The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
 TeasersRussian Reaction Blog
/
Ideology

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
🔊 Listen RSS

barcelona-protests

If reports that 700,000 came out in Barcelona are accurate, then Spain in its current borders is likely done for.

This is about as high a percentage of the Barcelona metropolitan area’s 5.4 million as the 500,000 Ukrainians who came out at the height of Euromaidan in the 3.3 million Kiev conglomerate area – and the latter drew from a country of 45 million versus less than 8 million Catalans.

For comparison, the largest of the protests that “shook the Kremlin” during the 2011-12 election season garnered about 100,000 people in a city of well more than 10 million.

I am not writing Spain off entirely. But Madrid’s challenges going ahead are huge.

Around 51% of the all Catalan voters expressed their desire for independence in the recent referendum. After the police violence, and the hardline response of Rajoy and now the King – in itself yet more evidence that Madrid has settled for a police response – this will have surely jumped by another 10% to 20% points.

Good luck trying to arrest the Catalan government under these conditions once they declare independence in a few days. It’s not going to be pretty.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Catalonia, Spain 
🔊 Listen RSS

catalonia-referendum-2017-results

Final results:
YES: 90.1%
NO: 7.9%
Turnout: ~42% of those counted (2,262,424), ~56% if including the confiscated ballot boxes (~770,000) out of 5,343,358 registered voters.

Assuming that the vote in “repressed” polling stations was similar, you can turnout * YES = ~51% support for independence, which tallies exactly with the last poll on the basis of which turnout was expected at 62% * expected 83% for YES = ~51%.

The police violence must have merely lowered turnout by around 7% points while raising the YES share of the vote by an analogous amount. That is, it accomplished precisely nothing, while generating horrific headlines and almost certainly hardening Catalan attitudes towards Madrid (which will be expressed soon enough).

Though the competition is certainly stiff, could Rajoy be the single most feckless Western leader?

I will defend Rajoy’s widely-panned “tone-deaf” speech. While the heavy-handed response to the referendum was a very bad idea, his speech, with its clear and unequivocal expression of support for the Guardia Civil, was not.

50% of all Catalan voters were already going to vote Yes, and after today’s events, they must have gained another 10% or 20% points. The local police refuse to obey central commands. They are for all intents and purposes now “lost” to Spain, at least for the time being.

Very soon the time will come when the Catalonian parliament declares independence. At that point, if Spain wishes to remain whole, there will have to be mass arrests of their government and replacement with a caretaker administration. The security forces tasked with carrying this out must be absolutely loyal for the operation to be successful. The sense that the political elites have their backs is a prerequisite of police loyalty. If they feel that they are going to be stabbed in the back by weak politicians concerned at the first signs of pressure, then they are not going to be able to fulfill their orders with the requisite degree of decisiveness and ruthlessness. They are instead going to fold once their encounter serious resistance and Madrid will have no choice but to make its peace with an independent Catalonia.

This is what happened with Yanukovych in the Ukraine in 2013-14, who stabbed the security men charged with keeping his regime in power in the back by refusing to provide them support once things got too hot. This totally demoralized them and ensured the triumph of the Euromaidan.

In opinion polls, Spaniards consistently tie with Swedes for the most liberal positions in areas like LGBT and immigration in Europe. But today it’s as if they’ve all gone hardcore Falangist on Catalan separatism, at least judging from the Spanish responses to the Catalonia discussion on /r/europe. Not really much to say here, just an observation. I assume there remain “triggers” such as seeing the prospect of rebellion that awaken primal reflexes in even the most derooted peoples.

So far as Western countries go, I suppose Spain deserves this far less than most. It was the only major Western country not to recognize Kosovo, even though in most other respects it toed the American line on bombing Serbia, the embargo, no-fly zone, etc. Still, credit where it’s due.

Eurocrats and Globalism Inc. are predictably unanimous in opposing Catalan separatism. This is perfectly understandable. Spain is part of NATO. The loss of Spain’s biggest donor region will hit its revenues and perhaps reignite its simmering debt crisis.

Curiously, the Alt Right (Spencer wing) is also skeptical about Catalonia. As with their opposition to Brexit, they decry the indulgence of petty nationalisms as obstacles to global white unity; besides, as they point out, Catalonia is liberal-leftist even by Spanish standards, so why should nationalists support them anyway? So that they can invite in refugees even faster? This is, of course, in their eyes buttressed by Catalonia’s historical role as the heartland of the Republican government during the Spanish Civil War.

Leaving aside the merits of their ideological slant, this begs a couple of counter-arguments. First, does this mean that only “based” nations should have a right to national self-determination? Because there are very few such European countries left, anyway. Second, as Alt Left points out, getting rid of political dead weight (e.g. California in the US) would actually raise the ability of the rest of the country to push forwards the sort of political change that the Alt Right advocates.

At a formal level, it need hardly be said that Russia needs to maintain the principle of absolute state sovereignty with respect to Madrid. However, it is also evidently in its interests for its soft power interests to approach the Catalan referendum with “understanding.” After all, if the Catalonia referendum does carry a certain legitimacy, then how are the repeated referendums for greater autonomy and/or independence any less so? Who are Westerners who shut down a peaceful vote with rubber bullets to lecture Russia about democracy anyway?

Besides, the one certitude in our age of Russian Hackers and Fake News is that Russia is going to be held responsible anyway. Putin is no longer just the God of the Ukraine, responsible for all its mishaps and zradas; he is now Lord and Master of the American Empire and its satellites, puppetting everything and everyone from Drumpf and the Alt Right to BLM and Take the Knee and Catalan separatists. Since it’s doing time anyway, Russia might as well start doing the crime.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Color Revolution, Spain 
🔊 Listen RSS

map-germany-elections-2017-afd

Yet more evidence for the theory that Communism “deep froze” social attitudes.

Now yes, you can rejoinder with a comparison to Nazi voting patterns.

But look…

1. The borders of the former DDR are very cleanly delineated. The AfD’s share of the vote there ranged from 19% in Mecklenburg-Vorprommern to 27% in Saxony. In contrast, they only got 12% in Bavaria, the most nationalist Wessie state.

State[8] results in % CDU/CSU SPD AfD FDP LINKE GRÜNE all others
Saxony 26.9 10.5 27.0 8.2 16.1 4.6 6.7
Thuringia 28.8 13.2 22.7 7.8 16.9 4.1 6.5
Brandenburg 26.7 17.6 20.2 7.1 17.2 5.0 6.3
Saxony-Anhalt 30.3 15.2 19.6 7.8 17.8 3.7 5.7
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 33.1 15.1 18.6 6.2 17.8 4.3 4.9
Bavaria 38.8 15.3 12.4 10.2 6.1 9.8 7.5
Baden-Württemberg 34.4 16.4 12.2 12.7 6.4 13.5 4.5
Berlin 22.7 17.9 12.0 8.9 18.8 12.6 7.0
Hesse 30.9 23.5 11.9 11.6 8.1 9.7 4.4
Rhineland-Palatinate 35.9 24.2 11.2 10.4 6.8 7.6 3.9
Saarland 32.4 27.2 10.1 7.6 12.9 6.0 3.9
Bremen 25.0 26.3 10.0 9.3 13.5 11.0 4.3
North Rhine-Westphalia 32.6 26.0 9.4 13.1 7.5 7.6 3.8
Lower Saxony 34.9 27.4 9.1 9.3 6.9 8.7 3.6
Schleswig-Holstein 34.0 23.3 8.2 12.6 7.3 12.0 2.7
Hamburg 27.2 23.5 7.8 10.8 12.2 13.9 4.5

2. While the share of the vote for the Nazis in March 1933 did indeed rise from the west and south to the north and east, it was a gradual incline, not a cliff.

map-germany-elections-1933-march

Share of the Nazi vote in March 1933.

And even this map is to a large extent an artifact of the bloc voting habits of German Catholics, most of them concentrated in the south and west, and of whom almost half traditionally voted for the Center Party.

And there was also the Bavarian People’s Party locking away 28% of the vote in Bavaria.

Meanwhile, Saxony – the most pro-AfD state in Germany today – was actually far more Leftist than average in 1933. Communists and Social Democrats got a combined 48% of the vote there, relative to the national average of 37%.

NSDAP DNPP Party Center SPD CNG The Bavarian People’s Party Other
Total 43.91% 7.97% 11.25% 18.25% 12.32% 2.73% 3.63%
Prussia 43.73% 9.05% 14.22% 17.01% 13.21% 2.78%
Bavaria 43.03% 4.11% 3.01% 15.53% 6.27% 24.21% 3.84%
Lower Saxony 44.96% 6.52% 1.25% 26.25% 16.49% 4.53%
Württemberg 42.00% 12.41% 16.94% 15.03% 9.33% 4.29%
Baden 45.36% 3.64% 25.35% 11.93% 9.75% 3.97%
Thuringia 47.60% 12.41% 1.19% 20.62% 15.28% 2.90%
Hessen 43.73% 2.85% 13.59% 21.70% 10.88% 7.25%
Hamburg 38.85% 7.99% 1.92% 26.90% 17.59% 6.75%
Mecklenburg-Schwerin 48.54% 16.79% 0.79% 24.51% 7.30% 2.07%
Oldenburg 46.50% 11.39% 14.76% 18.17% 6.40% 2.78%
Braunschweig 49.05% 7.61% 1.71% 30.45% 8.77% 2.41%
Anhalt 46.11% 8.39% 1.31% 30.78% 11.43% 1.98%
Bremen 32.65% 14.47% 2.29% 30.35% 13.17% 7.07%
Lippe-Detmold 47.09% 6.88% 2.41% 28.00% 8.24% 7.38%
Lübeck 42.79% 5.64% 1.06% 38.27% 8.17% 4.07%
Mecklenburg-Strelitz 51.61% 15.90% 0.73% 22.57% 7.12% 2.07%
Waldeck 70.85% 9.34% 2.16% 10.47% 3.27% 3.91%
Schaumburg-Lippe 43.36% 7.79% 0.48% 39.07% 5.66% 3.64%

So yes, I’m pretty skeptical of the Jaymannian notion that there are deep-grained HBD differences that massively predispose East Germans to far right politics.

Specific circumstances explain things far better.

In 1933: Poorer, non-Catholic, less industrialized, possibly less bright (Saxony seems to have a higher IQ than northern East Germany) regions voted for the Nazis.

In 2017: The territories of the former DDR that were not exposed to decades of Hollywood diversity propaganda voted for the AfD.

In other words, the Ossies are politically just like the Visegrad nations (Poland, Hungary, Czechia, etc.) on this particular question. Even though the social differences within this general region – e.g. atheist in the DDR and Czechia, with nudism and a penchant for porn thrown in, respectively; highly prudish and conservative in Poland – are otherwise quite considerable.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Elections, Germany 
🔊 Listen RSS

The other day the Chechen social media page vk.com/karfagen was banned.

This is not surprising, considering that it was genuinely extremist from head to toe, though it is perhaps telling of the Russian state’s priorities that it took longer for Roskomnadzor to catch onto them than it did for it to illegally block the moderate Russian nationalist website Sputnik i Pogrom.

The ban came a few hours after a Meduza article by Daniil Turovsky on the webside, which was translated into English by Kevin Rothrock. The website, allegedly run by a 19 year old Chechen student, was devoted to harassing young women who shared “immoral” photos on social media, including posting their addresses and relatives’ contact details. If that resulted in honor killings, that’s just too bad, one of the Carthage activists shouted in all caps: “IF I FIND OUT THAT SOME VAINAKH FAMILY HAS KILLED THEIR OWN DAUGHTER FOR SOME SERIOUS OFFENSE, THEN I WILL STAND UP AND APPLAUD, BECAUSE IT’S THE RIGHT THING TO DO.” Women were forbidden from commenting.

