no smell" as we say in Russia.

But please do not pontificate that Putin is no Hitler if you do not know what is really happening there and too lazy to find out.

Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

1. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

1. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

1. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread

domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

1. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.

1. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

1. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

1. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

1. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

From Liberty Forum

www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_constitution&Number=642
109&page=&view=&sb=&o=&vc=1&t=-1

claig It is not a game and that is why Russia took back Crimea which was granted to Ukraine only in 1954 by the communists after 200 years of Russian rule. Russia took back Crimea because it is strategically important as it houses its Black Sea Fleet and it could not allow that to slip from its control and into a NATO sphere of influence.

Indeed. Nevermind the Budapest agreement where Russia alongside the West promised to respect Ukraine's boarders as they were at the moment of USSR collapse.

I dare reminding some here that there were 15 nuclear states in 1990 in the ashes of the disfunct USSR. All but Russia gave up their nuclear arms after grilling diplomatic talks. I wonder would they do the same had the history repeated itself (silly question). I also wonder how many countries will take the West's promises seriously from now on.

'I also wonder how many countries will take the West's promises seriously from now on.'

I don't think Russia takes them that seriously anymore. I think that Gorbachev was under the impression that NATO would not move eastwards and accept so many former Warsaw Pact countries.

As far as know there were no formal or informal agreements. This is in addition to it is nobody's business but the EEuropean countries whether to ask to join Nato or not. They don't need permission from Russia or USA afaik

Who is 'Dr. Lawrence Britt' when he's up and dressed?

I am not a political scientist, I am not familiar with these names. I can bring another one who might be more familiar to you. Umberto Eco. He brings some very similar points up.

Notwithstanding who's is Dr Britt... Do you have any disagreement with the substance of the argument math?

Since the argument was initially used to critique the American Republican Party, no.

It all sounds remarkably like Northern Ireland too.

Northern Ireland is a most interesting case of a region of a unitary state (or what probably should have been a unitary state) clamouring for close alliance with another state in a post colonial situation, a demand that was encouraged and echoed by Lord Randolph Churchill, the Liberal Unionists and the Conservative party with which they merged in 1912. Not only was Britain happy to accede to the demands (backed by the threat of violence) of the Unionists, in order to make NI a viable political and economic province of the UK a large number of people who didn't want to be part of any state but the Irish Free State were drafted into it. Interestingly, federalism within the Irish Free State wasn't acceptable to the Unionists so it wasn't pushed by Britain.

All of this was presided over by George V which I am sure Prince Charles should know.

[[http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html 'Eternal Fascism:
Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt']]

'In spite of some fuzziness regarding the difference between various historical forms of fascism, I think it is possible to outline a list of features that are typical of what I would like to call Ur-Fascism, or Eternal Fascism. These features cannot be organized into a system; many of them contradict each other, and are also typical of other kinds of despotism or fanaticism. But it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it.'

1. The first feature of Ur-Fascism is the cult of tradition.
2. Traditionalism implies the rejection of modernism.
3. Irrationalism also depends on the cult of action for action's sake.
4. The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism.
5. Besides, disagreement is a sign of diversity.
6. Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration.
7. To people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Ur-Fascism says that their only privilege is the most common one, to be born in the same country.
8. The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies.
9. For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.

10. Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology, insofar as it is fundamentally aristocratic, and aristocratic and militaristic elitism cruelly implies contempt for the weak. 11. In such a perspective everybody is educated to become a hero. 12. Since both permanent war and heroism are difficult games to play, the Ur-Fascist transfers his will to power to sexual matters. 13. Ur-Fascism is based upon a selective populism, a qualitative populism, one might say. 14. Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak.

'Ur-Fascism is still around us, sometimes in plainclothes. It would be so much easier for us if there appeared on the world scene somebody saying, "I want to reopen Auschwitz, I want the Blackshirts to parade again in the Italian squares." Life is not that simple. Ur-Fascism can come back under the most innocent of disguises. Our duty is to uncover it and to point our finger at any of its new instances — every day, in every part of the world. Franklin Roosevelt's words of November 4, 1938, are worth recalling: "If American democracy ceases to move forward as a living force, seeking day and night by peaceful means to better the lot of our citizens, fascism will grow in strength in our land." Freedom and liberation are an unending task.'

FDR is most likely turning in his grave now that America is an oligarchy and not a democracy any more.

Eco certainly nailed the Third Reich, but his wisdom is particularly acute when he says 'it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it'.

There is no room for smugness when it comes to fascism, and no room for flippancy, cheap shots or one-upmanship either, something Charles should reflect on.

"There is no room for smugness when it comes to fascism, and no room for flippancy, cheap shots or one-upmanship either, something Charles should reflect on."

Hmm, rather than criticising everything Charles says just because he said it and without looking at substance of the argument you come across as smug and flippant. Modern Russia is very sadly walking the path Nazi Germany did in the 30s, and all you can focus is what he (Charles) can or cannot say.

Not even the attempt to understand why all state media's rhetoric is so pro-government and so aggressive to any alternative view (to the extend that people are labeled enemies and "fifth column" and banned from appearing in the mainstream media), all TV and radio stations, which attempt to criticise Putin's regime closed or under thread of imminent closure, why elections are widely falsified, why gays are afraid to hold hands in public, despite the fact that only 5 years ago it was possible. Why religion is now given such a prominent platform, priests give classes at state schools (state btw, proclaims itself to be secular). And why corruption is so rife and all Putin cronies are all multi billionaires now - he has an amazing luck to befriending talented businessmen or men, who marry very talented businesswomen.

and incidentally Charles was not the first.

