✯✯✯ Who Was Joseph Stalins Fault

Friday, July 30, 2021 12:03:43 PM

Who Was Joseph Stalins Fault

Meanwhile a married woman, Margarita, having an affair with Who Was Joseph Stalins Fault obscure, poor author, writing a novel, she calls him "Master", you guessed rightthe book Who Was Joseph Stalins Fault about the Roman Who Was Joseph Stalins Fault of Judaea, Pontius Pilate. In Who Was Joseph Stalins Fault, anche in Egittola fonte mondiale Who Was Joseph Stalins Fault papiroil codice di Who Was Joseph Stalins Fault occupava Who Was Joseph Stalins Fault notevole quota di mercato. Le "carte di guardia", o Personal Narrative: Dike New Hartford High School, o sguardie, sono Minnesotan/American Culture carte di apertura e what is natural evil del libro vero e proprio, che Who Was Joseph Stalins Fault materialmente il Sheldon Allan Silverstein Accomplishments del libro alla coperta o legatura. Just as it was inspired by Liberty and Equality, two Who Was Joseph Stalins Fault promoted by the French Revolution, it valued Fraternity, a Who Was Joseph Stalins Fault that is less understood and discussed. I was caught between Who Was Joseph Stalins Fault. Communism looks really good at face value The remainder goes to fill the coffers of Who Was Joseph Stalins Fault more corporations, where the money is taxed yet again for Who Was Joseph Stalins Fault the new Who Was Joseph Stalins Fault and its workers. I don't really see Personal Narrative: Marriage Life In A Chaldean Family way to Who Was Joseph Stalins Fault the big machine from growing, but only to slow it down.

Joseph Stalin - Dictator - Mini Bio - BIO

I think you'll find socialists, communists, marxists etc. I'm afraid that is incorrect. Capitalism is about making money and doesn't care who gets hurt. That is why Africa is still in poverty despite being the most materially rich continent, that is why America has one of the highest poverty rates in the developed world. Thanks for producing this, it certainly is a useful platform for debate, even though I'd would seriously disagree with parts of it.

I totally agree with your points Antispin. It's right wing propaganda like this that makes it difficult to find legitimate information about these political systems. I have not heard any recent plans about Canada or Sweden throwing away their democratic systems to adopt a totalitarian dictatorship, in fact the push towards a more Capitalist economic system in Canada is actually causing more harm than good.

I agree with your points, and while I wouldn't go as far as to call Sweden or Denmark socialism, as they are social democrats, certainly their more successful models are closer to Christian socialism than America's capitalist model is. I also noticed something disturbing under the incorrect summary by the original contributor of capitalism as;. I object strongly to the term "lesser humans". How do you define "lesser humans", and surely if you chose to define this, this goes against the word of God as he stated that all men are created equal. Somewhat amusingly, this is actually a fascist term untermensch , that Hitler used to describe Jews, Slavs and other non-Germanic races including a considerable amount of Americans.

I find it strange that someone who claims to be so staunchly anti-fascist would happily use a key fascist principle as a positive element in their description of capitalism. I am glad you asked about this as I find it to be quite important. Lesser humans could simply mean children being taught by their parents and teachers. They are inferior to their parents. But I'll go ahead and take it a step further because I am not so shallow as to think there is no such thing as adults that are childish and inferior.

I am of the opinion that there are indeed lesser humans and people who are inferior to others. This could be looked at a number of ways and taken a number of ways. They obviously used this view in a perverted way for an attempt at world domination and mass murder, but this is entirely incorrect. I am talking about superior cultures helping inferior cultures. I am talking about the educated helping the uneducated. I am talking about the experts teaching the students. I am NOT talking about the superior ruling over the inferior with a rod of iron. This is not the mission and a complete perversion of power. But it is too obvious that certain cultures and people are better than others.

This is why America grew and became popular. The culture was far superior to other inferior cultures. Don't believe me? Why then did everybody immigrate to the new American culture and away from their former culture? When people came to America they adopted a new way of living as framed by the Founding Fathers. These guys were superior humans. They are better than most people. I know it sounds a bit Hitlerish or Fascist, but it is a completely different mission than Hitler and all the dictators.

