Comments by "dixon pinfold" (@dixonpinfold2582) on "1420 by Daniil Orain"
channel.
-
"Inna, 59, pensioner" has me doing forehead palms. (1) She thinks WWII started in 1941, despite Germany's invasion or bombing of numerous countries beforehand. (2) She says "We won't initiate an attack."😂 Sure, except Finland, Afghanistan, Georgia, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Ukraine, Poland...
Ah, the glories of the Soviet 'education' system.🙄 Still bearing fruit in the over-45 population.
561
-
554
-
294
-
221
-
180
-
172
-
110
-
108
-
106
-
90
-
81
-
71
-
68
-
68
-
66
-
65
-
64
-
60
-
56
-
55
-
50
-
47
-
46
-
45
-
43
-
43
-
41
-
41
-
39
-
38
-
36
-
33
-
32
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
Always top-quality discussion, humor, thought, analysis and all the rest. Penetrating questions plus incisive and challenging follow-ups. Great editing, pacing, translation, subtitles, camera work, graphics, bla-bla-bla.
[yawn] Frankly, it's all becoming a bit boring. Can we please have stupid trash once in a while?
😂 Just kidding. Thanks very much, Daniil, Artyom and everybody at 1420. Keep it up!
— DP, a happy subscriber
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
Wilde was definitely Irish by birth, but was of English heritage and descent (along with considerable Dutch on his father's side). Both sides of his family moved from England, in the 17th (father's side) and 18th centuries (mother's side). Thus both his parents were protestants and therefore there was scant chance if any at all that intermarriage with Irish catholics had taken place.
The Anglo-Irish, as the English settlers were and still are called, although they tended to consider themselves simply British, are sometimes said to have felt "English in Ireland, Irish when in England." In any case, those Irish with no English heritage, as everyone knows, just wanted them out. So while it is unknown to me whether Wilde at any point in his lifetime was prized by many Irish catholics as a native son, there is ample reason to doubt it.
It seems likely that people who really know a lot about Wilde and the Anglo-Irish will find something to correct me about, and they are welcome to do so.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
@mikerodent3164 I wasn't "guessing." Some things are just a matter of one's point of view. Simple declarations on them by anyone, even entities such as national governments, are not the last word. And views based only on politics can be called narrow, since politics are just one aspect of geography, peoples and civilizations.
Let's put it this way (based on what I've read, which as I say, repeating myself for the third or fourth time, is just one point of view): Had England never made war on them, it would never have occurred to Ireland's inhabitants to stop considering Ireland British (as a secondary identity based on history, geography and shared Celtic ethnicity, even if to them its identity as Irish would have mattered vastly more).
But 'Britain' was officially part of the name of the UK as well as the island on which it had been situated. And since they were invaders, the Irish at that point wanted nothing more to do with the word.
Consider an analogy: Let's say the US were to invade Canada and engage in a brutal repression. At present Canada holds a secondary identity of itself as North American. But if the Americans were thoroughly and bitterly despised as invaders, the very presence of the word 'America' in 'North America' might well put paid very soon to that identity, and Canadians would thenceforth consider themselves Canadians, full stop.
Not a perfect analogy, but it expresses what I have in mind.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@abrahamdozer6273 There is a cost for separating the seat of government from the seat of intelligence, learning, talent, energy and culture domiciled in a country's metropolis, or leading city. Say what you will about the usefulness of electronic communications, for intellectual and creative ferment, and for administrative efficiency, there is no substitute for frequent face-to-face contact.
Wellington did not choose Ottawa as the capital, he chose it as one of the end-points of the Rideau Canal, constructed decades earlier. His decision would later factor into its attractiveness as a location, but he was not involved in that process. In fact he was dead, as it was over 40 years later.
[This is a repost, not word-for-word, of what I replied to you earlier. I came by to read a new post to me and noticed my reply had disappeared into thin air.]
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@PotatoKnightOG Russia and Canada do have this in common, that they devote a great portion of their wealth to paying for the energy required for transportation and heating. Generally whatever you buy, whether produced at home or imported, has a long way to go by rail and truck before it gets to you, and every building requires plenty of gas or electricity to keep it warm for half the year or more. In this regard they both compare unfavourably with, say, the US, France or the Netherlands.
All the most energy-thirsty countries are some combination of either very hot (Qatar, Singapore) or cold (Norway, Canada, Iceland), very spread-out (Canada, Russia, Australia), very rich (US, Norway, Luxembourg), or blessed with fantastically cheap energy (the Gulf States, Norway until a recent spike).