Apart from doing their bit to make White Sharia real in Chechnya, the Carthage activists also embraced a sort of horseshoe theory Islamism (“You’re trying to distort our religion, publicly promoting the slogan ‘Islam is a religion of peace and good’”), as well as ultranationalist rhetoric. As with women, this extended to website administration; a tenth of the user base identified as Russians were kicked out in September. This is connected with Carthage billing itself as a “youth movement for the purification of the Vainakh people.” They did not mince words about their opinions of the Russian kuffar, who “pair off with anyone they want like animals” and “conceive children in the nightclub toilets.” Although they don’t promote Chechen independence, that is clearly driven by pragmatic reasons: “Chechnya is currently a subject of the Russian Federation, and it would be foolish of me to promote separatism among the masses.”

Now one might perhaps rejoinder that these are just some isolated nutjobs. One can mention the usual canard that there are Christian and non-Chechen extremists too.

But here’s the key difference: The 55,000 membership of Carthage on Vkontakte at the time of its closure represents 3.5% of all the Chechens in Russia.

For an online community where joining is entirely voluntary – i.e., the opposite of Kadyrov’s rallies – and not even entirely riskless, given the propensity of the most outspoken Islamists to be “disappeared” within Chechnya, these are astounding figures.

For comparison, the far right Ukrainian organization Right Sector on vk.com also has around 50,000 people while drawing from 30 times the population. Sputnik i Pogrom itself, perhaps the most popular Russian “extremist” resource, has around 110,000 supporters on that platform.

Even “normie” Ukrainian mass movements that dominated the headlines for months on end in 2013-2014 such as Euromaidan and Antimaidan still have 600,000 and 500,000 supporters, respectively, constituting about 1% of Ukraine’s population each, despite both movements also having a substantial international component.

Nor is this confined to Chechnya; earlier this year, Meduza had also reported on Chechen thot patrols harassing and threatening Chechen women who got too friendly with the kuffar, a story that got picked up in the Western alternate media. Carthage also had plans to expand to Ingushetia and Dagestan, at least before it was shut down. (There is also a Tatar “analogue” to Carthage called TTM, which remains accessible to date, though it only has 1,200 followers and my cursory examination of it suggests it’s more in the vein of /pol/-style trolling than hardcore Islamist nationalism).

All of this indicates that Carthage is the genuine voice of the Chechen people, as grassroots as the 1.8% interethnic marriage rates of Chechen women in Russia.

Once the Putin-Kadyrov “special relationship” breaks down due to political or actuarial factors, a new generation of skinny jeans wearing, organic food court-frequenting Russians will have to reenter political negotiations with a new generation of young, Internet-savvy Chechens who are more into stonings for adultery in the Caucasus Emirate.

 
🔊 Listen RSS

Liberal electoral victories in Moscow compared to the prevalence of those ultimate SWPL status symbols, bike sharing stations…

moscow-elections-2017-and-bicycles

… the upscale organic food store Azbuka Vkusa…

moscow-elections-2017-and-azbuka-vkusa

… and concentrations of nomenklatura housing as of 1989.

moscow-elections-2017-and-nomenklatura

At first glance, one of these is not like the others.

But that’s not all that surprising.

Dig into the family histories of the Russian liberals, as they are disparagingly called, and all sorts of Communist and chekist skeletons tumble out of the closet.

  • Evgenia Albats (liberal enforcer, sort of like a one-woman SPLC) – Grandfather a candidate member of the Communist Party, arrested and shot in 1937.
  • Konstantin Borovoy (simply a clinical Russophobe on Novodvorskaya’s level) – Mother was secretary of the “Association of Proletarian Writers,” cooperated with the KGB.
  • Alexey Venediktov (head of Echo of Moscow) – Grandfather was a military prosecutor. From the award handed out to him: “He carried out a ruthless struggle with turncoats, spies, and traitors against the Motherland; dozens of traitors were judged by him and sentenced to their deserved punishment.”
  • Maria Gaidar (went to Ukraine after Euromaidan) – Her father was an editor of political economy in the Communist Party journal, “Communist.” Grandfather was head of the military section of Pravda.
  • Vasily Gatov (gained fame for an unsolicited apology for the Crimean deportations on behalf of Russia) – Grandfather was the fourth in the chain of command of the NKVD; head of the Senior Officer School of the NKVD – and headed the operation to resettle the Crimean Tatars.
  • Masha Gessen (lesbian Jewish feminist who hates Putin for the lack of European cheese in Moscow) – Grandmother worked for the MGB (predecessor to the KGB) as a telegram censor in Moscow.
  • Dmitry Gudkov (anti-Crimean socialist) – Father worked in the KGB in the 1980s.
  • Irena Lesnevskaya (pro-Ukraine activist) – Grandfather was a Bolshevik revolutionary and friend of Dzerzhinsky; shot in the 1930s.
  • Andrey Piontkovsky (anti-Putin activist who called on NATO to include a nuclear strike against the Russian leadership as part of its military doctrine_ – Grandfather was a judge in the Supreme Court of the USSR during the late Stalin period from 1946-51.
  • Ilya Ponomarev (anti-Crimea activist, emigre deputy wanted for fraud over absurdly renumerated lectures at Skolkovo) – Nephew of a candidate to the Politburo, who also occupied some other prestigious positions.
  • Vyacheslav Rabinovich (failed investor who has predicted a dozen of the Russian economy’s past zero economic collapses) – Grandfather was one of the first Komsomol members, served in the Cheka, engaged in accusations and counter-accusations of “Menshevism” and other thoughtcrimes in the 1930s; spent the 1948-55 period in prison as a result.
  • Mark Feygin (Pussy Riot’s lawyer who fails his cases and attacks his clients when they question his team’s competence) – Granduncle one of the founders of the Komsomol; died during the crushing of the Kronstadt mutiny in 1921.

In other words, just the sort of fine, upstanding people you’d want to replace Putin and rule Russia (if you hate it).

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Communism, Moscow, Society 
🔊 Listen RSS

moscow-elections-2017

On September 10 there was a round of gubernatorial elections in Russia, as well as elections to local councils in Moscow.

There’s a lot of confusion on account of whether it was a victory for United Russia.

On the one hand, the low turnout – which traditionally favors more motivated liberals – allowed them to outright win most of the prestigious areas of Moscow.

moscow-elections-2017-and-bicycles

Amazing correlation between liberal victories (green) and bike sharing stations, that ultimate SWPL symbol.

On the other hand, United Russia did score 76% even in Moscow, gaining 1,150 deputies out 1,500. In contrast, liberal opposition, with 180 deputies, didn’t even manage to gather enough mandates to pass the municipal filter for participation in the Mayoral elections in September 2018. Since municipal councils in Moscow are toothless, having no access to the city budget and answering for little more than park benches, this would seem to be irrelevant.

That said, one thing that most people agree on is that this was a defeat for Navalny. He had distanced himself from the Moscow elections, not out of ideological reasons but personal ones; his deputy Leonid Volkov had fallen out with Maxim Kats, a liberal hipster figurehead who went on to unite with Dmitry Gudkov to form the United Democrats, the anti-Putin opposition bloc that went on to sweep SWPLy Moscow in close cooperation with Yavlinsky’s Yabloko. Incidentally, their positions are radically anti-Russian, more so even than Navalny’s; according to insider accounts, disavowal of Crimea – to say nothing of the Donbass – was a hard condition of entry into their coalition. Although this performance might not be that impressive in the large picture, it still probably counts for more than the number of Navalny’s YouTube views.

How important is this development? Probably, not very.

First, turnout was only 15%, and this naturally favored the liberals, who are more motivated than average.

Second, this pattern of voting is in any case a long-established pattern going back to the 1990s, in which the better educated, higher social status (higher IQ, in short) districts vote more strongly for liberal candidates. As I have long pointed out, the problem of very hostile elites is a problem common to both Russia and America.

See the data analysis by Emil Kirkegaard here:

moscow-elections-putin-phd

In the less prestigious, lower IQ, more prole areas, United Russia came out well ahead. My own district is pretty representative in this respect.

zhulebino-2017-elections

In terms of the average share of the vote of each political faction (you could vote for up to five people), United Russia got ~1,500, the liberals ~700, the commies ~700, and the nationalists ~300.

Personally I voted for two LDPR candidates, one from Rodina, and some green/ecological chick (she was not in United Russia, a commie, or a liberal traitor, so that was fine by me).

On the one hand, these results are still pretty encouraging; Moscow’s peripheries still reject the Westernist cargo cult, unlike the coddled hipsters of Central Moscow, who hate Russia despite everything that Mayor Sobyanin has done for them in transforming their living spaces into the gentrified SWPL urbanist paradise that they have always yearned for. But is United Russia actually a political force in its own right, or is it just a facade for normies who don’t want to “rock the boat,” and which will fold as quickly as did the Party of Regions in the Ukraine when the pedal is put to the metal? If it’s the latter, with liberals and commies running neck and neck, and nationalists basically out of the picture, the prospects for Russia will be grim in the event of a color revolution.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Moscow, Politics, Russia 
🔊 Listen RSS

Gallup: New Index Shows Least-, Most-Accepting Countries for Migrants

The least acceptive countries are in Eastern Europe, constituting nine of the top ten – the sole exception is Israel.

The most positive country is Iceland, with Sweden in 7th place.

Japan isn’t really the center of “basedness” that that dissident right paints it as; it is still in the immigration-welcoming First World cluster, though towards the more skeptical end of the spectrum.

The full list is attached below.

It is based on positive/negative responses to the following three questions:

  1. Immigrants living in this country
  2. An immigrant becoming your neighbor
  3. An immigrant marrying one of your close relatives

Immigration acceptance is positive correlated with education, youth, and higher incomes.

Curiously, the Russian sphere is the major exception that:

The CIS region is a notable exception to each of these global patterns — acceptance is low regardless of education, generation, income level, or whether residents live in urban or rural areas. However, in the CIS, those with less education tend to be slightly more accepting.

Also:

But in some places, who these migrants are may factor more heavily into whether they are accepted. For example, in Russia, where the index score is among the lowest in the world, more than 40% of residents say “it depends” to each of the questions.

This makes a lot of sense. It is strange that West European countries make fewer such distinctions.

***

Migrant Acceptance Index
Iceland 8.26
New Zealand 8.25
Rwanda 8.16
Sierra Leone 8.05
Mali 8.03
Australia 7.98
Sweden 7.92
Nigeria 7.76
Burkina Faso 7.74
Ireland 7.74
Norway 7.73
Ivory Coast 7.71
Benin 7.67
Luxembourg 7.54
Netherlands 7.46
Bangladesh 7.45
Spain 7.44
United States 7.27
Chad 7.26
Albania 7.22
Switzerland 7.21
Senegal 7.17
Germany 7.09
Denmark 7.09
Congo (Kinshasa) 7.05
Guinea 7.01
Togo 6.96
Ghana 6.91
Venezuela 6.82
Congo (Brazzaville) 6.81
Taiwan 6.8
Philippines 6.77
Uruguay 6.77
Zimbabwe 6.7
Lesotho 6.65
Portugal 6.65
Niger 6.64
United Kingdom 6.61
Finland 6.58
Kenya 6.51
Argentina 6.51
Paraguay 6.5
Italy 6.49
South Korea 6.49
Tunisia 6.47
France 6.46
Japan 6.42
Morocco 6.39
Saudi Arabia 6.39
Brazil 6.38
Cameroon 6.36
Central African Republic 6.36
Peru 6.33
Nepal 6.28
Belgium 6.16
Liberia 6.14
Colombia 6.13
Ecuador 6.13
Gabon 6.12
Malawi 6.1
Vietnam 6.08
Austria 6.06
Dominican Republic 6.03
Nicaragua 6
Hong Kong 5.89
Libya 5.79
United Arab Emirates 5.79
Armenia 5.78
El Salvador 5.73
South Sudan 5.63
Mauritius 5.58
Uganda 5.45
Costa Rica 5.44
Bolivia 5.42
Cyprus 5.41
Turkmenistan 5.36
Haiti 5.31
Mauritania 5.29
Madagascar 5.24
Singapore 5.21
Ethiopia 5.19
Chile 5.17
Zambia 5.15
Honduras 5.15
China 5.11
Botswana 5.1
Somalia 4.99
South Africa 4.98
Malta 4.95
India 4.9
Uzbekistan 4.9
Kuwait 4.85
Tanzania 4.82
Mexico 4.75
Northern Cyprus 4.66
Kyrgyzstan 4.59
Guatemala 4.59
Slovenia 4.42
Tajikistan 4.39
Panama 4.36
Azerbaijan 4.34
Kazakhstan 4.28
Kosovo 4.17
Iran 3.95
Indonesia 3.93
Yemen 3.93
Palestinian Territories 3.9
Lebanon 3.89
Moldova 3.8
Cambodia 3.65
Egypt 3.5
Iraq 3.42
Belarus 3.38
Greece 3.34
Poland 3.31
Turkey 3.27
Ukraine 3.15
Georgia 3.05
Jordan 2.99
Mongolia 2.99
Myanmar 2.96
Romania 2.93
Lithuania 2.72
Bosnia and Herzegovina 2.71
Thailand 2.69
Russia 2.6
Afghanistan 2.51
Pakistan 2.47
Bulgaria 2.42
Croatia 2.39
Estonia 2.37
Czech Republic 2.26
Latvia 2.04
Israel 1.87
Slovakia 1.83
Serbia 1.8
Hungary 1.69
Montenegro 1.63
Macedonia 1.47

.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Immigration, Opinion Poll 
🔊 Listen RSS

So Bannon the Cannon has been… fired.