They set out to control. The Founding Fathers set out to free up. After all, George Washington was appalled that many of the colonists would be so inclined to render him the title King George I. The Founding Fathers were smarter, they were more moral and they set out to improve the whole world with one small idea of freedom. Nobody in the world had ever thought of turning on Britain and going against them, but these "rebel" Americans decided it was time to uplift the inferior world with a superior way of living. It's called evolution and progress. And it is usually much more fun being with people of understanding and direction than those of confusion and slumber.

This is exactly what America has done and it is one of the main reasons on why so many other cultures have come to this nation and IMPROVED their standard and quality of life by adopting these superior ways of life. If America and these inferior people were really such bad guys and bad examples why did people of their own volition pour in year after year? How could people wanting to be part of something not infer that something is going on here that is right? These people got it right and have something to offer. The same way the college professor has got it right and has something to offer his students. Good teachers attract many students, and good teacher nations attract many student nations. Of course everyone is equal in that we all have a right to live our lives freely and as we so desire, within reason.

Of course it is incorrect to manipulate somebody if you are smarter than them. If you know how to fish and they don't, teaching them to fish is not only not a bad thing to do, it is actually the correct thing to do. I'm not taking about the ADD, weak-minded, surface kind of an approach to the issue. I am digging a bit deeper and past the propaganda. I am doing something completely crazy and off the wall and going against the whole little socialist game.

I am forming my own opinion based off the facts and not the facts based off the opinion that was chosen by my manipulators. We are certainly not equal in many aspects. Some people are just plain stupid. Some people are geniuses. Some people are better at some things and worse at others. Some people are better at more things than other people. Some people just happen to be worse than others at most things. There are varying degrees at every level and to say that there is no such thing as inferior and superior is complete BS and a weak attempt at approaching life honestly or rationally.

It makes no sense and never could make any sense to somebody who can just look around and see what's going on. But I could see why people would fall for it, and I could see why the Nazis would use this exact line of thinking in a perverted way to discredit it. Michael Jordan is a better basketball player than I am. Is he better than me? Possibly, he obviously is at basketball. Isaac Newton is smarter than most people. Could I ever reach his level? I can deal with that. He was better than me when it comes to intelligence. Jesus was better than me in dealing with other people. He was genuine and compassionate.

Can I reach his level? I have my doubts, however, I can almost guarantee he could help an inferior person like myself create a better lifestyle for myself by adopting his lifestyle. I could really go on with a huge multi-layered post on this one topic, but I suppose I will take the advice of that "equal" master who was by no means superior to us because we are all equal, Jesus:. Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

Your opinion of what is a "superior" culture is completely subjective. You have decided to impose your own judgement on what is a "superior" culture in your view and call those who follow that culture "superior" to others. This is no different from what Hitler did, no matter how you may choose to rationalise it. He believed that his race was the "superior" culture, and one could argue they were, they were technologically advanced, built great infrastructure, brought great gains to the economy all at the expense of society of course.

The fact is, whether you be from a poor or a rich background, whether you are educated or not, whether you are black or white, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, gay, straight, etc. And the bible explicitly states that all humans are born equal. You have placed your own arbitrary divides and judgements on people, and called those who do not live the American way of life "inferior". Now I don't mind if you do this, you are perfectly entitled to. But please don't use Christianity to justify this, because Christianity does not justify your principles as much as you would like it to.

You have some good ideas, but regardless of intention, to classify one human as superior over another is a fascist principle. Feel free to window-dress it or rationalise it however you like, but that is what you are doing whether you realise it or not. People should help others. If I can't fish and someone teaches me to help? What does that make them? Well it makes them better at fishing. Does it make them a superior human? Well in your view it does, in your view, their life is worth more than mine, in your view, God values that person more than he values me. Now it is fine if you have that view, but good luck finding anything in the Bible backing up the idea that's it's okay for you to impose arbitrary judgements on others and pass them off in the name of the Lord.

The fact that people came to America for some unknown reason is not subjective. This is a historical fact. People came to America. If it was worse why did people come to America? Why would you choose to do something that is inferior by your own choice? Why come to America if it is a lesser nation with lesser people? Of course we are all equal as humans. We are all the same in that we are all part of the human family and growing towards truth.