In the case of Russia it's also true that they still haven't been at the potent wealth generator of free enterprise, such as it is in that country, for very long. Thirty years might sound like a long time, but it isn't. The fact is that Russia outside of the metropolitan areas is still modernizing. And of course Putin and his cronies siphon off outlandish amounts of wealth.
(Yet, interestingly, its income inequality overall—world rank by Gini coefficient: 87th—is actually quite a bit lower than that of the US, which is 48th. It's the other ex-Warsaw-Pact countries like Slovakia (167) and Ukraine (162) which dominate the lowest, most-equal end of the rankings. See Wikipedia "List of countries by income inequality.")
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@marissaalonzo7997 In fact, the word 'propaganda' itself is commonly no more than propaganda, which is why I try to avoid it, but I'm impressed that you offered actual reasons.
Still, for someone professing to be against (over-) simplicities, you do a lot of simplifying yourself. Anyway, a label like 'pro-life' contains vastly more truth value than labelling Ukraine a Nazified country. So I see the parallel as one of those speck-vs.-log-in-the-eye ones.
I'll never compare a country like Russia to a Western democracy like you do, because people in the latter have the right to throw the bums out of power when they like. That right is one I closely liken to the right to be in all senses an adult. (Of course I hardly mean that there's any ban on childishness here, but that's another matter.) Russians and Chinese, for example, are all children living under their strict dad, who beats the family and then brags about how smoothly the household runs.
3
-
Disagree. I think what he said was true, even though I oppose his overall outlook totally. The fact is that it's the same in every country and always will be: Elites lead public opinion.
It's simply natural to the human social creature (except in rare and unusual individuals) and we're stuck with that aspect of ourselves permanently. The thing is to face it, accept it, and to modify it and put it to the general advantage of people. It can be made into a feature, not a bug, and often is.
Same, for example, with human aggressiveness, which can never, never, never be rooted out—but which can be channelled ('sublimated') into healthy pursuits like sporting competition and other friendly rivalries (i.e., striving and competition in business and every other walk of life). Aspects like violence and war can definitely be minimized.
Apart from protection against cold, hunger, fire and so on, such channelling is the sole aim of civilization.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@VictorLyuba You are mistaken on what the First Amendment is about. It says that the US government shall pass no laws restricting what people can say (apart from slander, libel, incitement to criminal acts such as rioting for example, or revealing state secrets). Even almost all lies are protected speech (but not slander, libel).
On the other hand, what you speak about is vigorous social disapproval of certain statements a person may make. There is no protection against such disapproval, nor is there such protection in any other country, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be.
Allow me to illustrate by analogy. If you go to an Italian village, enter a café, and make insulting remarks to the staff and patrons about the Pope, you are likely to be told to leave. That cannot be construed as an infringement on your right to free speech, never mind what the Italian constitution may or may not say about free speech protection. You are still allowed to stand on a street corner and announce your views, or in the home or place of business of anyone willing to hear them. You can publish them in a book or on a website.
I hope I have made myself clear about the difference between people rudely telling you to "Shut up!" and the government charging you with a crime.
Thanks for your reply. I am entirely sympathetic to your views on the intolerance of what are called 'politically correct' Americans.
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Soloviev (oddly, pronounced SO-lav-yov) didn't come up with the idea, of course. It's been around since at least the time of Horace (65 BCE - 8 BCE), who wrote of it in one of his odes, Book iii.2, sometimes called Dulce et Decorum est after its most famous line, indented below (">>>") :
Let the boy, toughened by military service,
learn how to make bitterest hardship his friend,
and as a horseman, with fearful lance,
go to vex the insolent Parthians,
spending his life in the open, in the heart
of dangerous action. And seeing him, from
the enemy’s walls, let the warring
tyrant’s wife, and her grown-up daughter, sigh:
‘Ah, don’t let the inexperienced lover
provoke the lion that’s dangerous to touch,
whom a desire for blood sends raging
so swiftly through the core of destruction.’
>>> It’s sweet and fitting to die for one’s country.
Yet death chases after the soldier who runs,
and it won’t spare the cowardly back
or the limbs, of peace-loving young men.
Virtue, that’s ignorant of sordid defeat,
shines out with its honour unstained, and never
takes up the axes or puts them down
at the request of a changeable mob.
Virtue, that opens the heavens for those who
did not deserve to die, takes a road denied
to others, and scorns the vulgar crowd
and the bloodied earth, on ascending wings.