All this time you were thinking you were voting against Zuckerberg’s vision…

zuckerberg-vision

… you were actually voting for Kushner’s.

kushner-vision

Goy, bye!

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Donald Trump, Steve Bannon, United States 
🔊 Listen RSS

Russia has half the world’s Neo-Nazis

This claim appears to date to a 2007 ABC News report about far right violence in Russia:

In a country that lost more people defeating the Nazis than any other country, there are now an estimated 50,000 to 70,000 neo-Nazis, half of the world’s total. They even have supporters in parliament.

We know that because we have Neo-Nazi censuses.

Oh wait, we don’t.

No original sources are cited, there are no hints as to who qualifies to be a Neo-Nazi, and ABC News had a pronounced anti-Russian agenda even by Western media standards (they were banned from continuing to work in Russia after having an interview with the Chechen terrorist Shamil Basayev in 2005).

Russia does of course have quite a few Neo-Nazis, but they only constitute a small percentage of nationalists in general. This might be a hard concept for two-bit journalists who are convinced that all the Charlottesville “Unite the Right” protesters, or even Donald Trump voters, are Nazis, but in the real world definitions are important and Russian Neo-Nazism always has been, and remains, a numerically marginal movement.

Russians/(Poles, Slavs, etc.) have to be are stupid/insane/historically illiterate to be Nazis, don’t they realize the Nazis killed 27 million of them?

I never really understood how this is even an argument.

Presumably, to the extent they harbor any genocidal fantasies, Russian (Polish, etc.) Neo-Nazis would much sooner want to kill 27 million foreigners, not 27 million of their own. (They aren’t Communists, after all, whose democidal ambitions are primarily aimed at their own people).

The Holocaust regardless, the Jews constructed the most unapologetically ethnonationalist state in the First World; that very event is not infrequently cited as one of the reasons that the Jews need a Jewish state.

So clearly the mere fact of having suffered from German Nazis constitutes no logical impediment to adopting elements of Nazi policy for what they consider to be in service of their own people. Nazism is national socialism, after all; it’s not the NSDAP (which specifies German workers) that they subscribe to.

On this note, here is one additional argument that I encountered on the (now defunct) blog of a Russian Neo-Nazi. I don’t endorse it, but it’s interesting and relevant.

To loosely paraphrase yarowrath: Both Western leaders and the highly Jewish Kiev regime today are perfectly fine using openly Neo-Nazi batallions to prevent Russians from seceding from the Ukraine (a state that only exists thanks to the Bolsheviks). However, they label you a Russian troll just for noticing the symbology on Azov’s flag.

Now considering that Russians:

  • Don’t have any “white guilt” from colonialism, having done more than anyone to end it (to the extent that the Kalashnikov graces the flags of Mozambique and Hezbollah);
  • Suffered more than anyone except the Jews from Hitler;
  • Did not themselves participate in the Holocaust, but did more than anyone else to stop it;
  • The Jews themselves haven’t shown much hesitancy about borrowing from Nazism in service of their interests;

One can argue that Russians have more of a moral right to dispassionately assess Hitler, without shame or condemnation, and adopt those of his ideas that are good and useful than well nigh any other people.

Russian Neo-Nazis all (1) support Ukraine against Kremlin mongolo-katsaps OR (2) hate Ukraine and fight for Putler.

This is a rather strange myth since it takes the form of a binary. But both versions are equally wrong.

In reality, the War in the Donbass has split the Neo-Nazis.

The more explicitly Nordicist elements of the Russian Neo-Nazis supported Ukraine, and a number of them went off to fight with Azov.

The rest of the Neo-Nazis supported the insurrection in the Donbass, and even formed their own batallion, Rusich.

By far the most famous Nazi figure in Russia is Tesak (Maxim Martsinkevich), a skinhead of Polish-Russian ancestry who is perhaps most notable for having invented the concept of Nazi ironic trolling a decade ahead of /pol/ and The Daily Stormer. His fans, the most numerous of any Russian Neo-Nazi, specialized in street actions that ranged from funny slapstick affairs to highly violent, illegal, and disgusting. Following the crackdown on his group in July 2014 (which saw Tesak jailed for 10 years this year), this cluster has turned strongly anti-Kremlin and many of their members have jaunted off to the Ukraine.

However, if support for the Ukraine vs. Novorossiya was perhaps 70-30% amongst Russian Neo-Nazis in 2014, by now those ratios have reversed.

Reading their forums as early as 2015, the general sentiment amongst them was that they had been betrayed and used by ZOG.

Poroshenko and his clique obviously and understandably cared much more for the opinions of besuited businessmen and bureacrats than tatted up stormers, and many of the Russian Neo-Nazis who had gone into exile in Ukraine for the cause of the white race were even failing to get residency permits, let alone Ukrainian citizenship, putting them at risk of deportation back to a Russian jail.

That said, regardless of their current opinions on Novorossiya and Ukraine, which are indeed mixed, Russian Neo-Nazis do more or less uniformly detest Putin, as they always have.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Nazism, Russia 
🔊 Listen RSS

The Cville Cyberpurge

Europe famously has hate speech laws, which run the gamut from banning Nazi propaganda to criticizing mass immigration.

Russia’s version of it is Article 282, which has been used on everyone from genuine Neo-Nazis and radical Islamists to the nationalist pundit Konstantin Krylov for stating that it’s “time to do away with this strange economic model [of federal subsidies to the Caucasus]“.

And yet if the United States has an exceptional degree of respect for absolute freedom of speech, encodified in the First Amendment, this is mitigated by its organic “Society 282,” as the Russian nationalist Egor Prosvirnin has poetically called it.

In the days the Unite the Rite march in Charlottesville, in which one antifa counter-protester was killed by a Neo-Nazi going postal with his car (the MSM version of events; reality might be rather different), Society 282 has gone on a veritable purge of Alt Right and Dissident Right content on cyberspace.

Too many people to name have been banned from Twitter.

Pax Dickinson is the most prominent one to come to mind. He was an easy target, since he has already been removed from the platform several times, though Twitter usually waits for new accounts to (re)gain popularity before kicking them back into purgatory. The trigger for the latest banning might have been his detailed, first-hand coverage of the Charlottesville rally, which features evidence that the Virginia State Policy pursued a strategy of corraling Alt Right protesters into antifa in a deliberate attempt to provoke violence.

The Alt Right blogger Christopher Cantwall has been banned from Facebook, Paypal, Mailchimp, and… OkCupid, just for good measure.

PayPal has banned American Renaissance, which had nothing to do with Unite the Right.

It is two particular cases, however, that are perhaps the most illustrative – and foreboding, at least for those who still value “freeze peach” (to use the derogatory antifa term).

VDARE

First off, Paypal has banned VDARE from using its services. Now VDARE is far more “dissident Right” than it is Alt Right. Two of the biggest names there are John Derbyshire and Steve Sailer.

John Derbyshire is an elderly English essayist, very milquetoast in manners, who campaigns againt mass immigration and enforced diversity in his columns; but heavens forbid those proles take their concerns to the streets (“what an unsavory bunch!“).

And Steve Sailer… well, does he even need an intro, here of all places? His ideology is “citizenism,” which is essentially civic nationalism informed by HBD realism.

And, as many of you know, both are core contributors to this very webzine, The Unz Review.

This is rather portentuous, since the Unz Review/VDARE cluster is, between Sailer, James Thompson, a bevy of other dissident right figures, and the ghost of Razib Khan, a central hub of HBD realistic commentary on the web. On the great map of the Dark Enlightement and the Alt Right, it is also surely the closest to political “normalcy” on the Great Chain of Respectability.

Any serious moves on the part of Society 282 and tech giants against this cluster will surely herald the onset of full-fledged Lysenkoism in the US.

The Daily Stormer

I suspect The Daily Stormer is to the Alt Right/Dissident Right what normie journalists are to Steve Sailer: A good percentage of them read it, but far fewer want to admit it.

Insane, over the top Nazi shtick; it’s not much of an exaggeration to say Andrew Anglin is more hardcore than Hitler. It’s repulsive, to be sure, but also morbidly enchanting. Because Anglin is one heck of a funny writer – you have to be somewhat inured to having your moral sensibilities offended to really appreciate it, but many of his people are /pol/ veterans, after all. It’s not hard to see why, at close to 3 million monthly visits, it has far eclipsed the weather-related forum to become by far the most popular website on the Neo-Nazi Right.

Curiously, unlike the older wehraboo generation of Nazis, Anglin is strongly pro-Russian and pro-Putin – and it’s not even on account of ignorance about what Putin actually represents:

Here’s the thing. Vladimir Putin isn’t even really a fascist. He’s a conservative populist leader who’s doing his best to improve Russia’s situation by whatever means are necessary. He promotes traditional values because that’s what will hold the nation together.
He’s not even an ethnic nationalist, in the full sense of the term; Russia isn’t a nation, it’s a medieval-type multi-ethnic empire, including Moslems, Jews and other non-Whites. And Putin has no intention of changing that fact.
But he’s running a multi-ethnic state the way it needs to be run: by violently suppressing all rebellion, encouraging national pride, keeping the different ethnic groups mostly separated geographically (outside of Moscow) and closely monitoring all dissident groups.

Though his second in command and technical manager, Andrew Auernheimer (the hacker troll known as “weev”) is… another matter.

weev-on-ukraine

Though this certainly hasn’t stopped the presstitutes from trying to put their own spin on things:

… [Andrew Auernheimer] currently lives in Ukraine and has called on its pro-western, anti-Putin president, Petro Poroshenko, to step down.

Anyhow, the stormers have had such a barrage of punishment unleashed upon them by the powers that be that they have been effectively “unpersoned” from the Internet in the past few days.

(1) DNS service provider GoDaddy gave The Daily Stormer a one day warning to take their business elsewhere.

(2) They took it to Google of all places, which promptly suspended service within a couple of hours.

(3) They then tried dailystormer.wang, but the “sneaky, bucktoothed Chinese” made sure that didn’t last long.

(4) The content delivery network Cloudflare ceased providing service, making the site vulnerable to DDoS attacks that promptly shut it down.

It is noteworthy that Cloudflare has long boasted of its absolute commitment to content neutrality, even being criticized for providing support to Islamic terrorist groups.

But a group of Neo-Nazis who don’t appear to have killed anybody to date – apart, perhaps, from Russians in Ukraine, if weev’s boasts are to be believed, but Hillary McCain and the Blue Checkmarks don’t consider them to be humans anyway – are 1,488 negative social justice karma points too much for them.

So much so that they are willing to invalidate their one truly unique selling point for the sake of virtue signalling.

(5) When Cloudflare service ended, The Daily Stormer’s hosting provider was revealed to have been Digital Ocean, which promptly ditched them as well.

daily-stormer-putler-trump(6) Finally, they went to the based Putlerreich… which promptly fobbed them off as well.

The T-Journal has the story.