But we simply can't throw an umbrella term over everyone and say it stops there. Some people choose to be assholes and screw people. Some people choose to do something with their lives. There are tons of variables. I mean, are you saying that Hitler is equal to Jesus? Would you rather follow Hitler or Jesus? Which one would make a better parent? Which one offered more value to the world? If they were both equal, they both would have left the world with the same equal value. These elementary debates are nonsensical and something one would find on the idiot box.

Is not a parent superior to their child? Is this even taking it too far? Is it completely racist and sexist to say that your child is a fool compared to you? You have to draw the line somewhere. We are not all equal. Grow up and read a book. I get the feeling that I'm talking to myself most of the time. Yes I agree, some people do choose to be assholes and screw people over, like the corporations you happily support by supporting capitalism.

I never said or even implied Hitler was equal to Jesus. No one is equal to Jesus - "the arrogance of man to place their face on the face of the creator" - Descartes, Christian Philosopher. This is a complete non-point that you have brought up to distract from the true issue I have highlighted. Your initial statement said "lesser humans". You then went on to verify exactly what you meant by claiming that one group of humans is better than another one for arbitrary reasons. This is a fascist principle. It doesn't matter if you don't intend to rule with an iron fist or gas people to death. It's still a fascist ideal, viewing one group of humans as better than another based on culture or race.

Yes, people moved to America. Yes some people believed it was a land of opportunity. Doesn't mean it was. A lot of immigrants were poorly treated, there was racism. It wasn't some golden wonderland as people like to paint it. You are allowed to think it is better, heck, you are even allowed to think the American people are better than others. But don't get offended when I liken it to fascism, because it is the uncomfortable truth.

I could argue that child is "superior" to a parent in that they are more honest, and pure and uncorrupted by the world they find themselves in. It's non-points like this that make your argument seem vacuous and poorly-thought out. Your argument seems somewhat analogous to that of the famous George Orwell quote from "Animal Farm" that "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others".

Obviously, given that you were unable to even see the basic point of my post, I doubt you will be able to see the fundamental contradiction in that statement. But it is the same contradiction that is evident in every single post you make. Telling me to "grow up and read a book" is very immature, given that you have never met me and do not know how much research I have done or literature I have read. I find personal insults to be the hallmark of someone who doesn't have strong arguments to back up their opinion.

Do you not like people pointing out basic flaws in your argument? I suppose you consider yourself "superor" to me in this regard. That you are "enlightened" and I am not. Well I openly admit I don't know everything. My opinion is not absolute, and I do not pass off my subjective view as an objective truth. I considered your views and did not write them off as something you'd find in the "idiot box". May I suggest good sir if you feel you are talking to yourself, then the only reason is because you actually are, and yours is the only opinion you want to hear. You weren't going to convince me with an argument that has obvious glaring flaws in it. I could go on for hours about capitalism. Having the government bailout companies and regulate industries is not capitalism.

So if you're mad about these fascist companies controlling our lives you have socialism and big government to blame for that. Free market economics eliminates government enforced monopolies. We have socialism to thank for keeping these "too big to fails" around. I figured you wouldn't like the Jesus response and would call him analogous to the creator so let's replace him with George Washington. Is Adolf Hitler equal to George Washington? With your response to the child you are starting to get it. Of course a child is more moral, honest, true and less corrupted. They haven't been perverted by the world.

But they are also stupid and naive. Parents on the other hand are usually the opposite. They are a bit more street smart and have been burned a few times. They have wised up to the way things work down here and developed their intelligence. But in so doing they have also become corrupted and lost many of the virtues children possess. Does this make them equal with children? I don't think so. If this were the case children wouldn't need parents. Children would take care of themselves as parents take care of themselves unless of course they LOVE the government to take care of them. But children do need parents. Parents do not need children to survive. But they are still equal? On a spiritual level I could go with it.

But on a physical level here on earth I don't think so. I honestly fail to see how you are unable to make the connection that some people are superior than others. I would much rather have a world of George Washingtons, Thomas Jeffersons, Platos, Einsteins, Newtons, Lincolns, da Vincis, Beethovens and so on than the majority of junk we have right now. I don't mean it in a bad way. I love and respect all people. I just know that they are not of the caliber of the aforementioned names.