And there’s a true reward for loyal silence:
I forbid the man who divulged those secret
rites of Ceres, to exist beneath
the same roof as I, or untie with me
the fragile boat: often careless Jupiter
included the innocent with the guilty,
but lame-footed Punishment rarely
forgets the wicked man, despite his start.
[I don't vouch for this translation. I wanted Samuel Johnson's but couldn't find it online at no charge.]
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@istvanglock7445 Because it's still too early. But AI—specifically AGI (artificial general Intelligence, meaning AI that's at least as smart as a smart human)—is going to really turn things upside down, perhaps making life fantastic. (Also maybe getting all of us violently wiped out.)
AI advancement, it is said, is going to go wildly exponential. Once AGI is achieved it will take off quickly under its own power, so to speak. One day it'll finally be as smart as an average professor; a month later it'll be rewriting Shakespeare in a far superior fashion; then after another month it'll be as smart as a hyper-intelligent alien. A further week later and it'll be as smart as God. I'm not trying to be accurate and precise, I'm trying to give the general idea. If such a pathway came to pass, environmental problems would be addressed quickly—as long as, I stress, the AGI does not decide to kill us all. Survival in that case would be impossible.
This is the real reason Elon Musk wants a human colony on Mars. It's not really so much about asteroids, nuclear war or new deadly plagues. Stephen Hawking, too, said that AGI could be extremely dangerous to the existence of humanity. Go up to the search box and enter "hawking danger of artificial intelligence."
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
People are dying because of the Russians who, like Putin himself, miss the days of the USSR, when 150m Russians pushed around 130m other Soviets and kept over 100m Eastern Europeans in fear. They want to savour that power and inflict that fear again.
So, the same motivation as someone who buys a pit bull. Putin is the Russian chauvinists' pit bull. E.g., Svetlana, 62, government worker; Irina, 49, mother; Vladimir, 35, sportsman. Zero class, all of them, like pit bull owners.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Naschira No, it's true: the world did have sympathy for Russia's people. Absolutely. Why shouldn't they? You think they don't have human decency? Bro, stop this "The world despises Russia" nonsense. Everyone wants a good future for Russia.
No one's coming to get you. Finland is not going to march on Moscow, nor the US, nor NATO. The world simply wishes Russia to have leaders with no desire to threaten other countries or abuse the Russian people. Aside from maybe theoretically China, no country, no alliance of countries, will ever attack Russia first. Ever. And Putin knows this, right down to the marrow of his bones.
Stalin created NATO, remember. Just get a govt without the desire to insulate Russia with a thick blanket of other people's countries. Then slowly NATO will dissolve, automatically, unquestionably. As a friendly nation with a free people, Russia would likely become the richest, happiest and most advanced country in Europe.
1
-
@Naschira No, you had a president capable of taking you out of communism with a chance of no civil war. That's what he was good for. So after that he had to go.
After that you needed a different president to mop up the mess left by one-party corruption. But there was next to no chance for a seamless transition into prosperity, because no Russian leader could ever make that happen except Superman. Yeltsin was not Superman. So after that he had to go.
After this waking bad dream, Putin.
[By this time, even in the '90s, NATO expansion was inevitable, not because NATO wanted to expand but because all Eastern Europe badly wanted in. They had zero trust of Russia. They knew Russia, they knew Putin and they knew what's good for themselves. Lifetimes of being the neighbours of Russia are going to leave lessons that aren't about go to away in five or ten years.
So on their one side, Europe: relaxed, free, prosperous, smoothly-running, friendly, respectful. On their other side, Russia: chaotic, dangerous, crooked, autocratic, poor, domineering, contemptuous. Their choice was overwhelmingly obvious.]
Back to Putin: He put the ex-KGB and the oligarchs in charge under him, and the economy improved and gang network crime went down. But now he is the gang, now he wants to be tsar, now he's taking away prosperity. So now he has to go.
It's time for the next leader. Shed this one like an old skin, and get someone comfortable with having neighbours he does not yearn to dominate and treat like garbage, who is ready to show them normal respect.
To that add greater rights and freedoms for the people, and all problems with foreign countries will evaporate quickly. You can immediately move on to competing in business, where owing to Russian talent, you will kick EU, American and Asian rear ends. Russia with a free people and good international relations would have double the GDP of Germany within 25 years. No question.