The Stormers registered dailystormer.ru with Ru-Center on August 15. A day later, the Russian web censor Roskomnadzor sent them a letter requested them to stop delegating the domain in the .ru zone.

However, this had no legal force, since it was not backed up by a court judgment; it not realistic to procure it on such short notice. Therefore, it was something that the Russian registrar had done on its own initiative.

Not that it curried Russia favor with any of the Blue Checkmarks.

blue-checkmarks-on-daily-stormer

While the initial reports of The Daily Stormer joining back up with Putler got tens of thousands of RT’s, the response to the follow-up that it was kicked out within a day was… *crickets*.

The Ascent of Society 282

There are three big forces that are driving the end of the end of the classical liberal idea of freedom of speech as a foundational principle in the United States.

Generational change

Millennials are far less supportive of free speech (expressed as “support for censoring offensive statements about minorities” – as hazy and Orwellian a definition as you can get, considering that one can choose to be offended by anything) than any other generation. Maybe “Generation Z(yklon)” will reverse this trend 2-3 decades down the line, as Audacious Epigone hopes, but don’t count your chickens before the eggs are hatched.

pew-millennials-anti-free-speech

E-mobs

The braying Twitter mob can roar its condemnation of some individual on a scale never before seen in history. Historically, a poet or philosopher ostracized from his home city could wanter off to seek his fortune in a faraway land. Only a limited number of people could ever participate in a witch-hunt due to restrictions of physical space and information flow. The Internet and social media allows the instant participation of millions in Two Minute mobs, creating unimaginable and unprecedented pressure on tech companies, employers, student conduct boards, etc. to purge them.

Tech oligopolies

The products of tech companies are more and more intertwined with our everyday lives.

The most germane aspect of this influence for dissidents are media platforms: The complex of DNS registrars, web hosts, and CDN providers that you need to run a website; the social media (Twitter, Facebook, etc.) behemoths that account for an ever greater percentage of news delivery; the online payments systems that finance them.

But it doesn’t stop there. As Egor Kholmogorov succinctly remarked, “In this new world, if your politics aren’t approved of by the owners of Uber, or Airbnb, or food delivery services – you will have to walk by foot and remain hungry and stay at home.” Airbnb has been permanently deactivating the accounts of people it suspected of planning to march on the Alt Right side in Charlottesville. Uber has kicked off people who participated as well.

This trend is only going to intensify. Cars are going to get automated. Google Glass or something similar is a matter of time as well. Combining them with reputational apps will allow the global village to identify its pariahs on sight.

As the Marxists said, you can’t have an ideological superstructure without the economic base; by cutting off the latter, you can strangle the former.

Global Impact

For all the SJW retrogression, America is still the one place in the world that is most firmly committed to the ideal of free speech.

map-pew-free-speech-poll

Considering the global economic scope of America’s tech giants, and the hegemony of its culture, the creeping introduction of the “hate speech” exception towards the First Amendment will have global reverberations.

Proponents of liberty will no longer even be able to say, “But what about America?”

And there will be a rapid universalization of authoritarian Social Justice as a global values system.

Solutions

These fall into three bins, though each has their own very big problems.

menaquinone4-zucks-vision(There used to be a fourth one, namely, Moldbug/Curtis Yarvin’s ideas about neocameralism and Silicon Valley techno-monarchy. Congrats, you sort of got that. How’s it working out?).

Exile to Lagos

This is the oldest solution – just flee from the mob to somewhere a bit saner.

This is already happening. In the past, many people moved to the United States, for its more congenial intellectual (and legal!) atmosphere. Mark Steyn and The Derb immediately come to mind.

More recently, crimethinkers have started an exodus into Eastern Europe. Budapest already hosts a small Alt Right hub, Matt Forney having decamped there. AltRight.com’s Vincent Law is based in Saint-Petersburg.

Problem: The aborigines don’t necessary care all that much for your ideology or welfare, especially if you get in the way of favorable horse-trades.

Somewhat hilariously, Orban’s Hungary is the only European country that Richard Spencer has been deported from to date.

And as the recent experience of The Daily Stormer has shown, Russia isn’t any nicer to foreign nationalists than to its own, if and when the heat gets turned on.

As a matter of fact, some of the kremlins might have just decided to dump Trump overboard because they got very very sad hearing about the big bad Orange Nazi from CNN – a testament, if there ever was one, to the sheer power and influence of the American deep state and its propaganda organs.

kremlins-sad

The big, sad secret of ROG is that it’s about as real as Trump’s collusion with Russia. I.e., it doesn’t exist.

There is no escape from ZOG.

Alternative ecosystems

As the tech giants have grown more domineering, they have spawned a set of alternatives.

For instance, Gab.ai for Twitter (my profile there: https://gab.ai/akarlin, for whenever I finally get shoahed from Twitter), and Hatreon (https://hatreon.us/akarlin/), an alternative to Patreon that also hosts a variety of personalities considered to be too unreputable for the handshakeworthy version.

This, too, has many problems.

hatreon-ditched-by-digital-ocean First, the Internet’s infrastructure is highly complex and interconnected, and even these sites still need higher-level resources to run properly. A concerted effort from establishment players can squeeze out the upstarts. Even as I write this, Hatreon is down, because Digital Ocean pulled its web hosting support in the wake of the scandal around The Daily Stormer thanks to the public connection made by a Blue Checkmark journalist.

Second, the lure of money can be even more powerful than the threat of retribution. Twitter, too, had a reputation for free speech absolutism back during the Wikileaks-Cablegate era. That ended as soon as it started rivaling Facebook and attracting celebrities and other handshakeworthy people to its platform. The CEO of Gab.ai, Andrew Torba, has been blacklisted from the Silicon Valley social scene, including the Y Combinator start-up incubator, for Tweeting a “build the wall” meme, which apparently made some Y Combinator members feel “unsafe.” There are powerful material and reputational incentives for such people to get back in line.

Into the Deep Web

If we are fated to drift into a hardcore cyberpunk dystopia controlled by faceless tech oligopolies, then we might as well start living up to the genre’s aesthetics.

For instance, The Daily Stormer already has a deep web presence at http://dstormer6em3i4km.onion/ (can be accessed using the TOR Browser). The deep web hosts all kinds of underground markets for shady and illegal products, such as drugs, stolen information, casinos, weapons, CP, even hitman services (though it’s likely most of those are feds).

In the dankest timeline, where Zuckerberg lords over a mulatto underclass clicking sponsored content all day, soylent is the only legal food, and your basic income determined by social justice quotient of your social media posts and shares, it is feasible that all the cool blogs and websites and videos retreat into samizdat in the deep web, leaving Picus News – the collective CNN/FOX/Buzzfeed – on the surface.

There already exists a readymade solution for financing difficulties once Paypal and the half a dozen other players cut you off: Cryptocurrencies.

A more exotic variant that I have suggested in the past is to create a social media/communications platofrm on blockchain-based principles. This might be the only viable longterm solution as the Bilderbergers and Picus TV continue to extend their tentacles.

 
🔊 Listen RSS

james-alex-fields-did-nothing-wrong

Just some quick comments on the Charlottesville affair, where a clash between the Alt Right and Antifa has resulted in one death.

(1) No, I don’t think it’s a PR disaster by any stretch of the imagination.

The thing is, people who are already highly allergic to any displays of Nazi symbology aren’t exactly the sort of people who would think positively of let alone sign up for the Alt Right.

As for people within the Alt Right itself, well, they’d have to have lived under a rock to not know that the Alt Right has a significant Nazi and Neo-Nazi presence from the mostly ironic /pol/ to the larping Right Stuff to the utterly hardcore Andrew Anglin of The Daily Stormer.

There is a name for the “civic nationalist” subset of Trumpism Inc. that would have nothing to do with the Nazis: The “New Right,” or “Alt Lite.” But they are also not the sort of people who’d turn up to defend a Confederate monument.

nesterov-on-cvilleActually as noted by my partner on the ROGPOR podcast Kirill Nesterov, we already have a precedent for this sort of thing: Spencer’s Heilgate (Nov 18).

It generated many furious headlines, and even scared away some anti-imperialist leftists who might have had some smidgeon of sympathy for the Alt Right, but in the larger picture it neither helped nor harmed them.

I think Alt_Left gets it: The Alt Right is a youth movement, and the memory of WW2 is “ancient history” to them. It is no longer sacrosanct. Another way of putting it is that for them, Hitler is becoming just another Napoleon, or Alexander the Great. And you can’t get too emotional about those.

(2) No point in disavowing. It’s not like ZOG will thank you for it.

I mean, is Heartiste actually wrong?

heartiste-western

(3) What’s the big deal anyway? America has a long way to go even to reach “European” levels of political violence.

berkeley-riots-good-night-left-side To be sure, this is a significant escalation from the last confrontation between Antifa and the Alt Right at the Battle of Berkeley.

But let’s add in some context.

The Alt Right have one bodycount to their name. But just BLM by itself has six from one cop killing spree in 2016. If you want to declare the Alt Right a terrorist organization, as some blue checkmarks are demanding on Twitter, you would have to do likewise with BLM for consistency. An anti-Trumpist almost pulled off a massacre of Republicans at a baseball practice session; the bodycount was zero only thanks to his incompetence with firearms.

terrorism-deaths-in-western-europe In Europe, Greek anarchists murdered two members of Golden Dawn in a drive-by shooting in 2013. The UK politician Jo Cox was murdered by a far rightist in 2016, shortly before the Brexit referendum.

Going back further in history, during the late Cold War, leftists blew up dozens of people in Europe every single year. And yet that did not set off any civil wars, or even any significant slide into authoritarianism.

It was only with the collapse of the USSR that radical Leftism was discredited.

(4) Trump is doing all he reasonably can for the Alt Right. Stop whining.

He even avoided mentioning the Alt Right by name, which is the best he realistically could have done: “We ALL must be united & condemn all that hate stands for. There is no place for this kind of violence in America. Lets come together as one!

“That is, unless Ivanka tells him she burst into tears after watching that antifa commit vehicular manslaughter against his own people. THEN you’re fucked,” jokes Matt Forney.

And he is surely correct that if Hillary Clinton were President, things would be very different now: “Not only would half of Unite the Right’s attendees be in jail, the feds would be unsealing RICO indictments against NPI, Identity Evropa, and TradWorker.”

(5) Blue Checkmarks vs. Alt Right

This brings us to another point: Here’s a key difference in relations between the elites and “insurgent” ideologies today (the Alt Right), and a generation ago (radical leftists).

The elites were mildly supportive of the agenda of the radical leftists. Top lawyers worked on their cases for free. Many of them were “rehabilitated” and went on to lead “fruitful” careers in academia, such as Bill Ayres and Donna Hylton. One can compare this with the attitudes of conservative judges towards far right radicals in Weimar Germany.

In contrast, today’s Blue Checkmarks really have it out for the Alt Right.

For instance, take the case of Julia Ioffe, an Israeli Firster activist at university who as a handshakeworthy journalist kvetches very loudly whenever unsanctioned liberal protests get broken up in Russia. (This is an apt comparison in more ways than one: The last minute revocation of Unite the Right’s permit and their shunting off to some out of the way location is familiar to observers of the Kremlin’s policy towards opposition protests in Russia).

But contra Navalny’s crowd, which also has its share of Neo-Nazi elements, Americans exercising their First Amendment rights to protect their Southern heritage has to be shut down.

ioffe-calls-for-repression

Because muh Russian pogroms. What else?

ioffe-no-pogrom

And yes, OF COURSE Putlor is responsible.

mckew-russia-cville-pogrom

I don’t want to counter-signal or anything, but the Blue Checkmarks have most of the elite human capital and control the institutions.

This will make it very hard for the Alt Right to make institutional headway.

That said, their power should still grow, especially as “Generation Zyklon” comes of age in the next decade. There will be more careers destroyed by witch-hunts, more James Damores, more #Shirtstorms. Political polarization will keep increasing as more and more young men realize that the system is stacked against them, and more and more whites adopt overt identity politics.