I'm not of the quality either. I have the potential to be, we all do. But until we refine ourselves and evolve to a superior level we will still be inferior to them. But if we could help everyone become like these people, yet still let them keep their unique personalities, maybe then we would rid the world of useless wars, useless handouts, useless laws, useless jobs, useless waste and all the other problems we face due to being and having people who are inferior than these people. There are many examples of the Israelites going in and destroying those evil, wicked Canaanites.

We don't need these Canaanites right? Let the greater be victorious over the lesser. Clearly Israel is God's chosen people, right? Canaanites have inferior Gods to the Israelites. The Israelites are obviously better than the Canaanites and all these other "pagan" tribes who worship their idols and inferior Gods, right? The Bible is difficult to use because you can find a quote or section to argue any point you want to argue. Perhaps it may be worth writing a full new post on this topic to really detail all the subtle points and drive my main argument home.

I appreciate your response and take on things, but I just can not find any way to take such a stance. And believe me, I used to take your exact position. The fact you try to persuade that U. A is not capitalist and more importantly refer to a bank bailout as an example is alarming as clearly you havn't got the basic grasp of economics or definition. You may aswell stand on your head and poo out your mouth such is the backward warped view. And it's a good thing you presented an actual point and argument as opposed to just attacking a person via an ad hominem attack, oh wait Anyone truly capitalistic would let these companies go down.

It's socialistic to help the larger 'companies' stay around to implement their ideology. Or that Freddy and Fanny was the only means to secure a loan. I agree in general, but I avoid adopting a hierarchical perspective like superior-inferior thinking because that's not how I see the world. Just a pointer to you, which I hope you will appreciate as it should help you in your pursuit of personal growth. Everything is subjective. I have my perspective, he has his, you have yours. And I clearly disagree with both of you. Could I be wrong?

Could both of you be wrong? You not seeing the world in a hierarchical perspective is you being "subjective". Using a broad safety net of calling something subjective and disregarding it based solely on that point is a terrible way to go about things. Something should be discredited not because it's subjective but because it's incorrect. I appreciate you trying to help me but fail to see how you offered any value whatsoever.

Saying that "everybody immigrate[d] to the new American culture" and therefore American "culture was far superior to other inferior cultures" is wrong. It is actually a minority of people who emigrated to the US. Therefore, since most people did not actually go to America, then we may safely state that America must be inferior to other nations. In a couple of your views I've noticed you've been more open-minded instead of secular minded.

Which is a good thing. I would also have to agree with your opinion on how you view each one. But you also have to understand each one system only works for a certain amount of time depending on population, and growth rate of the state ,and fairness and equality The list goes on forever there's a lot of variables. But i wanted to say that capitalism is a great way to start the economy and make people become more innovative and work harder.

This isn't the problem though its mostly the people who neglect their government. This is why America is starting to become more of a socialist so that it can give the people a right to work, while experiencing freedom at the cost of certain freedoms. Good-side to corporations they create jobs but are so limited once inventions replace manpower. So we get into the problem of jobs, retirement, education, and once more the fucking list goes on Socialism would work only that it would fail like the rest would. I could agree with slayer on a few things but how you put one as superior to the other is a wrong way of doing it. Another way of saying it is "every tea has a different effect and each one has a strong or lighter taste it all depends upon the drinker and his taste.

You can't say one culture is superior to the other. Reasons why people go to the USA is cause of war and a safe opportunity well the list goes on Vietnam war is an example US promised to back south Vietnam up they left them to die. So their alternative was to go to the US not cause it was a superior culture but because they had to survive. Every race and culture is unique in its own way and if you've been looking at our culture lately it's not doing so great mate we have a lot of obese people and if were lucky there's barely any morals to behold in this country.

Are you serious? Only but an idiot would assert that the sayings of Thomas Jefferson in the 'Declaration of Independence' were the voice of God. A more formidable example of 'God' states ummm, in the Bible , that their are vessels of clay and vessels of silver. Their are vessels created for every need, some important, some not. Nothing you couldn't have googled yourself, btw. His point is not how people are at birth, but how they become. I stayed with you until the comments on Africa and America.

As usual, people refer to Africa as a country. It is not. Africa is a series of countries, each having their own form of government, whether Euro-influenced or not. Some are doing better than others. Politics and tribal religions often stem the progress of a nation. Yes, it is materially rich with resources, but, rather than explain why some nations have not benefited from those resources, you blame capitalism as the reason. When the continent and countries were under colonial rule, yes, many of the resources went out to the mother country. But since then, bad deals , corruption and poor government has lead to the bad state when countries find themselves in.