Thanks for your polite reply, Maximova.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ГалинаБрагина-п2т Hahaha. You think you just presented an 'educated' point of view? The US has a lot of people in its jails and prisons because it has a lot of crime—theft, robbery, drug trafficking, murder, sex crimes, fraud and all the rest.
As for the A-bombs used in Japan, Japan went after the US in the first place. Ukraine didn't even so much as drop a piece of litter on Russian soil. And the bombs actually saved millions of Japanese and American lives. A ground invasion of Japan would have been an incredible bloodbath.
If the USSR had the bomb eight years earlier than it did, it most certainly would have dropped it on Germany, thus saving who tf knows how many lives. Something like 25 million altogether, perhaps.
Go back to school, Professor Genius, if you're not still in fact a high-schooler.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ Oh really?🤨
Democracy ratings: (1) Freedom House: Canada 97, UAE 18, Russia 13. (2) The Economist Index: Canada 8.7, UAE 3.0, Russia 2.2. (3) Democracy Matrix: Canada 0.86, UAE 0.17, Russia 0.26
Per-capita GDP: Canada $55,890; UAE $51,290; Russia $14,953
Mineral wealth per capita: Canada $595k; UAE $1,100k; Russia $188k. [Note that including all natural resources puts Canada in 1st.]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@altyhaaf4 Oh come on. As if Russia isn't soaked in hypocrisy and lies! Its strengths and weaknesses differ somewhat from those of the West, but its hypocrisy and lies plague it no less severely, possibly more severely. It's a little less ashamed of itself, probably because of a stronger commitment to denial of its shortcomings. Let's face it, every country around the world indulges in cheap anti-Americanism and anti-Westernism to kid itself and sweep its own failures of culture, system and character under the rug. "Say what you will, at least we're not Americans." Meanwhile their own faults fester.
It's human nature, alas. Poor people in your city and mine, failures and so on, also say it about the rich, the good-looking, everybody who has something. "Those people are vicious. I have nothing, but I'm good, and honest." Meanwhile they're not, to any particular degree. I'm always skeptical of people's blanket condemnations.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
That's true. It is best to add to one's judgements of individual ideas and values (important and valuable as those judgements may be) an understanding of how wrong it is not to recognize others' right to their own. Well within living memory, for example, tolerance of LGBT people was considered wrong, as non-normal sexuality itself was considered wrong and was in ways illegal. Should that have been the case? Was tolerance wrong?
Liberal values require acceptance of a range of values— acceptance, tolerance, notice, not agreement with them, endorsement or promotion of them—otherwise repression of people is inevitable, and it is repression to which liberalism is opposed, not to particular political thought (ordinary conservative thought of the present day, for example).
For this reason a so-called liberal who is intolerant of conservative opinion is properly called illiberal, and is doing exactly the thing that the far right did which bothered the left-of-center in the first place and all along. Such a person has become what they despised. Liberalism isn't about being left-of-center, it's about rights and freedoms and tolerance. Thus, between the right-winger who sincerely insists on thoroughgoing tolerance of right-wing and left-wing thought alike, and the left-winger who wants repression of right-wing thought, it's the right-winger, or conservative, who's the liberal.
The most dangerous person by far is the illiberal liberal, who in that way is not a liberal at all, who stands for justice but works for repression, which is injustice. That's the type of person whom Orwell, himself a committed socialist, made the Party enthusiast in society and government in Nineteen Eighty-Four and Animal Farm. The petty commissar O'Brien, while he tortured Winston Smith, thought of himself as good, because he was against the right wing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stevenleighton1947 You must be a far-leftist. They're the only people who try to deny that Orwell's books were anti-Stalinist (and anti-Fabian).
Ideas like 'he only opposed atrocities, whether left or right' and 'INGSOC was ambiguous in its leaning and was just as right-extremist as it was left-extremist' just couldn't be more misleading or self-serving on the part of such people. (Yes, he opposed the atrocities of Hitler, Franco and Mussolini. Of course. But his books except for Homage to Catalonia declined to preach to the choir on them. He instead went after the communists and socialists who revulsed him but were actually still getting good publicity in Western left circles.)
Orwell somehow remained a committed socialist himself, but going all the way back to The Road to Wigan Pier, his chief concern was how objectionable socialists and communists were as people and, later, how prone they were to getting carried away with themselves, violating basic norms of human decency and descending into wholesale meatpacking violence.
Say what you will, he just didn't feel the same way about, for example, Churchill (even though he deplored the latter's commitment to maintaining the British Empire).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1