Он мне не друг, но истина дороже

Hoffnung stirbt nie! Schreiben Sie hier, zum Beispiel http://raven47.livejournal.com/9646.html

http://mark-solonin.livejournal.com/34609.html?mode=reply

Adieu à tous mes amis! Il était très intéressant.

No. It is early.

wäre nicht zu spät?

" At least, we can stay joined, as a group somewhere. Here is my Email for interested people: pavgod@netscape.net. Hopes die last !" I agree with you. Here is my email: wwolkoff_69@mail.ru

Thank you, dear Pavel and Vladimir for sharing your addresses with us. I join you in such sharing. My address is alexandersasha2006@yahoo.com (some of you already know it). I also suggest everybody to exchange e-mail messages in order to keep the addresses safe in your external mailboxes.

Надо исправить скрипт генерации заголовка html: каждый скрипт jquery должен быть описан отдельно. Иначе браузер не понимает и не загружает скрипты jquery.

Dear Dmitry, but how it worked earlier, before the "crash"?

Dear - miczolotov, Thanks for the links. The texts didn't persuade me. To take only the first post: 1) According to Illarionov's method, looking at France of 1800s, we should say that the French revolution was a military one? Not just the take over of 18 of Brumaire, but the whole Revolution, from 1789 on. But we know, of course, that it wasn't. And even Napoleon's regime, really a military one, supported the bourgeois development. And what about failed revolutions? Shall we ignore them? In fact, the deeper a revolution, the more it deals with the socioeconomic bases of the society rather than with changing the prosopography of the elites. 2) The aims and the moving forces of the revolution should not be ignored in favor of the results (which are never final). By dubbing a revolution we tend to think of it almost only in terms of the results, teleologically. In fact, this is what Illarionov seems to imply: that the reforms had their purpose in establishing the power of KGB. However, the data he cites don't support this (unnamed) implication. To be correct, he should have written "the revolution should be called spetzsluzbists' according to it's current results". 3) Illarionov should compare the data of 1991 & 1993, instead of 1988 and 1993. In 1991, at least 3 "siloviks" joined the leadership: Rutskoy, Aoushev & Dudajev. With which of these events is Gaidar connected? And was Aoushev so bad a president? In short, we should distinguish different "siloviks". 4) Before and under Gorbachev, the leadership was recruited mostly out of the Party apparatchiks. The revolution swept them away, almost totally. They were replaced only partially by the former (or present) special services men. The "red directors" enlarged their representations, of course, but also representatives of the academic circles and other intellectuals, almost totally absent beforehand. Shan't we call the revolution an academic one? In short, we should consider the prosopography of the elites, and not just one aspect of this prosopography.