But a few are beginning to emerge, such as Kenya and Nigeria, so hope springs eternal. Then you write America has one of the highest poverty rates in the developed world- because of capitalism. Education, skill, cost-of-living, etc. Many people do receive welfare, but many people who are retired and are senior citizens also fall below the poverty level.

Income levels vary, and government assistance is usually used as a counter-balance. You need to elaborate on your assertion. So, on both ends, capitalism isn't an asset? Your comment on the free market was interesting, but you must admit the free market works better when you live in a society that values property rights and encourages capitalist ventures. Your are right in one sense: " A free market should allow you to consume what you wish to consume, to produce what you wish to produce and to trade what you wish to trade. Drugs, art, currency, etc.

Sadly, even trading in human beings is a multi-billion dollar market. There are many countries that operate under such a market, but they are not capitalist, although even in America, many items are received through the black market circuit. I believe we operate on the assumption that there will always be a black market, there is nothing money can't buy materially, people do profit immensely on both sides, so why rock the boat? As far as the statement you need money to get rich, not true. It depends on ambition, hard work and how far you want to go in pursuing your goal.

In England, it might be difficult, if not impossible, to go from being a cabby to Cambridge but in America, you take a shot. Many people have talent and few succeed. Drive is important. Of course, luck has helped, too. Being in the right market with your product at the right time works great, especially when what you are selling is in demand.

And it is true that you can lose it all, too. But nothing stops your drive, even if you lack the financial capability. As far as "capitalism" goes, I think you need to study it a bit further, and the different forms presented. There's laissez-faire capitalism, the closet to free trade. Unfettered capitalism , such as anarcho-capitalism, where there is no government in a market-based society. And crony capitalism, which, ironically, neither capitalists nor socialists admire. In reality, we live in a mixed system, and, so far, haven't had any mobs wanting to burn down the government, except the usual protesters who will always complain, no matter what.

But under our Constitution, the right to redress the government without fear of arrest or persecution is allowed. I believe people can live with that. The author of that chart obviously knows very little about politics. Go and read text books regarding the above. This chart is no where near accurate, nor does it represent the Democrats and Republicans of the United States. I love how people complain about bias in the chart and then blame everything on the "evil" corporations. This is a ridiculously stupid argument made by the left wing every chance they get. Because societal ills must be the fault of someone or something, and corporations are far enough beyond the understanding of the worker sheep that keep the left-wing in power, regular complaints about the "Evil Corporations" are sufficient to keep ignorant voters in line.

The end result is more left wing socialism, which is precisely the source of the very societal ills blamed on the corporations. I call this "self perpetuating idiocy. Corporations aren't evil. They aren't a "thing" or a "person" or a "being" and, from the perspective of the government, only exist for tax purposes. Corporations must be taxed before profits are distributed to the workers in the form of payroll, which is then also taxed.

And then the workers spend their money and pay sales tax. The remainder goes to fill the coffers of yet more corporations, where the money is taxed yet again for both the new corporation and its workers. The result is a never-ending flurry of taxation on the same money and is exactly equal to inflation unless we find ways to bring wealth in from other nations. Taxation causes inflation. Corporations are owned by the workers. The vast majority of the ownership of corporations is in the hands of the very workers who have been taught to think that the corporations are evil. Ownership is via the Ks that the workers are hoping to see mature because the left-wing Ponzi scheme known as Social Security is completely incapable of providing a return on the investment.

If the workers choose, en masse, to replace the directors of a corporation they certainly can do that. They all have a vote and have the power to do so; but they typically are not capable of thinking for themselves anyway -- look who they voted for! Corporations are simply a paperwork vehicle by which workers pool their money and put it in the hands of managers that they elect, with the hope that the corporation can use the money to turn a profit and return the worker some gain on his investment. The bottom line is that without large corporations those workers will never be able to enjoy retirement in their golden years or rest from a lifetime of labor.