So Peter Turchin’s prediction of a peak in socio-political instability in the 2020s seems all the more plausible now.

turchin-cycle-of-discord

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Alt Right, Charlottesville, US Civil War II 
A Russian Conservative on James Damore
🔊 Listen RSS

Prosvirnin is the most talented writer. Limonov has by far the most colorful personality. Dugin has been the most effective at promoting himself in the West. Prokhanov probably has the most name recognition in Russia. Galkovsky created the most powerful memes. Krylov provided the esoteric flavoring.

And yet out of all of Russia’s right-wing intellectuals, there is perhaps none so unique as Egor Kholmogorov.

egor-kholmogorovThis is ironic, because out of all of the above, he is the closest to the “golden mean” of the Russian nationalist memeplex.

He is a realist on Soviet achievements, crimes, and lost opportunities, foregoing both the Soviet nostalgia of Prokhanov, the kneejerk Sovietophobia of Prosvirnin, and the unhinged conspiracy theories of Galkovsky. He is a normal, traditional Orthodox Christian, in contrast to the “atheism plus” of Prosvirnin, the mystical obscurantism of Duginism, and the esoteric experiments of Krylov. He has time neither for the college libertarianism of Sputnik i Pogrom hipster nationalism, nor the angry “confiscate and divide” rhetoric of the National Bolsheviks.

Instead of wasting his time on ideological rhetoric, he reads Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the 21st Century and writes reviews about it on his website. And about 224 other books.

And this brings us to what makes Kholmogorov so unique: He is an extremely well-read autodidact.

This allows him to write informed and engaging articles on a very wide variety of different topics and breaking news.

In my opinion, Kholmogorov is simply the best modern Russian right-wing intellectual, period.

Unfortunately, he is almost entirely unknown in the English-speaking world; he does not angle for interviews with Western media outlets like Prosvirnin, nor does he energetically pursue foreign contacts like Dugin. Over the years I have done my very small part to remedy this situation, translating two of Kholmogorov’s articles (Europe’s Week of Human Sacrifice; A Cruel French Lesson). Still, there’s only so much one blogger with many other things to write about can do.

Happily, a multilingual Russian fan of Kholmogorov has stepped up to the plate: Fluctuarius Argenteus. Incidentally, he is a fascinating fellow in his own right – he is a well recognized expert in Spanish history and culture – though his insistence on anonymity constrains what I can reveal, at least beyond his wish to be the “Silver Surfer” to Kholmogorov’s Galactus.

We hope to make translations of Kholmogorov’s output consistently available on The Unz Review in the months to come.

In the meantime, I am privileged to present the first Fluctuarius-translated Kholmogorov article for your delectation.

***

A New Martin Luther?: James Damore’s Case from a Russian Conservative Perspective

google-image

Original: https://tsargrad.tv/articles/triumf-gendernyh-sharikovyh_79187

Translated by Fluctuarius Argenteus:

Google fires employee James Damore for “perpetuating gender stereotypes.

– You persecute your employees for having opinions and violate the rights of White men, Centrists, and Conservatives.

– No, we don’t. You’re fired.

A conversation just like or similar to this one recently took place in the office of one of modern information market monsters, the Google Corporation.

Illustration to the Google scandal. James Damore fired for “perpetuating gender stereotypes”. Source: Screenshot of Instragram user bluehelix.

Google knows almost everything about us, including the contents of our emails, our addresses, our voice samples (OK Google), our favorite stuff, and, sometimes, our sexual preferences. Google used to be on the verge of literally looking at the world with our own eyes through Google Glass, but this prospect appears to have been postponed, probably temporarily. However, the threat of manipulating public opinion through search engine algorithms has been discussed in the West for a long while, even to the point of becoming a central House of Cards plotline.

Conversely, we know next to nothing about Google. Now, thanks to an ideological scandal that shook the company, we suddenly got a glimpse of corporate values and convictions that the company uses a roadmap to influencing us in a major way, and American worldview even more so. Suddenly, Google was revealed to be a system permeated by ideology, suffused with Leftist and aggressively feminist values.

The story goes this way. In early August, an anonymous manifesto titled Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber was circulated through the local network of Google. The author lambasted the company’s ideological climate, especially its policy of so-called diversity. This policy has been adopted by almost all of US companies, and Google has gone as far as to appoint a “chief diversity officer”. The goal of the polity is to reduce the number of white cisgendered male employees, to employ as many minorities and women as possible and to give them fast-track promotions – which, in reality, gives them an unfair, non-market based advantage.

The author argues that Leftism and “diversity” policies lead to creating an “echo chamber” within the company, where a person only talks to those who share their opinions, and, through this conversation, is reinforced in the opinion that their beliefs are the only ones that matter. This “echo chamber” narrows one’s intellectual horizon and undermines work efficiency, with following “the party line” taking precedence over real productivity.

In contrast to Google’s buzzwords of “vision” and “innovation”, the author claims that the company has lost its sight behind its self-imposed ideological blindfold and is stuck in a morass.

As Google employs intellectuals, argues the critic, and most modern Western intellectuals are from the Left, this leads to creating a closed Leftist clique within the company. If the Right rejects everything contrary to the God>human>nature hierarchy, the Left declares all natural differences between humans to be nonexistent or created by social constructs.

The central Leftist idea is the class struggle, and, given that the proletariat vs. bourgeoisie struggle is now irrelevant, the atmosphere of struggle has been transposed onto gender and race relations. Oppressed Blacks are fighting against White oppressors, oppressed women challenge oppressive males. And the corporate management (and, until recently, the US presidency) is charged with bringing the “dictatorship of the proletariat” to life by imposing the “diversity” policy.

The critic argues that the witch-hunt of Centrists and Conservatives, who are forced to conceal their political alignment or resign from the job, is not the only effect of this Leftist tyranny. Leftism also leads to inefficiency, as the coveted job goes not to the best there is but to the “best woman of color”. There are multiple educational or motivation programs open only to women or minorities. This leads to plummeting efficiencies, disincentivizes White men from putting effort into work, and creates a climate of nervousness, if not sabotage. Instead of churning out new ground-breaking products, opines the critic, Google wastes too much effort on fanning the flames of class struggle.

What is the proposed solution?

Stop diving people into “oppressors” and “the oppressed” and forcefully oppressing the alleged oppressors. Stop branding every dissident as an immoral scoundrel, a racist, etc.

The diversity of opinion must apply to everyone. The company must stop alienating Conservatives, who are, to call a spade a spade, a minority that needs their rights to be protected. In addition, conservatively-inclined people have their own advantages, such as a focused and methodical approach to work.

Fight all kinds of prejudice, not only those deemed worthy by the politically correct America.

End diversity programs discriminatory towards White men and replace them with non-discriminatory ones.

Have an unbiased assessment of the costs and efficiency of diversity programs, which are not only expensive but also pit one part of the company’s employees against the other.

Instead of gender and race differences, focus on psychological safety within the company. Instead of calling to “feel the others’ pain”, discuss facts. Instead of cultivating sensitivity and soft skins, analyze real issues.

Admit that not all racial or gender differences are social constructs or products of oppression. Be open towards the study of human nature.

The last point proved to be the most vulnerable, as the author of the manifesto went on to formulate his ideas on male vs. female differences that should be accepted as fact if Google is to improve its performance.

The differences argued by the author are as follows:

Women are more interested in people, men are more interested in objects.

Women are prone to cooperation, men to competition. All too often, women can’t take the methods of competition considered natural among men.

Women are looking for a balance between work and private life, men are obsessed with status and

Feminism played a major part in emancipating women from their gender roles, but men are still strongly tied to theirs. If the society seeks to “feminize” men, this will only lead to them leaving STEM for “girly” occupations (which will weaken society in the long run).

It was the think piece on the natural differences of men and women that provoked the greatest ire. The author was immediately charged with propagating outdated sexist stereotypes, and the Google management commenced a search for the dissent, with a clear purpose of giving him the sack. On 8th August, the heretic was revealed to be James Damore, a programmer. He was fired with immediate effect because, as claimed by Google CEO Sundar Pichai, “portions of the memo violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace”. Damore announced that he was considering a lawsuit.

We live in a post-Trump day and age, that is why the Western press is far from having a unanimous verdict on the Damore affair. Some call him “a typical sexist”, for others he is a “free speech martyr”. By dismissing Damore from his job, Google implicitly confirmed that all claims of an “echo chamber” and aggressive Leftist intolerance were precisely on point. Julian Assange has already tweeted: “Censorship is for losers, WikiLeaks is offering a job to fired Google engineer James Damore”.

It is highly plausible that the Damore Memo may play the same breakthrough part in discussing the politically correct insanity as WikiLeaks and Snowden files did in discussing the dirty laundry of governments and secret services. If it comes to pass, Damore will make history as a new Martin Luther challenging the Liberal “Popery”.

However, his intellectual audacity notwithstanding, it should be noted that Damore’s own views are vulnerable to Conservative criticism. Unfortunately, like the bulk of Western thought, they fall into the trap of Leftist “cultural constructivism” and Conservative naturalism.

Allegedly, there are only two possible viewpoints. Either gender and race differences are biologically preordained and therefore unremovable and therefore should always be taken into account, or those differences are no more than social constructs and should be destroyed for being arbitrary and unfair.

The ideological groundwork of the opposing viewpoints is immediately apparent. Both equate “biological” with “natural” and therefore “true”, and “social” with “artificial” and therefore “arbitrary” and “false”. Both sides reject “prejudice” in favor of “vision”, but politically correct Leftists reject only a fraction of prejudices while the critic calls for throwing all of them away indiscriminately.

As a response, Damore gets slapped with an accusation of drawing upon misogynist prejudice for his own ideas. Likewise, his view of Conservatives is quite superficial. The main Conservative trait is not putting effort into routine work but drawing upon tradition for creative inspiration. The Conservative principle is “innovation through tradition”.

The key common mistake of both Google Leftists and their critic is their vision of stereotypes as a negative distortion of some natural truth. If both sides went for an in-depth reading of Edmund Burke, the “father of Conservatism”, they would learn that the prejudice is a colossal historical experience pressurized into a pre-logical form, a collective consciousness that acts when individual reason fails or a scrupulous analysis is impossible. In such circumstances, following the prejudice is a more sound strategy than contradicting it. Prejudice is shorthand for common sense. Sometimes it oversimplifies things, but still works most of the time. And, most importantly, all attempts to act “in spite of the prejudice” almost invariably end in disaster.

google-fox

Illustration to the Google scandal. A fox sits gazing at the Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber exposing the ideas of the fired engineer James Damore. Source: Screenshot of Instragram user bluehelix.

However, the modern era allows us to diagnose our own prejudice and rationalize them so we could control them better, as opposed to blind obedience or rejection. Moreover, if the issue of “psychological training” ever becomes relevant in a country as conservative as Russia is, that is the problem we should concentrate on: analyzing the roots of our prejudices and their efficient use.

The same could be argued for gender relations. Damore opposes the Leftist “class struggle of the genders” with a technocratic model of maximizing the profit from each gender’s pros and cons. This functionalism appears to be logical in its own way, but is indeed based on too broad assumptions, claiming that all women are unfit for competition, that all of them like relationships and housekeeping while all men are driven by objects and career. And, as Damore claims biological grounds for his assumptions, all our options boil down to mostly agreeing with him or branding him as a horrible sexist and male chauvinist.

However, the fact that gender roles historically developed based on biology but are, as a whole, a construct of society and culture does not give an excuse to changing or tearing them down, as clamored by Leftists. Quite the contrary: the social, cultural, and historical determinism of these roles gives us a reason to keep them in generally the same form without any coups or revolutions.

First, that tradition is an ever-growing accumulation of experience. Rejecting tradition is tantamount to social default and requires very good reasons to justify. Second, no change of tradition occurs as a result of a “gender revolution”, only its parodic inversion. Putting men into high heels, miniskirts, and bras, fighting against urinals in public WCs only reverses the polarity without creating true equality. The public consciousness still sees the “male” as “superior”, and demoting “masculinity” to “femininity” as a deliberate degradation of the “superior”. No good can come of it, just as no good came out of humiliating wealth and nobility during the Communist revolution in Russia. What’s happening now is not equal rights for women but the triumph of gender Bolshevism.