Hilary Clinton said it well before him. Although later she backtracked a bit.

Putin ally say Hitler was a good guy before 1939 I guess he was trying to counterbalance the Hitler comparisons.

Ah, and I accidentally missed that it was an opposition activist Zhenderovitch and Professor Andrei Zubov who were first to make the comparison between current Putin and Hitler, but their statements and subsequent persecution went completely unnoticed in the west. Why would anyone care? They are not Prince Charles who should be beaten by this comparison by british "liberals"

He is a complete idiot if he thinks he can behave as if he is acting under his private persona in those circumstances

Precisely - and how people can keep insisting it was a private conversation is beyond me. I mean, when he's surrounded by a group of people, the press and camera crews for pity's sake??!!!

Almost nobody denies his right to a private view, but as ever he fails to understand his situation ... or maybe understands it all too well and wants to have it both ways as usual

so puzzle do you think there are no similarities between putin and hitler or you just don't want charles to say it?

Here is another article on Hitler/Putin (well before Charles) and Putin supporter's likening him (Putin) to pre-1939 Hitler ... i think it may be useful to some here.

Do you think there are no similarities between putin and hitler or you just don't want Charles to say it?

Yes of course I can see some similarities between Putin and Hitler, and as I said I have no problem with Charles believing and saying the same

But not when he's acting in an official capacity; quite apart from anything else - and as he's shown too often - I don't believe he has the necessary judgement to know whether it's best to speak or not. Doubtless he thinks he's being terribly clever and I'm sure his arse-lickers will tell him the same ... but he doesn't have to deal with the possible consequences of his stupidity, does he??

Haha, I think the possible consequences of his stupidity is that Putin now getting signals not only from the hated opposition, but from all channels that this actions are not without consequences.

Something that your (well, our since I am also voting here), politicians have too little stomach to admit and act upon.

Trust me, bemybabe - I honestly don't think Putin will be over-worried about the views of some effete, spolied, petulant English prince; he's got bigger fish to fry than that

I do completely agree about the spineless politicians, but it's no sort of an answer for Charles to stick his self-entitled oar into things. Situations of this sort call for wise heads, and whatever else Charles may be, he's certainly not shown himself to be that

Trust me, puzzle - I have all the reason to believe that Putin and most of his elite are actually rather keen on being admitted to the European elite. Olympics, the release of Khodorkovsky and the fact that all their kids live and hold most of their assets in the West are a great testimony they do not themselves believe the hype they themselves push on the others.

The aggression with this Russian elite reacted to the Magnitsky list in the US is very telling. Sadly, there is nothing like that in Europe.

I have all the reason to believe that Putin and most of his elite are actually rather keen on being admitted to the European elite

I don't doubt it, but it was Charles's personal views I was referring to - him as a person if you like, rather than the institution he belongs to

The monarchy is about much more than just one person (which in his case seems fortunate) and would continue with or without him. Putin very probably would like to be "in with" the western elite - certainly many of his fellow Russians would!! - but that doesn't involve admiring everyone who's part of it

"certainly many of his fellow Russians would"

Sadly, "certainly many of his fellow Russians would" NOT because state propaganda is working overdrive. If you read russian newspapers and watch Russian TV you would think that the West is out to weaken and defeat Russia, that Europe is overrun by paedophile and gay (as in they are part of the same conspiracy) elites and it is no longer "Europa" but "Gay-ropa", that Russia is the only centre of moral high-ground and christian values.

Sadly, people in the West clearly have very little understanding of the state of modern Russia as this thread shows.

Bemybabe maybe you are not familiar with the offerings of Fox News in many US markets?

Maybe you are not aware that news offerings are divided into 'markets' in the US? Maybe you don't understand what this means in terms of editorial decisions as to what constitutes news and how 'news' is couched.

Maybe you have never sat and watched such 'news', slack-jawed with astonishment.

There are many Europeans and Americans who feel exactly the same about 'gay-ropa' and the demise of Christian values in the west.

And if the west is not out to weaken and defeat Russia, what is NATO doing lapping up against its borders, and what is the EU doing poaching Ukraine from the trading bloc Russia is creating?

We have freedom of speech in this country - why do some feel it's appropriate to remove that right from someone because they are born into rank and wealth? He can say what he likes - he has one life so who am I to dictate how he should behave so long as it's within the law?

No he can't.

There is a constitutional understanding that there is a distinction when it comes to the persona of the P of Wales and the person of Charles Battenburg-Whatever and what constitutes official speech and private speech by Charles, based on that distinction. 'The Prince of Wales' does not have the right to freedom of speech any more than 'HMQ' does when he goes forth on official business. They can say anything they want on their own time but when they're no the clock they are not private individuals..

Charles apparently does not understand that he is not some bluff country gent entitled to spout his opinions to anyone he can buttonhole when he sails off to Canada with his travel and accommodations paid for by the British taxpayer (or maybe he really does want it both ways).

I am amazed how little is understood about the constitutional position of the British Monarch and the Prince of Wales by people who are presumably British.