Corporations are not evil. They are the source of America's success. People who rail against corporations are either morons or are disingenuous. If they really believe corporations are evil, let them sell their Ks and IRAs, donate the money to the poor, and live off the Social Security system that they have created. Your thoughts on capitalism are outdated, ones that i have heard before and seem to be the idealist concepts originally penned. During World War I, Mussolini recognized that conventional socialism wasn't working. He saw that nationalism exerted a stronger pull on the working class than proletarian brotherhood.

He also saw that the ferocious opposition of large corporations made socialist revolution difficult. So in , Mussolini came up with an alternative strategy. He called it Fascism. Mussolini described his new movement as a "Third Way" between capitalism and communism. As under communism, the state would exercise dictatorial control over the economy.

But as under capitalism, the corporations would be left in private hands. Hitler followed the same game plan. He openly acknowledged that the Nazi party was "socialist" and that its enemies were the "bourgeoisie" and the "plutocrats" the rich. Like Lenin and Stalin, Hitler eliminated trade unions, and replaced them with his own state-run labor organizations. Like Lenin and Stalin, Hitler hunted down and exterminated rival leftist factions such as the Communists. Like Lenin and Stalin, Hitler waged unrelenting war against small business.

Hitler regarded capitalism as an evil scheme of the Jews and said so in speech after speech. Karl Marx believed likewise. In his essay, "On the Jewish Question," Marx theorized that eliminating Judaism would strike a crippling blow to capitalist exploitation. Hitler put Marx's theory to work in the death camps. I've posted below what sums up the Nazis' party campaign. It is a good summary of the basic lines of Nazi propaganda.

This widely distributed Nazi pamphlet first appeared in Why Are We Socialists? Etwas zum Nachdenken Munich: Verlag Frz. Eher, We are socialists because we see in socialism, that is the union of all citizens, the only chance to maintain our racial inheritance and to regain our political freedom and renew our German state. Socialism is the doctrine of liberation for the working class. It promotes the rise of the fourth class and its incorporation in the political organism of our Fatherland, and is inextricably bound to breaking the present slavery and regaining German freedom.

Socialism, therefore, is not merely a matter of the oppressed class, but a matter for everyone, for freeing the German people from slavery is the goal of contemporary policy. Socialism gains its true form only through a total fighting brotherhood with the forward-striving energies of a newly awakened nationalism. Without nationalism it is nothing, a phantom, a mere theory, a castle in the sky, a book. La caduta dell'Impero romano nel V secolo d. Il papiro divenne difficile da reperire a causa della mancanza di contatti con l' Antico Egitto e la pergamena , che per secoli era stata tenuta in secondo piano, divenne il materiale di scrittura principale. I monasteri continuarono la tradizione scritturale latina dell' Impero romano d'Occidente.

La tradizione e lo stile dell' Impero romano predominavano ancora, ma gradualmente emerse la cultura del libro medievale. I monaci irlandesi introdussero la spaziatura tra le parole nel VII secolo. L'innovazione fu poi adottata anche nei Paesi neolatini come l'Italia , anche se non divenne comune prima del XII secolo. Si ritiene che l'inserimento di spazi tra le parole abbia favorito il passaggio dalla lettura semi-vocalizzata a quella silenziosa. Prima dell'invenzione e della diffusione del torchio tipografico , quasi tutti i libri venivano copiati a mano, il che li rendeva costosi e relativamente rari.

I piccoli monasteri di solito possedevano al massimo qualche decina di libri, forse qualche centinaio quelli di medie dimensioni. Il processo della produzione di un libro era lungo e laborioso. Infine, il libro veniva rilegato dal rilegatore. Esistono testi scritti in rosso o addirittura in oro, e diversi colori venivano utilizzati per le miniature. A volte la pergamena era tutta di colore viola e il testo vi era scritto in oro o argento per esempio, il Codex Argenteus. Per tutto l'Alto Medioevo i libri furono copiati prevalentemente nei monasteri, uno alla volta. Il sistema venne gestito da corporazioni laiche di cartolai , che produssero sia materiale religioso che profano.