Damore’s error, therefore, consists in abandoning the domain of the social and the historical to the enemy while limiting the Conservative sphere of influence to the natural, biological domain. However, the single most valuable trait in conservative worldview is defending the achievements of history and not just biological determinism.

The final goal of a Conservative solution to the gender problem should not be limited to a rationalist functionalization of society. It should lead to discovering a social cohesion where adhering to traditional male and female ways and stereotypes (let’s not call them roles – the world is not a stage, and men and women not merely players) would not keep males and females from expressing themselves in other domains, provided they have a genuine calling and talent.

The art of war is not typical of a woman; however, women warriors such as Joan of Arc leave a much greater impact in historical memory. The art of government is seen as mostly male, yet it makes great female rulers, marked not by functional usefulness but true charisma, all the more memorable. The family is the stereotypical domain of the woman, which leads to greater reverence towards fathers that put their heart and soul into their families.

Social cohesion, an integral part of it being the harmony of men and women in the temple of the family, is the ideal to be pursued by our Russian, Orthodox, Conservative society. It is the collapse of the family that made gender relations into such an enormous issue in the West: men and women are no longer joined in a nucleus of solidarity but pitted against one another as members of antagonistic classes. And this struggle, as the Damore Memo has demonstrated, is already stymieing the business of Western corporations. Well, given our current hostile relations, it’s probably for the better.

 
🔊 Listen RSS

For what my views are worth – which is very little, especially in China – I am always for freedom of speech.

That said, it’s worth clarifying that the late Liu Xiaobo was much more a Western nationalist than a genuine humans right activist.

“[It would take] 300 years of colonialism. In 100 years of colonialism, Hong Kong has changed to what we see today. With China being so big, of course it would require 300 years as a colony for it to be able to transform into how Hong Kong is today. I have my doubts as to whether 300 years would be enough.”

“Modernization means whole-sale westernization, choosing a human life is choosing Western way of life. Difference between Western and Chinese governing system is humane vs in-humane, there’s no middle ground… Westernization is not a choice of a nation, but a choice for the human race”

In his 1996 article entitled “Lessons from the Cold War”, Liu argues that “The free world led by the US fought almost all regimes that trampled on human rights … The major wars that the US became involved in are all ethically defensible.” He has defended U.S. policies in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, which he thinks is the fault of the “provocateur” Palestinians.

Liu also published a 2004 article in support of Bush’s war on Iraq, titled “Victory to the Anglo-American Freedom Alliance”, in which he praised the U.S.-led post-Cold War conflicts as “best examples of how war should be conducted in a modern civilization.” He wrote “regardless of the savagery of the terrorists, and regardless of the instability of Iraq’s situation, and, what’s more, regardless of how patriotic youth might despise proponents of the United States such as myself, my support for the invasion of Iraq will not waver. Just as, from the beginning, I believed that the military intervention of Britain and the United States would be victorious, I am still full of belief in the final victory of the Freedom Alliance and the democratic future of Iraq, and even if the armed forces of Britan and the United States should encounter some obstacles such as those that they are curently facing, this belief of mine will not change.” He predicted “a free, democratic and peaceful Iraq will emerge.”

His closest equivalent in Russia would probably be someone like Valeria Novodvorskaya, authoritarian neocon “liberals” who in net terms set back the cause of liberalism and human rights rather than advance them because of the negative reactions their Western cargo cultism and photo ops with John McCain provokes amongst the patriotic toiling masses.

Moreover, just like Novodvorskaya, he was a creation of not so much China itself as the sovok/Maoist system that he pretended to despise:

“I realized my entired youth and early writings had all been nurtured in hatred, violence and arrogance, or lies, cynicism and sarcasm. I knew at the time that Mao-style thinking and Cultural Revolution-style language had become ingrained in me, and my gaol had been transform myself [...]. It may talk me a lifetime to get rid of the poison.”

Unfortunately, a lifetime was not enough.

He was also a strong critic of Chinese nationalism, believing that the “abnormal nationalism” existed in China over the last century had turned from a defensive style of the “mixed feelings of inferiority, envy, complaint, and blame to an aggressive “patriotism” of “blind self-confidence, empty boasts, and pent-up hatred”. The “ultra-nationalism”, being deployed by the Chinese Communist Party since the Tiananmen protests, has also become “a euphemism for worship of violence in service of autocratic goals.”

Contra Alt Right rhetoric, China is one of the least nationalist entities on the planet. What other country legally restricted the birth rates of its indigenous majority while letting minorities have second and third children to their hearts’ content? Even Sweden has yet to “cuck” itself that hard.

Netizens on the Chinese Internet constantly lambast the PRC for its limp-wristedness in responding to foreign provocations.

However, not even all this was enough for Liu Xiaobo. So far as he was concerned, only unequal treaties, only hardcore.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: China, Human Rights, Neocons, Obituary 
🔊 Listen RSS

navalny-vs-strelkov

H/t Eduard-456.

Navalny has accepted Strelkov’s call for a debate from June 15. Get hype? At any rate, this is probably the closest things to politics that has happened in Russia this year.

There are going to be the main topics of discussion in the debate next week, which may be hosted by Echo of Moscow:

  • How can Navalny beat corruption, if he’s President?
  • His position on Russia’s Western partners?
  • What is he going to do about Crimea and the Donbass?

This has been met with general surprise from all quarters.

The former commander of the LDNR militias is as much an object of hatred for Russian liberals – Navalny’s core constituency – as he is an idol for Russian nationalists.

sip-game-of-russian-=spring

Famous Sputnik i Pogrom designed banner from 2014 that still adorns many pro-Novorossiya sites.

As such, many Russian liberals and Ukrainian nationalists (but I repeat myself) are already squealing and kvetching about Navalny agreeing to appear with the “war criminal” Girkin.

One need only read some of the top responses to Navalny’s Facebook post announcing the debate to get a flavor of their fury:

  • Pavel Khmelnytskyi: You guys are so cool in Russia… a debate between a Presidential candidate and an international terrorist. On the right path!
  • Denis Zatsepin: Alexey, I’m a strong supporter of yours, but in this case I consider it a mistake to appear in the same frame as a bandit and killer. Debates with him are only possible in the form of interrogations about his war mongering, murders, illegal arms transfers, mercenary work.
  • Alexey Karpov: A great opportunity to publicly disavow your phrase that “Crimea is not a sandwich” [i.e., as an object to be haggled over]. And if you fail to do this, I will consider the ensuing crash of your political career to be perfectly justified.

That said, there is a logic to Navalny appearing with Strelkov.

The only half-way conceivable way in which the Putin government could be overthrown would be through an overarching alliance between liberals and nationalists, as in the Ukraine itself in 2014, or in Serbia in 2000.

Navalny could either comfortably occupy the “liberal niche” that constitutes no more than 10% of the Russian electorate – the one that Prokhorov filled in 2012 – or he could try to convince the patriotic-nationalist crowd to sign up with him, which would cut into Putin’s own support base.

The price of his gamble is the risk of alienating his diehard liberal supporters, and consequently fading away into the limelight. Then again, as pro-Donbass blogger El Murid points out, there is, in any case, only so much fuel left in Navalny’s anti-corruption engine; the engine on which he rose to prominence. After the film about Medvedev, one can hardly generate any political excitement over exposing the corrupt machinations of one more CEO of a state firm or regional governor; everybody is waiting for the “Big Film” starring “The Main Hero.” Anything else would be a let-down. After the failure of the June 12 protests, one can make a good case that Navalny needs to do something bold and unexpected to turn around a negative trend in publicity and get people talking about him again – and going head to head against Strelkov is perhaps not the worst idea.

However, this is going to be an opportunity for the patriotic/nationalist crowd to make their mark as well.

Navalny, at least, enjoys access to Gazprom-funded Echo of Moscow and TV Rain. Since returning from the Donbass, Strelkov has been blacklisted from appearing on federal MSM – a not atypical fate for repatriated war heroes with harsh words for the leaders who “abandoned” their cause. Shorn of media resources – no radio or TV mass media to speak of, their main website blocked, and reliant on blogs and social networks to spread their messages – this will be a good opportunity for nationalists to remind Russians that there are choices beyond Putin and Navalny.

The main danger for them is that Strelkov performs poorly. Although he has a poor grasp of issues beyond his pet theme of corruption, as demonstrated in his recent interview with Sobchak, Navalny more than makes up for it as a demagogue. And whereas Strelkov might be an inspirational battlefield commander, his sartorial style and rhetorical skills… leave much to be desired.

strelkov-not-inspiring

 

Another interesting question is to what extent this debate has been cleared with the Kremlin.

The ideal outcome for Kremlin Inc. would be for Navalny to destroy Strelkov, a minor nuisance for them, while affirming his pro-Western and pro-Ukrainian positions on Crimea and the Donbass (that is, a second referendum in the former, and withdrawal of support from the latter). This would also close off any lingering prospects for a liberal-nationalist alliance against Putin.

In this scenario, it is even feasible that Navalny would be allowed to run in the Presidential elections. Without any significant support from the patriotic-nationalist camp, Navalny would be more or less safely bounded at a maximum of 10-15% of the vote, while the fact of his participation in the electoral process – as the most prominent figure in the non-systemic opposition – would serve to “legitimize” Putin’s inevitable victory in the West.

Best of all, there is probably nothing quite as good for burnishing one’s questionable credentials as a Russian nationalist or even patriot for the domestic audience as running against an outright Ukrainian nationalist and Western representative.

 
🔊 Listen RSS

Nossik was an Jewish-Russian journalist who perhaps more than anyone else shaped the contours of the Russian Internet. Apart from having a hand in starting up a huge percentage of the online news leviathans that still dominate the sphere, as an outspoken political personality he was also one of the most popular bloggers in his own right (dolboeb).

He has died at the age of 51, apparently after a vodka binge at a friend’s dacha.

prosvirnin-with-nossik Nossik heyday was “before my time” (he was becoming a name on Fidonet political discussions in Israel about Russia in the early 1990s; I started blogging in 2008). So I am not exactly qualified to write a balanced obituary about him, nor am I particularly interested in doing that. Instead, I will just write describe a few vignettes from his late life that I think tie in with my own blog’s themes.

But first, to set the political scene, Nossik’s fundamental convictions were “liberal” (see caveats) and pro-Western. Really, mostly the latter. For instance, in 2010 he attacked Assange for recklessly spilling American secrets and cooperating with the “Holocaust denier” Israel Shamir in Russia.

That said, this did not stop him from maintaining productive relations with media personalities in both the pro-Kremlin camp (e.g. Maksim Kononenko, Konstantin Rykov) and Russian nationalists (e.g. Sputnik i Pogrom’s Egor Prosvirnin, see right).

At the end of the day he was a Jewish/Zionist nationalist. He was rarely seen without with yarmulke, and was always very explicit about how his concern for Israel took precendence over the more… universalistic ideals that he at times claimed to profess.

For instance, here is a transcript of his interview with the liberal Gazprom-funded Echo of Moscow in October 2015, where a conversation about Russian misdeeds in Syria between the handshakeworthy crowd took a bit of an unexpected turn:

Nosik: What is Russia doing [in Syria]? It’s killing women, children, old people.
Interviewer: And you support this?
Nosik: Sure. They’re Syrians.
Interviewer: But they’re people.
Nosik: No, they’re Syrians.
Interviewer: So Syrians aren’t people?
Nosik: In what sense? They present a danger to Israel.
Interviewer: And women and children and old people too?
Nosik: I don’t care, if they present a danger to Israel.
Interviewer: But what danger can women and children and old people constitute?
Nosik: Women? They give birth to Syrian soldiers. If they are bombed, they won’t give birth to Syrian soldiers. And thank God!

L means Learn calm, moderate nationalism from the Jews,” sarcastically commented Sputnik i Pogrom.

He immediately followed it up with a blog post where he called on Syria to be wiped from the face of the Earth.