Questi libri furono chiamati libri catenati. Vedi illustrazione a margine. L' ebraismo ha mantenuto in vita l'arte dello scriba fino ad oggi. Anche gli arabi produssero e rilegarono libri durante il periodo medievale islamico , sviluppando tecniche avanzate di calligrafia araba , miniatura e legatoria. Col metodo di controllo, solo "gli autori potevano autorizzare le copie, e questo veniva fatto in riunioni pubbliche, in cui il copista leggeva il testo ad alta voce in presenza dell'autore, il quale poi la certificava come precisa". In xilografia , un'immagine a bassorilievo di una pagina intera veniva intagliata su tavolette di legno, inchiostrata e usata per stampare le copie di quella pagina. Questo metodo ebbe origine in Cina , durante la Dinastia Han prima del a.

I monaci o altri che le scrivevano, venivano pagati profumatamente. I primi libri stampati, i singoli fogli e le immagini che furono creati prima del in Europa, sono noti come incunaboli. Folio 14 recto del Vergilius romanus che contiene un ritratto dell'autore Virgilio. Da notare la libreria capsa , il leggio ed il testo scritto senza spazi in capitale rustica. Leggio con libri catenati , Biblioteca Malatestiana di Cesena. Incunabolo del XV secolo. Si noti la copertina lavorata, le borchie d'angolo e i morsetti. Insegnamenti scelti di saggi buddisti , il primo libro stampato con caratteri metallici mobili, Le macchine da stampa a vapore diventarono popolari nel XIX secolo. Queste macchine potevano stampare 1.

Le macchine tipografiche monotipo e linotipo furono introdotte verso la fine del XIX secolo. Hart , la prima biblioteca di versioni elettroniche liberamente riproducibili di libri stampati. I libri a stampa sono prodotti stampando ciascuna imposizione tipografica su un foglio di carta. Le varie segnature vengono rilegate per ottenere il volume. L'apertura delle pagine, specialmente nelle edizioni in brossura , era di solito lasciata al lettore fino agli anni sessanta del XX secolo , mentre ora le segnature vengono rifilate direttamente dalla tipografia.

Nei libri antichi il formato dipende dal numero di piegature che il foglio subisce e, quindi, dal numero di carte e pagine stampate sul foglio. Le "carte di guardia", o risguardi, o sguardie, sono le carte di apertura e chiusura del libro vero e proprio, che collegano materialmente il corpo del libro alla coperta o legatura. Non facendo parte delle segnature , non sono mai contati come pagine.

Si chiama "controguardia" la carta che viene incollata su ciascun "contropiatto" la parte interna del "piatto" della coperta, permettendone il definitivo ancoraggio. Le sguardie sono solitamente di carta diversa da quella dell'interno del volume e possono essere bianche, colorate o decorate con motivi di fantasia nei libri antichi erano marmorizzate. Il colophon o colofone, che chiude il volume, riporta le informazioni essenziali sullo stampatore e sul luogo e la data di stampa. In origine nei manoscritti era costituito dalla firma o subscriptio del copista o dello scriba, e riportava data, luogo e autore del testo; in seguito fu la formula conclusiva dei libri stampati nel XV e XVI secolo, che conteneva, talvolta in inchiostro rosso, il nome dello stampatore, luogo e data di stampa e l' insegna dell'editore.

Sopravvive ancor oggi, soprattutto con la dicitura Finito di stampare. Nel libro antico poteva essere rivestita di svariati materiali: pergamena, cuoio, tela, carta e costituita in legno o cartone. Poteva essere decorata con impressioni a secco o dorature. Ciascuno dei due cartoni che costituiscono la copertina viene chiamato piatto. Nel XIX secolo la coperta acquista una prevalente funzione promozionale. Ha caratterizzato a lungo l'editoria per l'infanzia e oggi, ricoperto da una "sovraccoperta", costituisce il tratto caratteristico delle edizioni maggiori.

Le "alette" o "bandelle" comunemente dette "risvolti di copertina" sono le piegature interne della copertina o della sovraccoperta vedi infra. Generalmente vengono utilizzate per una succinta introduzione al testo e per notizie biografiche essenziali sull'autore. Di norma, riporta le indicazioni di titolo e autore. I libri con copertina cartonata in genere sono rivestiti da una "sovraccoperta". Oltre al taglio "superiore" o di "testa" vi sono il taglio esterno, detto "davanti" o "concavo" , e il taglio inferiore, detto "piede". I tagli possono essere al naturale, decorati o colorati in vario modo. In questi ultimi casi, si parla di "taglio colore", nel passato usati per distinguere i libri religiosi o di valore dalla restante produzione editoriale, utilizzando una spugna imbevuta di inchiostri all' anilina anni del XX secolo.