Now this wouldn’t have led to any consequences in Western countries, where hate speech laws only really applies to criticism against Jews, Muslims, and various sexual minorites. However, retrograde as Article 282 – Russia’s prime hate speech law – might be, it does at least tend to be applied more consistently. For instance, back in the 2000s, the Russian “journalist” Boris Stomakhin served a term for encouraging terrorism against ethnic Russians (Western human rights outfits such as the Committee to Protect Journalism predictably labeled him a victim of Putler’s regime). This is, incidentally, a state of affairs that European institutions are very, very sad about, repeatedly calling on Russia to make Article 282 less “politicized.” That is, only have it apply to nationalists, as in Europe, and as was the intention of the mostly Jewish “liberals” and “human rights activists” who had pushed it through the Duma in the first place.

Anyhow, the Jewish nationalist Nossik must have failed to take this specificity of Russian law into account, and was charged with Article 282 in 2016. (That said, in all fairness, I should point out that Nossik himself was not a hypocrite about this – he has been criticizing Article 282 for more than a decade on his blog). Unlike many other less prominent people, he escaped the two year jail sentence recommended by the prosecutor, and got off with a 500,000 ruble fine (lowered to 300,000 rubles on appeal).

Which for him was pocket change anyway. This morning, I was amused to see one of the “thought leaders” in Russian transhumanism criticize Nossik on Facebook because he had apparently paid the man $10,000 in 2010 to propagandize radical life extension, but Nossik just took the money and promptly forgot all about it. (Amusingly, $10,000 would have been just sufficient to pay off the original fine at today’s exchange rate).

The lesson to be drawn from this? “And now Anton Nossik has died. What more can I say? He should have done more for life extension.” I would also add: Goys should always put contracts to paper.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Jews, Russian Media 
🔊 Listen RSS

I have already written about the Russian government’s blocking of Sputnik i Pogrom, Russia’s foremost nationalist resource.

Two politicians have taken a clear stance on this. Zhirinovsky was one. I have been weighing whether to vote for him or Putin (if only to “reward” him for Crimea) in March 2018. Well, the decision is vastly easier now.

Another supporter is Sergey Shargulin, a Communist deputy, who has sent a letter to the General Prosecutor requesting they provision the materials on the basis of which they were blocked. This is probably connected to Shargulin having been an active supporter of the Donbass resistance, so to hear inanities such as SiP’s support for Ukrainian nationalists must have been especially jarring for him.

The liberals have generally approved of this, since Russian liberalism has little to do with liberal values as such (e.g. freedom of speech) and is more often a respectable fig-leaf for Russophobia and Western cargo cultism. (Alexey Kovalev is a consistently honorable exception).

Perhaps surprising to some – though it shouldn’t be – was the joyous reaction of Stalinists and Eurasianists, such as Israel Shamir. He has not only celebrated the “closure” of that “Vlasovite site,” but believes the authorities haven’t gone far enough; nothing less than a prison term under Article 282 would suffice!

One might think that cheering political prosecution is a rather incongruent position for someone labeled as a Holocaust denier by the Western media, but apparently SiP sinned by not being hard enough on the Jews. Not making this up! “A desperate attempt to set Russians against everyone: Against Armenians, against the Kyrgyz, against Ukrainians. But not against the Jews! They obviously get their money from the CIA, and they wouldn’t give them a penny if they criticized the Jews.

It’s hard to see where to even begin to comment.

I mean, kudos to Shamir for thinking up one of the more… idiosyncratic rationalizations for having a legal system in which obese 90 IQ bureaucrats decide what Russians are allowed to read on Russian taxpayer money (or try to, anyway; Russians are aware of VPN). Hopefully he takes this as a compliment.

So instead I will make just two points. First, this is a good illustration of why Stalinists and Eurasianists are not Russian nationalists (as the Western media almost always clumps them), and why the two factions don’t usually want to have anything to do with each other.

Second, I do want to take the opportunity to specifically address the “Vlasovite” smear that is repeatedly lobbed at Russian nationalists, including SiP, by Stalinists, Eurasianists, and assorted Soviet people.

Vlasov was an exemplary Soviet officer. He did not disappear in the 1937 military purges. Instead, he “faithfully followed the party line” as a member of military tribunals, and enjoyed steady career progression. He so impressed his superiors that he was awarded with a golden watch in 1940. But after going over to the Germans, he suddenly became a resolute enemy of Bolshevik tyranny. The Prague Manifesto, compiled in 1944 under Nazi tutelage, praised the ideals of the February revolution, supported the self-determination of the nations within the USSR (that is, an independent Ukraine, Belarus, etc), and promised to fight against “reactionary forces.”

All of that is in direct opposition to what Russian nationalism stands for. But it is also very congruent with the ideals of the rootless liberal elites who ruled Russia in the 1990s, and continue to exercise significant cultural and economic power today. Who are themselves in large part just the mutant offspring of the late Soviet nomenklatura. (The case of Nobel Peace Prize winner Svetlana Alexievich is particularly instructive: A woman who transitioned seamlessly from writing cringeworthy odes to the ethnic Polish founder of the Soviet secret police Dzerzhinsky to penning Russophobic screeds, she is perhaps the quintessential representative of this “Soviet-liberal” class).

Now here’s the thing. To my knowledge, SiP has never expressed any support or sympathy for Vlasov. (I’ve read a good percentage of everything they’ve written since about 2014, so I am reasonably qualified to make this judgment).

They have, however, pointed out inconvenient facts – including the critical observation that Vlasov was a successful product of the Soviet system and a quintesential Soviet person (as judged by that system itself until 1942).

But for devotees of a tyrant who literally erased people who fell afoul of him from historical record, this might well be more infuriating than if SiP actually were the swastika-toting Vlasovites of their imagination.

 
🔊 Listen RSS

Sputnik i Pogrom (SiP), the premier online resource of the Russian nationalists has just been blocked by Roskomnadzor.

It was done on the request of the General Prosecutor, along with five other nationalist sites. They claim to have found evidence of them “justifying” Right Sector, the Islamic State, Al-Nusra, and other terrorist groups, fighting in Syria. Formulaic reminder about how the Islamic State is banned on the territory of the Russian Federation, in case anyone forgot. The resources in question “propagandize the ideas of national and religious discord, which constitute a threat to social peace and incite extremism.”

Apart from the inherent absurdity of implying Russian nationalists have sympathies for Islamists – an absurdity that any honest person can recognize regardless of ideological orientation – the more telling characteristic is no particular offending material was identified. This means “correcting” a sentence or even removing an article or two doesn’t appear to be an option. SiP’s editors seem to have recognized this, and are mulling switching domain names and directing readers to guides on how to install VPN. (Though the Russian government is working on banning VPN too).

sip-blocked-news As a reminder, SiP isn’t some fringe Neo-Nazi blog bedecked in swastikas and dug up from the bowels of the Internet. It is a glossy magazine with long, high-quality articles about Russian history that now garners 1.5 million monthly visits, despite many of its articles being paywalled. It has been remarkably successful at penetrating its way into the Russian elites: Alexander Voloshin, Igor Strelkov, and Ksenia Sobchak (!) are known to be readers. Combining the visitor numbers of the top Alt Right websites with the intellectual sophistication and elite influence of the upper-tier neoreactionary blogs, SiP’s success as a media phenomenon cannot be denied. As the ultimate “compliment,” many of the large federal MSM organizations have already written about the pogrom of Sputnik i Pogrom.

It is highly critical of the Putin regime for what they see as its corruption, privileging of ethnic minorities, open borders with Central Asia, laxness in Ukraine, and the stiffling climate of political authoritarianism and social conservatism. One can agree or disagree with these assertions to varying extents, but one cannot credibly accuse it of being an agent for Western (or Islamist) interests; in 2014, they actively supported Crimea’s incorporation into Russia and the Donbass resistance, contributing 60 million rubles for humanitarian needs, sending volunteers, and crowdfunding an APC for the people’s militias.

Nor could SiP have been banned for its relative social and political liberalism, such as their criticism of organized religion and homophobia. The website of the Russian Imperial Movement, which whom I became acquainted in Saint-Petersburg, has also been blocked, even though they are hardline social conservatives and require applications for membership to be Orthodox Christians.

In totality, all this points to one conclusion: The Russian government has increasingly had it with Russian nationalism.

To be sure, the General Prosecutor balked at stating that directly, but the very lameness and lack of specifics of its accusations indicates that this is indeed the case. (More than half of Russians agree with the implicitly ethnonationalist slogan “Russia for Russians,” so perhaps that was a wise decision on their part).

What are the consequences and implications?

From a political perspective, the Russian elections are coming up in March 2018, and the authorities might have decided that oppositionist nationalism is not a media factor they want in play. This might imply that Navalny will be allowed to run after all (even though SiP has in truth been opposed to Navalny as much as Putin).

Another predictable theory that rears its head at times like these is that a “Putinsliv” (betrayal) is being planned for the LDNR, so the screws are being tightened in preparation for that – needless to say, a capitulation there will infuriate oppositionist nationalists more than any other group. This is very highly unlikely. Russia is coming out out of recession, so concerns about the economic impact of Western sanctions should be at a relative minimum. Besides, this is not the first time that SiP has been subjected to state harassment; its chief editor Egor Prosvirnin had his apartment searched and electronic devices confiscated back in September 2015.

Finally, it would be amiss to end this without a brief discussion of this event in the current political and sociological context.

First, there is a rich irony in that just a few weeks ago, Egor Prosvirnin was disinvited from the Saint-Petersburg “Geek Picnic” tech conference thanks to the no-platforming efforts of SJWs of “multinational nationality” such as Mikhail Gelfand, Boris Stern, David Homak, and Asya Kazantseva. Their logic being that Prosvirnin is a Kremlin attack dog and an imperialist Russian chauvinist (all these terms are interchangeable to them). The rather more banal reality is that Russian nationalists are squeezed between globalist “ZOG” and the “Putletreich” that loathes them in almost equal measure.

Second, it is just beautiful that SiP is now banned not just in “brotherly” Belarus, but in Russia as well, but not yet in “Banderite” Ukraine. Needless to say, this has nothing to do with any particularly Ukrainian respect for free speech. It is just that Ukraine is the least competent of these three Russophobic states. It’s still funny, though.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Censorship, Nationalism, Russia 
🔊 Listen RSS

Latest poll on the “greatest people of all times and places”:

1989 1994 1999 2003 2008 2012 2017
Stalin 12 20 35 40 36 42 38
Putin 21 32 22 34
Pushkin 25 23 42 39 47 29 34
Lenin 72 34 42 43 34 37 32
Peter the Great 38 41 45 43 37 37 29
Gagarin 15 8 26 33 25 20 20
Tolstoy 13 8 12 12 14 24 12
Zhukov 19 14 20 22 23 15 12
Catherine II 10 10 11 8 11 11
Lermontov 5 5 9 10 9 8 11
Lomonosov 20 13 18 17 17 15 10
Suvorov 17 18 18 16 16 12 10
Mendeleev 13 6 12 13 13 12 10
Napoleon 6 19 19 13 9 13 9
Brezhnev 6 8 12 9 12 8
Einstein 9 5 6 7 7 7 7
Esenin 2 3 5 6 5 7
Kutuzov 10 11 11 10 11 12 7
Newton 6 3 4 6 6 6 7
Gorbachev 10 4 8 6 6 6

Putin’s #2 position is absurd, even if you have a positive opinion of his record, while places #1 and #4 are just depressing.

I explained the causes of modern Russian Stalinophilia in an earlier post:

One would think that given Stalin’s actual record, which was sordid enough, you would not need to “blackwash” him any further, but ideologues will be ideologues, so what happened happened, and next thing you know many people started suspecting that given the false facts and figures being pushed about Stalin – demonstrated so by the newly accessible archival evidence itself – then maybe they were lying about everything else as well, and well maybe Stalin was actually the good guy after all, maligned by his bitter and limp-wristed successors who “sold out” the Glorious Leader.

And thus a huge strand of the Russian “patriotic” opposition to the liberal neocon hegemony of the 1990s, which had decidedly triumphed by the end of Putin’s first term, had in the process also become infested with Stalinophilia – even though it is not really compatible with Russian patriotism, let alone Russian nationalism (which the Communists, including Stalin, ruthlessly persecuted). The tendency of Stalin’s popularity to wax and wane in sync with the state of Russia’s relations with the West – lower when they are good, and higher when they are bad – strongly suggests that the debate over Stalin in Russia has nothing to do with real history. Instead, it is merely one of several tribal identifiers in politics, much like denial of global warming is a tenet of the Red Tribe and blank slatism is a tenet of the Blue Tribe, both of which have everything to do with American-specific politics and nothing to do with science. In Russia’s case, this Stalinist identifier – like the broader patriotic Great Patriotic War ideology onto which it has affixed itself – gets deflated and boosted whenever Russia veers between globalist integrationism and siege mentality, respectively.

Stalinophilia is a joint creation of sovoks and liberals.

The sovoks because many of them are the equivalent of America’s 95 IQ patriotards, and the ethnoliberals because they want to demonize and further dismantle Russia.

On the plus side, at least Lenin is slowly fading from the scene, the traitor and outright Russophobe made into the secular equivalent of a founding prophet in the USSR.

This suggests something encouraging – that it is not sovoks, but vatniks, who are beginning to worship Stalin.

But they are doing so not out of any love for scientific communism and similar crap, but because of their misdirected nationalist instincts.

With the correct changes in propaganda, vatniks will be demanding the toppling of Lenin statues and the restoration of the Russian Empire in no time at all.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Iosef Stalin, Opinion Poll, Russia 
🔊 Listen RSS

I wasn’t asked, but I’ll answer it anyway.

winegard-top-books

Like Emil Kirkegaard, I would also like to preface this by noting that the order in which I read any particular book is also very important in terms of its “influence” by me. For instance, Arthur Jensen’s The g Factor and Steven Pinker’s Blank Slate are both brilliant, but I read both of them after exposure to the Bell Curve and the HBDsphere, respectively, so neither can make the top 5 in terms of influence.

Moreover, this list is one of non fiction books. While there are several creative works that left a lasting impression on me – Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov, Camus’ The Stranger, and Miller’s A Canticle for Leibowitz come to mind – I find that I am more prone to be influenced by books densely populated with arguments and numbers.

So without further ado…

murray-herrnstein-bell-curve

1. Charles Murray & Richard Herrnstein – Bell Curve

This blockbuster of a book establishes the validity of g, its sociological relevance, the B/W gap in the US and its apparent intractability, and social consequences thereof.

As Steve Sailer and Charles Murray himself point out, twenty years on, the predictions made in Bell Curve have all panned out and the trends identified in it I don’t think it’s possible to conscientiously read this text and come away with the impression that IQ is an invalid or irrelevant concept, which is what the book is ultimately mainly about (even though the race/IQ chapter is what it has become infamous for, regardless of Murray & Herrnstein’s dozens of pages of disclaimers about it).

Quite apart from the IQ/sociology nexus, it is also my opinion that this is one of the key books you need to understand American society, along with David Hackett Fischer’s Albion’s Seed.

kurzweil-singularity-is-near

2. Ray Kurzweil – The Singularity is Near

The necessary disclaimers: Yes, I think Kurzweil’s method of willy-nilly exponential extrapolations are weak. Actually my criticisms go even deeper, since I view technological progress as being driven primarily by literate “smart fractions,” whereas Kurzweil models it as a function of existing technology.

Moreover, the reality test: As of 2017, it is clear that he was overoptimistic on timelines.

Still, when I read this in 2006 (straight out of high school), this was all extremely new and interesting to me.

And ultimately I remain a “singularitarian,” in the sense that I view the concept of a “technological singularity” and “transhumanism’ as both feasible and something that it worth striving towards (not least because the alternates are grim).

kennedy-rise-fall-great-powers

3. Paul Kennedy – The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers

Covering 500 years of history in 500 pages, the historian Paul Kennedy exhaustively argues that the root of military and geopolitical power is heavily dependent on economic power, which supports the munitioning potential to equip gunpowder armies. From the Third Years War to the Cold War, it has been deeper pockets, not military elan or morale, that have won.

This seems pretty obvious and self-explanatory, but many people don’t seem to get it. Although there are now many things I would quibble with it – I read it sometime around 2004 – its basic framework is still one I use when thinking about Great Power geopolitics.

I can also say that this book formed the wellspring of my interest in economic history. Statistics about pig iron production in 1910 seem pretty boring until you start imagining it going into Dreadnoughts and Krupp guns.

korotayev-intro-cliodynamics

4. Andrey Korotayev, Artemy Malkov, and Daria Khaltourina – Introduction to Social Macrodynamics

Most people think of history as a narrative of names and dates interlinked with “happenings” that historians try to explain and contextualize. But there has been very little progress on the methods of history since Thucydides.

The cliodynamicists are to history what Alfred Marshall was to economics – they want to start modeling history.

Although the best known name in this field is Peter Turchin’s, I was more influenced by Korotayev et al’s Introduction to Social Macrodynamics, a very short but formula heavy book that laid the framework for how I have thought about pre-industrial Malthusian societies ever since. Here is my review of it.

One of my very long-term ambitions is to try to integrate psychometrics with cliodynamics models.

rushton-race-evolution-and-behavior

5. J. Philippe Rushton – Race, Evolution, and Behavior

This is still, perhaps, the book about the validity of HBD theory.

In this book, a huge mass of data (the endnotes comprise a substantial percentage of the overall text) is marshalled in support of r/K selection theory applied to the three great races of mankind.

When I read it sometime around I was already somewhat “redpilled” on this issue, but this book raised my confidence in the HBD view of reality from “likely” to “almost certain.”

There are several other good essentially “HBD” books – The 10,000 Year Explosion by Cochran and Harpending, or Wade’s A Troublesome Inheritance for those hesitating about… wading into this subject, but this is the book I read first so as it’s the most influential so far as I’m concerned.

Here are some books that were close but missed out on the Top 5:

  • Charles Murray – Human Accomplishment
  • Samuel Huntington – The Clash of Civilizations
  • Kenneth Pomeranz – The Great Divergence
  • Yuri Slezkine – The Jewish Century
  • Nick Bostrom – Superintelligence, and his articles in general
  • Gregory Clark – A Farewell to Alms
  • Jared Diamond – Guns, Germs, and Steel
  • Donella Meadows et al. – Limits to Growth: The 30 Year Update
  • Jonathan Adair Turner – Just Capital

You might be asking why there are no Russia books, considering my repertoire ever since I started blogging.

The reason there are none is part of why I started blogging about Russia.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Books, Reading 
🔊 Listen RSS

Western journalists have this weird habit of making fun of Putin for his yearly marathon phone-ins with the Russian public. It’s populism. It’s all staged.

Well, sure, it’s all that. I can see how a class that writes articles with titles such as “It’s Time for the Elites to Rise Up Against the Ignorant Masses” might be uncomfortable with that. To be fair I find the usual fair – personalistic appeals to the sovereign to fix some road or reign in some tyrannical local bureaucrat to be pretty boring as well.

But still, it’s a nice gesture, and partly explains why he retains such popularity.

putin-brezhnev My impression is that Putin has started to decline as a leader, starting with how he speaks. Though he started his Presidency as a very poor speaker, he evidently got tuition, and became much better at it by the end of his first term. In the past couple of years, however, this has started to reverse. I thought that last year’s disappointing Q&A might have been an exception, but this year’s confirms that it is a trend.

But far more worrying was the content, which failed to articulate any coherent vision for the next few years and revealed an alarming complacency with respect to foreign policy and the other burning social issues of the day.

This was reflected in Putin’s comments on Ukraine, where he has tried to opt for another “mnogokhodovochka” (4D chess). In response to a Russophile from Kiev, asking him why he doesn’t do more to support Russia sympathizers in Ukraine, Putin told him, “We don’t want to give any public support, because we don’t want to harm you and we try not to get involved in internal Ukrainian political affairs.” Meanwhile, hundreds of Russia sympathizers continue rotting in the Maidanist regime’s jails. With friends like these…

Several minutes later, however, he casually mentioned that Viktor Medvedchuk, the godfather of Putin’s daughters and one of the most energetic champions of integration with Russia before Euromaidan, was actually a Ukrainian nationalist. But, he continued, Ukrainian nationalism, according to its 19th century sources such as Grushevsky, Franko, Dragomanov, Chernovol, stood for a federated state, for democratic, and for individual rights; some of them didn’t even consider Crimea to be part of Ukraine (no shit they didn’t – it never was until Khrushchev handed it to the UkSSR in 1954). Maybe so, but does anyone care? Medvedevchuk’s supposed “colleagues” in the OUN promptly clarified he has nothing to do with them. Perhaps having finally realized his “dear partner” Poroshenko wasn’t coming round, Putin has started thinking of allying with the Banderists. The whole episode is just bizarre.

question-ukraine Meanwhile, the one legitimate question about Ukraine – “When you shake Poroshenko’s hand, are you not afraid to dirty yourself with Donbass blood?” – was removed from the screen within seconds.

The one “gotcha” moment he got in was his riposte to Poroshenko’s comments bidding “farewell to unwashed Russia” on getting visa-free travel with the EU, quoting a line from the well-known Russian poet Lermontov. Putin quite skilfully counter-cited Ukrainian national poet Taras Shevchenko, quoting a line on how after winning the liberal struggle, her children are crucifying her worse than the erstwhile Polish oppressors. “I hope that at some point this period of Ukrainian history will come to an end.”

But he then followed it up with a suggestion to Poroshenko that if he truly wanted to be European he should part with his offshore accounts. Not bad, but it would have been more convincing if Putin’s own elites weren’t wrapped up in analogous schemes – indeed, the Panama Papers, which revealed Poroshenko’s offshore accounts, also revealed some $100 million+ in assets connected with Roldugin, an old celloist friend of Putin’s who was his other daughter’s godfather. In last year’s Q&A, Putin had clumsily explained those accounts as having been used to buy rare historical instruments for talented young Russian musicians.

Speaking of anti-corruption investigations: “We all know that unfortunately, the mass media in general and the Internet are also used to spread fake news, in service of the political struggle. What to do, this is life, there is nothing unusual here. But I must always double check it through the opportunities I have, and I have many such opportunities.” Meanwhile, the utterly compromised Medvedev remains PM, Russophile emigres from Ukraine continue getting deported back into the loving embrace of the Maidanists to make more space for Tajiks, and new laws are under consideration by the Duma to ban VPN services and to greatly limit people’s ability to make FOI requests about bureaucrats’ properties to the land registry.

No bold new ideas about social, economic, or foreign policy. There was a vague statement to the effect that a transition to a “new technological order” was needed, but no further details.

gallup-poll-us-russia

Parallel reality so far as relations with the US are concerned (Putin commented that Russia has “many supporters” in the US, no matter that approval of Russia in the US is at near record lows, and that on this very same day that there was a 97/100 bipartisan vote in the Senate to further sanctions against Russia).

The repetition of old tropes. “We need to strengthen the Syrian Armed Forces.” Meanwhile, more than a year after the start of the Russian intervention, the great bulk of the SAA remains militarily useless, with the hard fighting done by Hezbollah, the Iranians, about 20,000 just about competent SAA fomrations, and increasingly, Russian mercenaries in the Wagner Company.

Though the Presidential elections are less than a year away, it is now clear that Putin does not appear to have any any new ideas, plans, or visions for the long-term future apart from hunkering down and perhaps hoping that the state apparatuses in the US and Western Europe continue degrading even faster than in Russia. He is sitting on his 80% approval laurels, his status as the “inevitable” candidate assured.

Although I have to date avoided the comparison, because I had considered it inapplicable, the Brezhnevite critique is now becoming ever more germane.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Russia, Vladimir Putin 
No Items Found
Anatoly Karlin
About Anatoly Karlin

I am a blogger, thinker, and businessman in the SF Bay Area. I’m originally from Russia, spent many years in Britain, and studied at U.C. Berkeley.

One of my tenets is that ideologies tend to suck. As such, I hesitate about attaching labels to myself. That said, if it’s really necessary, I suppose “liberal-conservative neoreactionary” would be close enough.

Though I consider myself part of the Orthodox Church, my philosophy and spiritual views are more influenced by digital physics, Gnosticism, and Russian cosmism than anything specifically Judeo-Christian.


PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
A simple remedy for income stagnation