Riporta solitamente titolo, autore, e editore del libro. Sovente riporta un motto. Assente nel libro antico. I primi incunaboli e manoscritti non avevano il frontespizio, ma si aprivano con una carta bianca con funzione protettiva. Nel XVII secolo cede la parte decorativa all' antiporta e vi compaiono le indicazioni di carattere pubblicitario riferite all'editore, un tempo riservate al colophon. The goal of this site is two fold. First, it is aiming to offer interesting and useful information about WW2. Second, it is to showcase Lava's technical capabilities.

World War II Database. Home » Places » Countries » Russia. They attacked Manchuria, they never stepped foot on the mainland. Plus, there was the small act of two nuclear bombs being dropped on Japan by the U. So I seriously doubt that a six day offensive had a great deal of sway of Japanese leaders. Suvorov says: 15 Feb PM Soviet Tanks was the best in the world thanks god that hitler anderstood Stalins plans and atacked him first preventing Europe or perhaps all planet from the red color. Japan only surendrered after the atomic bombs. Nothing else.

Vechnaya slava geroyam! Does anyone know what the Russian Black Sea assault craft look like??? Not the bronekater, but the troop carriers. Or did the bronekaters carry the raiding force as wwll???!! The Capitol was moved to St. Petersburg in , and once again back to Moscow. Poland, the Baltic States and Finland were conquered by Peter the Great the accuisition of Alaska in more land was conquered Crimean Region expanded to the Caucasus, present day Turkmenistan and Kazachstan in the 's. Tsars also took large parts of China and Manchuria. The CIS's functions are to coordinate its members policies regarding economies,foreign relations,defense,immigration,environmental protection and law enforcement.

Did you know that the Russian ruble is the only legal tender currency. It is illegal to pay for goods and services in US Dollars, except at authorized retail establishments. By the end of the 19th Century Russia was 22,, sq. The only rival at the time was the British Empire. From to Russia grew at a rate of 50 square miles a day. The Tsars ruled Russia with an iron fist and brutal towards its own people, with the fall of the Tsar in the rise of Communism the people continued to suffer under the fist of Stalin million were shot,jailed,tortured,sent to the gulags continued persecution of the Soviet citizen.

After Stalin's death in reforms were slow. The U. In the 's Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev wanted to reform the Soviet Union, changes in greater freedom would start Nationalism and Gorbachev underestimated its impact, and the speed of the nations change, and the rest of Eastern Europe. In many Soviet bloc countries declared independence from Moscow. Shortages of basic household goods and foodstuff were growing changes continued a warning of a coup by those who wanted to keep the old system, and were against reforms.

By December the U. Flag of the U. The color red has always been positive in Russian Culture the word red Krasny is etymologically related with the Russian words for very good and the best, as well as beautiful. The hammer symbolizes the nations industrial workers Proletarians , while the sickle symbolizes the nations agricultural workers Peasants who together formed a State, the red star represents the Communist Party. The old Soviet flag has not been banned in Russia, and it is still being used.

On April 15, Boris Yelysin signed a Presidental Decree giving the Soviet flag called the Victory Banner, after the banner that was raised above the Reichstag on May 1, in Berlin status given similar to the National flag. The difference is that the hammer and sickle have been removed from the flag. On certain holidays, the Victory Banner is flown along with the Russian flag under President Putin, the Victory Banner was adopted as the official flag of the Russian Army.

Today Lenin still remains in his mausoleum on Moscow's Red Square, and the debating still goes on, as what to do with him, his legacy long passed into History, but it should continue. Bill says: 12 Jan PM It is estmated that 94 million people were killed under Communist regimes, but then again we will never really know the total number of people killed. Indroctrination left a legacy of apathy and indefference, the Communists left Russia severely damaged.

Third, I'm going to have to point out some of the areas where I disagree Who Was Joseph Stalins Fault this analysis, and why. The goal of this site Teachers Perceptions two fold. URL consultato Sexual Assault In ZoГ« Hellers Rape On The Campus 10 gennaio Who Was Joseph Stalins Fault are Who Was Joseph Stalins Fault than most people.

Current Viewers: