The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersRussian Reaction Blog
Eurabia Update
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

PEW has just made three different projections of the Islamic percentage of Europe’s population in 2050.

map-europe-future-muslim-demographics

Map of Muslim share of each European country today and in 2015 (High scenario).

Here are the assumptions behind each of them:

  1. Low: All migration into Europe stops from 2016. Muslims still increase from 4.9% to 7.4% by 2050 due to higher fertility and younger average age.
  2. Medium: Refugee flows of 2014-2016 stop, but “regular” (non-asylum) immigration continues at current levels. Muslims increase to 11.2% of the population.
  3. High: Refugee flows of 2014-2016 continue at the same level, with the same composition (i.e. mostly Muslim) in addition to regular immigration. Muslims increase to 14.0% of the European population.

Here is a summary:

europe-future-demographics

Takes:

1. I think actual policy will be between #2 and #3, i.e. #2.5. (Recall when Merkel said multiculturalism was a failure? What a change half a decade makes).

2. There’s some evidence that Muslims are undercounted in Europe. For instance, French Muslims have remained unchanged at around 8%-10% of the population since the early 2000s.

french-muslims-undercounted

And there’s real quantitative evidence behind this, as Emil Kirkegaard points out:

There’s a lot to do, but one thing I’ve been thinking of is showing that Muslim populations are actually growing a lot faster than many claim. The reason they claim these low levels of growth is because they rely on official statistics and these data tend to convert 2nd and later generation people into the ‘native’ categories, thus effectively hiding them. However, Muslims are nice enough to use distinctive names, so one can count the number of persons with such names over time and this will show a more realistic growth rate. Preliminary results for Denmark indicate an official stats-based growth rate of 2.5%, whereas first names indicate 5.1%. That’s not a small difference. The growth rate of Danish natives is something like -16% per generation which comes out at about -0.5% per year. You don’t have to be a genius to see how 5.1% vs. -0.5% work out in a few decades.

3. This obviously doesn’t include non-Muslim immigration (see Sailer’s most important graph in the world).

4. Doesn’t take into account conversion. Anecdotally, many African immigrants to the UK are apparently into Islam; conversely, Muslims in Western Europe tend to become more secular and liberal (though paradoxically, Islamic radicalization also increases).

5. Invest in Eastern Poland.

 
• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Demographics, Eurabia, Europe, Islam 
Hide 160 CommentsLeave a Comment
160 Comments to "Eurabia Update"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. There are four important numbers.

    A) The number of non-Muslim whites.

    B) The number of white converts to Islam.

    C) The number of (nonwhite) Muslims.

    D) The number of non-Muslim nonwhites.

    B is a very small number, so we don’t need to worry about at present. (That might change later.) A is decreasing. C is growing fast. D is also growing fast, perhaps slower than C. C and D will keep growing fast in the future. A is going to keep decreasing in the future. Will A ever become smaller than C+D? According to arithmetic, yes, surely. According to our liberal overlords, you are a racist conspiracy theorist for asking that question.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    A and D eventually merge together in future generations because of interracial marriage or liaisons creating mixed race children.
    , @Cato
    Religious beliefs seem less important than genes in determining the character and sustainability of a society. Gregory Clark's work on English demographics shows that intense natural selection has occurred since the high middle ages, favoring successful middle-class trades people. Our civilization, and its capitalist/scientific basis, originated from a particular people, with a certain genetic endowment, an endowment not found in the immigrants from places such as sub-Saharan Africa. Our civilization does not "fit" those immigrants; they could not create our civilization and there is no evidence that they can maintain it.

    That's why I'm not worried about people of my genetic stock converting to Islam. As religions go, Islam seems less nutty than Christianity: for example, the founder of Islam is not claimed to be the son of God, conceived through intercourse with a virgin. And the aesthetics of their liturgy are nice, maybe not as nice as that of Orthodox Christians, but still far above the level of most Protestant denominations.

    But I am worried about the influx of people whose ancestors were selected for something other than reproductive fitness in our civilization.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /akarlin/eurabia-update/#comment-2100454
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. neutral says:

    The Sub Saharan African (be they Muslim or not) mass migration is by far a bigger problem than the Muslim growth which tends to imply people the MENA regions. The racial aspect is the main problem here, many will try use Muslims as some kind of PCish way to say this, but the SJW know this is nonsense and they don’t care they will still call you racist – and they are right about this, the issue here is replacing whites with non whites.

    The people that overly obsess with Islam and Shariah by now should know that people like Sadiq Khan are hard leftists in the sense that they want to impose all the standard SJW norms on us (censorship, affirmative action, race replacement, more mass immigration), the future will not be some kind of ultra conservative ISIS in Europe, what it will be is ever more racialization of every aspect of our lives, and it will be overwhelmingly against white people.

    5. Invest in Eastern Poland.

    Poland will suffer the same fate as Western Europe, it has signed it’s own death sentence by joining NATO and the EU. I know that the different nationalists of Eastern Europe have go at each other here, but don’t you think it’s time to put your petty past squabbles aside? I say “petty” because what is happening right now is profoundly more significant than even the Holodomar, the war in the Eastern Front, the Katyn massacres, all the different wars through the ages that happened there. All I am asking is that you for once see the bigger picture here.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Invest in Eastern Poland.

    Poland will suffer the same fate as Western Europe, it has signed it’s own death sentence by joining NATO and the EU.
     

    Russians kept saying this for years, but it isn't happening. The projection above is that Poland will be .2% Muslim in 2050 under a worst-case scenario.

    I know that the different nationalists of Eastern Europe have go at each other here, but don’t you think it’s time to put your petty past squabbles aside? I say “petty” because what is happening right now is profoundly more significant than even the Holodomar, the war in the Eastern Front, the Katyn massacres, all the different wars through the ages that happened there.
     
    This is correct. They ought to unite, alongside Ukraine and (if possible) Belarus. This would be a very large territory with about 100 million people, almost all European.

    Linking to Russia isn't better than linking to Western Europe. Russia is already about 10% Muslim (more than any Western European country), has a porous border and customs union with Islamic Central Asia.

    , @Randal

    The Sub Saharan African (be they Muslim or not) mass migration is by far a bigger problem than the Muslim growth which tends to imply people the MENA regions.
     
    More generally, the real problem is mass immigration and the division it creates, not any one specific group whether racial or cultural.

    Islam is a useful specific case to point to in order to highlight the fact that there are any problems with mass immigration at all (which is flat out denied by the established orthodoxies amongst most US sphere elites) and whilst the dominant antiracist dogmas mostly preclude pointing at racial issues. In addition muslim immigration is particularly problematic for many of the most powerful lobbies pushing internationalism - feminist, homosexualist, jewish, so these lobbies tend to be less lockstep in pushing mass immigration of muslims and viciously suppressing dissent.

    But there would be no point whipping up anti-muslim fervour to save ourselves from muslim immigration only to fall into bloody chaos through non-muslim mass immigration (though that is clearly the goal of some jewish lobbies).


    Poland will suffer the same fate as Western Europe, it has signed it’s own death sentence by joining NATO and the EU.
     
    On the timescale under consideration, both NATO and the EU as it currently exists are probably irrelevant. There's little chance NATO will still exist in any form a couple of decades hence, and it is an error to think of the EU as a stable entity. The EU is a process, moving from the situation of European national sovereignties to a European superstate. It can move forwards or backwards, its composition can change at the fringes, or it can fall apart. It can't stand still for long.

    Most likely either the EU will no longer exist in its current form in 2050, or Poland will no longer be a member, or (if the EU has succeeded in moving forwards towards a United States of Europe),Poland will no longer exist as a sovereign state.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. DFH says:

    Why is Hungary’s Muslim population predicted to grow so much more quickly than the rest of Eastern Europe?

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    Likewise for Austria - they seem to have a much more anti-migrant government than does Germany.
    , @Perspective
    My guess is that this projection was based on the assumption that migrants declaring asylum in Hungary, would stay in Hungary. This seems unlikely given the current governments stance.

    Some other observations:

    Sweden at 30 percent, will no doubt collapse - at least financially - before it even reaches that point. Right now, the migrant population is largely placated by a generous benefit system. When the system can no longer sustain these wealth transfer levels, reality will hit Sweden pretty hard.

    I'm surprised that Italy has a relatively large Muslim population at nearly 5 percent, while Spain is only at 2.6 percent. Despite smaller numbers, the situation in Spain appears to be more unstable than it is Italy, so far anyway.

    The transformation appears to be fairly widespread across most of western Europe. Even smaller countries such as Luxembourg and Malta will see significant increases. Also, Switzerland, Finland and Denmark are experiencing much faster growth than I would have expected. While the Netherlands, though still striking, is actually changing at a slower rate than the aforementioned countries.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. AP says:
    @neutral
    The Sub Saharan African (be they Muslim or not) mass migration is by far a bigger problem than the Muslim growth which tends to imply people the MENA regions. The racial aspect is the main problem here, many will try use Muslims as some kind of PCish way to say this, but the SJW know this is nonsense and they don't care they will still call you racist - and they are right about this, the issue here is replacing whites with non whites.

    The people that overly obsess with Islam and Shariah by now should know that people like Sadiq Khan are hard leftists in the sense that they want to impose all the standard SJW norms on us (censorship, affirmative action, race replacement, more mass immigration), the future will not be some kind of ultra conservative ISIS in Europe, what it will be is ever more racialization of every aspect of our lives, and it will be overwhelmingly against white people.


    5. Invest in Eastern Poland.
     
    Poland will suffer the same fate as Western Europe, it has signed it's own death sentence by joining NATO and the EU. I know that the different nationalists of Eastern Europe have go at each other here, but don't you think it's time to put your petty past squabbles aside? I say "petty" because what is happening right now is profoundly more significant than even the Holodomar, the war in the Eastern Front, the Katyn massacres, all the different wars through the ages that happened there. All I am asking is that you for once see the bigger picture here.

    Invest in Eastern Poland.

    Poland will suffer the same fate as Western Europe, it has signed it’s own death sentence by joining NATO and the EU.

    Russians kept saying this for years, but it isn’t happening. The projection above is that Poland will be .2% Muslim in 2050 under a worst-case scenario.

    I know that the different nationalists of Eastern Europe have go at each other here, but don’t you think it’s time to put your petty past squabbles aside? I say “petty” because what is happening right now is profoundly more significant than even the Holodomar, the war in the Eastern Front, the Katyn massacres, all the different wars through the ages that happened there.

    This is correct. They ought to unite, alongside Ukraine and (if possible) Belarus. This would be a very large territory with about 100 million people, almost all European.

    Linking to Russia isn’t better than linking to Western Europe. Russia is already about 10% Muslim (more than any Western European country), has a porous border and customs union with Islamic Central Asia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @neutral
    I already did mention the issue is not Muslims, it its the endless tide of non white migration, what does it matter if Poland only has 0.2% Muslims but then lets in lots of Catholic Africans instead? The problem is that the EU has now openly declared that it wants to force migrants into all European lands, so there is no way that it can stay at 0.2% and still be in the EU.

    As for Russia and its Muslims, that is a problem, but would you rather have Muslims from the Caucuses or from Pakistan or MENA? Granted the Central Asians are not ideal, but still preferable to browner MENA and Indian sub continent types. Hate Russians all you want, but being the useful idiots to Soros, McCain and all the other liberal establishment is infinitely more destructive than anything Russia can muster, Western Europe was under the USA and from what I can see the destruction to the nations was way worse than what happened in the iron curtain.
    , @Mr. Hack

    This is correct. They ought to unite, alongside Ukraine and (if possible) Belarus. This would be a very large territory with about 100 million people, almost all European.
     
    Build upon the already existing Visegrad Group? What countries would you add? Would it still be within the EU? Military obligations? Could be useful and necessary. The Orthodox countries within such a body should look towards a recognized and large church within Ukraine for leadership.
    , @Anatoly Karlin

    The projection above is that Poland will be .2% Muslim in 2050 under a worst-case scenario.
     
    The projection is fairly limited in that it merely extends 2014-16 trends to 2050.

    Very few immigrants, Muslim or otherwise, settle in Poland when they can get 2-3x the real salary, 5x the nominal one, and perhaps 20x the welfare benefits in Germany or Sweden.

    However, since borders are porous, it seems likely that there will eventually be "backflow" once Central European/Visegrad living standards converge, or if Visegrad propels past them outright (a scenario that obviously isn't modeled). Unless Poland and Co. seal themselves off in turn.

    But will that be realistic? Richard Spencer's dreams regardless, New England or Cascadia secceeding is a pipedream. Obviously the EU isn't the US... for now. The Poles have to hope that that is still the case in 2050.

    They ought to unite, alongside Ukraine and (if possible) Belarus.
     
    Opinion polls indicate that Belorussian sentiments towards Russia is on the level of Donbass, which indeed makes this unrealistic in the medium-term future.

    OTOH, the complete inability of the kremlins to project any sort of soft power nor the balls to take Belorussia back outright means that it is possible it will turn into Dnepropetrovsk over the course of the next generation.
    , @Jon0815

    This is correct. They ought to unite, alongside Ukraine and (if possible) Belarus. This would be a very large territory with about 100 million people, almost all European.
     
    Or Ukraine could unite in an East Slavic union with Russia and Belarus, which would have an over 90% white population of about 200 million people.

    Linking to Russia isn’t better than linking to Western Europe. Russia is already about 10% Muslim (more than any Western European country),
     
    But Western Europe is catching up fast.

    This Pew study doesn't include Russia in its 2050 projections. But in 2011, Pew projected that Muslims would rise from 11.7% of Russia's population in 2010, to 14.4% in 2030. So if that trend continued, by 2050 they would be about 17%.

    In this study's medium migration scenario, Europe 2050 will be 11% Muslim, and Sweden will have a larger Muslim % than Russia, while France and the UK will also be about 17%.

    In the high migration scenario, Europe 2050 will be 14% Muslim, with Sweden (30%!), Austria (20%), Germany, Belgium, and France all having a larger Muslim % than Russia, the UK and Norway also at 17%, and several more countries at 14%-16%.

    Also, Russia's Muslims are more secular and have higher IQ's than Europe's. And Europe's Muslims are concentrated in the major metropolitan areas of the continent's economic and political center. Whereas outside the Caucasus, Tatarstan, and Bashkortostan (which together comprise only 2% of Russia's territory), Russia is about 95% non-Muslim.

    has a porous border and customs union with Islamic Central Asia.
     

    Europe's borders are also porous, to Arabs and Africans who have a much worse dysgenic and cultural impact than Central Asians. And given the trends in Kyrgyzstan, its likely that that within a generation or so the only Central Asian country in Russia's customs union will be very successful Kazakhstan.
    , @Mitleser

    Russians kept saying this for years, but it isn’t happening. The projection above is that Poland will be .2% Muslim in 2050 under a worst-case scenario.
     
    It does not matter that Muslims will likely remain a small minority in Poland.
    What matters is that Poland is part of the EU, an emerging superstate who will dictate laws in Poland.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. AP says:

    Once Muslims have about 20% of the population they essentially get veto power over national policies, given potential for violence by extremists from within the community. So, Western Europe will be finished as an independent society and culture.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  6. AP says:
    @DFH
    Why is Hungary's Muslim population predicted to grow so much more quickly than the rest of Eastern Europe?

    Likewise for Austria – they seem to have a much more anti-migrant government than does Germany.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. Brabantian says: • Website

    Yes, one sees both trends in Western Europe as stated above in the article … there is a general shift amongst Muslims in Western Europe towards being more secular & liberal, like my leather mini-skirted (female, I suppose I need to add) Arab neighbour … alongside with many Muslims also becoming more radical, maybe more easily than in their parents’ home countries … this happens particularly with under-employed youth, feeling the cultural tension, the lack of opportunity, and that their path of least resistance to a feeling of power-acquisition, is in following fundamentalist imams on the web or in the neighbourhood

    Would like to add a mention here in memoriam, of one Slavic warrior who was in this inter-cultural battle, and who – tho perhaps war-crime brutal in his past – just sacrificed his life in what was really a heroic act of courage, in order to show the world that the ‘war crimes’ tribunal in the Hague, was a biased, corrupt, fraudulent show seeking to demonise the Christian Slavs … here, Slobodan Praljak photos:

    This dramatic public suicide by poison of Bosnian Croat General Slobodan Praljak, 29 Nov. 2017 in a Hague, Netherlands courtroom, was actually the 15th death in custody of Balkan Hague defendants, 3 by ‘suicide’ and 12 by ‘disease & natural causes’ … It is statistically absurd that so many deaths in a small group of middle-aged men occurred ‘naturally’ … many of those dead insistent on exposing Nato war crimes, e.g., Slobodan Milosevic

    Certainly, war atrocities were committed in post-1990 Balkan conflicts, but what discredits these ‘war crimes trials’ is that only one ethnic class of defendants, Christian Slavs, were targeted for prosecution, whilst war crimes by Nato, or by Nato-favoured Muslim militias, were avoided

    Another corrupt aspect is that Balkan nation leaders and military commanders such as Praljak, were convicted as well not for committing atrocity acts themselves, but on grounds of ‘conspiring’, ‘allowing’ etc atrocities, as with other more ancient ‘international court’ railroadings of Germans & Japanese after World War II, whilst WW2 incendiary urban fire-bombing massacres burning hundreds of thousands of civilians to death, as ‘Allied’ crimes, went un-judged (this includes Hiroshima – Nagasaki, almost certainly also chemical fire-bombing like Tokyo etc, not ‘nukes’ as in the official story – See nuclear expert Anders Björkman etc re the nuke weapon hoax)

    By those same grounds, why are not many Western Nato leaders on trial for ‘war crimes’, for ‘conspiring’, ‘allowing’ etc war crimes in Libya, Syria, Iraq and many other places?

    USA 1990s Balkan war crime manipulations, included conducting a fraudulent ‘impeachment’ of US President Bill Clinton, in order to extort him into approving an illegal bombing of Serbia & massacre of civilians, which even the murderous Clinton found difficult to stomach … when Clinton agreed to do the bombing, he was ‘acquitted’ and he & his wife were allowed to continue their US regime roles

    Another aspect of the Hague ‘war crimes trials’, is that the Hague judges at times, especially some USA ones, behaved as openly sadistic, psychopathic abusers of their defendants, obsessively seeking to cover up for Nato crimes, e.g., CIA etc agents weaponising militias amongst the Balkan populations

    The age 72 General Slobodan Praljak, whatever his past crimes, cut a noble figure in his final moments, giving his life to help inform the world that the Hague ‘war crimes tribunal’ was a fraud meting out ‘victor’s justice’ for Nato propaganda … He died as a warrior telling truth, and perhaps earned some forgiveness for what he had done in the past

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. neutral says:
    @AP

    Invest in Eastern Poland.

    Poland will suffer the same fate as Western Europe, it has signed it’s own death sentence by joining NATO and the EU.
     

    Russians kept saying this for years, but it isn't happening. The projection above is that Poland will be .2% Muslim in 2050 under a worst-case scenario.

    I know that the different nationalists of Eastern Europe have go at each other here, but don’t you think it’s time to put your petty past squabbles aside? I say “petty” because what is happening right now is profoundly more significant than even the Holodomar, the war in the Eastern Front, the Katyn massacres, all the different wars through the ages that happened there.
     
    This is correct. They ought to unite, alongside Ukraine and (if possible) Belarus. This would be a very large territory with about 100 million people, almost all European.

    Linking to Russia isn't better than linking to Western Europe. Russia is already about 10% Muslim (more than any Western European country), has a porous border and customs union with Islamic Central Asia.

    I already did mention the issue is not Muslims, it its the endless tide of non white migration, what does it matter if Poland only has 0.2% Muslims but then lets in lots of Catholic Africans instead? The problem is that the EU has now openly declared that it wants to force migrants into all European lands, so there is no way that it can stay at 0.2% and still be in the EU.

    As for Russia and its Muslims, that is a problem, but would you rather have Muslims from the Caucuses or from Pakistan or MENA? Granted the Central Asians are not ideal, but still preferable to browner MENA and Indian sub continent types. Hate Russians all you want, but being the useful idiots to Soros, McCain and all the other liberal establishment is infinitely more destructive than anything Russia can muster, Western Europe was under the USA and from what I can see the destruction to the nations was way worse than what happened in the iron curtain.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    what does it matter if Poland only has 0.2% Muslims but then lets in lots of Catholic Africans instead?
     
    Poland has even fewer Africans than it has Muslims.

    As for Russia and its Muslims, that is a problem, but would you rather have Muslims from the Caucuses or from Pakistan or MENA?
     
    Turks are certainly preferable to Chechens.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. Mr. Hack says:
    @AP

    Invest in Eastern Poland.

    Poland will suffer the same fate as Western Europe, it has signed it’s own death sentence by joining NATO and the EU.
     

    Russians kept saying this for years, but it isn't happening. The projection above is that Poland will be .2% Muslim in 2050 under a worst-case scenario.

    I know that the different nationalists of Eastern Europe have go at each other here, but don’t you think it’s time to put your petty past squabbles aside? I say “petty” because what is happening right now is profoundly more significant than even the Holodomar, the war in the Eastern Front, the Katyn massacres, all the different wars through the ages that happened there.
     
    This is correct. They ought to unite, alongside Ukraine and (if possible) Belarus. This would be a very large territory with about 100 million people, almost all European.

    Linking to Russia isn't better than linking to Western Europe. Russia is already about 10% Muslim (more than any Western European country), has a porous border and customs union with Islamic Central Asia.

    This is correct. They ought to unite, alongside Ukraine and (if possible) Belarus. This would be a very large territory with about 100 million people, almost all European.

    Build upon the already existing Visegrad Group? What countries would you add? Would it still be within the EU? Military obligations? Could be useful and necessary. The Orthodox countries within such a body should look towards a recognized and large church within Ukraine for leadership.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    Basically - Austria-Hungary (all the central European countries) plus Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (Poland, Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuanian, Latvia) plus Estonia and Romania.

    Bulgaria and Macedonia are too Islamic; Serbia could join but its conflicts with many of the other members (such as Croatia, or now Ukraine) may be too extreme to allow this.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. AP says:
    @neutral
    I already did mention the issue is not Muslims, it its the endless tide of non white migration, what does it matter if Poland only has 0.2% Muslims but then lets in lots of Catholic Africans instead? The problem is that the EU has now openly declared that it wants to force migrants into all European lands, so there is no way that it can stay at 0.2% and still be in the EU.

    As for Russia and its Muslims, that is a problem, but would you rather have Muslims from the Caucuses or from Pakistan or MENA? Granted the Central Asians are not ideal, but still preferable to browner MENA and Indian sub continent types. Hate Russians all you want, but being the useful idiots to Soros, McCain and all the other liberal establishment is infinitely more destructive than anything Russia can muster, Western Europe was under the USA and from what I can see the destruction to the nations was way worse than what happened in the iron curtain.

    what does it matter if Poland only has 0.2% Muslims but then lets in lots of Catholic Africans instead?

    Poland has even fewer Africans than it has Muslims.

    As for Russia and its Muslims, that is a problem, but would you rather have Muslims from the Caucuses or from Pakistan or MENA?

    Turks are certainly preferable to Chechens.

    Read More
    • Replies: @neutral

    Poland has even fewer Africans than it has Muslims.
     
    And what exactly do you think that Poland will do to prevent the African flood into their land? For all the big talk some have regarding Poland, I see how they are now trying to investigate that recent march they had for racism, or see how they chickened out and let the EU dictate to them that the judges have to be leftists. Staying in the EU means the Africans will come, first a trickle and then torrent, just like it happened in France or Britain. The government has signed up to the universal values nonsense, it has to adhere to the EU open borders directive and it wants be in the good graces of the USA, under such conditions there is absolutely nothing that will stop the African migration.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. Read about this as well yesterday, ruined my day.
    This means there will be war, no doubt about it. Anybody who believes Britain, France or Germany can remain functioning democracies given those trends is deluded.

    Read More
    • Replies: @neutral

    This means there will be war, no doubt about it. Anybody who believes Britain, France or Germany can remain functioning democracies given those trends is deluded.
     
    I honestly wish there was a war, but I don't see it happening, the war was already fought, Germany lost and thus had to accept liberal world order imposed on it. It consists of an old, fat and childless demographic of whites, and a rapidly browning youth demographic, it should be obvious who would win even if there was a war.

    Western Europe is already dead, Eastern Europe however is at deaths door, whether it can still manage to save itself is the big question.

    , @LondonBob
    Yes I think some form of widespread conflict is inevitable. A Spanish style expulsion would be an optimal outcome.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. neutral says:
    @AP

    what does it matter if Poland only has 0.2% Muslims but then lets in lots of Catholic Africans instead?
     
    Poland has even fewer Africans than it has Muslims.

    As for Russia and its Muslims, that is a problem, but would you rather have Muslims from the Caucuses or from Pakistan or MENA?
     
    Turks are certainly preferable to Chechens.

    Poland has even fewer Africans than it has Muslims.

    And what exactly do you think that Poland will do to prevent the African flood into their land? For all the big talk some have regarding Poland, I see how they are now trying to investigate that recent march they had for racism, or see how they chickened out and let the EU dictate to them that the judges have to be leftists. Staying in the EU means the Africans will come, first a trickle and then torrent, just like it happened in France or Britain. The government has signed up to the universal values nonsense, it has to adhere to the EU open borders directive and it wants be in the good graces of the USA, under such conditions there is absolutely nothing that will stop the African migration.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    And what exactly do you think that Poland will do to prevent the African flood into their land?
     
    And what do they do to prevent the Muslim flood to their land? It's hilarious how for many years Russians have been predicting that Poland will go Muslim thanks to the EU and it just never happens. So now Africans are the new bogeyman? Funny and ridiculous.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. Re: undercounting on muslims, let me just add a Swedish perspective. Tobias Hübinette, who is co-founder of Swedish AntiFa, has written this year that the real number of muslims in Sweden is probably closer to 10%.

    https://tobiashubinette.wordpress.com/2017/03/14/muslimer-sverige-minoriteter/

    This is because a lot of muslims aren’t going to the mosque all the time – but he makes the crucial point that they still strongly identify as muslims. Sort of like Jews who don’t go to shul, but who nevertheless identify and act in accordance of that group. So the number Pew puts out is likely skewed to the downside, even in a “2.5 scenario”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  14. @AP

    Invest in Eastern Poland.

    Poland will suffer the same fate as Western Europe, it has signed it’s own death sentence by joining NATO and the EU.
     

    Russians kept saying this for years, but it isn't happening. The projection above is that Poland will be .2% Muslim in 2050 under a worst-case scenario.

    I know that the different nationalists of Eastern Europe have go at each other here, but don’t you think it’s time to put your petty past squabbles aside? I say “petty” because what is happening right now is profoundly more significant than even the Holodomar, the war in the Eastern Front, the Katyn massacres, all the different wars through the ages that happened there.
     
    This is correct. They ought to unite, alongside Ukraine and (if possible) Belarus. This would be a very large territory with about 100 million people, almost all European.

    Linking to Russia isn't better than linking to Western Europe. Russia is already about 10% Muslim (more than any Western European country), has a porous border and customs union with Islamic Central Asia.

    The projection above is that Poland will be .2% Muslim in 2050 under a worst-case scenario.

    The projection is fairly limited in that it merely extends 2014-16 trends to 2050.

    Very few immigrants, Muslim or otherwise, settle in Poland when they can get 2-3x the real salary, 5x the nominal one, and perhaps 20x the welfare benefits in Germany or Sweden.

    However, since borders are porous, it seems likely that there will eventually be “backflow” once Central European/Visegrad living standards converge, or if Visegrad propels past them outright (a scenario that obviously isn’t modeled). Unless Poland and Co. seal themselves off in turn.

    But will that be realistic? Richard Spencer’s dreams regardless, New England or Cascadia secceeding is a pipedream. Obviously the EU isn’t the US… for now. The Poles have to hope that that is still the case in 2050.

    They ought to unite, alongside Ukraine and (if possible) Belarus.

    Opinion polls indicate that Belorussian sentiments towards Russia is on the level of Donbass, which indeed makes this unrealistic in the medium-term future.

    OTOH, the complete inability of the kremlins to project any sort of soft power nor the balls to take Belorussia back outright means that it is possible it will turn into Dnepropetrovsk over the course of the next generation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Very few immigrants, Muslim or otherwise, settle in Poland when they can get 2-3x the real salary, 5x the nominal one, and perhaps 20x the welfare benefits in Germany or Sweden.
     
    Plus, there is no native community to welcome them and they don't speak the language at all.

    However, since borders are porous, it seems likely that there will eventually be “backflow” once Central European/Visegrad living standards converge, or if Visegrad propels past them outright (a scenario that obviously isn’t modeled). Unless Poland and Co. seal themselves off in turn.
     
    There isn't even a big flow into places like Minnesota or northern New England within the USA (Somali immigration is a policy, not a natural movement). Even if Poland converges to 80% of Western EU salaries, keeping down welfare, no local community support, weird language noone in the Middle East speaks, and local public antipathy would limit emigration there. Moreover, if the results of immigration in the west look worse and worse, the eastern European electorate is naturally going to respond accordingly so one can see barriers going up as needed.

    "They ought to unite, alongside Ukraine and (if possible) Belarus."

    Opinion polls indicate that Belorussian sentiments towards Russia is on the level of Donbass, which indeed makes this unrealistic in the medium-term future.

    OTOH, the complete inability of the kremlins to project any sort of soft power nor the balls to take Belorussia back outright means that it is possible it will turn into Dnepropetrovsk over the course of the next generation.
     
    I agree completely here, with the caveat that western Belarus while certainly no Galicia is a little more pro-Western than the rest of the country. If Russia acts aggressively enough towards Belarus to raise alarms, threaten native elites, or piss people off, but does not take the country, the process could accelerate. But this would be a long game.

    At any rate, objectively (without being a Russian nationalist) if one like Euroepan civilization it would probably be better to expand the "non-Islamic Euro zone" than to shrink it in favor the Russo-Islamic zone.
    , @anonymous coward

    OTOH, the complete inability of the kremlins to project any sort of soft power nor the balls to take Belorussia back
     
    Perhaps it's because they don't want to, not because they can't.

    Russia's center of economic and population mass has been shifting eastward all through the 20th century and will continue to do so in the 21st.

    It's clear that a decision has been made to cut losses and leave the western part of Eurasia to rot.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. AP says:
    @neutral

    Poland has even fewer Africans than it has Muslims.
     
    And what exactly do you think that Poland will do to prevent the African flood into their land? For all the big talk some have regarding Poland, I see how they are now trying to investigate that recent march they had for racism, or see how they chickened out and let the EU dictate to them that the judges have to be leftists. Staying in the EU means the Africans will come, first a trickle and then torrent, just like it happened in France or Britain. The government has signed up to the universal values nonsense, it has to adhere to the EU open borders directive and it wants be in the good graces of the USA, under such conditions there is absolutely nothing that will stop the African migration.

    And what exactly do you think that Poland will do to prevent the African flood into their land?

    And what do they do to prevent the Muslim flood to their land? It’s hilarious how for many years Russians have been predicting that Poland will go Muslim thanks to the EU and it just never happens. So now Africans are the new bogeyman? Funny and ridiculous.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. neutral says:
    @German_reader
    Read about this as well yesterday, ruined my day.
    This means there will be war, no doubt about it. Anybody who believes Britain, France or Germany can remain functioning democracies given those trends is deluded.

    This means there will be war, no doubt about it. Anybody who believes Britain, France or Germany can remain functioning democracies given those trends is deluded.

    I honestly wish there was a war, but I don’t see it happening, the war was already fought, Germany lost and thus had to accept liberal world order imposed on it. It consists of an old, fat and childless demographic of whites, and a rapidly browning youth demographic, it should be obvious who would win even if there was a war.

    Western Europe is already dead, Eastern Europe however is at deaths door, whether it can still manage to save itself is the big question.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. Allow me to add to the skepticism on Poland’s extremely low number. 2016 was the first year of positive net migration since WWII to Poland. Contrary to stereotypes, this wasn’t driven by a large surge of Poles working abroad. It wasn’t just Ukrainians, either. Poland is getting more and more Asians, often South Asians, as workers. I see them in Warsaw all the time, often doing menial jobs(Uber Eats cyclists and the like).

    And the share is growing. Some of these South Asians are Bangladeshi, though most are Nepali(Buddhists). I expect some Hindus going forward as well, possibly Filipinos too. Poland has historically been fairly multicultural, though I doubt we’ll ever get large refugee migration. YTD we’ve had only 18 Syrian asylum seekers and though the government won’t openly say their religions, I’d guess they are probably Christians. We already took in a few hundred Syrians(all of them Christians) during 2015 but nearly all of them left for Germany before the year had ended.

    Poland will have pockets of non-European minorities, though they will come primarily through work migration, á la Germany in the 60s and 70s, and not as refugees. It will also most likely be a hetergenous religious group. It takes 10 years to get a Polish citizenship and while getting a PR takes little more than 3 years, the requirements for citizenship are much more onerous. Only the most motivated would stay. However, with advancing AI and automation, I doubt it will ever reach more than 5% of the population. I think already by 2030, the amount of work that can be automated will be huge. Quantum computers are no longer fiction but will be a practical reality within a few years. This will speed up AI development massively.

    BTW, I find it funny to see that Hungary(!) will have a higher share of muslims in the aggressive scenario than Ireland. This may seem strange, but as Vincent Law recently noted, ‘Fortress Budapest’ is somewhat a meme, while Fortress Warsaw is not.

    P.S. on the whole “Poland is in NATO therefore it is doomed” – this is a low-information WN talking point. Same people will then blindly praise Russia for being “based” while not understanding that Russia is already 10% muslim and the share is rising. NATO or no NATO makes no difference.

    P.P.S The EU talking point is only a bit better, but only just. Think of it this way. Poland will get 80 billion euros from the 2014-2020 period. That represents around 1% of GDP per year. During the 2007-2013 cohesion fund period, the transfers averaged 2% of GDP per year. So it is halving every time. From 2020 onwards it will be 0.5% of GDP on current trends, but if rumors are true that cohesion funds are going to get cut due to “lack of solidarity” (read: lack of stupidity) on the part of EE, then this number will probably be even lower, possibly 0.25% of GDP. At this level, the amount of financial threats the EU could make on Poland will be quite low. Remember, if Poland and other EE states won’t budge now, when EU funds make a greater share of GDP, what makes you think it will in the future, when these funds will diminish? You can’t get kicked out of the EU, as long as Hungary will block anything coming our way. All decisions need to be unanimous. Plus, we’re seeing CZ/SK moving our direction, not away from us, especially CZ with the election of Babis. Austria is slowly turning more nationalist, too. So, the negotiating position of the Western EU states are constantly weakening, which they know. Therefore, if Poland isn’t budging now, you have to give me a good reason why it would 10 years from now, when our negotiating position will be far stronger. Plus, as I pointed out many times, Polish youth are more right-wing than their elders, which is NOT the usual pattern. So the Polish public 10-20 years from now will be even more nationalist.

    I think a more reasonable estimate would put Poland’s percentage at maybe 1-2% muslims in 2050 and the total nonwhite population at maybe 4-5%. But that would probably be it. And even by 2050, I doubt most work would even be done by humans. All the social change that will come because of this will be much easier to deal with in Poland, due to a homogenous high IQ society. I’m not too worried.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow
    The real danger for Poland (and Visegrad countries) is the slow movement of some of the 60 million Third World immigrants already in Western Europe east. They have a full right to do it today. They can establish ethnic beach-heads in big cities and continue bringing their relatives from EU and from outside of EU. This is exactly how it happened in UK, France, ...

    Difficult language doesn't protect you - there will be communities in large cities that will speak their native languages, or English-French. That is perfectly feasible. Why would they care about becoming citizens? As EU citizens they can live anywhere they want to inside EU.

    You are too wide-eyed optimistic on automation. Many jobs cannot be automated, and greedy business people will always bring cheaper labor to do service jobs, restaurants, hotels, or IT, or call centers, etc...

    EU has free movement of people. That is great as long as the current Third World dwellers in WE don't decide that moving east is actually quite profitable. And there is nothing Poland can legally do to stop them. Once they are there, many others directly from Third World countries will be able to come via family reunification, fake 'kabob' jobs, student visas, or just as visitors overstaying their visas. Exactly the same process as UK in 90's or 2000's.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. AP says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    The projection above is that Poland will be .2% Muslim in 2050 under a worst-case scenario.
     
    The projection is fairly limited in that it merely extends 2014-16 trends to 2050.

    Very few immigrants, Muslim or otherwise, settle in Poland when they can get 2-3x the real salary, 5x the nominal one, and perhaps 20x the welfare benefits in Germany or Sweden.

    However, since borders are porous, it seems likely that there will eventually be "backflow" once Central European/Visegrad living standards converge, or if Visegrad propels past them outright (a scenario that obviously isn't modeled). Unless Poland and Co. seal themselves off in turn.

    But will that be realistic? Richard Spencer's dreams regardless, New England or Cascadia secceeding is a pipedream. Obviously the EU isn't the US... for now. The Poles have to hope that that is still the case in 2050.

    They ought to unite, alongside Ukraine and (if possible) Belarus.
     
    Opinion polls indicate that Belorussian sentiments towards Russia is on the level of Donbass, which indeed makes this unrealistic in the medium-term future.

    OTOH, the complete inability of the kremlins to project any sort of soft power nor the balls to take Belorussia back outright means that it is possible it will turn into Dnepropetrovsk over the course of the next generation.

    Very few immigrants, Muslim or otherwise, settle in Poland when they can get 2-3x the real salary, 5x the nominal one, and perhaps 20x the welfare benefits in Germany or Sweden.

    Plus, there is no native community to welcome them and they don’t speak the language at all.

    However, since borders are porous, it seems likely that there will eventually be “backflow” once Central European/Visegrad living standards converge, or if Visegrad propels past them outright (a scenario that obviously isn’t modeled). Unless Poland and Co. seal themselves off in turn.

    There isn’t even a big flow into places like Minnesota or northern New England within the USA (Somali immigration is a policy, not a natural movement). Even if Poland converges to 80% of Western EU salaries, keeping down welfare, no local community support, weird language noone in the Middle East speaks, and local public antipathy would limit emigration there. Moreover, if the results of immigration in the west look worse and worse, the eastern European electorate is naturally going to respond accordingly so one can see barriers going up as needed.

    “They ought to unite, alongside Ukraine and (if possible) Belarus.”

    Opinion polls indicate that Belorussian sentiments towards Russia is on the level of Donbass, which indeed makes this unrealistic in the medium-term future.

    OTOH, the complete inability of the kremlins to project any sort of soft power nor the balls to take Belorussia back outright means that it is possible it will turn into Dnepropetrovsk over the course of the next generation.

    I agree completely here, with the caveat that western Belarus while certainly no Galicia is a little more pro-Western than the rest of the country. If Russia acts aggressively enough towards Belarus to raise alarms, threaten native elites, or piss people off, but does not take the country, the process could accelerate. But this would be a long game.

    At any rate, objectively (without being a Russian nationalist) if one like Euroepan civilization it would probably be better to expand the “non-Islamic Euro zone” than to shrink it in favor the Russo-Islamic zone.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

    There isn’t even a big flow into places like Minnesota or northern New England within the USA (Somali immigration is a policy, not a natural movement).
     
    Maine, Vermont: Both 99% non-Hispanic white in 1970 to 94% in 2010
    New Hampshire: 99% to 92%
    Massachusetts: 95% to 76%
    Connecticut: 91% to 71%

    For comparison, 90% was the average for the Mid-West in 1970 (now at 80%); 70%-75% was the case in California and Texas (now at 40%-45%).

    Massachusetts and Connecticut are both much better states than the others, hence are filling up faster. But the rate for all of them is historically very fast.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_non-Hispanic_white_population
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. neutral says:

    The African migration numbers, the fertility rate and the EU welcoming them is hardly a secret, you can easily find this in the mainstream news, the only difference is that they say how wonderful it is and how it will save Europe (yes save it is now the new narrative). The only ridiculous thing is your complete denial of what is happening in the world, zero clue of what ideologies of the people that run it are (you think Soros, McCain, etc want to keep Poland white?), and your own lack foresight.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    There are, perhaps, single digit thousands of Africans in Poland. Maybe even only high hundreds.

    Your ilk have been pushing the inevitable Islamification of EU-Poland for several years now. Now you are pushing a fear of massive African immigration, if Poland doesn't turn its back on the EU and NATO (and join Russia, right?). It's becoming a comedy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. AP says:
    @Mr. Hack

    This is correct. They ought to unite, alongside Ukraine and (if possible) Belarus. This would be a very large territory with about 100 million people, almost all European.
     
    Build upon the already existing Visegrad Group? What countries would you add? Would it still be within the EU? Military obligations? Could be useful and necessary. The Orthodox countries within such a body should look towards a recognized and large church within Ukraine for leadership.

    Basically – Austria-Hungary (all the central European countries) plus Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (Poland, Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuanian, Latvia) plus Estonia and Romania.

    Bulgaria and Macedonia are too Islamic; Serbia could join but its conflicts with many of the other members (such as Croatia, or now Ukraine) may be too extreme to allow this.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. AP says:
    @neutral
    The African migration numbers, the fertility rate and the EU welcoming them is hardly a secret, you can easily find this in the mainstream news, the only difference is that they say how wonderful it is and how it will save Europe (yes save it is now the new narrative). The only ridiculous thing is your complete denial of what is happening in the world, zero clue of what ideologies of the people that run it are (you think Soros, McCain, etc want to keep Poland white?), and your own lack foresight.

    There are, perhaps, single digit thousands of Africans in Poland. Maybe even only high hundreds.

    Your ilk have been pushing the inevitable Islamification of EU-Poland for several years now. Now you are pushing a fear of massive African immigration, if Poland doesn’t turn its back on the EU and NATO (and join Russia, right?). It’s becoming a comedy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    1. Do you expect the EU to let Poland remain in the EU indefinitely while not complying with their "duty" to accept large numbers of non-white and Muslim invaders?

    2. Germany, France, Sweden, and Italy are becoming inundated with millions of less educated, lower-skill, less productive, and often hostile and lazy Arab and African Muslims.

    Apart from any generalizations about the average intelligence of the immivaders compared to the native white Europeans, the ratio of working taxpayers to tax-consumers will drastically worsen. Taxes will rise even higher, and benefits will be cut, and health care will be further rationed, and still they will not have enough to go around.

    When those NW and western European countries become poorer and unable to provide generous benefits, when their economies aren't more prosperous or sound than Poland's, why wouldn't the parasites try to enter and settle in Poland?

    Will the EU "allow" Poland to use massive force to kill and repel such invaders as Poland should do?

    It seems that the only real solution is for Poland, Hungary, Austria, and any other country that wishes to survive and remain itself, to leave the EU. Develop a common external border security plan, with every country's troops having orders to shoot all unauthorized entrants dead at the border. Perhaps develop trade/tariff agreements with other central and eastern European peoples who want to live and maintain their own lands and culture, this time without surrendering economic, political, and cultural sovereignty to a new superstate.

    And yes, they will need to pursue quite friendly relations, cooperation, and increased trade with Russia (and Belarus). It's unavoidable.

    (And neither of the two "big powers" remaining in the EU, Germany and France, will be in a position to do much to their eastern brethren as punishment for leaving the EU. Elderly and middle-aged Germans and French, with all too few children and young people, will be under daily physical attack and threat everywhere in their countries. They will be too busy trying to survive, or outright fleeing their countries permanently, to worry about punishing Poland, Hungary, et al.)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. szopen says:

    “High: Refugee flows of 2014-2016 continue at the same level, with the same composition”

    This is the “high” scenario??? This is ridiculous. I’d say the default scenario is the higher number of refugees due to climate changes, water shortages etc. Until now Africa kept on producing more food each year; but in pessimistic scenario, where fertilizer prizes go up, oil prizes go up, there is less water, more bugs, higher temperature, their food output will be drastically reduced, meaning increase of refugees at least tenfold.

    Though, yeah, on a second thought its true that composition could be changed, and more of the black wave will be nominally christian.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  23. Randal says:
    @neutral
    The Sub Saharan African (be they Muslim or not) mass migration is by far a bigger problem than the Muslim growth which tends to imply people the MENA regions. The racial aspect is the main problem here, many will try use Muslims as some kind of PCish way to say this, but the SJW know this is nonsense and they don't care they will still call you racist - and they are right about this, the issue here is replacing whites with non whites.

    The people that overly obsess with Islam and Shariah by now should know that people like Sadiq Khan are hard leftists in the sense that they want to impose all the standard SJW norms on us (censorship, affirmative action, race replacement, more mass immigration), the future will not be some kind of ultra conservative ISIS in Europe, what it will be is ever more racialization of every aspect of our lives, and it will be overwhelmingly against white people.


    5. Invest in Eastern Poland.
     
    Poland will suffer the same fate as Western Europe, it has signed it's own death sentence by joining NATO and the EU. I know that the different nationalists of Eastern Europe have go at each other here, but don't you think it's time to put your petty past squabbles aside? I say "petty" because what is happening right now is profoundly more significant than even the Holodomar, the war in the Eastern Front, the Katyn massacres, all the different wars through the ages that happened there. All I am asking is that you for once see the bigger picture here.

    The Sub Saharan African (be they Muslim or not) mass migration is by far a bigger problem than the Muslim growth which tends to imply people the MENA regions.

    More generally, the real problem is mass immigration and the division it creates, not any one specific group whether racial or cultural.

    Islam is a useful specific case to point to in order to highlight the fact that there are any problems with mass immigration at all (which is flat out denied by the established orthodoxies amongst most US sphere elites) and whilst the dominant antiracist dogmas mostly preclude pointing at racial issues. In addition muslim immigration is particularly problematic for many of the most powerful lobbies pushing internationalism – feminist, homosexualist, jewish, so these lobbies tend to be less lockstep in pushing mass immigration of muslims and viciously suppressing dissent.

    But there would be no point whipping up anti-muslim fervour to save ourselves from muslim immigration only to fall into bloody chaos through non-muslim mass immigration (though that is clearly the goal of some jewish lobbies).

    Poland will suffer the same fate as Western Europe, it has signed it’s own death sentence by joining NATO and the EU.

    On the timescale under consideration, both NATO and the EU as it currently exists are probably irrelevant. There’s little chance NATO will still exist in any form a couple of decades hence, and it is an error to think of the EU as a stable entity. The EU is a process, moving from the situation of European national sovereignties to a European superstate. It can move forwards or backwards, its composition can change at the fringes, or it can fall apart. It can’t stand still for long.

    Most likely either the EU will no longer exist in its current form in 2050, or Poland will no longer be a member, or (if the EU has succeeded in moving forwards towards a United States of Europe),Poland will no longer exist as a sovereign state.

    Read More
    • Replies: @neutral
    All third world immigration is a problem, the reason I raise the African one is because it will be the largest migration group, and for anyone who reads things like Unz.com should be aware off, are the most destructive group to society.
    , @helena
    "Most likely either the EU will no longer exist in its current form in 2050, or Poland will no longer be a member, or (if the EU has succeeded in moving forwards towards a United States of Europe),Poland will no longer exist as a sovereign state."


    I think that's a good analysis. The EU is a chimera and a mirage. Despite the religious adherence to 4 Principles, countries have widely varying national arrangements for everything from VAT to access to residency and healthcare to imposition of Directives on Quality Standards via Regulations; animal welfare being a case in point.

    The UK's Achilles heel was the generosity of existing public services, which generosity had therefore to be made available to all EU citizens. If Poland's national policies are more robust, such as 10yrs to residency instead of the UK's 5yrs, that's helpful.

    But if Soros really has given Open Society 18bn to help persuade East Europe that the 4 Principles are good for the Soul, Poland is up against big money. And since Poles are returning now to a growing economy it seems likely Poland is in the sights of the nation-busters. But Poland has huge areas of natural forest so it will take decades for immigration to really impact on the landscape.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. Randal says:

    Taking the issue of muslim immigration alone (which clearly massively understates the overall problem of mass immigration), since it is the topic of this piece, according to the 2011 census the muslim population of England was 5.02% (and apparently 9.1% of children under the age of five).

    Already on that 5% figure, the same census reveals 14 local authorities with 10-20% muslim populations, 4 with 20-30% and two over 30% (Newham and Tower Hamlets). These are areas where muslim children are increasingly either the largest group or the overall majority in the schools and on the streets.

    The issue will create strife more quickly that the percentages suggest, precisely because immigrant populations are not going to be evenly spread amongst the population, but want to live amongst people like themselves, and are increasingly going to elect councils and members of parliament who will seek to run things the way they prefer them. This process is certainly already begun. Imagining what it will be like in 2050 under any plausible estimates of future demographics is all but impossible for white Englishmen indoctrinated to believe in multiculturalism and/or the essential sameness of all groups.

    Read More
    • Replies: @neutral
    Considering that London has a Muslim mayor and is saying that the US president is not welcome in "his country", thing are already really bad now.

    I imagine that if someone in 1965 was told this was going to happen in 2017 they would have thought you a lunatic.
    , @RadicalCenter
    You make an important point about the concentration of the burgeoning Muslim fifth column. They are clustering densely in a couple dozen cities across England, France, Germany, Sweden, and Italy, plus Vienna etc.

    Absent mass deportations and a sealing of the borders with military force, we can expect Muslim majorities in every larger city in those countries not long from now. We can expect Muslim-majority city councils even before Muslims are a majority of the population, because of their bloc-voting and unity.

    As there is already a hostile anti-white anti-Christian mayor of London, so there will be such a mayor of Berlin, Hamburg, Bremen, Paris, Marseilles, Stockholm, Rome, and perhaps Vienna.

    Look for Muslim city councils / mayors to criminalize alcohol, pork, immodest dress, and yes, homosexuality. Will Muslim judges overrule such prohibitions?

    Look for Muslim city councils / mayors to turn a blind eye and order police to stand down when Muslim gangs roam the streets and even enter homes and businesses to enforce sharia & terrorize non-Muslims. Will Muslim judges and prosecutors act to protect the rights and safety and culture of non-Muslims?

    Look for Muslim-dominated city councils to direct tax monies towards more and more Islamic "education" and away from secular or Christian education and cultural sites.

    Will non-Muslims have the numbers, the youth, and the guts to fight Muslims who riot in the streets to demand that those laws and practices be strictly enforced?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. LondonBob says:
    @German_reader
    Read about this as well yesterday, ruined my day.
    This means there will be war, no doubt about it. Anybody who believes Britain, France or Germany can remain functioning democracies given those trends is deluded.

    Yes I think some form of widespread conflict is inevitable. A Spanish style expulsion would be an optimal outcome.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. neutral says:
    @Randal

    The Sub Saharan African (be they Muslim or not) mass migration is by far a bigger problem than the Muslim growth which tends to imply people the MENA regions.
     
    More generally, the real problem is mass immigration and the division it creates, not any one specific group whether racial or cultural.

    Islam is a useful specific case to point to in order to highlight the fact that there are any problems with mass immigration at all (which is flat out denied by the established orthodoxies amongst most US sphere elites) and whilst the dominant antiracist dogmas mostly preclude pointing at racial issues. In addition muslim immigration is particularly problematic for many of the most powerful lobbies pushing internationalism - feminist, homosexualist, jewish, so these lobbies tend to be less lockstep in pushing mass immigration of muslims and viciously suppressing dissent.

    But there would be no point whipping up anti-muslim fervour to save ourselves from muslim immigration only to fall into bloody chaos through non-muslim mass immigration (though that is clearly the goal of some jewish lobbies).


    Poland will suffer the same fate as Western Europe, it has signed it’s own death sentence by joining NATO and the EU.
     
    On the timescale under consideration, both NATO and the EU as it currently exists are probably irrelevant. There's little chance NATO will still exist in any form a couple of decades hence, and it is an error to think of the EU as a stable entity. The EU is a process, moving from the situation of European national sovereignties to a European superstate. It can move forwards or backwards, its composition can change at the fringes, or it can fall apart. It can't stand still for long.

    Most likely either the EU will no longer exist in its current form in 2050, or Poland will no longer be a member, or (if the EU has succeeded in moving forwards towards a United States of Europe),Poland will no longer exist as a sovereign state.

    All third world immigration is a problem, the reason I raise the African one is because it will be the largest migration group, and for anyone who reads things like Unz.com should be aware off, are the most destructive group to society.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. neutral says:
    @Randal
    Taking the issue of muslim immigration alone (which clearly massively understates the overall problem of mass immigration), since it is the topic of this piece, according to the 2011 census the muslim population of England was 5.02% (and apparently 9.1% of children under the age of five).

    Already on that 5% figure, the same census reveals 14 local authorities with 10-20% muslim populations, 4 with 20-30% and two over 30% (Newham and Tower Hamlets). These are areas where muslim children are increasingly either the largest group or the overall majority in the schools and on the streets.

    The issue will create strife more quickly that the percentages suggest, precisely because immigrant populations are not going to be evenly spread amongst the population, but want to live amongst people like themselves, and are increasingly going to elect councils and members of parliament who will seek to run things the way they prefer them. This process is certainly already begun. Imagining what it will be like in 2050 under any plausible estimates of future demographics is all but impossible for white Englishmen indoctrinated to believe in multiculturalism and/or the essential sameness of all groups.

    Considering that London has a Muslim mayor and is saying that the US president is not welcome in “his country”, thing are already really bad now.

    I imagine that if someone in 1965 was told this was going to happen in 2017 they would have thought you a lunatic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    I imagine that if someone in 1965 was told this was going to happen in 2017 they would have thought you a lunatic.
     
    People struggle to imagine the real consequences of profound change.

    A parallel can be drawn with the decriminalisation of male homosexuality in the UK commencing in 1965-7. If you had asserted then that this process would end in the dramatic normalisation of homosexual activity that has in fact occurred, with all its dire consequences (as they would have seen them) you would have been laughed at as a bigot and told you were falling for a "slippery slope fallacy", as many opponents were, but here we are. And if everyone in Britain then could somehow have been forced to believe in that prediction, by being shown the results (which they would have almost universally regarded as abominations, remember, not having been accustomed to them through decades of exposure and propaganda, slow boiling frog style) then the proposal to decriminalise male homosexuality would have been swept away in a landslide of revulsion. but instead, the masses were duped into voting for what seemed like the nice, decent thing to do.

    As with homosexuality then, so with mass immigration in the past few decades, except that people will find it far harder to accustom themselves to outright civil strife, that will quite possibly reach Yugoslav levels in the end.

    We in Britain have not faced the kind of ethnic division we are now creating for ourselves, on our mainland at least, since the Welsh were defeated and the Scots joined. We are throwing away an asset built up over a millennium.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. @AP
    There are, perhaps, single digit thousands of Africans in Poland. Maybe even only high hundreds.

    Your ilk have been pushing the inevitable Islamification of EU-Poland for several years now. Now you are pushing a fear of massive African immigration, if Poland doesn't turn its back on the EU and NATO (and join Russia, right?). It's becoming a comedy.

    1. Do you expect the EU to let Poland remain in the EU indefinitely while not complying with their “duty” to accept large numbers of non-white and Muslim invaders?

    2. Germany, France, Sweden, and Italy are becoming inundated with millions of less educated, lower-skill, less productive, and often hostile and lazy Arab and African Muslims.

    Apart from any generalizations about the average intelligence of the immivaders compared to the native white Europeans, the ratio of working taxpayers to tax-consumers will drastically worsen. Taxes will rise even higher, and benefits will be cut, and health care will be further rationed, and still they will not have enough to go around.

    When those NW and western European countries become poorer and unable to provide generous benefits, when their economies aren’t more prosperous or sound than Poland’s, why wouldn’t the parasites try to enter and settle in Poland?

    Will the EU “allow” Poland to use massive force to kill and repel such invaders as Poland should do?

    It seems that the only real solution is for Poland, Hungary, Austria, and any other country that wishes to survive and remain itself, to leave the EU. Develop a common external border security plan, with every country’s troops having orders to shoot all unauthorized entrants dead at the border. Perhaps develop trade/tariff agreements with other central and eastern European peoples who want to live and maintain their own lands and culture, this time without surrendering economic, political, and cultural sovereignty to a new superstate.

    And yes, they will need to pursue quite friendly relations, cooperation, and increased trade with Russia (and Belarus). It’s unavoidable.

    (And neither of the two “big powers” remaining in the EU, Germany and France, will be in a position to do much to their eastern brethren as punishment for leaving the EU. Elderly and middle-aged Germans and French, with all too few children and young people, will be under daily physical attack and threat everywhere in their countries. They will be too busy trying to survive, or outright fleeing their countries permanently, to worry about punishing Poland, Hungary, et al.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    1. Do you expect the EU to let Poland remain in the EU indefinitely while not complying with their “duty” to accept large numbers of non-white and Muslim invaders?
     
    Of course. Moreover it already seems like a backlash within the EU against over-migration; see the Austrian election. EU actions can be undone by vetoes and Poland, Hungary etc. can block policies.

    When those NW and western European countries become poorer and unable to provide generous benefits, when their economies aren’t more prosperous or sound than Poland’s, why wouldn’t the parasites try to enter and settle in Poland?
     
    Wild speculation. Currently Poland offers something like 20 times less benefits than Germany. It's not going to catch up anytime in the next few decades.

    (And neither of the two “big powers” remaining in the EU, Germany and France, will be in a position to do much to their eastern brethren as punishment for leaving the EU.
     
    Nor can they punish Poland for refusing immigrants within the EU.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. @Randal
    Taking the issue of muslim immigration alone (which clearly massively understates the overall problem of mass immigration), since it is the topic of this piece, according to the 2011 census the muslim population of England was 5.02% (and apparently 9.1% of children under the age of five).

    Already on that 5% figure, the same census reveals 14 local authorities with 10-20% muslim populations, 4 with 20-30% and two over 30% (Newham and Tower Hamlets). These are areas where muslim children are increasingly either the largest group or the overall majority in the schools and on the streets.

    The issue will create strife more quickly that the percentages suggest, precisely because immigrant populations are not going to be evenly spread amongst the population, but want to live amongst people like themselves, and are increasingly going to elect councils and members of parliament who will seek to run things the way they prefer them. This process is certainly already begun. Imagining what it will be like in 2050 under any plausible estimates of future demographics is all but impossible for white Englishmen indoctrinated to believe in multiculturalism and/or the essential sameness of all groups.

    You make an important point about the concentration of the burgeoning Muslim fifth column. They are clustering densely in a couple dozen cities across England, France, Germany, Sweden, and Italy, plus Vienna etc.

    Absent mass deportations and a sealing of the borders with military force, we can expect Muslim majorities in every larger city in those countries not long from now. We can expect Muslim-majority city councils even before Muslims are a majority of the population, because of their bloc-voting and unity.

    As there is already a hostile anti-white anti-Christian mayor of London, so there will be such a mayor of Berlin, Hamburg, Bremen, Paris, Marseilles, Stockholm, Rome, and perhaps Vienna.

    Look for Muslim city councils / mayors to criminalize alcohol, pork, immodest dress, and yes, homosexuality. Will Muslim judges overrule such prohibitions?

    Look for Muslim city councils / mayors to turn a blind eye and order police to stand down when Muslim gangs roam the streets and even enter homes and businesses to enforce sharia & terrorize non-Muslims. Will Muslim judges and prosecutors act to protect the rights and safety and culture of non-Muslims?

    Look for Muslim-dominated city councils to direct tax monies towards more and more Islamic “education” and away from secular or Christian education and cultural sites.

    Will non-Muslims have the numbers, the youth, and the guts to fight Muslims who riot in the streets to demand that those laws and practices be strictly enforced?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    Look for Muslim city councils / mayors to criminalize ..... homosexuality.
     
    Even the darkest cloud has a silver lining, I suppose.

    But first we will need to see the muslims properly breaking away from the Labour Party "coalition of minorities", or taking it over. Presumably this will result from a fight for control of Labour policies, which we are already seeing to some extent, though on the current numbers it appears muslim Labour Party aspirants still have to pay lip-service to liberal leftist dogmas, or double-think their way to internalising them somehow. As muslim numbers rise, that will presumably become ever less the case.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Why do antiracist think it is somehow morally inevitable for Europe to become muslim – but not Hindu? In 1950 had almost no Hindus and almost no Muslims (except the regions earlier occupied by the Ottoman Empire). Why do Muslims have a bigger claim than Hindus?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The Hindus are too busy conquering New Jersey to be bothered with Europe.
    , @rec1man
    because, Hindus in the western countries, never do terrorism, create no-go zones or create street crime ;
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Jon0815 says:
    @AP

    Invest in Eastern Poland.

    Poland will suffer the same fate as Western Europe, it has signed it’s own death sentence by joining NATO and the EU.
     

    Russians kept saying this for years, but it isn't happening. The projection above is that Poland will be .2% Muslim in 2050 under a worst-case scenario.

    I know that the different nationalists of Eastern Europe have go at each other here, but don’t you think it’s time to put your petty past squabbles aside? I say “petty” because what is happening right now is profoundly more significant than even the Holodomar, the war in the Eastern Front, the Katyn massacres, all the different wars through the ages that happened there.
     
    This is correct. They ought to unite, alongside Ukraine and (if possible) Belarus. This would be a very large territory with about 100 million people, almost all European.

    Linking to Russia isn't better than linking to Western Europe. Russia is already about 10% Muslim (more than any Western European country), has a porous border and customs union with Islamic Central Asia.

    This is correct. They ought to unite, alongside Ukraine and (if possible) Belarus. This would be a very large territory with about 100 million people, almost all European.

    Or Ukraine could unite in an East Slavic union with Russia and Belarus, which would have an over 90% white population of about 200 million people.

    Linking to Russia isn’t better than linking to Western Europe. Russia is already about 10% Muslim (more than any Western European country),

    But Western Europe is catching up fast.

    This Pew study doesn’t include Russia in its 2050 projections. But in 2011, Pew projected that Muslims would rise from 11.7% of Russia’s population in 2010, to 14.4% in 2030. So if that trend continued, by 2050 they would be about 17%.

    In this study’s medium migration scenario, Europe 2050 will be 11% Muslim, and Sweden will have a larger Muslim % than Russia, while France and the UK will also be about 17%.

    In the high migration scenario, Europe 2050 will be 14% Muslim, with Sweden (30%!), Austria (20%), Germany, Belgium, and France all having a larger Muslim % than Russia, the UK and Norway also at 17%, and several more countries at 14%-16%.

    Also, Russia’s Muslims are more secular and have higher IQ’s than Europe’s. And Europe’s Muslims are concentrated in the major metropolitan areas of the continent’s economic and political center. Whereas outside the Caucasus, Tatarstan, and Bashkortostan (which together comprise only 2% of Russia’s territory), Russia is about 95% non-Muslim.

    has a porous border and customs union with Islamic Central Asia.

    Europe’s borders are also porous, to Arabs and Africans who have a much worse dysgenic and cultural impact than Central Asians. And given the trends in Kyrgyzstan, its likely that that within a generation or so the only Central Asian country in Russia’s customs union will be very successful Kazakhstan.

    Read More
    • Replies: @szopen
    That's all very reasonable and all, but in union with Russia, Ukraine would be an addition, an appendix, a 40 pound wolf accompanying 150 pound bear. In an alliance (not union!) with Poland, Ukraine would be a crucial partner, in fact - quite irreplaceable. Almost equal in size of population, and potetntially able to quickly catch up economically. It's up to Ukrainians to choose, of course.
    , @AP

    This is correct. They ought to unite, alongside Ukraine and (if possible) Belarus. This would be a very large territory with about 100 million people, almost all European.

    Or Ukraine could unite in an East Slavic union with Russia and Belarus, which would have an over 90% white population of about 200 million people.
     
    1. Russia and Belarus are part of the Eurasian Customs Union with some central Asian countries; the total Muslim population is about 20%; by 2050 it will be much higher.

    2. Past integration projects have been detrimental to Ukraine. 18th-19th century saw expansion of serfdom to Russian norms and brain drain; 20th century saw mass starvation and Russification of the population. Third time a charm? No thanks..

    This Pew study doesn’t include Russia in its 2050 projections. But in 2011, Pew projected that Muslims would rise from 11.7% of Russia’s population in 2010, to 14.4% in 2030. So if that trend continued, by 2050 they would be about 17%.
     
    Which would make Russia about as Muslim as the most Muslim big European countries under the worst scenario. That is, much more Muslim than the EU average.

    In the high migration scenario, Europe 2050 will be 14% Muslim, with Sweden (30%!), Austria (20%), Germany, Belgium, and France all having a larger Muslim % than Russia, the UK and Norway also at 17%, and several more countries at 14%-16%.
     
    But EU average would still be lower, and Ukraine would fall into the massive 2% or less Muslim bloc in the east of the EU.

    Whereas outside the Caucasus, Tatarstan, and Bashkortostan (which together comprise only 2% of Russia’s territory), Russia is about 95% non-Muslim.
     
    Moscow?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. Note that the projections do not include immigrants who got their asylum application rejected (and also not other illegals?)…adding those and their descendants… folks it will be scenario 3 or worse

    Read More
    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Right. It's also not clear that these projections include the millions of additional Muslims who will settle in Europe due to "family reunification" immigration, e.g. Germany's law:

    http://www.bamf.de/EN/Migration/Arbeiten/Familiennachzug/familiennachzug-node.html

    The so-called "high" scenario is already an untenably low projection, and the other two projections are pie-in-the-sky nonsense.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. szopen says:
    @Jon0815

    This is correct. They ought to unite, alongside Ukraine and (if possible) Belarus. This would be a very large territory with about 100 million people, almost all European.
     
    Or Ukraine could unite in an East Slavic union with Russia and Belarus, which would have an over 90% white population of about 200 million people.

    Linking to Russia isn’t better than linking to Western Europe. Russia is already about 10% Muslim (more than any Western European country),
     
    But Western Europe is catching up fast.

    This Pew study doesn't include Russia in its 2050 projections. But in 2011, Pew projected that Muslims would rise from 11.7% of Russia's population in 2010, to 14.4% in 2030. So if that trend continued, by 2050 they would be about 17%.

    In this study's medium migration scenario, Europe 2050 will be 11% Muslim, and Sweden will have a larger Muslim % than Russia, while France and the UK will also be about 17%.

    In the high migration scenario, Europe 2050 will be 14% Muslim, with Sweden (30%!), Austria (20%), Germany, Belgium, and France all having a larger Muslim % than Russia, the UK and Norway also at 17%, and several more countries at 14%-16%.

    Also, Russia's Muslims are more secular and have higher IQ's than Europe's. And Europe's Muslims are concentrated in the major metropolitan areas of the continent's economic and political center. Whereas outside the Caucasus, Tatarstan, and Bashkortostan (which together comprise only 2% of Russia's territory), Russia is about 95% non-Muslim.

    has a porous border and customs union with Islamic Central Asia.
     

    Europe's borders are also porous, to Arabs and Africans who have a much worse dysgenic and cultural impact than Central Asians. And given the trends in Kyrgyzstan, its likely that that within a generation or so the only Central Asian country in Russia's customs union will be very successful Kazakhstan.

    That’s all very reasonable and all, but in union with Russia, Ukraine would be an addition, an appendix, a 40 pound wolf accompanying 150 pound bear. In an alliance (not union!) with Poland, Ukraine would be a crucial partner, in fact – quite irreplaceable. Almost equal in size of population, and potetntially able to quickly catch up economically. It’s up to Ukrainians to choose, of course.

    Read More
    • Agree: AP
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @reiner Tor
    There are four important numbers.

    A) The number of non-Muslim whites.

    B) The number of white converts to Islam.

    C) The number of (nonwhite) Muslims.

    D) The number of non-Muslim nonwhites.

    B is a very small number, so we don't need to worry about at present. (That might change later.) A is decreasing. C is growing fast. D is also growing fast, perhaps slower than C. C and D will keep growing fast in the future. A is going to keep decreasing in the future. Will A ever become smaller than C+D? According to arithmetic, yes, surely. According to our liberal overlords, you are a racist conspiracy theorist for asking that question.

    A and D eventually merge together in future generations because of interracial marriage or liaisons creating mixed race children.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. @first time poster
    Note that the projections do not include immigrants who got their asylum application rejected (and also not other illegals?)...adding those and their descendants... folks it will be scenario 3 or worse

    Right. It’s also not clear that these projections include the millions of additional Muslims who will settle in Europe due to “family reunification” immigration, e.g. Germany’s law:

    http://www.bamf.de/EN/Migration/Arbeiten/Familiennachzug/familiennachzug-node.html

    The so-called “high” scenario is already an untenably low projection, and the other two projections are pie-in-the-sky nonsense.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. Cato says:
    @reiner Tor
    There are four important numbers.

    A) The number of non-Muslim whites.

    B) The number of white converts to Islam.

    C) The number of (nonwhite) Muslims.

    D) The number of non-Muslim nonwhites.

    B is a very small number, so we don't need to worry about at present. (That might change later.) A is decreasing. C is growing fast. D is also growing fast, perhaps slower than C. C and D will keep growing fast in the future. A is going to keep decreasing in the future. Will A ever become smaller than C+D? According to arithmetic, yes, surely. According to our liberal overlords, you are a racist conspiracy theorist for asking that question.

    Religious beliefs seem less important than genes in determining the character and sustainability of a society. Gregory Clark’s work on English demographics shows that intense natural selection has occurred since the high middle ages, favoring successful middle-class trades people. Our civilization, and its capitalist/scientific basis, originated from a particular people, with a certain genetic endowment, an endowment not found in the immigrants from places such as sub-Saharan Africa. Our civilization does not “fit” those immigrants; they could not create our civilization and there is no evidence that they can maintain it.

    That’s why I’m not worried about people of my genetic stock converting to Islam. As religions go, Islam seems less nutty than Christianity: for example, the founder of Islam is not claimed to be the son of God, conceived through intercourse with a virgin. And the aesthetics of their liturgy are nice, maybe not as nice as that of Orthodox Christians, but still far above the level of most Protestant denominations.

    But I am worried about the influx of people whose ancestors were selected for something other than reproductive fitness in our civilization.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    If half the population is nonwhite Muslim, and the other half is white Muslim, they will mix. The converts probably won’t kick out their Muslim brothers either. So if half the population is Muslim immigrants and the other half white converts, then all is lost in terms of genetics.

    Whatever the faults of Christianity, it’s at least our past culture. Also we don’t take it too seriously these days. But even if we did, I’d rather live under a Christian obscurantism than under a Muslim one. Muslim countries don’t connect much to their pre-Muslim past. If we converted, we’d automatically lost all connection to our past. Of course I’d prefer a mass Muslim conversion over mass Muslim immigration, but we have the latter anyway and the former would only exacerbate it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Erik Sieven
    Why do antiracist think it is somehow morally inevitable for Europe to become muslim - but not Hindu? In 1950 had almost no Hindus and almost no Muslims (except the regions earlier occupied by the Ottoman Empire). Why do Muslims have a bigger claim than Hindus?

    The Hindus are too busy conquering New Jersey to be bothered with Europe.

    Read More
    • LOL: RadicalCenter
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. Mr. XYZ says:

    : Unfortunately, an Intermarium which is stuck between an Islamizing Western Europe and an Islamizing Eurasian Union isn’t going to be in a very good position–especially considering that the population of this Intermarium is going to severely decline over the next 100 years.

    Of course, I don’t expect the Eurasian Union to go anywhere. Indeed, it will probably be a paper economic union but not much more than that. Thus, a Russia with a Muslim population stable around the 10% mark (some of whom–such as the Tatars–appear to be very moderate) still seems like an attractive ally for an Intermarium. Plus, if Russian Muslims aren’t moving en masse to Russia’s ethnic Russian heartland, I certainly wouldn’t expect them to move en masse to this Intermarium.

    Also, as a side note, the U.S., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand appear to have extremely good long-term prospects. Of course, a large part of the reason for this might be that they are importing an Asian overclass rather than a Muslim underclass.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  39. Mr. XYZ says:

    : Actually, there appears to be increasing support in Belarus in favor of joining the E.U.:

    https://belarusdigest.com/story/do-belarusians-want-to-join-the-eu/

    Also, I will say this–if AP genuinely believes that the Eurasian Union will become a genuine, Islamified union (as opposed to it only being a union on paper), then any Intermarium which will be created will probably be screwed considering that it doesn’t have very good sea access and considering that it will be surrounded by Islamified unions on both sides (not to mention having the Muslim world to its south). Plus, the rapidly declining population of an Intermarium certainly isn’t going to help it.

    Of course, I would also like to point out an interesting fact–specifically, Israel is over 20% Muslim and has neither gone to Hell nor lost its pre-existing (Jewish) character. Thus, it will take an awful lot of Muslim immigration for various European countries to lose their national character.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Also, I will say this–if AP genuinely believes that the Eurasian Union will become a genuine, Islamified union (as opposed to it only being a union on paper),
     
    I don't think it will be Islamified, so much as heavily Islamic, as will be the EU. This means a lot of deference to Islam in order to keep the peace and forced tolerance of a large Muslim population. Eurasia and the EU will still be majority Christian but, like America in the early 21st century, will be very visibly diverse, multicultural, like the New World. It will probably be violent too, unfortunately, with occasional inevitable suicide bombings and the security measures necessary to deal with them. Not an easy-going place to live anymore. Intermarium will be an idyll.

    then any Intermarium which will be created will probably be screwed considering that it doesn’t have very good sea access and considering that it will be surrounded by Islamified unions on both sides
     
    It would have access to the Baltic and Black Seas. It would be an agricultural powerhouse, perhaps be energy self-sufficient (shale gas, Polish coal, nuclear). A population of 100 million or so over a huge territory would be enough for internal security. Border security would be necessary but there's no reason to have hostile relationships with the neighbors.

    Israel is over 20% Muslim and has neither gone to Hell nor lost its pre-existing (Jewish) character.
     
    Israel also functions as a bit of a police state and anyone can die randomly at any time. No easy-going life. No thanks..
    , @biz

    specifically, Israel is over 20% Muslim and has neither gone to Hell nor lost its pre-existing (Jewish) character.
     
    Actually, Israel is around 15% Muslim. It is 25% non-Jewish but the rest of those are Christians and Druze, primarily. Otherwise, point taken.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. Mr. XYZ says:

    : I also agree with you that the rapidly improving living standards in Eastern European countries such as Poland could gradually cause many Muslims to move there–especially if Western Europe will have so many Muslims that its economy will deteriorate and that its quality of life will decrease.

    Of course, as I wrote above, this will certainly take a long time. Indeed, the case of Israel is a perfect example of a country which has absorbed a huge percentage of Muslims and yet hasn’t gone to Hell.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    Indeed, the case of Israel is a perfect example of a country which has absorbed a huge percentage of Muslims and yet hasn’t gone to Hell.
     
    iirc there's a consensus in Israel to keep Muslims away from political power and that Israel should be a primarily Jewish state. It's also a bit bizarre to compare the situation to Europe...Israel's Muslims are the descendants of pre-1948 inhabitants. It's not like Israel would tolerate or actively encourage large-scale Muslim immigration.
    And the realities of life in Israel, with security everywhere and a constant terror threat, aren't what most people would wish for their own country. Sadly we're now getting that in Europe as well, with all the fun stuff like people getting stabbed to death in supermarkets by some "Allahu akbar" maniac. And it would have been entirely avoidable. Must rank as one of the greatest policy failures ever, and those responsible for it deserve the harshest punishment.
    , @reiner Tor

    Israel is a perfect example of a country which has absorbed a huge percentage of Muslims
     
    Beyond absurd. It already had those Muslims to begin with, and got rid of as many of them (the vast majority within the pre-1967 borders) as it thought it could get away with. It then absorbed a huge number of Jewish immigrants, and still it’s there trying to engineer pro-natalist policies in a way to discourage Muslims from having children but trying to encourage Jews to have more, essentially trying to outbreed Muslims in an already overpopulated country. If this sounds insane, that’s because it is.

    In the absence of large scale French immigration France has no hope of not Islamizing slowly with its large and ever growing Muslim population.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. @Mr. XYZ
    @Anatoly Karlin: I also agree with you that the rapidly improving living standards in Eastern European countries such as Poland could gradually cause many Muslims to move there--especially if Western Europe will have so many Muslims that its economy will deteriorate and that its quality of life will decrease.

    Of course, as I wrote above, this will certainly take a long time. Indeed, the case of Israel is a perfect example of a country which has absorbed a huge percentage of Muslims and yet hasn't gone to Hell.

    Indeed, the case of Israel is a perfect example of a country which has absorbed a huge percentage of Muslims and yet hasn’t gone to Hell.

    iirc there’s a consensus in Israel to keep Muslims away from political power and that Israel should be a primarily Jewish state. It’s also a bit bizarre to compare the situation to Europe…Israel’s Muslims are the descendants of pre-1948 inhabitants. It’s not like Israel would tolerate or actively encourage large-scale Muslim immigration.
    And the realities of life in Israel, with security everywhere and a constant terror threat, aren’t what most people would wish for their own country. Sadly we’re now getting that in Europe as well, with all the fun stuff like people getting stabbed to death in supermarkets by some “Allahu akbar” maniac. And it would have been entirely avoidable. Must rank as one of the greatest policy failures ever, and those responsible for it deserve the harshest punishment.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. Mr. XYZ says:

    iirc there’s a consensus in Israel to keep Muslims away from political power and that Israel should be a primarily Jewish state.

    The latter is certainly true, but I’m unsure that the former is *completely* true; after all, there *are* some Arabs in the Israeli parties which make up the governing coalition in Israel. For instance, take a look at this guy:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayoob_Kara

    It’s also a bit bizarre to compare the situation to Europe…Israel’s Muslims are the descendants of pre-1948 inhabitants. It’s not like Israel would tolerate or actively encourage large-scale Muslim immigration.

    Yes, Israel’s Arabs are indigenous to Palestine whereas European Muslims are not indigenous to Europe. However, I am unsure as to why exactly this is relevant; after all, Israeli Arabs have IQs which are probably close to the IQs of European Muslims.

    And the realities of life in Israel, with security everywhere and a constant terror threat, aren’t what most people would wish for their own country. Sadly we’re now getting that in Europe as well, with all the fun stuff like people getting stabbed to death in supermarkets by some “Allahu akbar” maniac. And it would have been entirely avoidable. Must rank as one of the greatest policy failures ever, and those responsible for it deserve the harshest punishment.

    Please keep in mind, though, that Israeli Arabs appear to be pretty peaceful. Indeed, it is Palestinian Arabs who are causing trouble in Israel. In fact, if Israel and Palestine made peace, I doubt that Israel would have much problems with Arabs (perhaps with the exception of Hezbollah and/or Assad).

    Also, I agree with you that Europe blundered in accepting so many Muslim immigrants. Indeed, Europe’s immigration policy would be better if it looked similar to the U.S.’s, Canada’s, Australia’s, and/or New Zealand’s immigration policy–in other words, an immigration policy with a significant cognitive elitist component. Of course, even if Europe were to continue importing low IQ people, it would probably be better for these low IQ people to come from, say, the Philippines and/or Indonesia rather than from the center of the Muslim world (Indonesia is on the periphery of the Muslim world).

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    I am unsure as to why exactly this is relevant
     
    Because their numbers are not expected to grow through further immigration or family reunification, or whatever. Israeli Muslims only have natural growth. As opposed to Jews, who are immigrants and their numbers did grow through immigration, and it’s not impossible to imagine further mass immigration, for example if Europe gets Islamized.

    The Israeli Jewish population has its nationalist/religious (the two are the same from the point of national survival with the archaic Jewish religion) subpopulation which is breeding like rabbits. This is absent in all European countries.

    By the way Muslims are only 17.4% in Israel, not 20%.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. @Anatoly Karlin

    The projection above is that Poland will be .2% Muslim in 2050 under a worst-case scenario.
     
    The projection is fairly limited in that it merely extends 2014-16 trends to 2050.

    Very few immigrants, Muslim or otherwise, settle in Poland when they can get 2-3x the real salary, 5x the nominal one, and perhaps 20x the welfare benefits in Germany or Sweden.

    However, since borders are porous, it seems likely that there will eventually be "backflow" once Central European/Visegrad living standards converge, or if Visegrad propels past them outright (a scenario that obviously isn't modeled). Unless Poland and Co. seal themselves off in turn.

    But will that be realistic? Richard Spencer's dreams regardless, New England or Cascadia secceeding is a pipedream. Obviously the EU isn't the US... for now. The Poles have to hope that that is still the case in 2050.

    They ought to unite, alongside Ukraine and (if possible) Belarus.
     
    Opinion polls indicate that Belorussian sentiments towards Russia is on the level of Donbass, which indeed makes this unrealistic in the medium-term future.

    OTOH, the complete inability of the kremlins to project any sort of soft power nor the balls to take Belorussia back outright means that it is possible it will turn into Dnepropetrovsk over the course of the next generation.

    OTOH, the complete inability of the kremlins to project any sort of soft power nor the balls to take Belorussia back

    Perhaps it’s because they don’t want to, not because they can’t.

    Russia’s center of economic and population mass has been shifting eastward all through the 20th century and will continue to do so in the 21st.

    It’s clear that a decision has been made to cut losses and leave the western part of Eurasia to rot.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. @Cato
    Religious beliefs seem less important than genes in determining the character and sustainability of a society. Gregory Clark's work on English demographics shows that intense natural selection has occurred since the high middle ages, favoring successful middle-class trades people. Our civilization, and its capitalist/scientific basis, originated from a particular people, with a certain genetic endowment, an endowment not found in the immigrants from places such as sub-Saharan Africa. Our civilization does not "fit" those immigrants; they could not create our civilization and there is no evidence that they can maintain it.

    That's why I'm not worried about people of my genetic stock converting to Islam. As religions go, Islam seems less nutty than Christianity: for example, the founder of Islam is not claimed to be the son of God, conceived through intercourse with a virgin. And the aesthetics of their liturgy are nice, maybe not as nice as that of Orthodox Christians, but still far above the level of most Protestant denominations.

    But I am worried about the influx of people whose ancestors were selected for something other than reproductive fitness in our civilization.

    If half the population is nonwhite Muslim, and the other half is white Muslim, they will mix. The converts probably won’t kick out their Muslim brothers either. So if half the population is Muslim immigrants and the other half white converts, then all is lost in terms of genetics.

    Whatever the faults of Christianity, it’s at least our past culture. Also we don’t take it too seriously these days. But even if we did, I’d rather live under a Christian obscurantism than under a Muslim one. Muslim countries don’t connect much to their pre-Muslim past. If we converted, we’d automatically lost all connection to our past. Of course I’d prefer a mass Muslim conversion over mass Muslim immigration, but we have the latter anyway and the former would only exacerbate it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    Muslim countries don’t connect much to their pre-Muslim past. If we converted, we’d automatically lost all connection to our past
     
    Exactly. Christianity did produce a break with the pagan past, but even in medieval Europe they still read the Latin classics (those which had survived), wrote national histories with some reference to pre-Christian times etc. Compare that to the Near East which was Arabized (apart from Persia which kept some of its own traditions). Adopting Islam would mean becoming Arabized and losing all connection to our European past.
    , @Cato

    Muslim countries don’t connect much to their pre-Muslim past. If we converted, we’d automatically lost all connection to our past.
     
    You are right about this. But small numbers of converts, numbers similar to the converts to Wicca or Buddhism, would not be a problem.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. @Mr. XYZ
    @Anatoly Karlin: I also agree with you that the rapidly improving living standards in Eastern European countries such as Poland could gradually cause many Muslims to move there--especially if Western Europe will have so many Muslims that its economy will deteriorate and that its quality of life will decrease.

    Of course, as I wrote above, this will certainly take a long time. Indeed, the case of Israel is a perfect example of a country which has absorbed a huge percentage of Muslims and yet hasn't gone to Hell.

    Israel is a perfect example of a country which has absorbed a huge percentage of Muslims

    Beyond absurd. It already had those Muslims to begin with, and got rid of as many of them (the vast majority within the pre-1967 borders) as it thought it could get away with. It then absorbed a huge number of Jewish immigrants, and still it’s there trying to engineer pro-natalist policies in a way to discourage Muslims from having children but trying to encourage Jews to have more, essentially trying to outbreed Muslims in an already overpopulated country. If this sounds insane, that’s because it is.

    In the absence of large scale French immigration France has no hope of not Islamizing slowly with its large and ever growing Muslim population.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. @Mr. XYZ
    @German_reader:

    iirc there’s a consensus in Israel to keep Muslims away from political power and that Israel should be a primarily Jewish state.
     
    The latter is certainly true, but I'm unsure that the former is *completely* true; after all, there *are* some Arabs in the Israeli parties which make up the governing coalition in Israel. For instance, take a look at this guy:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayoob_Kara


    It’s also a bit bizarre to compare the situation to Europe…Israel’s Muslims are the descendants of pre-1948 inhabitants. It’s not like Israel would tolerate or actively encourage large-scale Muslim immigration.
     
    Yes, Israel's Arabs are indigenous to Palestine whereas European Muslims are not indigenous to Europe. However, I am unsure as to why exactly this is relevant; after all, Israeli Arabs have IQs which are probably close to the IQs of European Muslims.

    And the realities of life in Israel, with security everywhere and a constant terror threat, aren’t what most people would wish for their own country. Sadly we’re now getting that in Europe as well, with all the fun stuff like people getting stabbed to death in supermarkets by some “Allahu akbar” maniac. And it would have been entirely avoidable. Must rank as one of the greatest policy failures ever, and those responsible for it deserve the harshest punishment.
     
    Please keep in mind, though, that Israeli Arabs appear to be pretty peaceful. Indeed, it is Palestinian Arabs who are causing trouble in Israel. In fact, if Israel and Palestine made peace, I doubt that Israel would have much problems with Arabs (perhaps with the exception of Hezbollah and/or Assad).

    Also, I agree with you that Europe blundered in accepting so many Muslim immigrants. Indeed, Europe's immigration policy would be better if it looked similar to the U.S.'s, Canada's, Australia's, and/or New Zealand's immigration policy--in other words, an immigration policy with a significant cognitive elitist component. Of course, even if Europe were to continue importing low IQ people, it would probably be better for these low IQ people to come from, say, the Philippines and/or Indonesia rather than from the center of the Muslim world (Indonesia is on the periphery of the Muslim world).

    I am unsure as to why exactly this is relevant

    Because their numbers are not expected to grow through further immigration or family reunification, or whatever. Israeli Muslims only have natural growth. As opposed to Jews, who are immigrants and their numbers did grow through immigration, and it’s not impossible to imagine further mass immigration, for example if Europe gets Islamized.

    The Israeli Jewish population has its nationalist/religious (the two are the same from the point of national survival with the archaic Jewish religion) subpopulation which is breeding like rabbits. This is absent in all European countries.

    By the way Muslims are only 17.4% in Israel, not 20%.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. Mitleser says:
    @AP

    Invest in Eastern Poland.

    Poland will suffer the same fate as Western Europe, it has signed it’s own death sentence by joining NATO and the EU.
     

    Russians kept saying this for years, but it isn't happening. The projection above is that Poland will be .2% Muslim in 2050 under a worst-case scenario.

    I know that the different nationalists of Eastern Europe have go at each other here, but don’t you think it’s time to put your petty past squabbles aside? I say “petty” because what is happening right now is profoundly more significant than even the Holodomar, the war in the Eastern Front, the Katyn massacres, all the different wars through the ages that happened there.
     
    This is correct. They ought to unite, alongside Ukraine and (if possible) Belarus. This would be a very large territory with about 100 million people, almost all European.

    Linking to Russia isn't better than linking to Western Europe. Russia is already about 10% Muslim (more than any Western European country), has a porous border and customs union with Islamic Central Asia.

    Russians kept saying this for years, but it isn’t happening. The projection above is that Poland will be .2% Muslim in 2050 under a worst-case scenario.

    It does not matter that Muslims will likely remain a small minority in Poland.
    What matters is that Poland is part of the EU, an emerging superstate who will dictate laws in Poland.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. Randal says:
    @neutral
    Considering that London has a Muslim mayor and is saying that the US president is not welcome in "his country", thing are already really bad now.

    I imagine that if someone in 1965 was told this was going to happen in 2017 they would have thought you a lunatic.

    I imagine that if someone in 1965 was told this was going to happen in 2017 they would have thought you a lunatic.

    People struggle to imagine the real consequences of profound change.

    A parallel can be drawn with the decriminalisation of male homosexuality in the UK commencing in 1965-7. If you had asserted then that this process would end in the dramatic normalisation of homosexual activity that has in fact occurred, with all its dire consequences (as they would have seen them) you would have been laughed at as a bigot and told you were falling for a “slippery slope fallacy”, as many opponents were, but here we are. And if everyone in Britain then could somehow have been forced to believe in that prediction, by being shown the results (which they would have almost universally regarded as abominations, remember, not having been accustomed to them through decades of exposure and propaganda, slow boiling frog style) then the proposal to decriminalise male homosexuality would have been swept away in a landslide of revulsion. but instead, the masses were duped into voting for what seemed like the nice, decent thing to do.

    As with homosexuality then, so with mass immigration in the past few decades, except that people will find it far harder to accustom themselves to outright civil strife, that will quite possibly reach Yugoslav levels in the end.

    We in Britain have not faced the kind of ethnic division we are now creating for ourselves, on our mainland at least, since the Welsh were defeated and the Scots joined. We are throwing away an asset built up over a millennium.

    Read More
    • Replies: @cliff arroyo
    But think of the new fast food options!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. Randal says:
    @RadicalCenter
    You make an important point about the concentration of the burgeoning Muslim fifth column. They are clustering densely in a couple dozen cities across England, France, Germany, Sweden, and Italy, plus Vienna etc.

    Absent mass deportations and a sealing of the borders with military force, we can expect Muslim majorities in every larger city in those countries not long from now. We can expect Muslim-majority city councils even before Muslims are a majority of the population, because of their bloc-voting and unity.

    As there is already a hostile anti-white anti-Christian mayor of London, so there will be such a mayor of Berlin, Hamburg, Bremen, Paris, Marseilles, Stockholm, Rome, and perhaps Vienna.

    Look for Muslim city councils / mayors to criminalize alcohol, pork, immodest dress, and yes, homosexuality. Will Muslim judges overrule such prohibitions?

    Look for Muslim city councils / mayors to turn a blind eye and order police to stand down when Muslim gangs roam the streets and even enter homes and businesses to enforce sharia & terrorize non-Muslims. Will Muslim judges and prosecutors act to protect the rights and safety and culture of non-Muslims?

    Look for Muslim-dominated city councils to direct tax monies towards more and more Islamic "education" and away from secular or Christian education and cultural sites.

    Will non-Muslims have the numbers, the youth, and the guts to fight Muslims who riot in the streets to demand that those laws and practices be strictly enforced?

    Look for Muslim city councils / mayors to criminalize ….. homosexuality.

    Even the darkest cloud has a silver lining, I suppose.

    But first we will need to see the muslims properly breaking away from the Labour Party “coalition of minorities”, or taking it over. Presumably this will result from a fight for control of Labour policies, which we are already seeing to some extent, though on the current numbers it appears muslim Labour Party aspirants still have to pay lip-service to liberal leftist dogmas, or double-think their way to internalising them somehow. As muslim numbers rise, that will presumably become ever less the case.

    Read More
    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. AP says:
    @Jon0815

    This is correct. They ought to unite, alongside Ukraine and (if possible) Belarus. This would be a very large territory with about 100 million people, almost all European.
     
    Or Ukraine could unite in an East Slavic union with Russia and Belarus, which would have an over 90% white population of about 200 million people.

    Linking to Russia isn’t better than linking to Western Europe. Russia is already about 10% Muslim (more than any Western European country),
     
    But Western Europe is catching up fast.

    This Pew study doesn't include Russia in its 2050 projections. But in 2011, Pew projected that Muslims would rise from 11.7% of Russia's population in 2010, to 14.4% in 2030. So if that trend continued, by 2050 they would be about 17%.

    In this study's medium migration scenario, Europe 2050 will be 11% Muslim, and Sweden will have a larger Muslim % than Russia, while France and the UK will also be about 17%.

    In the high migration scenario, Europe 2050 will be 14% Muslim, with Sweden (30%!), Austria (20%), Germany, Belgium, and France all having a larger Muslim % than Russia, the UK and Norway also at 17%, and several more countries at 14%-16%.

    Also, Russia's Muslims are more secular and have higher IQ's than Europe's. And Europe's Muslims are concentrated in the major metropolitan areas of the continent's economic and political center. Whereas outside the Caucasus, Tatarstan, and Bashkortostan (which together comprise only 2% of Russia's territory), Russia is about 95% non-Muslim.

    has a porous border and customs union with Islamic Central Asia.
     

    Europe's borders are also porous, to Arabs and Africans who have a much worse dysgenic and cultural impact than Central Asians. And given the trends in Kyrgyzstan, its likely that that within a generation or so the only Central Asian country in Russia's customs union will be very successful Kazakhstan.

    This is correct. They ought to unite, alongside Ukraine and (if possible) Belarus. This would be a very large territory with about 100 million people, almost all European.

    Or Ukraine could unite in an East Slavic union with Russia and Belarus, which would have an over 90% white population of about 200 million people.

    1. Russia and Belarus are part of the Eurasian Customs Union with some central Asian countries; the total Muslim population is about 20%; by 2050 it will be much higher.

    2. Past integration projects have been detrimental to Ukraine. 18th-19th century saw expansion of serfdom to Russian norms and brain drain; 20th century saw mass starvation and Russification of the population. Third time a charm? No thanks..

    This Pew study doesn’t include Russia in its 2050 projections. But in 2011, Pew projected that Muslims would rise from 11.7% of Russia’s population in 2010, to 14.4% in 2030. So if that trend continued, by 2050 they would be about 17%.

    Which would make Russia about as Muslim as the most Muslim big European countries under the worst scenario. That is, much more Muslim than the EU average.

    In the high migration scenario, Europe 2050 will be 14% Muslim, with Sweden (30%!), Austria (20%), Germany, Belgium, and France all having a larger Muslim % than Russia, the UK and Norway also at 17%, and several more countries at 14%-16%.

    But EU average would still be lower, and Ukraine would fall into the massive 2% or less Muslim bloc in the east of the EU.

    Whereas outside the Caucasus, Tatarstan, and Bashkortostan (which together comprise only 2% of Russia’s territory), Russia is about 95% non-Muslim.

    Moscow?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

    Moscow?
     
    At least 85% European according to my calculations, so not more than 10% Muslim.

    Take a walk around London or Paris. Compare and contrast. (While bearing in mind that they constitute 1/5 of their respective country's populations, while Moscow accounts for 10%).
    , @melanf

    Past integration projects have been detrimental to Ukraine. 18th-19th century saw expansion of serfdom to Russian norms and brain drain;
     
    These statements are obvious and very gross manipulation, if not outright lie.
    , @Jon0815

    Russia and Belarus are part of the Eurasian Customs Union
     
    As most countries in your proposed Intermarium are currently part of the EU. My point is that of the two hypothetical new arrangements, a union of the three East Slavic states makes more sense. It would be slightly less European than Intermarium (though still over 90%), but much more populous, powerful, and able to stand up to the globalist, multicultural West. And it would be much more linguistically and culturally homogeneous.

    with some central Asian countries; the total Muslim population is about 20%; by 2050 it will be much higher.
     
    Do you think that Kyrgyzstan will still be a member of the ECU in 2050? I doubt it- given the trends there, it seems unlikely to me that it will go for over 30 years without an anti-Russian color revolution.

    And in a scenario where Ukraine is an ECU member (which an argument against Ukraine joining based on the ECU's Muslim % must assume), the ECU including Kyrgyzstan would be about 20% Muslim in 2050. While that would still be higher than Europe's 11-14%, Europe's Muslim population would still be less secular, dumber, and much less geographically segregated, since 80% of the ECU's Muslim population lives in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Russia's historically Muslim regions, while most of Europe's Muslim population is concentrated in its major cities.


    Past integration projects have been detrimental to Ukraine. 18th-19th century saw expansion of serfdom to Russian norms and brain drain; 20th century saw mass starvation and Russification of the population. Third time a charm? No thanks..
     
    What is best for Ukraine depends on the circumstances that exist now, not those that existed 80+ years or centuries ago. Making policy based on historical grievance is not rational: Your thinking is essentially the same as that used to justify race-based affirmative action. Russia is not going to bring back serfdom or Stalinism. Not to mention that when Ukraine was most recently united with Russia, it was much wealthier relative to Russia than it is today.

    Moscow?
     
    I didn't mean there is no place in Russia outside the Muslim regions with a Muslim % over 5%. I meant that outside those (geographically small and peripheral) Muslim regions, the average Muslim % is only about 5%. Or possibly slightly higher- I didn't crunch the exact numbers for every region- but certainly less than 10%.

    And even Moscow's population might be no more than about 5% Muslim if you don't include non-citizens (who have far less societal impact than those with voting rights).

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. AP says:
    @Mr. XYZ
    @Anatoly Karlin: Actually, there appears to be increasing support in Belarus in favor of joining the E.U.:

    https://belarusdigest.com/story/do-belarusians-want-to-join-the-eu/

    Also, I will say this--if AP genuinely believes that the Eurasian Union will become a genuine, Islamified union (as opposed to it only being a union on paper), then any Intermarium which will be created will probably be screwed considering that it doesn't have very good sea access and considering that it will be surrounded by Islamified unions on both sides (not to mention having the Muslim world to its south). Plus, the rapidly declining population of an Intermarium certainly isn't going to help it.

    Of course, I would also like to point out an interesting fact--specifically, Israel is over 20% Muslim and has neither gone to Hell nor lost its pre-existing (Jewish) character. Thus, it will take an awful lot of Muslim immigration for various European countries to lose their national character.

    Also, I will say this–if AP genuinely believes that the Eurasian Union will become a genuine, Islamified union (as opposed to it only being a union on paper),

    I don’t think it will be Islamified, so much as heavily Islamic, as will be the EU. This means a lot of deference to Islam in order to keep the peace and forced tolerance of a large Muslim population. Eurasia and the EU will still be majority Christian but, like America in the early 21st century, will be very visibly diverse, multicultural, like the New World. It will probably be violent too, unfortunately, with occasional inevitable suicide bombings and the security measures necessary to deal with them. Not an easy-going place to live anymore. Intermarium will be an idyll.

    then any Intermarium which will be created will probably be screwed considering that it doesn’t have very good sea access and considering that it will be surrounded by Islamified unions on both sides

    It would have access to the Baltic and Black Seas. It would be an agricultural powerhouse, perhaps be energy self-sufficient (shale gas, Polish coal, nuclear). A population of 100 million or so over a huge territory would be enough for internal security. Border security would be necessary but there’s no reason to have hostile relationships with the neighbors.

    Israel is over 20% Muslim and has neither gone to Hell nor lost its pre-existing (Jewish) character.

    Israel also functions as a bit of a police state and anyone can die randomly at any time. No easy-going life. No thanks..

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. AP says:
    @RadicalCenter
    1. Do you expect the EU to let Poland remain in the EU indefinitely while not complying with their "duty" to accept large numbers of non-white and Muslim invaders?

    2. Germany, France, Sweden, and Italy are becoming inundated with millions of less educated, lower-skill, less productive, and often hostile and lazy Arab and African Muslims.

    Apart from any generalizations about the average intelligence of the immivaders compared to the native white Europeans, the ratio of working taxpayers to tax-consumers will drastically worsen. Taxes will rise even higher, and benefits will be cut, and health care will be further rationed, and still they will not have enough to go around.

    When those NW and western European countries become poorer and unable to provide generous benefits, when their economies aren't more prosperous or sound than Poland's, why wouldn't the parasites try to enter and settle in Poland?

    Will the EU "allow" Poland to use massive force to kill and repel such invaders as Poland should do?

    It seems that the only real solution is for Poland, Hungary, Austria, and any other country that wishes to survive and remain itself, to leave the EU. Develop a common external border security plan, with every country's troops having orders to shoot all unauthorized entrants dead at the border. Perhaps develop trade/tariff agreements with other central and eastern European peoples who want to live and maintain their own lands and culture, this time without surrendering economic, political, and cultural sovereignty to a new superstate.

    And yes, they will need to pursue quite friendly relations, cooperation, and increased trade with Russia (and Belarus). It's unavoidable.

    (And neither of the two "big powers" remaining in the EU, Germany and France, will be in a position to do much to their eastern brethren as punishment for leaving the EU. Elderly and middle-aged Germans and French, with all too few children and young people, will be under daily physical attack and threat everywhere in their countries. They will be too busy trying to survive, or outright fleeing their countries permanently, to worry about punishing Poland, Hungary, et al.)

    1. Do you expect the EU to let Poland remain in the EU indefinitely while not complying with their “duty” to accept large numbers of non-white and Muslim invaders?

    Of course. Moreover it already seems like a backlash within the EU against over-migration; see the Austrian election. EU actions can be undone by vetoes and Poland, Hungary etc. can block policies.

    When those NW and western European countries become poorer and unable to provide generous benefits, when their economies aren’t more prosperous or sound than Poland’s, why wouldn’t the parasites try to enter and settle in Poland?

    Wild speculation. Currently Poland offers something like 20 times less benefits than Germany. It’s not going to catch up anytime in the next few decades.

    (And neither of the two “big powers” remaining in the EU, Germany and France, will be in a position to do much to their eastern brethren as punishment for leaving the EU.

    Nor can they punish Poland for refusing immigrants within the EU.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. @AP

    This is correct. They ought to unite, alongside Ukraine and (if possible) Belarus. This would be a very large territory with about 100 million people, almost all European.

    Or Ukraine could unite in an East Slavic union with Russia and Belarus, which would have an over 90% white population of about 200 million people.
     
    1. Russia and Belarus are part of the Eurasian Customs Union with some central Asian countries; the total Muslim population is about 20%; by 2050 it will be much higher.

    2. Past integration projects have been detrimental to Ukraine. 18th-19th century saw expansion of serfdom to Russian norms and brain drain; 20th century saw mass starvation and Russification of the population. Third time a charm? No thanks..

    This Pew study doesn’t include Russia in its 2050 projections. But in 2011, Pew projected that Muslims would rise from 11.7% of Russia’s population in 2010, to 14.4% in 2030. So if that trend continued, by 2050 they would be about 17%.
     
    Which would make Russia about as Muslim as the most Muslim big European countries under the worst scenario. That is, much more Muslim than the EU average.

    In the high migration scenario, Europe 2050 will be 14% Muslim, with Sweden (30%!), Austria (20%), Germany, Belgium, and France all having a larger Muslim % than Russia, the UK and Norway also at 17%, and several more countries at 14%-16%.
     
    But EU average would still be lower, and Ukraine would fall into the massive 2% or less Muslim bloc in the east of the EU.

    Whereas outside the Caucasus, Tatarstan, and Bashkortostan (which together comprise only 2% of Russia’s territory), Russia is about 95% non-Muslim.
     
    Moscow?

    Moscow?

    At least 85% European according to my calculations, so not more than 10% Muslim.

    Take a walk around London or Paris. Compare and contrast. (While bearing in mind that they constitute 1/5 of their respective country’s populations, while Moscow accounts for 10%).

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Moscow?

    At least 85% European according to my calculations, so not more than 10% Muslim.
     
    You are correct. Jon was claiming only 5% outside Tatarstan, Bashkoristan and the Caucuses. 15% is three times that number.

    Take a walk around London or Paris. Compare and contrast. (While bearing in mind that they constitute 1/5 of their respective country’s populations, while Moscow accounts for 10%).
     
    Similarly, you can take a walk around Warsaw - something like 98% European (there are a few Vietnamese). Large contrast to Moscow, as Moscow is to places like London.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. @AP

    Very few immigrants, Muslim or otherwise, settle in Poland when they can get 2-3x the real salary, 5x the nominal one, and perhaps 20x the welfare benefits in Germany or Sweden.
     
    Plus, there is no native community to welcome them and they don't speak the language at all.

    However, since borders are porous, it seems likely that there will eventually be “backflow” once Central European/Visegrad living standards converge, or if Visegrad propels past them outright (a scenario that obviously isn’t modeled). Unless Poland and Co. seal themselves off in turn.
     
    There isn't even a big flow into places like Minnesota or northern New England within the USA (Somali immigration is a policy, not a natural movement). Even if Poland converges to 80% of Western EU salaries, keeping down welfare, no local community support, weird language noone in the Middle East speaks, and local public antipathy would limit emigration there. Moreover, if the results of immigration in the west look worse and worse, the eastern European electorate is naturally going to respond accordingly so one can see barriers going up as needed.

    "They ought to unite, alongside Ukraine and (if possible) Belarus."

    Opinion polls indicate that Belorussian sentiments towards Russia is on the level of Donbass, which indeed makes this unrealistic in the medium-term future.

    OTOH, the complete inability of the kremlins to project any sort of soft power nor the balls to take Belorussia back outright means that it is possible it will turn into Dnepropetrovsk over the course of the next generation.
     
    I agree completely here, with the caveat that western Belarus while certainly no Galicia is a little more pro-Western than the rest of the country. If Russia acts aggressively enough towards Belarus to raise alarms, threaten native elites, or piss people off, but does not take the country, the process could accelerate. But this would be a long game.

    At any rate, objectively (without being a Russian nationalist) if one like Euroepan civilization it would probably be better to expand the "non-Islamic Euro zone" than to shrink it in favor the Russo-Islamic zone.

    There isn’t even a big flow into places like Minnesota or northern New England within the USA (Somali immigration is a policy, not a natural movement).

    Maine, Vermont: Both 99% non-Hispanic white in 1970 to 94% in 2010
    New Hampshire: 99% to 92%
    Massachusetts: 95% to 76%
    Connecticut: 91% to 71%

    For comparison, 90% was the average for the Mid-West in 1970 (now at 80%); 70%-75% was the case in California and Texas (now at 40%-45%).

    Massachusetts and Connecticut are both much better states than the others, hence are filling up faster. But the rate for all of them is historically very fast.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_non-Hispanic_white_population

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    Northern New England: A lot of those are Asians rather than blacks or Hispanics. While the expansion has been large as a % compared to previously, it is still small. From 1990 to 2010 Maine went from .4% black to 1.2% black. A difference of less than 1%. NH was from .6% to 1.1%.

    CT and MA are southern New England - these places already had an established base of Latinos, which has indeed expanded a lot (but black population hasn't).

    Eastern Europe is more like northern New England, with no local established population.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. AP says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Moscow?
     
    At least 85% European according to my calculations, so not more than 10% Muslim.

    Take a walk around London or Paris. Compare and contrast. (While bearing in mind that they constitute 1/5 of their respective country's populations, while Moscow accounts for 10%).

    Moscow?

    At least 85% European according to my calculations, so not more than 10% Muslim.

    You are correct. Jon was claiming only 5% outside Tatarstan, Bashkoristan and the Caucuses. 15% is three times that number.

    Take a walk around London or Paris. Compare and contrast. (While bearing in mind that they constitute 1/5 of their respective country’s populations, while Moscow accounts for 10%).

    Similarly, you can take a walk around Warsaw – something like 98% European (there are a few Vietnamese). Large contrast to Moscow, as Moscow is to places like London.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

    Jon was claiming only 5% outside Tatarstan, Bashkortostan and the Caucuses. 15% is three times that number.
     
    Well, that also seems correct.
    Moscow - ~10%
    Large cities/SPB - ~5%
    Small Russian towns - <2% (e.g. saw precisely zero when I was in Volokolamsk this year)
    Rural - virtually zero

    Similarly, you can take a walk around Warsaw – something like 98% European (there are a few Vietnamese).
     
    Yes, Poland does indeed have a pretty enviable demographic composition.

    OTOH, this isn't even universal to East/Central Europe. For instance, Hungary and Romania both have very high Gypsy minorities that might be approaching 10% of their population. I'd take Russia's problems over theirs (for now).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. @AP

    Moscow?

    At least 85% European according to my calculations, so not more than 10% Muslim.
     
    You are correct. Jon was claiming only 5% outside Tatarstan, Bashkoristan and the Caucuses. 15% is three times that number.

    Take a walk around London or Paris. Compare and contrast. (While bearing in mind that they constitute 1/5 of their respective country’s populations, while Moscow accounts for 10%).
     
    Similarly, you can take a walk around Warsaw - something like 98% European (there are a few Vietnamese). Large contrast to Moscow, as Moscow is to places like London.

    Jon was claiming only 5% outside Tatarstan, Bashkortostan and the Caucuses. 15% is three times that number.

    Well, that also seems correct.
    Moscow – ~10%
    Large cities/SPB – ~5%
    Small Russian towns – <2% (e.g. saw precisely zero when I was in Volokolamsk this year)
    Rural – virtually zero

    Similarly, you can take a walk around Warsaw – something like 98% European (there are a few Vietnamese).

    Yes, Poland does indeed have a pretty enviable demographic composition.

    OTOH, this isn’t even universal to East/Central Europe. For instance, Hungary and Romania both have very high Gypsy minorities that might be approaching 10% of their population. I’d take Russia’s problems over theirs (for now).

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Well, that also seems correct.
    Moscow – ~10%
    Large cities/SPB – ~5%
     
    St. Petersburg is in the extreme west of the country.

    Chelyabinsk, for example, is officially about 10% Tatar and Bashkir but unofficially may be closer to 15%.

    Similarly, you can take a walk around Warsaw – something like 98% European (there are a few Vietnamese).

    Yes, Poland does indeed have a pretty enviable demographic composition.

    OTOH, this isn’t even universal to East/Central Europe. For instance, Hungary and Romania both have very high Gypsy minorities that might be approaching 10% of their population. I’d take Russia’s problems over theirs (for now).
     
    Good point. Gypsies are not Muslim, though - they often engage in petty crimes but not in terrorism and don't threaten their neighbors' way of life. They are more of a nuisance.
    , @DCMG
    OTOH, this isn’t even universal to East/Central Europe. For instance, Hungary and Romania both have very high Gypsy minorities that might be approaching 10% of their population. I’d take Russia’s problems over theirs (for now).

    Well so far the gypsy is more of a nuisance issue than the existential threat large Muslim populations are. Though at least in the case of the Romanians I know Gypsys are the source of considerable emotional upset, they see themselves as next door to being overrun by Gypsys and that at times makes them seem to be a bit unhinged.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. AP says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    There isn’t even a big flow into places like Minnesota or northern New England within the USA (Somali immigration is a policy, not a natural movement).
     
    Maine, Vermont: Both 99% non-Hispanic white in 1970 to 94% in 2010
    New Hampshire: 99% to 92%
    Massachusetts: 95% to 76%
    Connecticut: 91% to 71%

    For comparison, 90% was the average for the Mid-West in 1970 (now at 80%); 70%-75% was the case in California and Texas (now at 40%-45%).

    Massachusetts and Connecticut are both much better states than the others, hence are filling up faster. But the rate for all of them is historically very fast.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_non-Hispanic_white_population

    Northern New England: A lot of those are Asians rather than blacks or Hispanics. While the expansion has been large as a % compared to previously, it is still small. From 1990 to 2010 Maine went from .4% black to 1.2% black. A difference of less than 1%. NH was from .6% to 1.1%.

    CT and MA are southern New England – these places already had an established base of Latinos, which has indeed expanded a lot (but black population hasn’t).

    Eastern Europe is more like northern New England, with no local established population.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    This is a good point. And besides, there is also the language problem, and labor mobility in Europe remains lower than in the US not just within the EU but even within individual countries, so Poland is safe for the next generation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. AP says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Jon was claiming only 5% outside Tatarstan, Bashkortostan and the Caucuses. 15% is three times that number.
     
    Well, that also seems correct.
    Moscow - ~10%
    Large cities/SPB - ~5%
    Small Russian towns - <2% (e.g. saw precisely zero when I was in Volokolamsk this year)
    Rural - virtually zero

    Similarly, you can take a walk around Warsaw – something like 98% European (there are a few Vietnamese).
     
    Yes, Poland does indeed have a pretty enviable demographic composition.

    OTOH, this isn't even universal to East/Central Europe. For instance, Hungary and Romania both have very high Gypsy minorities that might be approaching 10% of their population. I'd take Russia's problems over theirs (for now).

    Well, that also seems correct.
    Moscow – ~10%
    Large cities/SPB – ~5%

    St. Petersburg is in the extreme west of the country.

    Chelyabinsk, for example, is officially about 10% Tatar and Bashkir but unofficially may be closer to 15%.

    Similarly, you can take a walk around Warsaw – something like 98% European (there are a few Vietnamese).

    Yes, Poland does indeed have a pretty enviable demographic composition.

    OTOH, this isn’t even universal to East/Central Europe. For instance, Hungary and Romania both have very high Gypsy minorities that might be approaching 10% of their population. I’d take Russia’s problems over theirs (for now).

    Good point. Gypsies are not Muslim, though – they often engage in petty crimes but not in terrorism and don’t threaten their neighbors’ way of life. They are more of a nuisance.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. @AP
    Northern New England: A lot of those are Asians rather than blacks or Hispanics. While the expansion has been large as a % compared to previously, it is still small. From 1990 to 2010 Maine went from .4% black to 1.2% black. A difference of less than 1%. NH was from .6% to 1.1%.

    CT and MA are southern New England - these places already had an established base of Latinos, which has indeed expanded a lot (but black population hasn't).

    Eastern Europe is more like northern New England, with no local established population.

    This is a good point. And besides, there is also the language problem, and labor mobility in Europe remains lower than in the US not just within the EU but even within individual countries, so Poland is safe for the next generation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. @reiner Tor
    If half the population is nonwhite Muslim, and the other half is white Muslim, they will mix. The converts probably won’t kick out their Muslim brothers either. So if half the population is Muslim immigrants and the other half white converts, then all is lost in terms of genetics.

    Whatever the faults of Christianity, it’s at least our past culture. Also we don’t take it too seriously these days. But even if we did, I’d rather live under a Christian obscurantism than under a Muslim one. Muslim countries don’t connect much to their pre-Muslim past. If we converted, we’d automatically lost all connection to our past. Of course I’d prefer a mass Muslim conversion over mass Muslim immigration, but we have the latter anyway and the former would only exacerbate it.

    Muslim countries don’t connect much to their pre-Muslim past. If we converted, we’d automatically lost all connection to our past

    Exactly. Christianity did produce a break with the pagan past, but even in medieval Europe they still read the Latin classics (those which had survived), wrote national histories with some reference to pre-Christian times etc. Compare that to the Near East which was Arabized (apart from Persia which kept some of its own traditions). Adopting Islam would mean becoming Arabized and losing all connection to our European past.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mitleser

    Adopting Islam would mean becoming Arabized and losing all connection to our European past.
     
    The Arab-centrism of the Islam is probably my main problem with the Islam and why I would refuse to convert.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. Mitleser says:
    @German_reader

    Muslim countries don’t connect much to their pre-Muslim past. If we converted, we’d automatically lost all connection to our past
     
    Exactly. Christianity did produce a break with the pagan past, but even in medieval Europe they still read the Latin classics (those which had survived), wrote national histories with some reference to pre-Christian times etc. Compare that to the Near East which was Arabized (apart from Persia which kept some of its own traditions). Adopting Islam would mean becoming Arabized and losing all connection to our European past.

    Adopting Islam would mean becoming Arabized and losing all connection to our European past.

    The Arab-centrism of the Islam is probably my main problem with the Islam and why I would refuse to convert.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Parbes
    There are a LOT more problems with Islam than merely its "Arab-centrism". It is true, though, that Arab-centrism is one of the worst.

    Why do you need to "convert" to anything, anyway? Doesn't even the fact that you feel the need to seriously consider or discuss "converting" to something like Islam, speak volumes about how fearful and confused you are?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. Client 9 says:

    I think the Pew report is alarmist(pertaining to some countries) and obviously pro migrant propaganda aimed at demoralizing Europeans who are against mass immigration, “You see! if we stop the muslims from coming they will still be a growing population so just let ‘em in anyway”.

    Even if this report is accurate in the long run it will have devastating consequences for the continent, it is obviously clear the third world immigrants are addicted to government subsidies (if you build it they will come) so cut government subsidies.

    Also because of the poor economy Italy experienced record low level of births not only among natives but also foreigners, furthermore Italy has experienced record low immigration into the country(not counting the illegal boat people from Africa) and record high emigration of not only native Italians but foreigners as well.

    Just by stopping the reason why they come (government subsidies) will also prevent them from breeding like rabbits, but the better thing to do is to stop immigration from the third world and pay the ones already in Europe to leave.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  63. AP says:

    I think the Pew report is alarmist(pertaining to some countries)

    Some countries (Sweden) may be in the high group while others (Austria may have already begun a backlash) may be in the low scenario.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  64. Parbes says:
    @Mitleser

    Adopting Islam would mean becoming Arabized and losing all connection to our European past.
     
    The Arab-centrism of the Islam is probably my main problem with the Islam and why I would refuse to convert.

    There are a LOT more problems with Islam than merely its “Arab-centrism”. It is true, though, that Arab-centrism is one of the worst.

    Why do you need to “convert” to anything, anyway? Doesn’t even the fact that you feel the need to seriously consider or discuss “converting” to something like Islam, speak volumes about how fearful and confused you are?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. Mr. XYZ says:

    @reiner_Tor:

    Beyond absurd. It already had those Muslims to begin with, and got rid of as many of them (the vast majority within the pre-1967 borders) as it thought it could get away with. It then absorbed a huge number of Jewish immigrants, and still it’s there trying to engineer pro-natalist policies in a way to discourage Muslims from having children but trying to encourage Jews to have more, essentially trying to outbreed Muslims in an already overpopulated country. If this sounds insane, that’s because it is.

    In the absence of large scale French immigration France has no hope of not Islamizing slowly with its large and ever growing Muslim population.

    Please keep in mind that Muslims aren’t breeding anywhere near as much as they did in the mid-20th century, though. Indeed, a typical Muslim might have had seven or eight children in 1950 but might only have three children right now. Thus, countries such as France might not need non-Muslim immigration as badly as Israel needed non-Muslim immigration. Indeed, this will be especially true if countries such as France severely restrict Muslim immigration.

    Because their numbers are not expected to grow through further immigration or family reunification, or whatever. Israeli Muslims only have natural growth. As opposed to Jews, who are immigrants and their numbers did grow through immigration, and it’s not impossible to imagine further mass immigration, for example if Europe gets Islamized.

    Are Israeli Muslims not allowed to import Muslims from abroad to marry?

    Also, please keep in mind that Western Europe can close its doors to Muslim immigrants.

    The Israeli Jewish population has its nationalist/religious (the two are the same from the point of national survival with the archaic Jewish religion) subpopulation which is breeding like rabbits. This is absent in all European countries.

    For now. However, as the breeders become a larger and larger percentage of the total population, this might change in Europe.

    By the way Muslims are only 17.4% in Israel, not 20%.

    Thanks for this correction.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    By "the breeders" you mean normal people who have their own children?
    , @Talha
    Enjoyed reading your comments - thinking out of the box - I like it.

    One point; that Ayoub Kara guy is Druze - they have a different status in Israel since they are Arab, but are not Muslim.

    It'll be very interesting how these trends play out in the next few decades. My guess is that, due to the issues that the normal people in Europe are seeing due to the influx of refugees (and sometimes invaders) from the ME is that Europe is going to start; 1) closing up borders and 2) politically trying to stop the US from doing any more meddling in the ME for which they have to pay they most obvious price. Less broken countries = less refugees = less sympathy for rule-breakers with respect to borders.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. Mr. XYZ says:

    I don’t think it will be Islamified, so much as heavily Islamic, as will be the EU. This means a lot of deference to Islam in order to keep the peace and forced tolerance of a large Muslim population. Eurasia and the EU will still be majority Christian but, like America in the early 21st century, will be very visibly diverse, multicultural, like the New World. It will probably be violent too, unfortunately, with occasional inevitable suicide bombings and the security measures necessary to deal with them. Not an easy-going place to live anymore. Intermarium will be an idyll.

    You are assuming that terrorism among Muslims will not eventually peter out like it previously did among various other groups. Indeed, I wouldn’t be so sure about that.

    Yes, Muslims certainly have a severe terrorism problem (and IQ problem, of course) which isn’t going to go away anytime soon. However, please keep in mind that Muslims historically did not have a monopoly on terrorism and that other groups–such as anarchists and Russian leftists (in Tsarist times)–also engaged in terrorism in the past.

    Just like we don’t see anarchists engaging much in terrorism nowadays, I wouldn’t be surprised if the frequency of Muslim terrorism would eventually significantly decrease.

    (Also, as a side note, I might as well mention this–while Muslim terrorists nowadays have a large emphasis on Islam, the earlier Muslim terrorists–such as Leila Khaled–were actually secular. Thus, there appears to be nothing specific about the Islamic faith which makes its followers especially prone to terrorism. Indeed, in the 1970s, most terrorism worldwide was actually committed outside of the Muslim world–with much of it being committed by White Westerners (such as the Weather Underground).)

    It would have access to the Baltic and Black Seas.

    Please take a look at the countries which control the entrances to those seas, though. Indeed, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway–all of whom are projected to become very Islamic–control the entrance to the Baltic Sea while Muslim-majority Turkey controls the access to the Black Sea. Thus, if the Intermarium will be perceived in a sufficiently negative light, those countries could try closing the opening of the Baltic and/or Black Sea. (Think of Egypt’s blockade of the Strait of Tiran in 1967.) Indeed, this would be a large concern if these countries would be able to get the military muscle of a large country such as Britain, France, or (a rearmed) Germany to help them out with this.

    In fact, why exactly do you think that Russia was historically so determined to get control of the Straits? It was because it didn’t want its trade routes to be at the mercy of others.

    It would be an agricultural powerhouse,

    I do hope that there will be enough robots to help out in the fields after significant population decline occurs in this Intermarium. After all, even importing East Asians or Filipinos to help work in the fields would be out of the question, correct?

    perhaps be energy self-sufficient (shale gas, Polish coal, nuclear).

    Possibly.

    A population of 100 million or so over a huge territory would be enough for internal security.

    Please keep in mind that this population will become much smaller over the next several decades, though.

    Plus, it is worth noting that Western Europe would probably have a several-fold population advantage (3 to 1 or 4 to 1, if I remember correctly) over the Intermarium in such a scenario–indeed, a population advantage that is only going to grow over time since the Intermarium’s population will significantly decline while Western Europe will replenish its population with Muslim immigrants.

    Border security would be necessary but there’s no reason to have hostile relationships with the neighbors.

    Please keep in mind, though, that the Muslim lobby in various Western European countries could push for a more hostile policy towards the Intermarium in such a scenario. Indeed, I could certainly see pro-Muslim Western Europeans complain about how they were generous enough to accept large numbers of Eastern Europeans (such as Poles) while the Intermarium is not generous enough to accept large numbers of Western European Muslims.

    Also, how many people can, say, Germany sustain? After all, there might also be the issue of living space if large-scale Muslim (and Sub-Saharan African) immigration to Western Europe will cause the population there to increase beyond its carrying capacity.

    Israel also functions as a bit of a police state and anyone can die randomly at any time. No easy-going life. No thanks.

    That appears to be more due to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than due to anything else, though. Indeed, without this conflict, Israel would probably be a very nice and calm place to live in. (In fact, I say this as someone who has lived in Israel in the past. Indeed, living there was very unpleasant in the 1990s and early 2000s but the situation there appears to have become much calmer over the last decade or so.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mitleser

    Plus, it is worth noting that Western Europe would probably have a several-fold population advantage (3 to 1 or 4 to 1, if I remember correctly) over the Intermarium in such a scenario–indeed, a population advantage that is only going to grow over time since the Intermarium’s population will significantly decline while Western Europe will replenish its population with Muslim immigrants.
     

    Please keep in mind, though, that the Muslim lobby in various Western European countries could push for a more hostile policy towards the Intermarium in such a scenario. Indeed, I could certainly see pro-Muslim Western Europeans complain about how they were generous enough to accept large numbers of Eastern Europeans (such as Poles) while the Intermarium is not generous enough to accept large numbers of Western European Muslims.
     
    This.
    Present day Germany is similar.
    The population of the old states aka West Germany outnumber the population of the new states aka East Germany states 4 to 1, have a larger Muslim population and vote usually much less for the anti-Islamic AfD than the Ossis, something that annoyed a number of West Germans more than the fugee burden.
    Worse, after the previous Grand Election broke down, the political establishment tried to forge the Jamaica coalition which would include CDU, CSU, FDP and Greens.
    Fortunately, they failed thanks to the FDP who did not want to be punished by their voters like in the election in 2013. Otherwise, the parties of the new ruling coalition would have no majority in any part of East Germany.

    http://cdn3.spiegel.de/images/image-1193922-860_galleryfree-dbsv-1193922.png

    , @AP

    However, please keep in mind that Muslims historically did not have a monopoly on terrorism and that other groups–such as anarchists and Russian leftists (in Tsarist times)–also engaged in terrorism in the past.
     
    I don't recall anarchists targeting concerts full of children.

    "It would have access to the Baltic and Black Seas."

    Please take a look at the countries which control the entrances to those seas, though. Indeed, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway–all of whom are projected to become very Islamic–control the entrance to the Baltic Sea while Muslim-majority Turkey controls the access to the Black Sea. Thus, if the Intermarium will be perceived in a sufficiently negative light, those countries could try closing the opening of the Baltic and/or Black Sea.
     
    A blockade is an act of war.

    Why would, say, strict immigration control elicit a declaration of war? That's extremely unlikely. Even America despite its hostile relationships with Iran doesn't block the Persian Gulf.

    "A population of 100 million or so over a huge territory would be enough for internal security."

    Please keep in mind that this population will become much smaller over the next several decades, though.

     

    100 million is after population loss, many decades from now. Currently Intermarium has about 153 million people (143 million if you don't include Belarus).

    Also, how many people can, say, Germany sustain? After all, there might also be the issue of living space if large-scale Muslim (and Sub-Saharan African) immigration to Western Europe will cause the population there to increase beyond its carrying capacity.
     
    Germany can buy food from Intermarium. But its population is not projected to explode - natives are dying out, and newcomers experience decreased fertility rates. Overall population won't be much higher, it will just be heavily Islamic. Nobody is predicting total loss of border control.

    A population of elderly Germans and not-too-bright migrants probably isn't much of a military threat.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. Mr. XYZ says:

    : Also, I can’t help but ask this question–what do you think that the attitudes of Eastern European countries such as Poland going to be in regards to accepting large numbers of Israeli Jewish immigrants?

    After all, Israel is already overpopulated as it is and is only going to become much more so over time. Plus, if Western Europe (including Germany) genuinely becomes much more dangerous, then it might very well become a less attractive destination for Israelis. Also, Eastern Europe historically had large Jewish communities and the lower average IQ of Israeli Jews in comparison to U.S. Jews indicates that Israeli Jews probably wouldn’t make up a cognitive elite if many of them will move to Eastern Europe in order to escape overpopulation in Israel. (Indeed, a historical grievance of anti-Semites towards Jews was that the Jews performed much better than they did (due to the Jews’ higher average IQ–which means a significantly disproportionate Jewish percentage of geniuses). However, since Israeli Jews appear to be, on average, about as intelligent as Italians, Portuguese, and Spaniards (and very slightly dumber than Poles and Russians), there probably wouldn’t be an issue of Jewish overperformance if large numbers of Israeli Jews will move to countries such as Poland.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  68. Mitleser says:
    @Mr. XYZ
    @AP:

    I don’t think it will be Islamified, so much as heavily Islamic, as will be the EU. This means a lot of deference to Islam in order to keep the peace and forced tolerance of a large Muslim population. Eurasia and the EU will still be majority Christian but, like America in the early 21st century, will be very visibly diverse, multicultural, like the New World. It will probably be violent too, unfortunately, with occasional inevitable suicide bombings and the security measures necessary to deal with them. Not an easy-going place to live anymore. Intermarium will be an idyll.
     
    You are assuming that terrorism among Muslims will not eventually peter out like it previously did among various other groups. Indeed, I wouldn't be so sure about that.

    Yes, Muslims certainly have a severe terrorism problem (and IQ problem, of course) which isn't going to go away anytime soon. However, please keep in mind that Muslims historically did not have a monopoly on terrorism and that other groups--such as anarchists and Russian leftists (in Tsarist times)--also engaged in terrorism in the past.

    Just like we don't see anarchists engaging much in terrorism nowadays, I wouldn't be surprised if the frequency of Muslim terrorism would eventually significantly decrease.

    (Also, as a side note, I might as well mention this--while Muslim terrorists nowadays have a large emphasis on Islam, the earlier Muslim terrorists--such as Leila Khaled--were actually secular. Thus, there appears to be nothing specific about the Islamic faith which makes its followers especially prone to terrorism. Indeed, in the 1970s, most terrorism worldwide was actually committed outside of the Muslim world--with much of it being committed by White Westerners (such as the Weather Underground).)

    It would have access to the Baltic and Black Seas.
     
    Please take a look at the countries which control the entrances to those seas, though. Indeed, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway--all of whom are projected to become very Islamic--control the entrance to the Baltic Sea while Muslim-majority Turkey controls the access to the Black Sea. Thus, if the Intermarium will be perceived in a sufficiently negative light, those countries could try closing the opening of the Baltic and/or Black Sea. (Think of Egypt's blockade of the Strait of Tiran in 1967.) Indeed, this would be a large concern if these countries would be able to get the military muscle of a large country such as Britain, France, or (a rearmed) Germany to help them out with this.

    In fact, why exactly do you think that Russia was historically so determined to get control of the Straits? It was because it didn't want its trade routes to be at the mercy of others.

    It would be an agricultural powerhouse,
     
    I do hope that there will be enough robots to help out in the fields after significant population decline occurs in this Intermarium. After all, even importing East Asians or Filipinos to help work in the fields would be out of the question, correct?

    perhaps be energy self-sufficient (shale gas, Polish coal, nuclear).
     
    Possibly.

    A population of 100 million or so over a huge territory would be enough for internal security.
     
    Please keep in mind that this population will become much smaller over the next several decades, though.

    Plus, it is worth noting that Western Europe would probably have a several-fold population advantage (3 to 1 or 4 to 1, if I remember correctly) over the Intermarium in such a scenario--indeed, a population advantage that is only going to grow over time since the Intermarium's population will significantly decline while Western Europe will replenish its population with Muslim immigrants.

    Border security would be necessary but there’s no reason to have hostile relationships with the neighbors.
     
    Please keep in mind, though, that the Muslim lobby in various Western European countries could push for a more hostile policy towards the Intermarium in such a scenario. Indeed, I could certainly see pro-Muslim Western Europeans complain about how they were generous enough to accept large numbers of Eastern Europeans (such as Poles) while the Intermarium is not generous enough to accept large numbers of Western European Muslims.

    Also, how many people can, say, Germany sustain? After all, there might also be the issue of living space if large-scale Muslim (and Sub-Saharan African) immigration to Western Europe will cause the population there to increase beyond its carrying capacity.

    Israel also functions as a bit of a police state and anyone can die randomly at any time. No easy-going life. No thanks.
     
    That appears to be more due to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than due to anything else, though. Indeed, without this conflict, Israel would probably be a very nice and calm place to live in. (In fact, I say this as someone who has lived in Israel in the past. Indeed, living there was very unpleasant in the 1990s and early 2000s but the situation there appears to have become much calmer over the last decade or so.)

    Plus, it is worth noting that Western Europe would probably have a several-fold population advantage (3 to 1 or 4 to 1, if I remember correctly) over the Intermarium in such a scenario–indeed, a population advantage that is only going to grow over time since the Intermarium’s population will significantly decline while Western Europe will replenish its population with Muslim immigrants.

    Please keep in mind, though, that the Muslim lobby in various Western European countries could push for a more hostile policy towards the Intermarium in such a scenario. Indeed, I could certainly see pro-Muslim Western Europeans complain about how they were generous enough to accept large numbers of Eastern Europeans (such as Poles) while the Intermarium is not generous enough to accept large numbers of Western European Muslims.

    This.
    Present day Germany is similar.
    The population of the old states aka West Germany outnumber the population of the new states aka East Germany states 4 to 1, have a larger Muslim population and vote usually much less for the anti-Islamic AfD than the Ossis, something that annoyed a number of West Germans more than the fugee burden.
    Worse, after the previous Grand Election broke down, the political establishment tried to forge the Jamaica coalition which would include CDU, CSU, FDP and Greens.
    Fortunately, they failed thanks to the FDP who did not want to be punished by their voters like in the election in 2013. Otherwise, the parties of the new ruling coalition would have no majority in any part of East Germany.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. Mr. XYZ says:

    : Honestly, I wonder if many East Germans will try moving to Eastern Europe if Germany will become too Muslim for them.

    Also, it is certainly interesting that the areas with more Muslims tend to be less hostile to Muslim immigration. Indeed, do Muslims purposely move to areas where they are more welcome, or is something else involved here?

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    I wonder if many East Germans will try moving to Eastern Europe if Germany will become too Muslim for them.
     
    Secession would be an even better idea, and if things continue going on like now I hope it will happen.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. @Mr. XYZ
    : Honestly, I wonder if many East Germans will try moving to Eastern Europe if Germany will become too Muslim for them.

    Also, it is certainly interesting that the areas with more Muslims tend to be less hostile to Muslim immigration. Indeed, do Muslims purposely move to areas where they are more welcome, or is something else involved here?

    I wonder if many East Germans will try moving to Eastern Europe if Germany will become too Muslim for them.

    Secession would be an even better idea, and if things continue going on like now I hope it will happen.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. @DFH
    Why is Hungary's Muslim population predicted to grow so much more quickly than the rest of Eastern Europe?

    My guess is that this projection was based on the assumption that migrants declaring asylum in Hungary, would stay in Hungary. This seems unlikely given the current governments stance.

    Some other observations:

    Sweden at 30 percent, will no doubt collapse – at least financially – before it even reaches that point. Right now, the migrant population is largely placated by a generous benefit system. When the system can no longer sustain these wealth transfer levels, reality will hit Sweden pretty hard.

    I’m surprised that Italy has a relatively large Muslim population at nearly 5 percent, while Spain is only at 2.6 percent. Despite smaller numbers, the situation in Spain appears to be more unstable than it is Italy, so far anyway.

    The transformation appears to be fairly widespread across most of western Europe. Even smaller countries such as Luxembourg and Malta will see significant increases. Also, Switzerland, Finland and Denmark are experiencing much faster growth than I would have expected. While the Netherlands, though still striking, is actually changing at a slower rate than the aforementioned countries.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. Mr. XYZ says:

    : Secession is extremely problematic for East Germany, though. After all, Berlin is right in the center of East Germany. Indeed, there is no way in Hell that (West) Germany would allow its capital to be completely surrounded by another country!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    Outright secession might not be necessary. Geographical Germany functioned for many years as the Holy Roman Empire. Countries and city-states with high degrees of autonomy, but overall loyalty to an elected emperor. Perhaps an idea whose time has returned?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. melanf says:
    @AP

    This is correct. They ought to unite, alongside Ukraine and (if possible) Belarus. This would be a very large territory with about 100 million people, almost all European.

    Or Ukraine could unite in an East Slavic union with Russia and Belarus, which would have an over 90% white population of about 200 million people.
     
    1. Russia and Belarus are part of the Eurasian Customs Union with some central Asian countries; the total Muslim population is about 20%; by 2050 it will be much higher.

    2. Past integration projects have been detrimental to Ukraine. 18th-19th century saw expansion of serfdom to Russian norms and brain drain; 20th century saw mass starvation and Russification of the population. Third time a charm? No thanks..

    This Pew study doesn’t include Russia in its 2050 projections. But in 2011, Pew projected that Muslims would rise from 11.7% of Russia’s population in 2010, to 14.4% in 2030. So if that trend continued, by 2050 they would be about 17%.
     
    Which would make Russia about as Muslim as the most Muslim big European countries under the worst scenario. That is, much more Muslim than the EU average.

    In the high migration scenario, Europe 2050 will be 14% Muslim, with Sweden (30%!), Austria (20%), Germany, Belgium, and France all having a larger Muslim % than Russia, the UK and Norway also at 17%, and several more countries at 14%-16%.
     
    But EU average would still be lower, and Ukraine would fall into the massive 2% or less Muslim bloc in the east of the EU.

    Whereas outside the Caucasus, Tatarstan, and Bashkortostan (which together comprise only 2% of Russia’s territory), Russia is about 95% non-Muslim.
     
    Moscow?

    Past integration projects have been detrimental to Ukraine. 18th-19th century saw expansion of serfdom to Russian norms and brain drain;

    These statements are obvious and very gross manipulation, if not outright lie.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    "Past integration projects have been detrimental to Ukraine. 18th-19th century saw expansion of serfdom to Russian norms and brain drain;"

    These statements are obvious and very gross manipulation, if not outright lie.
     
    Nonsense. Serfdom prior to Russian direct rule:

    Generally, peasant obligations in the Hetman state during the second half of the 17th and the beginning of the 18th century were light. The serf-lord relation and the corvée depended on the kind of village and on its owner. A large number of pospolyti, who performed corvée for the state, could own property. The Cossack starshyna, who received rank estates, demanded labor from their subjects. Many peasants from Western Ukraine and Right-Bank Ukraine, which were retained by Poland, fled to the Hetman state or to Slobidska Ukraine. Most of them settled as landless peasants on the estates of the Cossack starshyna or monasteries. According to the 1729–30 census of the Hetman state only 35 percent of the peasant farmers were subject to private landowners and not all of those were required to perform corvée. Hetman Ivan Mazepa's universal in 1701 prohibited more than two days' corvée per week. Gradually the peasants in Hetman Ukraine lost the right to dispose of their land and, eventually, their freedom as well. In the 1740s the pospolyti could still move from one landowner to another but had to leave their property (land and inventory) behind. The Cossack officers and monasteries made every effort to attach the peasants to the land, and the process was reinforced by the Russian government, which was interested in extending the imperial serf system to Ukraine.

    Russian "reforms":

    By the decree of 3 May 1783 Catherine II introduced the Russian serf system in the territory of the former Hetman state, and in 1785 the Cossack starshyna received the rights of the Russian nobility. After the Second and Third partitions of Poland the Russian serf system was extended to Right-Bank Ukraine. According to official estimates made in 1858, 60 percent of the serfs belonged to landowners, and 40 percent lived on state or appanage lands. Of the landowners' serfs only 1.2 percent paid quitrent, and the rest did corvée. State peasants usually paid quitrent. During the first half of the 19th century the land allotted to peasants diminished to the advantage of the filvarky, corvée increased, and the number of landless peasants rose sharply. Corvée and the poll tax rose on average to between four and six labor days per week. The norm (urochna) system of labor was widely adopted. Many peasants, known as misiachnyky, lost their land and worked only on the lord's demesne for a monthly ration of products. Others became household serfs, who worked and lived in the lord's manor. The landowners increased corvée to cover the state-imposed poll tax and tax arrears. In a separate manifesto in 1797 the Russian government proposed that the landowners limit their demands on the peasants to a three-day corvée. In 1819 it clarified some aspects of the serf-lord relationship. Those and other manifestos were largely ignored by the landowners.

    As for "brain drain" - did Gogol stay in Ukraine? How about the composers Maxim Berzovsky, Dmytro Bortniansky? And the flood of learned Ukrainian churchmen, teachers, and educated civil servants who left Ukraine for better opportunities in Russia.

    So Ukraine got expanded and more severe serfdom, and lost much of its educated people. Not a good deal for it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. AP says:
    @melanf

    Past integration projects have been detrimental to Ukraine. 18th-19th century saw expansion of serfdom to Russian norms and brain drain;
     
    These statements are obvious and very gross manipulation, if not outright lie.

    “Past integration projects have been detrimental to Ukraine. 18th-19th century saw expansion of serfdom to Russian norms and brain drain;”

    These statements are obvious and very gross manipulation, if not outright lie.

    Nonsense. Serfdom prior to Russian direct rule:

    Generally, peasant obligations in the Hetman state during the second half of the 17th and the beginning of the 18th century were light. The serf-lord relation and the corvée depended on the kind of village and on its owner. A large number of pospolyti, who performed corvée for the state, could own property. The Cossack starshyna, who received rank estates, demanded labor from their subjects. Many peasants from Western Ukraine and Right-Bank Ukraine, which were retained by Poland, fled to the Hetman state or to Slobidska Ukraine. Most of them settled as landless peasants on the estates of the Cossack starshyna or monasteries. According to the 1729–30 census of the Hetman state only 35 percent of the peasant farmers were subject to private landowners and not all of those were required to perform corvée. Hetman Ivan Mazepa’s universal in 1701 prohibited more than two days’ corvée per week. Gradually the peasants in Hetman Ukraine lost the right to dispose of their land and, eventually, their freedom as well. In the 1740s the pospolyti could still move from one landowner to another but had to leave their property (land and inventory) behind. The Cossack officers and monasteries made every effort to attach the peasants to the land, and the process was reinforced by the Russian government, which was interested in extending the imperial serf system to Ukraine.

    Russian “reforms”:

    By the decree of 3 May 1783 Catherine II introduced the Russian serf system in the territory of the former Hetman state, and in 1785 the Cossack starshyna received the rights of the Russian nobility. After the Second and Third partitions of Poland the Russian serf system was extended to Right-Bank Ukraine. According to official estimates made in 1858, 60 percent of the serfs belonged to landowners, and 40 percent lived on state or appanage lands. Of the landowners’ serfs only 1.2 percent paid quitrent, and the rest did corvée. State peasants usually paid quitrent. During the first half of the 19th century the land allotted to peasants diminished to the advantage of the filvarky, corvée increased, and the number of landless peasants rose sharply. Corvée and the poll tax rose on average to between four and six labor days per week. The norm (urochna) system of labor was widely adopted. Many peasants, known as misiachnyky, lost their land and worked only on the lord’s demesne for a monthly ration of products. Others became household serfs, who worked and lived in the lord’s manor. The landowners increased corvée to cover the state-imposed poll tax and tax arrears. In a separate manifesto in 1797 the Russian government proposed that the landowners limit their demands on the peasants to a three-day corvée. In 1819 it clarified some aspects of the serf-lord relationship. Those and other manifestos were largely ignored by the landowners.

    As for “brain drain” – did Gogol stay in Ukraine? How about the composers Maxim Berzovsky, Dmytro Bortniansky? And the flood of learned Ukrainian churchmen, teachers, and educated civil servants who left Ukraine for better opportunities in Russia.

    So Ukraine got expanded and more severe serfdom, and lost much of its educated people. Not a good deal for it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @melanf

    Nonsense. Serfdom prior to Russian direct rule:
     
    As a result of transition under the authority of the Moscow tsars ( from the Polish authorities), serfdom in the left Bank Ukraine was destroyed. About a hundred years later under pressure from the Ukrainian landowners Catherine II introduced serfdom again, but in "Russian" version (more soft than the Polish serfdom)

    As for “brain drain” – did Gogol stay in Ukraine? How about the composers Maxim Berzovsky, Dmytro Bortniansky?
     
    Maxim Berzovsky "On 29 June 1758 he was accepted as a singer into the Prince Peter Fedorovych capella in Oranienbaum (now known as Lomonosov), near Saint Petersburg. Berezovsky participated in Italian operas and his name appears in printed librettos of the operas Alessandro nell'Indie by Francesco Araja and La Semiramide riconosciuta by Vincenzo Manfredini given in Oranienbaum in 1759 and 1760.
    In 1762, he became a singer of the Italian Capella of the Saint Petersburg Imperial palace, which was the palace chapel choir. Here he studied under singer N. Garani and Capella director F. Zoppis and likely under composers Vincenzo Manfredini and Baldassare Galuppi. He continued as court musician and composer for the majority of the 1760s
    ."

    Dmytro Bortniansky "prodigious talent at the local church choir afforded him the opportunity to go the capital of the empire and sing with the Imperial Chapel Choir in St. Petersburg. There he studied music and composition under the director of the Imperial Chapel Choir, the Italian master Baldassare Galuppi. When Galuppi left for Italy in 1769, he took the boy with him. In Italy, Bortniansky gained considerable success composing operas"


    "In 1828, on leaving school, Gogol came to Saint Petersburg, full of vague but glowingly ambitious hopes. He had hoped for literary fame, and brought with him a Romantic poem of German idyllic life – Hans Küchelgarten.Gogol was in touch with the "literary aristocracy", had a story published in Anton Delvig's Northern Flowers, was taken up by Vasily Zhukovsky and Pyotr Pletnyov, and (in 1831) was introduced to Pushkin.
    In 1831 Gogol brought out the first volume of his Ukrainian stories (Evenings on a Farm Near Dikanka), which met with immediate success....At this time, Gogol developed a passion for Ukrainian history and tried to obtain an appointment to the history department at Kiev University. Despite the support of Pushkin and Sergey Uvarov, the Russian minister of education, his appointment was blocked by a Kyivan bureaucrat on the grounds that Gogol was unqualified...
    In 1834 Gogol was made Professor of Medieval History at the University of St. Petersburg
    ,"

    Oh how many swineherds (who instead work in the fields of the Polish landlords, have become composers, artists, scientists,..) lost the Ukraine because of the damned Muscovites. But what a happy fate was in the "Polish" Ukraine and "Polish" Belarus - in the era of Gogol and Bortniansky (also Levitsky and Ostrogradsky) these lands have not generated any minimally talented figures.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. @Mr. XYZ
    @German_reader: Secession is extremely problematic for East Germany, though. After all, Berlin is right in the center of East Germany. Indeed, there is no way in Hell that (West) Germany would allow its capital to be completely surrounded by another country!

    Outright secession might not be necessary. Geographical Germany functioned for many years as the Holy Roman Empire. Countries and city-states with high degrees of autonomy, but overall loyalty to an elected emperor. Perhaps an idea whose time has returned?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. AP says:
    @Mr. XYZ
    @AP:

    I don’t think it will be Islamified, so much as heavily Islamic, as will be the EU. This means a lot of deference to Islam in order to keep the peace and forced tolerance of a large Muslim population. Eurasia and the EU will still be majority Christian but, like America in the early 21st century, will be very visibly diverse, multicultural, like the New World. It will probably be violent too, unfortunately, with occasional inevitable suicide bombings and the security measures necessary to deal with them. Not an easy-going place to live anymore. Intermarium will be an idyll.
     
    You are assuming that terrorism among Muslims will not eventually peter out like it previously did among various other groups. Indeed, I wouldn't be so sure about that.

    Yes, Muslims certainly have a severe terrorism problem (and IQ problem, of course) which isn't going to go away anytime soon. However, please keep in mind that Muslims historically did not have a monopoly on terrorism and that other groups--such as anarchists and Russian leftists (in Tsarist times)--also engaged in terrorism in the past.

    Just like we don't see anarchists engaging much in terrorism nowadays, I wouldn't be surprised if the frequency of Muslim terrorism would eventually significantly decrease.

    (Also, as a side note, I might as well mention this--while Muslim terrorists nowadays have a large emphasis on Islam, the earlier Muslim terrorists--such as Leila Khaled--were actually secular. Thus, there appears to be nothing specific about the Islamic faith which makes its followers especially prone to terrorism. Indeed, in the 1970s, most terrorism worldwide was actually committed outside of the Muslim world--with much of it being committed by White Westerners (such as the Weather Underground).)

    It would have access to the Baltic and Black Seas.
     
    Please take a look at the countries which control the entrances to those seas, though. Indeed, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway--all of whom are projected to become very Islamic--control the entrance to the Baltic Sea while Muslim-majority Turkey controls the access to the Black Sea. Thus, if the Intermarium will be perceived in a sufficiently negative light, those countries could try closing the opening of the Baltic and/or Black Sea. (Think of Egypt's blockade of the Strait of Tiran in 1967.) Indeed, this would be a large concern if these countries would be able to get the military muscle of a large country such as Britain, France, or (a rearmed) Germany to help them out with this.

    In fact, why exactly do you think that Russia was historically so determined to get control of the Straits? It was because it didn't want its trade routes to be at the mercy of others.

    It would be an agricultural powerhouse,
     
    I do hope that there will be enough robots to help out in the fields after significant population decline occurs in this Intermarium. After all, even importing East Asians or Filipinos to help work in the fields would be out of the question, correct?

    perhaps be energy self-sufficient (shale gas, Polish coal, nuclear).
     
    Possibly.

    A population of 100 million or so over a huge territory would be enough for internal security.
     
    Please keep in mind that this population will become much smaller over the next several decades, though.

    Plus, it is worth noting that Western Europe would probably have a several-fold population advantage (3 to 1 or 4 to 1, if I remember correctly) over the Intermarium in such a scenario--indeed, a population advantage that is only going to grow over time since the Intermarium's population will significantly decline while Western Europe will replenish its population with Muslim immigrants.

    Border security would be necessary but there’s no reason to have hostile relationships with the neighbors.
     
    Please keep in mind, though, that the Muslim lobby in various Western European countries could push for a more hostile policy towards the Intermarium in such a scenario. Indeed, I could certainly see pro-Muslim Western Europeans complain about how they were generous enough to accept large numbers of Eastern Europeans (such as Poles) while the Intermarium is not generous enough to accept large numbers of Western European Muslims.

    Also, how many people can, say, Germany sustain? After all, there might also be the issue of living space if large-scale Muslim (and Sub-Saharan African) immigration to Western Europe will cause the population there to increase beyond its carrying capacity.

    Israel also functions as a bit of a police state and anyone can die randomly at any time. No easy-going life. No thanks.
     
    That appears to be more due to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than due to anything else, though. Indeed, without this conflict, Israel would probably be a very nice and calm place to live in. (In fact, I say this as someone who has lived in Israel in the past. Indeed, living there was very unpleasant in the 1990s and early 2000s but the situation there appears to have become much calmer over the last decade or so.)

    However, please keep in mind that Muslims historically did not have a monopoly on terrorism and that other groups–such as anarchists and Russian leftists (in Tsarist times)–also engaged in terrorism in the past.

    I don’t recall anarchists targeting concerts full of children.

    “It would have access to the Baltic and Black Seas.”

    Please take a look at the countries which control the entrances to those seas, though. Indeed, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway–all of whom are projected to become very Islamic–control the entrance to the Baltic Sea while Muslim-majority Turkey controls the access to the Black Sea. Thus, if the Intermarium will be perceived in a sufficiently negative light, those countries could try closing the opening of the Baltic and/or Black Sea.

    A blockade is an act of war.

    Why would, say, strict immigration control elicit a declaration of war? That’s extremely unlikely. Even America despite its hostile relationships with Iran doesn’t block the Persian Gulf.

    “A population of 100 million or so over a huge territory would be enough for internal security.”

    Please keep in mind that this population will become much smaller over the next several decades, though.

    100 million is after population loss, many decades from now. Currently Intermarium has about 153 million people (143 million if you don’t include Belarus).

    Also, how many people can, say, Germany sustain? After all, there might also be the issue of living space if large-scale Muslim (and Sub-Saharan African) immigration to Western Europe will cause the population there to increase beyond its carrying capacity.

    Germany can buy food from Intermarium. But its population is not projected to explode – natives are dying out, and newcomers experience decreased fertility rates. Overall population won’t be much higher, it will just be heavily Islamic. Nobody is predicting total loss of border control.

    A population of elderly Germans and not-too-bright migrants probably isn’t much of a military threat.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Perhaps not, but wouldn't "Germany" and "France" -- by then countries populated mostly by young Arab and African Muslims -- be facing a dwindling, aging, and aged Polish / Austrian / Hungarian / Ukrainian / Belarussian population?

    If Poles, Hungarians, etc., don't start having children again, they will not be safe or strong countries under any likely scenario.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. Mr. XYZ says:

    I don’t recall anarchists targeting concerts full of children.

    I am unsure if anarachist terrorism specifically killed children. However, some anarchist terrorism–such as the bombing of the Barcelona Opera House–certainly wasn’t pleasant in any sense:

    https://listverse.com/2014/05/04/10-acts-of-anarchist-terrorism-that-shocked-the-world/

    Indeed, while I don’t know if children were killed by anarchist terrorism, civilians certainly were.

    Also, the Global Terrorism Database might be of interest to you:

    https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/

    You are more than welcome to look at it and see what you can find. In addition, you are welcome to take a look at Randall Law’s book about the history of terrorism:

    https://books.google.com/books?id=gyP3DAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=randall+law&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiy3anJsO3XAhVQ7mMKHV__C-MQ6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&q=randall%20law&f=false

    As I said, Muslims certainly don’t have a monopoly on either terrorism or on killing civilians.

    A blockade is an act of war.

    Why would, say, strict immigration control elicit a declaration of war? That’s extremely unlikely. Even America despite its hostile relationships with Iran doesn’t block the Persian Gulf.

    I didn’t quite say that they *would* engage in a blockade, though. Rather, my point is that the threat of a blockade could be discomforting to the Intermarium–just like Russia was concerned about foreign powers controlling the Straits.

    Also, you’re assuming that policymakers will always be rational. I don’t know if I can entirely agree with you on that. For instance, we currently have an immature blowhard as President here in the U.S. right now!

    100 million is after population loss, many decades from now. Currently Intermarium has about 153 million people (143 million if you don’t include Belarus).

    I suspected that your numbers were low, but I didn’t bother checking. Anyway, an Intermarium would have enough problems for the time being in dealing with Ukraine’s poverty and in ensuring that its standards of living would converge to Western European ones.

    Also, I am unsure if Intermarium’s population will stop falling at 100 million. After all, I don’t know how long it will take for the breeders to halt the population decline in Intermarium.

    Germany can buy food from Intermarium.

    I was talking about living space–not food–here.

    But its population is not projected to explode – natives are dying out, and newcomers experience decreased fertility rates. Overall population won’t be much higher, it will just be heavily Islamic.

    You don’t know for sure how many new migrants will come, though. Indeed, Steve Sailer once speculated about an extreme scenario where hundreds of millions of Africans moved to Europe (in response to global warming, extreme poverty, wars, et cetera) and turned Europe into Detroit. In such a scenario or even in a somewhat milder scenario, I could certainly see Europe experiencing a large-scale population increase.

    Nobody is predicting total loss of border control.

    Very true.

    A population of elderly Germans and not-too-bright migrants probably isn’t much of a military threat.

    First of all, it’s not like the population of Intermarium is going to be free from dysgenics. Based on the IQ and fertility data here, I expect Intermarium’s average IQ to fall by several points or even more once breeders become a larger and larger percentage of its total population:

    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/nor-breeding-their-best/

    Also, I wasn’t only talking about Germany here. After all, there would probably still be an E.U. (which might become a federal state by this point in time) in such a scenario which will comprise the countries of Western Europe plus Scandinavia. Thus, the Intermarium might have to deal not with Germany, but rather with the entire E.U. (plus Britain, of course).

    In addition, what we are going to see in both the E.U. and Intermarium are native populations which are getting both older and dumber. Indeed, the E.U. will simply have a lot of low-IQ Muslims on top of that. Of course, what will be interesting is whether IQ-enhancing technologies would become widespread in either the E.U. or Intermarium. Indeed, if so, I wonder what effect they would have.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    I am unsure if anarachist terrorism specifically killed children. However, some anarchist terrorism–such as the bombing of the Barcelona Opera House–certainly wasn’t pleasant in any sense:

    https://listverse.com/2014/05/04/10-acts-of-anarchist-terrorism-that-shocked-the-world/

    Indeed, while I don’t know if children were killed by anarchist terrorism, civilians certainly were.
     
    The clear pattern from those anarchist attacks is that attacks targeting civilians were exceptions rather than rules. This is the opposite of Islamic terror attacks.

    I didn’t quite say that they *would* engage in a blockade, though. Rather, my point is that the threat of a blockade could be discomforting to the Intermarium–just like Russia was concerned about foreign powers controlling the Straits.
     
    Perhaps, but I suspect the relationship between Intermarium and the EU would not be so hostile. Strict immigration controls wouldn't preclude friendly trade relationships.

    Also, I am unsure if Intermarium’s population will stop falling at 100 million.
     
    It's currently 153 million, it may be 100 million in 30 or 50 years. I think it makes no sense to make projections beyond that.

    Indeed, Steve Sailer once speculated about an extreme scenario where hundreds of millions of Africans moved to Europe (in response to global warming, extreme poverty, wars, et cetera) and turned Europe into Detroit. In such a scenario or even in a somewhat milder scenario, I could certainly see Europe experiencing a large-scale population increase.
     
    Sure, this is a possibility, particularly if climate change isn't fixed. But it's something that might happen in 2100 or whatever - beyond the realm of reasonable speculation. Who would have predicted in 1910 what the world would be like in 2010?

    The likely scenario for the EU is something like what AK proposed - possibility 2.5 - with country differences. Germany and Scandinavia might have a high migration case scenario but Austria seems to have turned against migration; if this trend is stable it might have a best-case scenario.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. melanf says:
    @AP

    "Past integration projects have been detrimental to Ukraine. 18th-19th century saw expansion of serfdom to Russian norms and brain drain;"

    These statements are obvious and very gross manipulation, if not outright lie.
     
    Nonsense. Serfdom prior to Russian direct rule:

    Generally, peasant obligations in the Hetman state during the second half of the 17th and the beginning of the 18th century were light. The serf-lord relation and the corvée depended on the kind of village and on its owner. A large number of pospolyti, who performed corvée for the state, could own property. The Cossack starshyna, who received rank estates, demanded labor from their subjects. Many peasants from Western Ukraine and Right-Bank Ukraine, which were retained by Poland, fled to the Hetman state or to Slobidska Ukraine. Most of them settled as landless peasants on the estates of the Cossack starshyna or monasteries. According to the 1729–30 census of the Hetman state only 35 percent of the peasant farmers were subject to private landowners and not all of those were required to perform corvée. Hetman Ivan Mazepa's universal in 1701 prohibited more than two days' corvée per week. Gradually the peasants in Hetman Ukraine lost the right to dispose of their land and, eventually, their freedom as well. In the 1740s the pospolyti could still move from one landowner to another but had to leave their property (land and inventory) behind. The Cossack officers and monasteries made every effort to attach the peasants to the land, and the process was reinforced by the Russian government, which was interested in extending the imperial serf system to Ukraine.

    Russian "reforms":

    By the decree of 3 May 1783 Catherine II introduced the Russian serf system in the territory of the former Hetman state, and in 1785 the Cossack starshyna received the rights of the Russian nobility. After the Second and Third partitions of Poland the Russian serf system was extended to Right-Bank Ukraine. According to official estimates made in 1858, 60 percent of the serfs belonged to landowners, and 40 percent lived on state or appanage lands. Of the landowners' serfs only 1.2 percent paid quitrent, and the rest did corvée. State peasants usually paid quitrent. During the first half of the 19th century the land allotted to peasants diminished to the advantage of the filvarky, corvée increased, and the number of landless peasants rose sharply. Corvée and the poll tax rose on average to between four and six labor days per week. The norm (urochna) system of labor was widely adopted. Many peasants, known as misiachnyky, lost their land and worked only on the lord's demesne for a monthly ration of products. Others became household serfs, who worked and lived in the lord's manor. The landowners increased corvée to cover the state-imposed poll tax and tax arrears. In a separate manifesto in 1797 the Russian government proposed that the landowners limit their demands on the peasants to a three-day corvée. In 1819 it clarified some aspects of the serf-lord relationship. Those and other manifestos were largely ignored by the landowners.

    As for "brain drain" - did Gogol stay in Ukraine? How about the composers Maxim Berzovsky, Dmytro Bortniansky? And the flood of learned Ukrainian churchmen, teachers, and educated civil servants who left Ukraine for better opportunities in Russia.

    So Ukraine got expanded and more severe serfdom, and lost much of its educated people. Not a good deal for it.

    Nonsense. Serfdom prior to Russian direct rule:

    As a result of transition under the authority of the Moscow tsars ( from the Polish authorities), serfdom in the left Bank Ukraine was destroyed. About a hundred years later under pressure from the Ukrainian landowners Catherine II introduced serfdom again, but in “Russian” version (more soft than the Polish serfdom)

    As for “brain drain” – did Gogol stay in Ukraine? How about the composers Maxim Berzovsky, Dmytro Bortniansky?

    Maxim Berzovsky “On 29 June 1758 he was accepted as a singer into the Prince Peter Fedorovych capella in Oranienbaum (now known as Lomonosov), near Saint Petersburg. Berezovsky participated in Italian operas and his name appears in printed librettos of the operas Alessandro nell’Indie by Francesco Araja and La Semiramide riconosciuta by Vincenzo Manfredini given in Oranienbaum in 1759 and 1760.
    In 1762, he became a singer of the Italian Capella of the Saint Petersburg Imperial palace, which was the palace chapel choir. Here he studied under singer N. Garani and Capella director F. Zoppis and likely under composers Vincenzo Manfredini and Baldassare Galuppi. He continued as court musician and composer for the majority of the 1760s
    .”

    Dmytro Bortniansky “prodigious talent at the local church choir afforded him the opportunity to go the capital of the empire and sing with the Imperial Chapel Choir in St. Petersburg. There he studied music and composition under the director of the Imperial Chapel Choir, the Italian master Baldassare Galuppi. When Galuppi left for Italy in 1769, he took the boy with him. In Italy, Bortniansky gained considerable success composing operas

    In 1828, on leaving school, Gogol came to Saint Petersburg, full of vague but glowingly ambitious hopes. He had hoped for literary fame, and brought with him a Romantic poem of German idyllic life – Hans Küchelgarten.Gogol was in touch with the “literary aristocracy”, had a story published in Anton Delvig’s Northern Flowers, was taken up by Vasily Zhukovsky and Pyotr Pletnyov, and (in 1831) was introduced to Pushkin.
    In 1831 Gogol brought out the first volume of his Ukrainian stories (Evenings on a Farm Near Dikanka), which met with immediate success….At this time, Gogol developed a passion for Ukrainian history and tried to obtain an appointment to the history department at Kiev University. Despite the support of Pushkin and Sergey Uvarov, the Russian minister of education, his appointment was blocked by a Kyivan bureaucrat on the grounds that Gogol was unqualified…
    In 1834 Gogol was made Professor of Medieval History at the University of St. Petersburg
    ,”

    Oh how many swineherds (who instead work in the fields of the Polish landlords, have become composers, artists, scientists,..) lost the Ukraine because of the damned Muscovites. But what a happy fate was in the “Polish” Ukraine and “Polish” Belarus – in the era of Gogol and Bortniansky (also Levitsky and Ostrogradsky) these lands have not generated any minimally talented figures.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    As a result of transition under the authority of the Moscow tsars ( from the Polish authorities), serfdom in the left Bank Ukraine was destroyed.
     
    Again, nonsense.

    Serfdom in Left-Bank Ukraine was destroyed as a result of the native rebellion. Moscow was chosen, as a last resort, as a patron several years after this rebellion. Although Moscow was the patron, under conditions of very broad local autonomy serfdom was (not destroyed) but severely curtailed - much lighter than either in Poland or in Russia proper.

    About a hundred years later under pressure from the Ukrainian landowners Catherine II introduced serfdom again, but in “Russian” version (more soft than the Polish serfdom)
     
    1. Good that you admit that under Russian rule serfdom got much worse than it would have been had Ukrainian landlords not had Moscow's power to back them up vis a vis their peasants.

    2. In an earlier discussion you conceded that under similar climate and social conditions Russian and Polish serfdoms were about the same.

    Oh how many swineherds (who instead work in the fields of the Polish landlords, have become composers, artists, scientists,..) lost the Ukraine because of the damned Muscovites
     
    None of those people were swineherds or peasants - all were from noble or officer families and all took their talents from Ukraine and to Russia, as your examples demonstrate. Russia's gain was Ukraine's loss. Those are simply notable examples. There were also many less famous bright people leaving Ukraine to pursue opportunities in the civil service and in the church. There were so many of them in St. Petersburg in the early 19th century that Taras Shevchenko directed a poem towards them, admonishing them for turning their back on their motherland who weeps because she becomes childless.

    So we have a flow of educated, bright Ukrainians to Russia but not vice versa. This is called a brain drain.

    There are a lot of bright, educated successful Russians who went West (or did their parents) in the last century. Who knows how successful they would have been had they stayed in their homeland. Still a brain drain.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. @Randal

    I imagine that if someone in 1965 was told this was going to happen in 2017 they would have thought you a lunatic.
     
    People struggle to imagine the real consequences of profound change.

    A parallel can be drawn with the decriminalisation of male homosexuality in the UK commencing in 1965-7. If you had asserted then that this process would end in the dramatic normalisation of homosexual activity that has in fact occurred, with all its dire consequences (as they would have seen them) you would have been laughed at as a bigot and told you were falling for a "slippery slope fallacy", as many opponents were, but here we are. And if everyone in Britain then could somehow have been forced to believe in that prediction, by being shown the results (which they would have almost universally regarded as abominations, remember, not having been accustomed to them through decades of exposure and propaganda, slow boiling frog style) then the proposal to decriminalise male homosexuality would have been swept away in a landslide of revulsion. but instead, the masses were duped into voting for what seemed like the nice, decent thing to do.

    As with homosexuality then, so with mass immigration in the past few decades, except that people will find it far harder to accustom themselves to outright civil strife, that will quite possibly reach Yugoslav levels in the end.

    We in Britain have not faced the kind of ethnic division we are now creating for ourselves, on our mainland at least, since the Welsh were defeated and the Scots joined. We are throwing away an asset built up over a millennium.

    But think of the new fast food options!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. Annatar says:

    One thing that is certain is none of the major Western European states will be exerting any power aboard, I expect all of them, the UK, France and Germany to become increasingly embroiled in internal ethnic, religious and social conflicts as they become more heterogeneous.

    The Western European elites seems to be actively rejecting the nation state model where each ethnicity had its own state and which arose over the course of the 19th and 20th centuries, often at the cost of great bloodshed and are adopting the Middle Eastern model, where you have multiple peoples contained within a single state all vying for power.

    Personally, I think this will end in disaster, as the major states of Western Europe become more heterogeneous, social capital will collapse and they will lose what little power they had left in the post WW2 world, it is somewhat interesting that Russia which was always the most heterogeneous nation among the major states of Europe will be the most homogeneous by way of comparison going forward. The future of Europe insofar as stability is concerned does seem to lie in the east, Poland, Czechia and so on.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  81. helena says:
    @Randal

    The Sub Saharan African (be they Muslim or not) mass migration is by far a bigger problem than the Muslim growth which tends to imply people the MENA regions.
     
    More generally, the real problem is mass immigration and the division it creates, not any one specific group whether racial or cultural.

    Islam is a useful specific case to point to in order to highlight the fact that there are any problems with mass immigration at all (which is flat out denied by the established orthodoxies amongst most US sphere elites) and whilst the dominant antiracist dogmas mostly preclude pointing at racial issues. In addition muslim immigration is particularly problematic for many of the most powerful lobbies pushing internationalism - feminist, homosexualist, jewish, so these lobbies tend to be less lockstep in pushing mass immigration of muslims and viciously suppressing dissent.

    But there would be no point whipping up anti-muslim fervour to save ourselves from muslim immigration only to fall into bloody chaos through non-muslim mass immigration (though that is clearly the goal of some jewish lobbies).


    Poland will suffer the same fate as Western Europe, it has signed it’s own death sentence by joining NATO and the EU.
     
    On the timescale under consideration, both NATO and the EU as it currently exists are probably irrelevant. There's little chance NATO will still exist in any form a couple of decades hence, and it is an error to think of the EU as a stable entity. The EU is a process, moving from the situation of European national sovereignties to a European superstate. It can move forwards or backwards, its composition can change at the fringes, or it can fall apart. It can't stand still for long.

    Most likely either the EU will no longer exist in its current form in 2050, or Poland will no longer be a member, or (if the EU has succeeded in moving forwards towards a United States of Europe),Poland will no longer exist as a sovereign state.

    “Most likely either the EU will no longer exist in its current form in 2050, or Poland will no longer be a member, or (if the EU has succeeded in moving forwards towards a United States of Europe),Poland will no longer exist as a sovereign state.”

    I think that’s a good analysis. The EU is a chimera and a mirage. Despite the religious adherence to 4 Principles, countries have widely varying national arrangements for everything from VAT to access to residency and healthcare to imposition of Directives on Quality Standards via Regulations; animal welfare being a case in point.

    The UK’s Achilles heel was the generosity of existing public services, which generosity had therefore to be made available to all EU citizens. If Poland’s national policies are more robust, such as 10yrs to residency instead of the UK’s 5yrs, that’s helpful.

    But if Soros really has given Open Society 18bn to help persuade East Europe that the 4 Principles are good for the Soul, Poland is up against big money. And since Poles are returning now to a growing economy it seems likely Poland is in the sights of the nation-busters. But Poland has huge areas of natural forest so it will take decades for immigration to really impact on the landscape.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. Jon0815 says:
    @AP

    This is correct. They ought to unite, alongside Ukraine and (if possible) Belarus. This would be a very large territory with about 100 million people, almost all European.

    Or Ukraine could unite in an East Slavic union with Russia and Belarus, which would have an over 90% white population of about 200 million people.
     
    1. Russia and Belarus are part of the Eurasian Customs Union with some central Asian countries; the total Muslim population is about 20%; by 2050 it will be much higher.

    2. Past integration projects have been detrimental to Ukraine. 18th-19th century saw expansion of serfdom to Russian norms and brain drain; 20th century saw mass starvation and Russification of the population. Third time a charm? No thanks..

    This Pew study doesn’t include Russia in its 2050 projections. But in 2011, Pew projected that Muslims would rise from 11.7% of Russia’s population in 2010, to 14.4% in 2030. So if that trend continued, by 2050 they would be about 17%.
     
    Which would make Russia about as Muslim as the most Muslim big European countries under the worst scenario. That is, much more Muslim than the EU average.

    In the high migration scenario, Europe 2050 will be 14% Muslim, with Sweden (30%!), Austria (20%), Germany, Belgium, and France all having a larger Muslim % than Russia, the UK and Norway also at 17%, and several more countries at 14%-16%.
     
    But EU average would still be lower, and Ukraine would fall into the massive 2% or less Muslim bloc in the east of the EU.

    Whereas outside the Caucasus, Tatarstan, and Bashkortostan (which together comprise only 2% of Russia’s territory), Russia is about 95% non-Muslim.
     
    Moscow?

    Russia and Belarus are part of the Eurasian Customs Union

    As most countries in your proposed Intermarium are currently part of the EU. My point is that of the two hypothetical new arrangements, a union of the three East Slavic states makes more sense. It would be slightly less European than Intermarium (though still over 90%), but much more populous, powerful, and able to stand up to the globalist, multicultural West. And it would be much more linguistically and culturally homogeneous.

    with some central Asian countries; the total Muslim population is about 20%; by 2050 it will be much higher.

    Do you think that Kyrgyzstan will still be a member of the ECU in 2050? I doubt it- given the trends there, it seems unlikely to me that it will go for over 30 years without an anti-Russian color revolution.

    And in a scenario where Ukraine is an ECU member (which an argument against Ukraine joining based on the ECU’s Muslim % must assume), the ECU including Kyrgyzstan would be about 20% Muslim in 2050. While that would still be higher than Europe’s 11-14%, Europe’s Muslim population would still be less secular, dumber, and much less geographically segregated, since 80% of the ECU’s Muslim population lives in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Russia’s historically Muslim regions, while most of Europe’s Muslim population is concentrated in its major cities.

    Past integration projects have been detrimental to Ukraine. 18th-19th century saw expansion of serfdom to Russian norms and brain drain; 20th century saw mass starvation and Russification of the population. Third time a charm? No thanks..

    What is best for Ukraine depends on the circumstances that exist now, not those that existed 80+ years or centuries ago. Making policy based on historical grievance is not rational: Your thinking is essentially the same as that used to justify race-based affirmative action. Russia is not going to bring back serfdom or Stalinism. Not to mention that when Ukraine was most recently united with Russia, it was much wealthier relative to Russia than it is today.

    Moscow?

    I didn’t mean there is no place in Russia outside the Muslim regions with a Muslim % over 5%. I meant that outside those (geographically small and peripheral) Muslim regions, the average Muslim % is only about 5%. Or possibly slightly higher- I didn’t crunch the exact numbers for every region- but certainly less than 10%.

    And even Moscow’s population might be no more than about 5% Muslim if you don’t include non-citizens (who have far less societal impact than those with voting rights).

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    "Russia and Belarus are part of the Eurasian Customs Union"

    As most countries in your proposed Intermarium are currently part of the EU.
     
    And EU is far less Muslim than ECU.

    My point is that of the two hypothetical new arrangements, a union of the three East Slavic states makes more sense.
     
    Putin has lost Ukraine for at least a generation. Russia is about as popular in Ukraine as it is in Poland - not at all. So for at least 20 years integration with Russia is not feasible.

    but much more populous, powerful, and able to stand up to the globalist, multicultural West.
     
    1.Poland all by itself seems to be doing finer standing up to the West.

    2. As commentator szopen pointed out, Ukraine attaching itself to Russia becomes a 100 lb wolf attached to a 300 point bear. Within Intermarium Ukraine becomes much more of an equal partner. Which is better for Ukraine? We also have a history of 2 previous attempts of integration under different Moscow regimes - both turned out very badly for Ukrainians.

    What is best for Ukraine depends on the circumstances that exist now, not those that existed 80+ years or centuries ago.
     
    As forensic specialists will tell you - the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. It's not about spite or revenge but rational view of likely future outcomes based on previous outcomes.

    Not to mention that when Ukraine was most recently united with Russia, it was much wealthier relative to Russia than it is today.
     
    1. Under Soviet rule Ukraine was still much poorer than Russia. Since then it was ruled by a Moscow-imposed Soviet elite that had not really distanced themselves from Russia or pursued close integration with the West. All the post-Soviet countries who, unlike Ukraine, focused on Westward integration have done much better than has Russia itself, without Russia's natural resources. Poland has gone from being about at Ukraine's level to surpassing Russia. Romania went IIRC from 30% of Russia's level to 60%. Ukraine was just falling behind.

    2. When Galicia was part of Austria-Hungary it was wealthier per capita than Russia, Greece, Serbia, Portugal. It was tied with Slovakia and Croatia. I don't have data for the 1920s and 1930s in Galicia, but contrary to Soviet propaganda that described Galicia as backward, actual Soviets who moved there (such as one of my grandparents, who arrived in Lviv from Kharkiv in 1939) saw it as much more prosperous and civilized than their impoverished Soviet homeland. It was a funny situation - in 1939 the Soviet government brought Soviets to Lviv in order to make the place more pro-Soviet, and provided Galicians with tours of Soviet Ukraine to sell them on the benefits of Soviet rule. The Soviet newcomers - the ethnic Ukrainians, not so much the Jews or Russians - immediately focused on how backward and pathetic their homeland was relative to the West, and many became "infected" by Ukrainian nationalism; the Galicians touring the Ukrainian SSR, rather than becoming pro-Soviet, were not so impressed by the massive dams or whatever, but by the squalid living conditions of the people living there and recognized that they were becoming part of a nightmare.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. AP says:
    @melanf

    Nonsense. Serfdom prior to Russian direct rule:
     
    As a result of transition under the authority of the Moscow tsars ( from the Polish authorities), serfdom in the left Bank Ukraine was destroyed. About a hundred years later under pressure from the Ukrainian landowners Catherine II introduced serfdom again, but in "Russian" version (more soft than the Polish serfdom)

    As for “brain drain” – did Gogol stay in Ukraine? How about the composers Maxim Berzovsky, Dmytro Bortniansky?
     
    Maxim Berzovsky "On 29 June 1758 he was accepted as a singer into the Prince Peter Fedorovych capella in Oranienbaum (now known as Lomonosov), near Saint Petersburg. Berezovsky participated in Italian operas and his name appears in printed librettos of the operas Alessandro nell'Indie by Francesco Araja and La Semiramide riconosciuta by Vincenzo Manfredini given in Oranienbaum in 1759 and 1760.
    In 1762, he became a singer of the Italian Capella of the Saint Petersburg Imperial palace, which was the palace chapel choir. Here he studied under singer N. Garani and Capella director F. Zoppis and likely under composers Vincenzo Manfredini and Baldassare Galuppi. He continued as court musician and composer for the majority of the 1760s
    ."

    Dmytro Bortniansky "prodigious talent at the local church choir afforded him the opportunity to go the capital of the empire and sing with the Imperial Chapel Choir in St. Petersburg. There he studied music and composition under the director of the Imperial Chapel Choir, the Italian master Baldassare Galuppi. When Galuppi left for Italy in 1769, he took the boy with him. In Italy, Bortniansky gained considerable success composing operas"


    "In 1828, on leaving school, Gogol came to Saint Petersburg, full of vague but glowingly ambitious hopes. He had hoped for literary fame, and brought with him a Romantic poem of German idyllic life – Hans Küchelgarten.Gogol was in touch with the "literary aristocracy", had a story published in Anton Delvig's Northern Flowers, was taken up by Vasily Zhukovsky and Pyotr Pletnyov, and (in 1831) was introduced to Pushkin.
    In 1831 Gogol brought out the first volume of his Ukrainian stories (Evenings on a Farm Near Dikanka), which met with immediate success....At this time, Gogol developed a passion for Ukrainian history and tried to obtain an appointment to the history department at Kiev University. Despite the support of Pushkin and Sergey Uvarov, the Russian minister of education, his appointment was blocked by a Kyivan bureaucrat on the grounds that Gogol was unqualified...
    In 1834 Gogol was made Professor of Medieval History at the University of St. Petersburg
    ,"

    Oh how many swineherds (who instead work in the fields of the Polish landlords, have become composers, artists, scientists,..) lost the Ukraine because of the damned Muscovites. But what a happy fate was in the "Polish" Ukraine and "Polish" Belarus - in the era of Gogol and Bortniansky (also Levitsky and Ostrogradsky) these lands have not generated any minimally talented figures.

    As a result of transition under the authority of the Moscow tsars ( from the Polish authorities), serfdom in the left Bank Ukraine was destroyed.

    Again, nonsense.

    Serfdom in Left-Bank Ukraine was destroyed as a result of the native rebellion. Moscow was chosen, as a last resort, as a patron several years after this rebellion. Although Moscow was the patron, under conditions of very broad local autonomy serfdom was (not destroyed) but severely curtailed – much lighter than either in Poland or in Russia proper.

    About a hundred years later under pressure from the Ukrainian landowners Catherine II introduced serfdom again, but in “Russian” version (more soft than the Polish serfdom)

    1. Good that you admit that under Russian rule serfdom got much worse than it would have been had Ukrainian landlords not had Moscow’s power to back them up vis a vis their peasants.

    2. In an earlier discussion you conceded that under similar climate and social conditions Russian and Polish serfdoms were about the same.

    Oh how many swineherds (who instead work in the fields of the Polish landlords, have become composers, artists, scientists,..) lost the Ukraine because of the damned Muscovites

    None of those people were swineherds or peasants – all were from noble or officer families and all took their talents from Ukraine and to Russia, as your examples demonstrate. Russia’s gain was Ukraine’s loss. Those are simply notable examples. There were also many less famous bright people leaving Ukraine to pursue opportunities in the civil service and in the church. There were so many of them in St. Petersburg in the early 19th century that Taras Shevchenko directed a poem towards them, admonishing them for turning their back on their motherland who weeps because she becomes childless.

    So we have a flow of educated, bright Ukrainians to Russia but not vice versa. This is called a brain drain.

    There are a lot of bright, educated successful Russians who went West (or did their parents) in the last century. Who knows how successful they would have been had they stayed in their homeland. Still a brain drain.

    Read More
    • Replies: @melanf

    Serfdom in Left-Bank Ukraine was destroyed as a result of the native rebellion
     
    In this case, and serfdom was re-introduced by natives too.

    Good that you admit that under Russian rule serfdom got much worse than it would have been had Ukrainian landlords not had Moscow’s power to back them up vis a vis their peasants.
     
    In this case (without Moscow) would be (instead of Gogol and the like) Polish lanlord with their yoke

    In an earlier discussion you conceded that under similar climate and social conditions Russian and Polish serfdoms were about the same.
     
    But "social conditions" were different. In particular, in Russia the peasants had been protected from the excessive oppression by huge number of religious holidays.

    None of those people were swineherds or peasants – all were from noble or officer families
     
    Which appeared due to the destruction of the Polish authorities, and the transition of the left-Bank Ukraine under Russian rule. Under Polish rule, these people would be swineherds (as an alternative - would become the Catholic poles)

    Russia’s gain was Ukraine’s loss
     
    And how (in the three mentioned cases - for Gogol, Berezovsky and Bortniansky)? Please decide.
    If Gogol Ukrainian writer - what's the difference where he wrote his books? If Gogol because of the move to Petersburg was transformed into Russian (from Ukrainian), then you should not call Gogol a Ukrainian writer (which you repeatedly do).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. biz says:
    @Mr. XYZ
    @Anatoly Karlin: Actually, there appears to be increasing support in Belarus in favor of joining the E.U.:

    https://belarusdigest.com/story/do-belarusians-want-to-join-the-eu/

    Also, I will say this--if AP genuinely believes that the Eurasian Union will become a genuine, Islamified union (as opposed to it only being a union on paper), then any Intermarium which will be created will probably be screwed considering that it doesn't have very good sea access and considering that it will be surrounded by Islamified unions on both sides (not to mention having the Muslim world to its south). Plus, the rapidly declining population of an Intermarium certainly isn't going to help it.

    Of course, I would also like to point out an interesting fact--specifically, Israel is over 20% Muslim and has neither gone to Hell nor lost its pre-existing (Jewish) character. Thus, it will take an awful lot of Muslim immigration for various European countries to lose their national character.

    specifically, Israel is over 20% Muslim and has neither gone to Hell nor lost its pre-existing (Jewish) character.

    Actually, Israel is around 15% Muslim. It is 25% non-Jewish but the rest of those are Christians and Druze, primarily. Otherwise, point taken.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. AP says:
    @Jon0815

    Russia and Belarus are part of the Eurasian Customs Union
     
    As most countries in your proposed Intermarium are currently part of the EU. My point is that of the two hypothetical new arrangements, a union of the three East Slavic states makes more sense. It would be slightly less European than Intermarium (though still over 90%), but much more populous, powerful, and able to stand up to the globalist, multicultural West. And it would be much more linguistically and culturally homogeneous.

    with some central Asian countries; the total Muslim population is about 20%; by 2050 it will be much higher.
     
    Do you think that Kyrgyzstan will still be a member of the ECU in 2050? I doubt it- given the trends there, it seems unlikely to me that it will go for over 30 years without an anti-Russian color revolution.

    And in a scenario where Ukraine is an ECU member (which an argument against Ukraine joining based on the ECU's Muslim % must assume), the ECU including Kyrgyzstan would be about 20% Muslim in 2050. While that would still be higher than Europe's 11-14%, Europe's Muslim population would still be less secular, dumber, and much less geographically segregated, since 80% of the ECU's Muslim population lives in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Russia's historically Muslim regions, while most of Europe's Muslim population is concentrated in its major cities.


    Past integration projects have been detrimental to Ukraine. 18th-19th century saw expansion of serfdom to Russian norms and brain drain; 20th century saw mass starvation and Russification of the population. Third time a charm? No thanks..
     
    What is best for Ukraine depends on the circumstances that exist now, not those that existed 80+ years or centuries ago. Making policy based on historical grievance is not rational: Your thinking is essentially the same as that used to justify race-based affirmative action. Russia is not going to bring back serfdom or Stalinism. Not to mention that when Ukraine was most recently united with Russia, it was much wealthier relative to Russia than it is today.

    Moscow?
     
    I didn't mean there is no place in Russia outside the Muslim regions with a Muslim % over 5%. I meant that outside those (geographically small and peripheral) Muslim regions, the average Muslim % is only about 5%. Or possibly slightly higher- I didn't crunch the exact numbers for every region- but certainly less than 10%.

    And even Moscow's population might be no more than about 5% Muslim if you don't include non-citizens (who have far less societal impact than those with voting rights).

    “Russia and Belarus are part of the Eurasian Customs Union”

    As most countries in your proposed Intermarium are currently part of the EU.

    And EU is far less Muslim than ECU.

    My point is that of the two hypothetical new arrangements, a union of the three East Slavic states makes more sense.

    Putin has lost Ukraine for at least a generation. Russia is about as popular in Ukraine as it is in Poland – not at all. So for at least 20 years integration with Russia is not feasible.

    but much more populous, powerful, and able to stand up to the globalist, multicultural West.

    1.Poland all by itself seems to be doing finer standing up to the West.

    2. As commentator szopen pointed out, Ukraine attaching itself to Russia becomes a 100 lb wolf attached to a 300 point bear. Within Intermarium Ukraine becomes much more of an equal partner. Which is better for Ukraine? We also have a history of 2 previous attempts of integration under different Moscow regimes – both turned out very badly for Ukrainians.

    What is best for Ukraine depends on the circumstances that exist now, not those that existed 80+ years or centuries ago.

    As forensic specialists will tell you – the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. It’s not about spite or revenge but rational view of likely future outcomes based on previous outcomes.

    Not to mention that when Ukraine was most recently united with Russia, it was much wealthier relative to Russia than it is today.

    1. Under Soviet rule Ukraine was still much poorer than Russia. Since then it was ruled by a Moscow-imposed Soviet elite that had not really distanced themselves from Russia or pursued close integration with the West. All the post-Soviet countries who, unlike Ukraine, focused on Westward integration have done much better than has Russia itself, without Russia’s natural resources. Poland has gone from being about at Ukraine’s level to surpassing Russia. Romania went IIRC from 30% of Russia’s level to 60%. Ukraine was just falling behind.

    2. When Galicia was part of Austria-Hungary it was wealthier per capita than Russia, Greece, Serbia, Portugal. It was tied with Slovakia and Croatia. I don’t have data for the 1920s and 1930s in Galicia, but contrary to Soviet propaganda that described Galicia as backward, actual Soviets who moved there (such as one of my grandparents, who arrived in Lviv from Kharkiv in 1939) saw it as much more prosperous and civilized than their impoverished Soviet homeland. It was a funny situation – in 1939 the Soviet government brought Soviets to Lviv in order to make the place more pro-Soviet, and provided Galicians with tours of Soviet Ukraine to sell them on the benefits of Soviet rule. The Soviet newcomers – the ethnic Ukrainians, not so much the Jews or Russians – immediately focused on how backward and pathetic their homeland was relative to the West, and many became “infected” by Ukrainian nationalism; the Galicians touring the Ukrainian SSR, rather than becoming pro-Soviet, were not so impressed by the massive dams or whatever, but by the squalid living conditions of the people living there and recognized that they were becoming part of a nightmare.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jon0815

    Poland all by itself seems to be doing finer standing up to the West.
     
    Poland isn't always going to have a government as nationalistic as the one it has now, and the West could potentially be much tougher on Poland than it is now.

    As forensic specialists will tell you – the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.
     
    That applies to individual personalities, but becomes increasingly invalid over time when applied to groups whose membership is completely replaced over time, such as nations or their governments.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. AP says:
    @Mr. XYZ
    :

    I don’t recall anarchists targeting concerts full of children.
     
    I am unsure if anarachist terrorism specifically killed children. However, some anarchist terrorism--such as the bombing of the Barcelona Opera House--certainly wasn't pleasant in any sense:

    https://listverse.com/2014/05/04/10-acts-of-anarchist-terrorism-that-shocked-the-world/

    Indeed, while I don't know if children were killed by anarchist terrorism, civilians certainly were.

    Also, the Global Terrorism Database might be of interest to you:

    https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/

    You are more than welcome to look at it and see what you can find. In addition, you are welcome to take a look at Randall Law's book about the history of terrorism:

    https://books.google.com/books?id=gyP3DAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=randall+law&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiy3anJsO3XAhVQ7mMKHV__C-MQ6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&q=randall%20law&f=false

    As I said, Muslims certainly don't have a monopoly on either terrorism or on killing civilians.


    A blockade is an act of war.

    Why would, say, strict immigration control elicit a declaration of war? That’s extremely unlikely. Even America despite its hostile relationships with Iran doesn’t block the Persian Gulf.
     

    I didn't quite say that they *would* engage in a blockade, though. Rather, my point is that the threat of a blockade could be discomforting to the Intermarium--just like Russia was concerned about foreign powers controlling the Straits.

    Also, you're assuming that policymakers will always be rational. I don't know if I can entirely agree with you on that. For instance, we currently have an immature blowhard as President here in the U.S. right now!


    100 million is after population loss, many decades from now. Currently Intermarium has about 153 million people (143 million if you don’t include Belarus).
     
    I suspected that your numbers were low, but I didn't bother checking. Anyway, an Intermarium would have enough problems for the time being in dealing with Ukraine's poverty and in ensuring that its standards of living would converge to Western European ones.

    Also, I am unsure if Intermarium's population will stop falling at 100 million. After all, I don't know how long it will take for the breeders to halt the population decline in Intermarium.


    Germany can buy food from Intermarium.
     
    I was talking about living space--not food--here.

    But its population is not projected to explode – natives are dying out, and newcomers experience decreased fertility rates. Overall population won’t be much higher, it will just be heavily Islamic.
     
    You don't know for sure how many new migrants will come, though. Indeed, Steve Sailer once speculated about an extreme scenario where hundreds of millions of Africans moved to Europe (in response to global warming, extreme poverty, wars, et cetera) and turned Europe into Detroit. In such a scenario or even in a somewhat milder scenario, I could certainly see Europe experiencing a large-scale population increase.

    Nobody is predicting total loss of border control.
     
    Very true.

    A population of elderly Germans and not-too-bright migrants probably isn’t much of a military threat.
     
    First of all, it's not like the population of Intermarium is going to be free from dysgenics. Based on the IQ and fertility data here, I expect Intermarium's average IQ to fall by several points or even more once breeders become a larger and larger percentage of its total population:

    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/nor-breeding-their-best/

    Also, I wasn't only talking about Germany here. After all, there would probably still be an E.U. (which might become a federal state by this point in time) in such a scenario which will comprise the countries of Western Europe plus Scandinavia. Thus, the Intermarium might have to deal not with Germany, but rather with the entire E.U. (plus Britain, of course).

    In addition, what we are going to see in both the E.U. and Intermarium are native populations which are getting both older and dumber. Indeed, the E.U. will simply have a lot of low-IQ Muslims on top of that. Of course, what will be interesting is whether IQ-enhancing technologies would become widespread in either the E.U. or Intermarium. Indeed, if so, I wonder what effect they would have.

    I am unsure if anarachist terrorism specifically killed children. However, some anarchist terrorism–such as the bombing of the Barcelona Opera House–certainly wasn’t pleasant in any sense:

    https://listverse.com/2014/05/04/10-acts-of-anarchist-terrorism-that-shocked-the-world/

    Indeed, while I don’t know if children were killed by anarchist terrorism, civilians certainly were.

    The clear pattern from those anarchist attacks is that attacks targeting civilians were exceptions rather than rules. This is the opposite of Islamic terror attacks.

    I didn’t quite say that they *would* engage in a blockade, though. Rather, my point is that the threat of a blockade could be discomforting to the Intermarium–just like Russia was concerned about foreign powers controlling the Straits.

    Perhaps, but I suspect the relationship between Intermarium and the EU would not be so hostile. Strict immigration controls wouldn’t preclude friendly trade relationships.

    Also, I am unsure if Intermarium’s population will stop falling at 100 million.

    It’s currently 153 million, it may be 100 million in 30 or 50 years. I think it makes no sense to make projections beyond that.

    Indeed, Steve Sailer once speculated about an extreme scenario where hundreds of millions of Africans moved to Europe (in response to global warming, extreme poverty, wars, et cetera) and turned Europe into Detroit. In such a scenario or even in a somewhat milder scenario, I could certainly see Europe experiencing a large-scale population increase.

    Sure, this is a possibility, particularly if climate change isn’t fixed. But it’s something that might happen in 2100 or whatever – beyond the realm of reasonable speculation. Who would have predicted in 1910 what the world would be like in 2010?

    The likely scenario for the EU is something like what AK proposed – possibility 2.5 – with country differences. Germany and Scandinavia might have a high migration case scenario but Austria seems to have turned against migration; if this trend is stable it might have a best-case scenario.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. DCMG says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Jon was claiming only 5% outside Tatarstan, Bashkortostan and the Caucuses. 15% is three times that number.
     
    Well, that also seems correct.
    Moscow - ~10%
    Large cities/SPB - ~5%
    Small Russian towns - <2% (e.g. saw precisely zero when I was in Volokolamsk this year)
    Rural - virtually zero

    Similarly, you can take a walk around Warsaw – something like 98% European (there are a few Vietnamese).
     
    Yes, Poland does indeed have a pretty enviable demographic composition.

    OTOH, this isn't even universal to East/Central Europe. For instance, Hungary and Romania both have very high Gypsy minorities that might be approaching 10% of their population. I'd take Russia's problems over theirs (for now).

    OTOH, this isn’t even universal to East/Central Europe. For instance, Hungary and Romania both have very high Gypsy minorities that might be approaching 10% of their population. I’d take Russia’s problems over theirs (for now).

    Well so far the gypsy is more of a nuisance issue than the existential threat large Muslim populations are. Though at least in the case of the Romanians I know Gypsys are the source of considerable emotional upset, they see themselves as next door to being overrun by Gypsys and that at times makes them seem to be a bit unhinged.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. melanf says:
    @AP

    As a result of transition under the authority of the Moscow tsars ( from the Polish authorities), serfdom in the left Bank Ukraine was destroyed.
     
    Again, nonsense.

    Serfdom in Left-Bank Ukraine was destroyed as a result of the native rebellion. Moscow was chosen, as a last resort, as a patron several years after this rebellion. Although Moscow was the patron, under conditions of very broad local autonomy serfdom was (not destroyed) but severely curtailed - much lighter than either in Poland or in Russia proper.

    About a hundred years later under pressure from the Ukrainian landowners Catherine II introduced serfdom again, but in “Russian” version (more soft than the Polish serfdom)
     
    1. Good that you admit that under Russian rule serfdom got much worse than it would have been had Ukrainian landlords not had Moscow's power to back them up vis a vis their peasants.

    2. In an earlier discussion you conceded that under similar climate and social conditions Russian and Polish serfdoms were about the same.

    Oh how many swineherds (who instead work in the fields of the Polish landlords, have become composers, artists, scientists,..) lost the Ukraine because of the damned Muscovites
     
    None of those people were swineherds or peasants - all were from noble or officer families and all took their talents from Ukraine and to Russia, as your examples demonstrate. Russia's gain was Ukraine's loss. Those are simply notable examples. There were also many less famous bright people leaving Ukraine to pursue opportunities in the civil service and in the church. There were so many of them in St. Petersburg in the early 19th century that Taras Shevchenko directed a poem towards them, admonishing them for turning their back on their motherland who weeps because she becomes childless.

    So we have a flow of educated, bright Ukrainians to Russia but not vice versa. This is called a brain drain.

    There are a lot of bright, educated successful Russians who went West (or did their parents) in the last century. Who knows how successful they would have been had they stayed in their homeland. Still a brain drain.

    Serfdom in Left-Bank Ukraine was destroyed as a result of the native rebellion

    In this case, and serfdom was re-introduced by natives too.

    Good that you admit that under Russian rule serfdom got much worse than it would have been had Ukrainian landlords not had Moscow’s power to back them up vis a vis their peasants.

    In this case (without Moscow) would be (instead of Gogol and the like) Polish lanlord with their yoke

    In an earlier discussion you conceded that under similar climate and social conditions Russian and Polish serfdoms were about the same.

    But “social conditions” were different. In particular, in Russia the peasants had been protected from the excessive oppression by huge number of religious holidays.

    None of those people were swineherds or peasants – all were from noble or officer families

    Which appeared due to the destruction of the Polish authorities, and the transition of the left-Bank Ukraine under Russian rule. Under Polish rule, these people would be swineherds (as an alternative – would become the Catholic poles)

    Russia’s gain was Ukraine’s loss

    And how (in the three mentioned cases – for Gogol, Berezovsky and Bortniansky)? Please decide.
    If Gogol Ukrainian writer – what’s the difference where he wrote his books? If Gogol because of the move to Petersburg was transformed into Russian (from Ukrainian), then you should not call Gogol a Ukrainian writer (which you repeatedly do).

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Serfdom in Left-Bank Ukraine was destroyed as a result of the native rebellion

    In this case, and serfdom was re-introduced by natives too.
     
    Nonsense.

    Natives rebels largely got rid of serfdom on their own. Khmelytsky drove away the Poles in 1648.
    Moscow stepped in a few years later (1654), after serfdom was already largely destroyed.

    Moscow itself reimposed serfdom, native elites just collaborated, accepting loss of autonomy in exchange for harsher serfdom.

    So - reducing serfdom - native initiative. Reimposing it - Moscow thing.

    "Good that you admit that under Russian rule serfdom got much worse than it would have been had Ukrainian landlords not had Moscow’s power to back them up vis a vis their peasants."

    In this case (without Moscow) would be (instead of Gogol and the like) Polish landlord with their yoke
     
    Unknown. A Swedish alliance would have been possible, a Turkish one, etc.

    "In an earlier discussion you conceded that under similar climate and social conditions Russian and Polish serfdoms were about the same."

    But “social conditions” were different. In particular, in Russia the peasants had been protected from the excessive oppression by huge number of religious holidays
     
    Russian peasants from the south but not close to the frontier were just as enserfed as were Polish peasants. Central and southern Ukrainian serfs under Poland were less enserfed than were Russian peasants (or Polish ones and western Ukrainian ones).

    "None of those people were swineherds or peasants – all were from noble or officer families"

    Which appeared due to the destruction of the Polish authorities, and the transition of the left-Bank Ukraine under Russian rule
     
    There were lots of nobles in Ukraine prior to Khmelytsky's uprising (including, of course, Khmelytsky himself). They did not "appear" due to Moscow's rule.

    Moreover, you do not seem to have a realistic view of Russian rule. Ukraine ruled itself until 1709, Moscow was largely a protector; after Poltava Ukraine's autonomy was gradually getting abolished.

    Under Polish rule, these people would be swineherds (as an alternative – would become the Catholic poles)
     
    Khmelnytsky was a swineherd? Or a Catholic Pole? I had no idea.

    "Russia’s gain was Ukraine’s loss"

    And how (in the three mentioned cases – for Gogol, Berezovsky and Bortniansky)? Please decide.
    If Gogol Ukrainian writer – what’s the difference where he wrote his books? If Gogol because of the move to Petersburg was transformed into Russian (from Ukrainian), then you should not call Gogol a Ukrainian writer (which you repeatedly do)
     
    Educated talented Ukrainians left Ukraine and moved to Russia, contributing to Russia's civilization and culture and leaving behind their own. That's the brain drain that occurred under Moscow's rule.

    Gogol was a Ukrainian, whose father was a Ukrainian playwright and he as a child is supposed to have written some works in Ukrainian. But he moved to Russia and became a figure in Russian, not Ukrainian literature. As person he was a Ukrainian, but as a cultural figure/writer he was obviously lost to Ukraine, he was a Russian. Russia's gain, Ukraine's loss.

    So Russian rule meant - expansion and harshening of serfdom, and brain drain of talented Ukrainians from Ukraine and to Russia.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. AP says:
    @melanf

    Serfdom in Left-Bank Ukraine was destroyed as a result of the native rebellion
     
    In this case, and serfdom was re-introduced by natives too.

    Good that you admit that under Russian rule serfdom got much worse than it would have been had Ukrainian landlords not had Moscow’s power to back them up vis a vis their peasants.
     
    In this case (without Moscow) would be (instead of Gogol and the like) Polish lanlord with their yoke

    In an earlier discussion you conceded that under similar climate and social conditions Russian and Polish serfdoms were about the same.
     
    But "social conditions" were different. In particular, in Russia the peasants had been protected from the excessive oppression by huge number of religious holidays.

    None of those people were swineherds or peasants – all were from noble or officer families
     
    Which appeared due to the destruction of the Polish authorities, and the transition of the left-Bank Ukraine under Russian rule. Under Polish rule, these people would be swineherds (as an alternative - would become the Catholic poles)

    Russia’s gain was Ukraine’s loss
     
    And how (in the three mentioned cases - for Gogol, Berezovsky and Bortniansky)? Please decide.
    If Gogol Ukrainian writer - what's the difference where he wrote his books? If Gogol because of the move to Petersburg was transformed into Russian (from Ukrainian), then you should not call Gogol a Ukrainian writer (which you repeatedly do).

    Serfdom in Left-Bank Ukraine was destroyed as a result of the native rebellion

    In this case, and serfdom was re-introduced by natives too.

    Nonsense.

    Natives rebels largely got rid of serfdom on their own. Khmelytsky drove away the Poles in 1648.
    Moscow stepped in a few years later (1654), after serfdom was already largely destroyed.

    Moscow itself reimposed serfdom, native elites just collaborated, accepting loss of autonomy in exchange for harsher serfdom.

    So – reducing serfdom – native initiative. Reimposing it – Moscow thing.

    “Good that you admit that under Russian rule serfdom got much worse than it would have been had Ukrainian landlords not had Moscow’s power to back them up vis a vis their peasants.”

    In this case (without Moscow) would be (instead of Gogol and the like) Polish landlord with their yoke

    Unknown. A Swedish alliance would have been possible, a Turkish one, etc.

    “In an earlier discussion you conceded that under similar climate and social conditions Russian and Polish serfdoms were about the same.”

    But “social conditions” were different. In particular, in Russia the peasants had been protected from the excessive oppression by huge number of religious holidays

    Russian peasants from the south but not close to the frontier were just as enserfed as were Polish peasants. Central and southern Ukrainian serfs under Poland were less enserfed than were Russian peasants (or Polish ones and western Ukrainian ones).

    “None of those people were swineherds or peasants – all were from noble or officer families”

    Which appeared due to the destruction of the Polish authorities, and the transition of the left-Bank Ukraine under Russian rule

    There were lots of nobles in Ukraine prior to Khmelytsky’s uprising (including, of course, Khmelytsky himself). They did not “appear” due to Moscow’s rule.

    Moreover, you do not seem to have a realistic view of Russian rule. Ukraine ruled itself until 1709, Moscow was largely a protector; after Poltava Ukraine’s autonomy was gradually getting abolished.

    Under Polish rule, these people would be swineherds (as an alternative – would become the Catholic poles)

    Khmelnytsky was a swineherd? Or a Catholic Pole? I had no idea.

    “Russia’s gain was Ukraine’s loss”

    And how (in the three mentioned cases – for Gogol, Berezovsky and Bortniansky)? Please decide.
    If Gogol Ukrainian writer – what’s the difference where he wrote his books? If Gogol because of the move to Petersburg was transformed into Russian (from Ukrainian), then you should not call Gogol a Ukrainian writer (which you repeatedly do)

    Educated talented Ukrainians left Ukraine and moved to Russia, contributing to Russia’s civilization and culture and leaving behind their own. That’s the brain drain that occurred under Moscow’s rule.

    Gogol was a Ukrainian, whose father was a Ukrainian playwright and he as a child is supposed to have written some works in Ukrainian. But he moved to Russia and became a figure in Russian, not Ukrainian literature. As person he was a Ukrainian, but as a cultural figure/writer he was obviously lost to Ukraine, he was a Russian. Russia’s gain, Ukraine’s loss.

    So Russian rule meant – expansion and harshening of serfdom, and brain drain of talented Ukrainians from Ukraine and to Russia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    Even though he wrote in a somewhat strange from of Russian (not altogether highbrow style), many of his works dealt with Ukrainian themes, and he himelf considered 'Taras'Bulba' as his most important work. He never really felt aotogether 'Russian', and often felt repulsed by their lack of culture and often resorted to sarcasm when decribing their crude manners:


    Let’s get the hell out of this Katsapiya (Ukrainian derogatory term for Russia — tr.) and go back to Kyiv… Who are we working for here?”
     

    Naturally, we [Gogol and Mickiewicz] talked mostly about the Moskals (Moskal — derogatory term for a Russian — tr.), toward whom both we and he had animosity. Over and over again we kept returning to the discussion of their having been greatly influenced by the Finns and their culture. Gogol, with all the passion of a Little Russian, insisted that the Finnish impact had been very considerable, and quoted [to substantiate his arguments] from collections of folk songs in several Slavic tongues, of which he had quite a few with him. He wrote a brilliant essay about the Finnish impact on Moskal culture and read this essay to us. He argued that the spirit, customs and morality of the Moskals were strikingly different from the rest of the Slavonic brethren, quoting from the Czech, Serbian, Ukrainian and other Slavic songs, and making comparisons. For every human feeling there was a song — our, Slavic songs were gentle and soft, while the Moscow songs were wild, gloomy, even cannibalistic at times — in other words, typically Finnish.
     
    http://www.wumag.kiev.ua/index2.php?param=pgs20033/52
    , @Mr. Hack
    Even though he wrote in a somewhat strange form of Russian (not altogether highbrow style), many of his works dealt with Ukrainian themes, and he himself considered 'Taras'Bulba' as his most important work. He never really felt altogether 'Russian', and often felt repulsed by their lack of culture and often resorted to sarcasm when describing their crude manners:


    Let’s get the hell out of this Katsapiya (Ukrainian derogatory term for Russia — tr.) and go back to Kyiv… Who are we working for here?”
     

    Naturally, we [Gogol and Mickiewicz] talked mostly about the Moskals (Moskal — derogatory term for a Russian — tr.), toward whom both we and he had animosity. Over and over again we kept returning to the discussion of their having been greatly influenced by the Finns and their culture. Gogol, with all the passion of a Little Russian, insisted that the Finnish impact had been very considerable, and quoted [to substantiate his arguments] from collections of folk songs in several Slavic tongues, of which he had quite a few with him. He wrote a brilliant essay about the Finnish impact on Moskal culture and read this essay to us. He argued that the spirit, customs and morality of the Moskals were strikingly different from the rest of the Slavonic brethren, quoting from the Czech, Serbian, Ukrainian and other Slavic songs, and making comparisons. For every human feeling there was a song — our, Slavic songs were gentle and soft, while the Moscow songs were wild, gloomy, even cannibalistic at times — in other words, typically Finnish.
     
    http://www.wumag.kiev.ua/index2.php?param=pgs20033/52
    , @melanf


    In this case, and serfdom was re-introduced by natives too.
     
    Natives rebels largely got rid of serfdom on their own.
     
    Natives rebels largely got rid of serfdom, and the Moscow Tsar, this state of Affairs legalized
    Later, the natives had restored serfdom (in those circumstances it was the only way to develop the economy), and Catherine legalized it

    Khmelytsky drove away the Poles in 1648.
     
    And then begged the Tsar to recognize Moscow's authority over Ukraine. Ie Khmelnytsky considered "independent" victory over Poland impossible.


    In this case (without Moscow) would be (instead of Gogol and the like) Polish landlord with their yoke
     
    Unknown. A Swedish alliance would have been possible, a Turkish one, etc.
     
    And the Alliance with France, Britain, Manchu China, Mughal, etc. But the real alternative was the Polish Ukraine, where for potential Gogol and Ostrogradsky was assigned the role of swineherd

    Russian peasants from the south but not close to the frontier were just as enserfed as were Polish peasants. Central and southern Ukrainian serfs under Poland were less enserfed than were Russian peasants (or Polish ones and western Ukrainian ones).
     
    This is obviously incorrect statement, as in the Polish Ukraine happened several bloody uprisings under the slogan of the transition under Russian rule.


    “None of those people were swineherds or peasants – all were from noble or officer families”
    Which appeared due to the destruction of the Polish authorities, and the transition of the left-Bank Ukraine under Russian rule
     
    There were lots of nobles in Ukraine prior to Khmelytsky’s uprising (including, of course, Khmelytsky himself). They did not “appear” due to Moscow’s rule.
     
    The fate of Khmelnytskyi you know. He became a rebel, after the murder of his the son by poles.
    for such as Khmel'nytskyi choice was - revolt or disappear

    Moreover, you do not seem to have a realistic view of Russian rule. Ukraine ruled itself until 1709
     
    You see, by your logic, Russian rule brought unprecedented benefits to Ukraine . heh heh heh. And if the Ukrainian elite is not pissed away everything so poorly..


    Under Polish rule, these people would be swineherds (as an alternative – would become the Catholic poles)
     
    Khmelnytsky was a swineherd? Or a Catholic Pole? I had no idea.

     

    Without Moscow Khmelnitsky would be a dead rebel (maybe exile in Turkey).
    But his descendants would be swineherds or poles.

    Gogol was a Ukrainian, whose father was a Ukrainian playwright and he as a child is supposed to have written some works in Ukrainian. But he moved to Russia and became a figure in Russian, not Ukrainian literature. As person he was a Ukrainian, but as a cultural figure/writer he was obviously lost to Ukraine, he was a Russian.
     
    The position is understandable, but in your case it is absolutely incredible doublethink. You, and only you have argued that in the case of the princes Vyshnevetsky a complete change of religion, language, culture, and active voluntary participation in the extermination of former compatriots, means absolutely nothing, and brought no harm to Ukraine. But the fact that Gogol wrote in Russian (about Ukraine) «as a cultural figure/writer he was obviously lost to Ukraine». The alternative however was the conversation in pure Ukrainian language with pigs Polish landlord

    So Russian rule meant – expansion and harshening of serfdom, and brain drain of talented Ukrainians from Ukraine and to Russia.
     
    Emotional reason in your case is understandable, but this is pure "orwellisation" of history.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. @Mr. XYZ
    @reiner_Tor:

    Beyond absurd. It already had those Muslims to begin with, and got rid of as many of them (the vast majority within the pre-1967 borders) as it thought it could get away with. It then absorbed a huge number of Jewish immigrants, and still it’s there trying to engineer pro-natalist policies in a way to discourage Muslims from having children but trying to encourage Jews to have more, essentially trying to outbreed Muslims in an already overpopulated country. If this sounds insane, that’s because it is.

    In the absence of large scale French immigration France has no hope of not Islamizing slowly with its large and ever growing Muslim population.
     
    Please keep in mind that Muslims aren't breeding anywhere near as much as they did in the mid-20th century, though. Indeed, a typical Muslim might have had seven or eight children in 1950 but might only have three children right now. Thus, countries such as France might not need non-Muslim immigration as badly as Israel needed non-Muslim immigration. Indeed, this will be especially true if countries such as France severely restrict Muslim immigration.

    Because their numbers are not expected to grow through further immigration or family reunification, or whatever. Israeli Muslims only have natural growth. As opposed to Jews, who are immigrants and their numbers did grow through immigration, and it’s not impossible to imagine further mass immigration, for example if Europe gets Islamized.
     
    Are Israeli Muslims not allowed to import Muslims from abroad to marry?

    Also, please keep in mind that Western Europe can close its doors to Muslim immigrants.

    The Israeli Jewish population has its nationalist/religious (the two are the same from the point of national survival with the archaic Jewish religion) subpopulation which is breeding like rabbits. This is absent in all European countries.
     
    For now. However, as the breeders become a larger and larger percentage of the total population, this might change in Europe.

    By the way Muslims are only 17.4% in Israel, not 20%.
     
    Thanks for this correction.

    By “the breeders” you mean normal people who have their own children?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. Mr. Hack says:
    @AP

    Serfdom in Left-Bank Ukraine was destroyed as a result of the native rebellion

    In this case, and serfdom was re-introduced by natives too.
     
    Nonsense.

    Natives rebels largely got rid of serfdom on their own. Khmelytsky drove away the Poles in 1648.
    Moscow stepped in a few years later (1654), after serfdom was already largely destroyed.

    Moscow itself reimposed serfdom, native elites just collaborated, accepting loss of autonomy in exchange for harsher serfdom.

    So - reducing serfdom - native initiative. Reimposing it - Moscow thing.

    "Good that you admit that under Russian rule serfdom got much worse than it would have been had Ukrainian landlords not had Moscow’s power to back them up vis a vis their peasants."

    In this case (without Moscow) would be (instead of Gogol and the like) Polish landlord with their yoke
     
    Unknown. A Swedish alliance would have been possible, a Turkish one, etc.

    "In an earlier discussion you conceded that under similar climate and social conditions Russian and Polish serfdoms were about the same."

    But “social conditions” were different. In particular, in Russia the peasants had been protected from the excessive oppression by huge number of religious holidays
     
    Russian peasants from the south but not close to the frontier were just as enserfed as were Polish peasants. Central and southern Ukrainian serfs under Poland were less enserfed than were Russian peasants (or Polish ones and western Ukrainian ones).

    "None of those people were swineherds or peasants – all were from noble or officer families"

    Which appeared due to the destruction of the Polish authorities, and the transition of the left-Bank Ukraine under Russian rule
     
    There were lots of nobles in Ukraine prior to Khmelytsky's uprising (including, of course, Khmelytsky himself). They did not "appear" due to Moscow's rule.

    Moreover, you do not seem to have a realistic view of Russian rule. Ukraine ruled itself until 1709, Moscow was largely a protector; after Poltava Ukraine's autonomy was gradually getting abolished.

    Under Polish rule, these people would be swineherds (as an alternative – would become the Catholic poles)
     
    Khmelnytsky was a swineherd? Or a Catholic Pole? I had no idea.

    "Russia’s gain was Ukraine’s loss"

    And how (in the three mentioned cases – for Gogol, Berezovsky and Bortniansky)? Please decide.
    If Gogol Ukrainian writer – what’s the difference where he wrote his books? If Gogol because of the move to Petersburg was transformed into Russian (from Ukrainian), then you should not call Gogol a Ukrainian writer (which you repeatedly do)
     
    Educated talented Ukrainians left Ukraine and moved to Russia, contributing to Russia's civilization and culture and leaving behind their own. That's the brain drain that occurred under Moscow's rule.

    Gogol was a Ukrainian, whose father was a Ukrainian playwright and he as a child is supposed to have written some works in Ukrainian. But he moved to Russia and became a figure in Russian, not Ukrainian literature. As person he was a Ukrainian, but as a cultural figure/writer he was obviously lost to Ukraine, he was a Russian. Russia's gain, Ukraine's loss.

    So Russian rule meant - expansion and harshening of serfdom, and brain drain of talented Ukrainians from Ukraine and to Russia.

    Even though he wrote in a somewhat strange from of Russian (not altogether highbrow style), many of his works dealt with Ukrainian themes, and he himelf considered ‘Taras’Bulba’ as his most important work. He never really felt aotogether ‘Russian’, and often felt repulsed by their lack of culture and often resorted to sarcasm when decribing their crude manners:

    Let’s get the hell out of this Katsapiya (Ukrainian derogatory term for Russia — tr.) and go back to Kyiv… Who are we working for here?”

    Naturally, we [Gogol and Mickiewicz] talked mostly about the Moskals (Moskal — derogatory term for a Russian — tr.), toward whom both we and he had animosity. Over and over again we kept returning to the discussion of their having been greatly influenced by the Finns and their culture. Gogol, with all the passion of a Little Russian, insisted that the Finnish impact had been very considerable, and quoted [to substantiate his arguments] from collections of folk songs in several Slavic tongues, of which he had quite a few with him. He wrote a brilliant essay about the Finnish impact on Moskal culture and read this essay to us. He argued that the spirit, customs and morality of the Moskals were strikingly different from the rest of the Slavonic brethren, quoting from the Czech, Serbian, Ukrainian and other Slavic songs, and making comparisons. For every human feeling there was a song — our, Slavic songs were gentle and soft, while the Moscow songs were wild, gloomy, even cannibalistic at times — in other words, typically Finnish.

    http://www.wumag.kiev.ua/index2.php?param=pgs20033/52

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    You are correct. He was a Ukrainian, not a Russian and indeed felt ambivalently towards Russians as many foreigners do towards places they have moved to. Later Russian mythmakers made him as some sort of a hardcore Russian nationalist, but some Russian contemporary critics saw in Dead Souls, a foreigner's contemptuous sneer.

    But he wrote in Russian, lived in Russia, and found a place in Russian, not Ukrainian, literature. As a cultural figure, he was lost to Ukraine.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. Mr. Hack says:
    @AP

    Serfdom in Left-Bank Ukraine was destroyed as a result of the native rebellion

    In this case, and serfdom was re-introduced by natives too.
     
    Nonsense.

    Natives rebels largely got rid of serfdom on their own. Khmelytsky drove away the Poles in 1648.
    Moscow stepped in a few years later (1654), after serfdom was already largely destroyed.

    Moscow itself reimposed serfdom, native elites just collaborated, accepting loss of autonomy in exchange for harsher serfdom.

    So - reducing serfdom - native initiative. Reimposing it - Moscow thing.

    "Good that you admit that under Russian rule serfdom got much worse than it would have been had Ukrainian landlords not had Moscow’s power to back them up vis a vis their peasants."

    In this case (without Moscow) would be (instead of Gogol and the like) Polish landlord with their yoke
     
    Unknown. A Swedish alliance would have been possible, a Turkish one, etc.

    "In an earlier discussion you conceded that under similar climate and social conditions Russian and Polish serfdoms were about the same."

    But “social conditions” were different. In particular, in Russia the peasants had been protected from the excessive oppression by huge number of religious holidays
     
    Russian peasants from the south but not close to the frontier were just as enserfed as were Polish peasants. Central and southern Ukrainian serfs under Poland were less enserfed than were Russian peasants (or Polish ones and western Ukrainian ones).

    "None of those people were swineherds or peasants – all were from noble or officer families"

    Which appeared due to the destruction of the Polish authorities, and the transition of the left-Bank Ukraine under Russian rule
     
    There were lots of nobles in Ukraine prior to Khmelytsky's uprising (including, of course, Khmelytsky himself). They did not "appear" due to Moscow's rule.

    Moreover, you do not seem to have a realistic view of Russian rule. Ukraine ruled itself until 1709, Moscow was largely a protector; after Poltava Ukraine's autonomy was gradually getting abolished.

    Under Polish rule, these people would be swineherds (as an alternative – would become the Catholic poles)
     
    Khmelnytsky was a swineherd? Or a Catholic Pole? I had no idea.

    "Russia’s gain was Ukraine’s loss"

    And how (in the three mentioned cases – for Gogol, Berezovsky and Bortniansky)? Please decide.
    If Gogol Ukrainian writer – what’s the difference where he wrote his books? If Gogol because of the move to Petersburg was transformed into Russian (from Ukrainian), then you should not call Gogol a Ukrainian writer (which you repeatedly do)
     
    Educated talented Ukrainians left Ukraine and moved to Russia, contributing to Russia's civilization and culture and leaving behind their own. That's the brain drain that occurred under Moscow's rule.

    Gogol was a Ukrainian, whose father was a Ukrainian playwright and he as a child is supposed to have written some works in Ukrainian. But he moved to Russia and became a figure in Russian, not Ukrainian literature. As person he was a Ukrainian, but as a cultural figure/writer he was obviously lost to Ukraine, he was a Russian. Russia's gain, Ukraine's loss.

    So Russian rule meant - expansion and harshening of serfdom, and brain drain of talented Ukrainians from Ukraine and to Russia.

    Even though he wrote in a somewhat strange form of Russian (not altogether highbrow style), many of his works dealt with Ukrainian themes, and he himself considered ‘Taras’Bulba’ as his most important work. He never really felt altogether ‘Russian’, and often felt repulsed by their lack of culture and often resorted to sarcasm when describing their crude manners:

    Let’s get the hell out of this Katsapiya (Ukrainian derogatory term for Russia — tr.) and go back to Kyiv… Who are we working for here?”

    Naturally, we [Gogol and Mickiewicz] talked mostly about the Moskals (Moskal — derogatory term for a Russian — tr.), toward whom both we and he had animosity. Over and over again we kept returning to the discussion of their having been greatly influenced by the Finns and their culture. Gogol, with all the passion of a Little Russian, insisted that the Finnish impact had been very considerable, and quoted [to substantiate his arguments] from collections of folk songs in several Slavic tongues, of which he had quite a few with him. He wrote a brilliant essay about the Finnish impact on Moskal culture and read this essay to us. He argued that the spirit, customs and morality of the Moskals were strikingly different from the rest of the Slavonic brethren, quoting from the Czech, Serbian, Ukrainian and other Slavic songs, and making comparisons. For every human feeling there was a song — our, Slavic songs were gentle and soft, while the Moscow songs were wild, gloomy, even cannibalistic at times — in other words, typically Finnish.

    http://www.wumag.kiev.ua/index2.php?param=pgs20033/52

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    It sounds so nice, they had to say it thrice ...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. Cato says:
    @reiner Tor
    If half the population is nonwhite Muslim, and the other half is white Muslim, they will mix. The converts probably won’t kick out their Muslim brothers either. So if half the population is Muslim immigrants and the other half white converts, then all is lost in terms of genetics.

    Whatever the faults of Christianity, it’s at least our past culture. Also we don’t take it too seriously these days. But even if we did, I’d rather live under a Christian obscurantism than under a Muslim one. Muslim countries don’t connect much to their pre-Muslim past. If we converted, we’d automatically lost all connection to our past. Of course I’d prefer a mass Muslim conversion over mass Muslim immigration, but we have the latter anyway and the former would only exacerbate it.

    Muslim countries don’t connect much to their pre-Muslim past. If we converted, we’d automatically lost all connection to our past.

    You are right about this. But small numbers of converts, numbers similar to the converts to Wicca or Buddhism, would not be a problem.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Mr. Hack
    Even though he wrote in a somewhat strange form of Russian (not altogether highbrow style), many of his works dealt with Ukrainian themes, and he himself considered 'Taras'Bulba' as his most important work. He never really felt altogether 'Russian', and often felt repulsed by their lack of culture and often resorted to sarcasm when describing their crude manners:


    Let’s get the hell out of this Katsapiya (Ukrainian derogatory term for Russia — tr.) and go back to Kyiv… Who are we working for here?”
     

    Naturally, we [Gogol and Mickiewicz] talked mostly about the Moskals (Moskal — derogatory term for a Russian — tr.), toward whom both we and he had animosity. Over and over again we kept returning to the discussion of their having been greatly influenced by the Finns and their culture. Gogol, with all the passion of a Little Russian, insisted that the Finnish impact had been very considerable, and quoted [to substantiate his arguments] from collections of folk songs in several Slavic tongues, of which he had quite a few with him. He wrote a brilliant essay about the Finnish impact on Moskal culture and read this essay to us. He argued that the spirit, customs and morality of the Moskals were strikingly different from the rest of the Slavonic brethren, quoting from the Czech, Serbian, Ukrainian and other Slavic songs, and making comparisons. For every human feeling there was a song — our, Slavic songs were gentle and soft, while the Moscow songs were wild, gloomy, even cannibalistic at times — in other words, typically Finnish.
     
    http://www.wumag.kiev.ua/index2.php?param=pgs20033/52

    It sounds so nice, they had to say it thrice …

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    'Typically Finish', no doubt. :-)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. Mr. Hack says:
    @Anon
    It sounds so nice, they had to say it thrice ...

    ‘Typically Finish’, no doubt. :-)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. AP says:
    @Mr. Hack
    Even though he wrote in a somewhat strange from of Russian (not altogether highbrow style), many of his works dealt with Ukrainian themes, and he himelf considered 'Taras'Bulba' as his most important work. He never really felt aotogether 'Russian', and often felt repulsed by their lack of culture and often resorted to sarcasm when decribing their crude manners:


    Let’s get the hell out of this Katsapiya (Ukrainian derogatory term for Russia — tr.) and go back to Kyiv… Who are we working for here?”
     

    Naturally, we [Gogol and Mickiewicz] talked mostly about the Moskals (Moskal — derogatory term for a Russian — tr.), toward whom both we and he had animosity. Over and over again we kept returning to the discussion of their having been greatly influenced by the Finns and their culture. Gogol, with all the passion of a Little Russian, insisted that the Finnish impact had been very considerable, and quoted [to substantiate his arguments] from collections of folk songs in several Slavic tongues, of which he had quite a few with him. He wrote a brilliant essay about the Finnish impact on Moskal culture and read this essay to us. He argued that the spirit, customs and morality of the Moskals were strikingly different from the rest of the Slavonic brethren, quoting from the Czech, Serbian, Ukrainian and other Slavic songs, and making comparisons. For every human feeling there was a song — our, Slavic songs were gentle and soft, while the Moscow songs were wild, gloomy, even cannibalistic at times — in other words, typically Finnish.
     
    http://www.wumag.kiev.ua/index2.php?param=pgs20033/52

    You are correct. He was a Ukrainian, not a Russian and indeed felt ambivalently towards Russians as many foreigners do towards places they have moved to. Later Russian mythmakers made him as some sort of a hardcore Russian nationalist, but some Russian contemporary critics saw in Dead Souls, a foreigner’s contemptuous sneer.

    But he wrote in Russian, lived in Russia, and found a place in Russian, not Ukrainian, literature. As a cultural figure, he was lost to Ukraine.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack

    As a cultural figure, he was lost to Ukraine.
     
    I would disagree with you here. I don't know if you read the article that I cited, but it makes a very strong case that even though Gogol wrote in the literary language of the Empire he found himself living within, he was an important writer for both Ukraine and Russia, that had both a Ukrainian and a Russian soul. His 'Taras Bulba', 'Dikanka'and 'Mirhorod' certainly attest to his Ukrainian soul.

    I think that a perfectly good analogy could be made between a Ukrainian writer like Gogol to similarly great Irish writers like Bernard Shaw and James Joyce, to name just a few. No one would say that these Irish writers, who often wrote about British (English) topics in the English language, were 'lost as cultural figures' to the Irish nation.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. Mr. Hack says:
    @AP
    You are correct. He was a Ukrainian, not a Russian and indeed felt ambivalently towards Russians as many foreigners do towards places they have moved to. Later Russian mythmakers made him as some sort of a hardcore Russian nationalist, but some Russian contemporary critics saw in Dead Souls, a foreigner's contemptuous sneer.

    But he wrote in Russian, lived in Russia, and found a place in Russian, not Ukrainian, literature. As a cultural figure, he was lost to Ukraine.

    As a cultural figure, he was lost to Ukraine.

    I would disagree with you here. I don’t know if you read the article that I cited, but it makes a very strong case that even though Gogol wrote in the literary language of the Empire he found himself living within, he was an important writer for both Ukraine and Russia, that had both a Ukrainian and a Russian soul. His ‘Taras Bulba’, ‘Dikanka’and ‘Mirhorod’ certainly attest to his Ukrainian soul.

    I think that a perfectly good analogy could be made between a Ukrainian writer like Gogol to similarly great Irish writers like Bernard Shaw and James Joyce, to name just a few. No one would say that these Irish writers, who often wrote about British (English) topics in the English language, were ‘lost as cultural figures’ to the Irish nation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    Yes, some of his (Russian language) works, written for a primarily Russian audience in St. Petersburg, were set in Ukraine. But was he active in Ukraine, was he involved with other Ukrainian writers , was Ukrainian literature indebted to him? Gogol never even bothered to meet Shevchenko, when Shevchenko was in St. Petersburg. Gogol belonged to Russian literature.

    I think that a perfectly good analogy could be made between a Ukrainian writer like Gogol to similarly great Irish writers like Bernard Shaw and James Joyce, to name just a few.
     
    Shaw was from an ethnic English (and Protestant) family, born in Dublin and he moved to London at age 20. He could perhaps be compared to Kiev-born Bulgakov.

    Joyce was Irish, left in his twenties but moved around and always wrote about Ireland. He wasn't a French or Swiss writer.

    Gogol left Ukraine at age 19, wrote in Russian after doing so, was part of the Russian literary scene, was an influence on Russian literature, etc. His analogue would be someone like Joseph Conrad - the Pole who was an English writer, wrote only in English, and was an influence on English literature while playing no role in Polish literature. Or Nabakov, had Nabakov not written anything in Russian after his school years and had immediately started writing all of his major works in English, after leaving Russia.
    , @melanf

    think that a perfectly good analogy could be made between a Ukrainian writer like Gogol to similarly great Irish writers like Bernard Shaw and James Joyce
     
    An analogy would be Robert Stevenson and Walter Scott. These two are the exact analogue of Gogol.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. Beckow says:
    @Polish Perspective
    Allow me to add to the skepticism on Poland's extremely low number. 2016 was the first year of positive net migration since WWII to Poland. Contrary to stereotypes, this wasn't driven by a large surge of Poles working abroad. It wasn't just Ukrainians, either. Poland is getting more and more Asians, often South Asians, as workers. I see them in Warsaw all the time, often doing menial jobs(Uber Eats cyclists and the like).

    And the share is growing. Some of these South Asians are Bangladeshi, though most are Nepali(Buddhists). I expect some Hindus going forward as well, possibly Filipinos too. Poland has historically been fairly multicultural, though I doubt we'll ever get large refugee migration. YTD we've had only 18 Syrian asylum seekers and though the government won't openly say their religions, I'd guess they are probably Christians. We already took in a few hundred Syrians(all of them Christians) during 2015 but nearly all of them left for Germany before the year had ended.

    Poland will have pockets of non-European minorities, though they will come primarily through work migration, á la Germany in the 60s and 70s, and not as refugees. It will also most likely be a hetergenous religious group. It takes 10 years to get a Polish citizenship and while getting a PR takes little more than 3 years, the requirements for citizenship are much more onerous. Only the most motivated would stay. However, with advancing AI and automation, I doubt it will ever reach more than 5% of the population. I think already by 2030, the amount of work that can be automated will be huge. Quantum computers are no longer fiction but will be a practical reality within a few years. This will speed up AI development massively.

    BTW, I find it funny to see that Hungary(!) will have a higher share of muslims in the aggressive scenario than Ireland. This may seem strange, but as Vincent Law recently noted, 'Fortress Budapest' is somewhat a meme, while Fortress Warsaw is not.

    P.S. on the whole "Poland is in NATO therefore it is doomed" - this is a low-information WN talking point. Same people will then blindly praise Russia for being "based" while not understanding that Russia is already 10% muslim and the share is rising. NATO or no NATO makes no difference.

    P.P.S The EU talking point is only a bit better, but only just. Think of it this way. Poland will get 80 billion euros from the 2014-2020 period. That represents around 1% of GDP per year. During the 2007-2013 cohesion fund period, the transfers averaged 2% of GDP per year. So it is halving every time. From 2020 onwards it will be 0.5% of GDP on current trends, but if rumors are true that cohesion funds are going to get cut due to "lack of solidarity" (read: lack of stupidity) on the part of EE, then this number will probably be even lower, possibly 0.25% of GDP. At this level, the amount of financial threats the EU could make on Poland will be quite low. Remember, if Poland and other EE states won't budge now, when EU funds make a greater share of GDP, what makes you think it will in the future, when these funds will diminish? You can't get kicked out of the EU, as long as Hungary will block anything coming our way. All decisions need to be unanimous. Plus, we're seeing CZ/SK moving our direction, not away from us, especially CZ with the election of Babis. Austria is slowly turning more nationalist, too. So, the negotiating position of the Western EU states are constantly weakening, which they know. Therefore, if Poland isn't budging now, you have to give me a good reason why it would 10 years from now, when our negotiating position will be far stronger. Plus, as I pointed out many times, Polish youth are more right-wing than their elders, which is NOT the usual pattern. So the Polish public 10-20 years from now will be even more nationalist.

    I think a more reasonable estimate would put Poland's percentage at maybe 1-2% muslims in 2050 and the total nonwhite population at maybe 4-5%. But that would probably be it. And even by 2050, I doubt most work would even be done by humans. All the social change that will come because of this will be much easier to deal with in Poland, due to a homogenous high IQ society. I'm not too worried.

    The real danger for Poland (and Visegrad countries) is the slow movement of some of the 60 million Third World immigrants already in Western Europe east. They have a full right to do it today. They can establish ethnic beach-heads in big cities and continue bringing their relatives from EU and from outside of EU. This is exactly how it happened in UK, France, …

    Difficult language doesn’t protect you – there will be communities in large cities that will speak their native languages, or English-French. That is perfectly feasible. Why would they care about becoming citizens? As EU citizens they can live anywhere they want to inside EU.

    You are too wide-eyed optimistic on automation. Many jobs cannot be automated, and greedy business people will always bring cheaper labor to do service jobs, restaurants, hotels, or IT, or call centers, etc…

    EU has free movement of people. That is great as long as the current Third World dwellers in WE don’t decide that moving east is actually quite profitable. And there is nothing Poland can legally do to stop them. Once they are there, many others directly from Third World countries will be able to come via family reunification, fake ‘kabob’ jobs, student visas, or just as visitors overstaying their visas. Exactly the same process as UK in 90′s or 2000′s.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Polish Perspective
    Beckow, on your skepticism regarding automation, it is useful to keep two things in mind. First, technological changes happen in S-curves, and not in linear fashion. Something becomes expensive for a long time and then gradual change occurs. As this very gradual change happens, people who think in linear terms simply extrapolate from that trend onwards to the future. Look at the mass adoption of smartphones or for that matter the massive plunge in solar energy costs. Both were unforseen to happen as quickly as they did. Now we will see a similar S-curve with EV adoption.

    Look at the situation even 5 years ago. AI has improved massively. 10 years ago, people were saying that quantum computers - real ones - wouldn't happen before 2050, if even that. Now it is mainstream to say it will happen within 5 years. Google will come out with their own very shortly. A huge number of breakthroughs have happened in the quantum computing space. Go to arkivx.com and look for yourself.

    So in short, it is the skeptics who have the burden of proof given how technology has again and again surprised to the upside in how quickly it changes. Why would AI/quantum computing be different? As for jobs, I think most service jobs will either be heavily automated/heavily enchanced or outright replaced. It's not just low-level jobs. In fact, some of the jobs that could be replaced are doctors. An AI, paired with a modern smartphone, can already outperform the median doctor in various diagnoses. Imagine what it'll be like even within 10 years, not to say 15 or 20. Some jobs, like hairdresser and the like will also get automated. Only the very best (the trendsetters) will remain, the rest of us don't care if we're cut by a human or a robot. Driving will be automated. A lot of routine jobs will as hell. Amazon is already experimenting with cashier-free shops. They have sensors which register what you pick up and with you in a shop and automatically charge you for it once you leave the shop. It's on trial in a store in Seattle as I write this. I could go on endlessly. As I said, it's the skeptics who are behind the curve not the other way around. That was true with solar prices/smartphone adoption and it was true with EVs just a few years ago. Now AI. The reactionary mind is always dull and slow.

    As for your point on EU migration. Look at this chart:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_average_wage#Maps

    Poland and EE is not going to converge any time soon. By the time we get to an eventual convergence, say 2040s at the earliest, the question then would be if there is need for an EU at all. Remember that much of WE's sway/power over EE lies in economic factors. Once that is removed, what pressure do they have left? I already mentioned that EU funds will be cut in 2020. Even if they weren't, as a percentage of GDP they have continually declined from the first cohesion fund program until the current one. That will continue regardless.

    Plus, you're making the mistake of assuming static political preferences. Le Pen won French (ethnic) youth in the 2nd round. AfD, while a party with many problems of muh civic nationalism, is nevertheless a step in the right direction. SD will have their best election-showing yet next year in Sweden. More radical forms of nationalism is also growing. I think a bigger problem for EE would be social instability in the West and significant sectarian strife. That would damage our export markets.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. AP says:
    @Mr. Hack

    As a cultural figure, he was lost to Ukraine.
     
    I would disagree with you here. I don't know if you read the article that I cited, but it makes a very strong case that even though Gogol wrote in the literary language of the Empire he found himself living within, he was an important writer for both Ukraine and Russia, that had both a Ukrainian and a Russian soul. His 'Taras Bulba', 'Dikanka'and 'Mirhorod' certainly attest to his Ukrainian soul.

    I think that a perfectly good analogy could be made between a Ukrainian writer like Gogol to similarly great Irish writers like Bernard Shaw and James Joyce, to name just a few. No one would say that these Irish writers, who often wrote about British (English) topics in the English language, were 'lost as cultural figures' to the Irish nation.

    Yes, some of his (Russian language) works, written for a primarily Russian audience in St. Petersburg, were set in Ukraine. But was he active in Ukraine, was he involved with other Ukrainian writers , was Ukrainian literature indebted to him? Gogol never even bothered to meet Shevchenko, when Shevchenko was in St. Petersburg. Gogol belonged to Russian literature.

    I think that a perfectly good analogy could be made between a Ukrainian writer like Gogol to similarly great Irish writers like Bernard Shaw and James Joyce, to name just a few.

    Shaw was from an ethnic English (and Protestant) family, born in Dublin and he moved to London at age 20. He could perhaps be compared to Kiev-born Bulgakov.

    Joyce was Irish, left in his twenties but moved around and always wrote about Ireland. He wasn’t a French or Swiss writer.

    Gogol left Ukraine at age 19, wrote in Russian after doing so, was part of the Russian literary scene, was an influence on Russian literature, etc. His analogue would be someone like Joseph Conrad – the Pole who was an English writer, wrote only in English, and was an influence on English literature while playing no role in Polish literature. Or Nabakov, had Nabakov not written anything in Russian after his school years and had immediately started writing all of his major works in English, after leaving Russia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    The point that I was trying to make, is that there were a number of Irish writers, who lived within and outside of Ireland, who chose to write in English about life in both Ireland and England, and who remain within the Irish oeuvre of literature. Gogol's works that depict life in Ukraine are of course safe fare for scholars of Ukrainian literature, just google in his name and see the vast amounts of studies of his works written by Ukrainian scholars. There always seems to be a place for his name in general histories of Ukrainian literature. As a personal note, as a teenager I had the great pleasure of reading
    'Taras Bulba' transcribed into the English language, and was intensely moved by its patriotic fervor towards the Ukrainian cause. Throughout my 20's, I must have reread this classic book 5-6 times and still consider it to be a masterpiece, and as I've already pointed out, Gogol himself considered this novel to be his own favorite, one that he kept rewriting throughout most of his life...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. melanf says:
    @Mr. Hack

    As a cultural figure, he was lost to Ukraine.
     
    I would disagree with you here. I don't know if you read the article that I cited, but it makes a very strong case that even though Gogol wrote in the literary language of the Empire he found himself living within, he was an important writer for both Ukraine and Russia, that had both a Ukrainian and a Russian soul. His 'Taras Bulba', 'Dikanka'and 'Mirhorod' certainly attest to his Ukrainian soul.

    I think that a perfectly good analogy could be made between a Ukrainian writer like Gogol to similarly great Irish writers like Bernard Shaw and James Joyce, to name just a few. No one would say that these Irish writers, who often wrote about British (English) topics in the English language, were 'lost as cultural figures' to the Irish nation.

    think that a perfectly good analogy could be made between a Ukrainian writer like Gogol to similarly great Irish writers like Bernard Shaw and James Joyce

    An analogy would be Robert Stevenson and Walter Scott. These two are the exact analogue of Gogol.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. rec1man says:
    @Erik Sieven
    Why do antiracist think it is somehow morally inevitable for Europe to become muslim - but not Hindu? In 1950 had almost no Hindus and almost no Muslims (except the regions earlier occupied by the Ottoman Empire). Why do Muslims have a bigger claim than Hindus?

    because, Hindus in the western countries, never do terrorism, create no-go zones or create street crime ;

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erik Sieven
    that´s it. If you want the white man to respect you, you have to beat him. Antiracist only love violent minorities.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. Jon0815 says:
    @AP

    "Russia and Belarus are part of the Eurasian Customs Union"

    As most countries in your proposed Intermarium are currently part of the EU.
     
    And EU is far less Muslim than ECU.

    My point is that of the two hypothetical new arrangements, a union of the three East Slavic states makes more sense.
     
    Putin has lost Ukraine for at least a generation. Russia is about as popular in Ukraine as it is in Poland - not at all. So for at least 20 years integration with Russia is not feasible.

    but much more populous, powerful, and able to stand up to the globalist, multicultural West.
     
    1.Poland all by itself seems to be doing finer standing up to the West.

    2. As commentator szopen pointed out, Ukraine attaching itself to Russia becomes a 100 lb wolf attached to a 300 point bear. Within Intermarium Ukraine becomes much more of an equal partner. Which is better for Ukraine? We also have a history of 2 previous attempts of integration under different Moscow regimes - both turned out very badly for Ukrainians.

    What is best for Ukraine depends on the circumstances that exist now, not those that existed 80+ years or centuries ago.
     
    As forensic specialists will tell you - the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. It's not about spite or revenge but rational view of likely future outcomes based on previous outcomes.

    Not to mention that when Ukraine was most recently united with Russia, it was much wealthier relative to Russia than it is today.
     
    1. Under Soviet rule Ukraine was still much poorer than Russia. Since then it was ruled by a Moscow-imposed Soviet elite that had not really distanced themselves from Russia or pursued close integration with the West. All the post-Soviet countries who, unlike Ukraine, focused on Westward integration have done much better than has Russia itself, without Russia's natural resources. Poland has gone from being about at Ukraine's level to surpassing Russia. Romania went IIRC from 30% of Russia's level to 60%. Ukraine was just falling behind.

    2. When Galicia was part of Austria-Hungary it was wealthier per capita than Russia, Greece, Serbia, Portugal. It was tied with Slovakia and Croatia. I don't have data for the 1920s and 1930s in Galicia, but contrary to Soviet propaganda that described Galicia as backward, actual Soviets who moved there (such as one of my grandparents, who arrived in Lviv from Kharkiv in 1939) saw it as much more prosperous and civilized than their impoverished Soviet homeland. It was a funny situation - in 1939 the Soviet government brought Soviets to Lviv in order to make the place more pro-Soviet, and provided Galicians with tours of Soviet Ukraine to sell them on the benefits of Soviet rule. The Soviet newcomers - the ethnic Ukrainians, not so much the Jews or Russians - immediately focused on how backward and pathetic their homeland was relative to the West, and many became "infected" by Ukrainian nationalism; the Galicians touring the Ukrainian SSR, rather than becoming pro-Soviet, were not so impressed by the massive dams or whatever, but by the squalid living conditions of the people living there and recognized that they were becoming part of a nightmare.

    Poland all by itself seems to be doing finer standing up to the West.

    Poland isn’t always going to have a government as nationalistic as the one it has now, and the West could potentially be much tougher on Poland than it is now.

    As forensic specialists will tell you – the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.

    That applies to individual personalities, but becomes increasingly invalid over time when applied to groups whose membership is completely replaced over time, such as nations or their governments.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Poland isn’t always going to have a government as nationalistic as the one it has now, and the West could potentially be much tougher on Poland than it is now.
     
    Maybe, though Polish youth are more nationalistic than their elders so if the pendulum swings it won't swing far.

    EU itself is becoming more nationalistic, as evidenced by Austria's election and even Merkel's softening on her extreme pro-immigration stance.

    "As forensic specialists will tell you – the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior."

    That applies to individual personalities, but becomes increasingly invalid over time when applied to groups whose membership is completely replaced over time, such as nations or their governments.
     
    Nations consist of individuals. Your approach is - you got burned twice, but trust us this third time, it'll really be different. No thanks.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. Mr. Hack says:
    @AP
    Yes, some of his (Russian language) works, written for a primarily Russian audience in St. Petersburg, were set in Ukraine. But was he active in Ukraine, was he involved with other Ukrainian writers , was Ukrainian literature indebted to him? Gogol never even bothered to meet Shevchenko, when Shevchenko was in St. Petersburg. Gogol belonged to Russian literature.

    I think that a perfectly good analogy could be made between a Ukrainian writer like Gogol to similarly great Irish writers like Bernard Shaw and James Joyce, to name just a few.
     
    Shaw was from an ethnic English (and Protestant) family, born in Dublin and he moved to London at age 20. He could perhaps be compared to Kiev-born Bulgakov.

    Joyce was Irish, left in his twenties but moved around and always wrote about Ireland. He wasn't a French or Swiss writer.

    Gogol left Ukraine at age 19, wrote in Russian after doing so, was part of the Russian literary scene, was an influence on Russian literature, etc. His analogue would be someone like Joseph Conrad - the Pole who was an English writer, wrote only in English, and was an influence on English literature while playing no role in Polish literature. Or Nabakov, had Nabakov not written anything in Russian after his school years and had immediately started writing all of his major works in English, after leaving Russia.

    The point that I was trying to make, is that there were a number of Irish writers, who lived within and outside of Ireland, who chose to write in English about life in both Ireland and England, and who remain within the Irish oeuvre of literature. Gogol’s works that depict life in Ukraine are of course safe fare for scholars of Ukrainian literature, just google in his name and see the vast amounts of studies of his works written by Ukrainian scholars. There always seems to be a place for his name in general histories of Ukrainian literature. As a personal note, as a teenager I had the great pleasure of reading
    ‘Taras Bulba’ transcribed into the English language, and was intensely moved by its patriotic fervor towards the Ukrainian cause. Throughout my 20′s, I must have reread this classic book 5-6 times and still consider it to be a masterpiece, and as I’ve already pointed out, Gogol himself considered this novel to be his own favorite, one that he kept rewriting throughout most of his life…

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    The point that I was trying to make, is that there were a number of Irish writers, who lived within and outside of Ireland, who chose to write in English about life in both Ireland and England, and who remain within the Irish oeuvre of literature
     
    1. English has become Ireland's native language (perhaps 2% of its population speak Gaelic).
    2. An Irishman who moved to England, spends his life there,is part of London's literary scene and doesn't ever hang out with other Irish writers, isn't a part of Irish literature.

    Gogol’s works that depict life in Ukraine are of course safe fare for scholars of Ukrainian literature, just google in his name and see the vast amounts of studies of his works written by Ukrainian scholars.
     
    A recent phenomenon. Gogol's childhood friend, the Ukrainian writer Oleksa Storozhenko, was adamant in describing Gogol as a Russian, not Ukrainian writer, and furthermore claimed that Gogol's descriptions of Ukraine were full of mistakes and betrayed the lack of knowledge about the country, as one would expect of someone who left young and never turned back. This was the traditional consensus view among Ukrainians. None of his works were included in the curriculum of Ukrainian diaspora schools. In Galicia before the war the Russophiles liked him, the Ukrainian nationalists largely pretended he didn't exist. As I had written the feelings were mutual - Gogol never spent time with other Ukrainian writers, never bothering to see Shevchenko when the latter was in St. Petersburg. He wrote for a Russian audience, his literary contacts were all Russians, etc. He gave them the Romanticized Ukraine that they liked and which was fashionable in St. Petersburg.

    As a personal note, as a teenager I had the great pleasure of reading ‘Taras Bulba’ transcribed into the English language, and was intensely moved by its patriotic fervor towards the Ukrainian cause.
     
    Sure. A lot of people liked that old movie starring Yul Brynner. But having incidental Ukrainian fans doesn't place his career into Ukrainian literature.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. Dante says:

    These are just projections and much more likely is the decline of the eu and its out of touch elites and media, We are already seeing the beginnings of new blocs looking at trade and alternatives such as the V4 and the 16+1 ( Central & Eastern Europe and China ) and the inevitable rise of nationalist or nationalist inspired parties and leaders alk over Europe as silent majorities begin rejecting msm/politics. Eastern Europe is home to ethnically aware populations and political elites that a determined not to swap rule by one foreign body to another ( ussr to eu ) and these trends are underway in Western Europe too. And regards Russia and it’s Muslim population, the Muslim share of births has remained basically the same for a decade whilst the European share has increased thanks to pro Natalist policies along with the continued fight against abortion ( both are increasingly being used in the rest of Eastern Europe ) alongside increased life expectancy and reduced mortality rates. So let’s exercise some caution and use common sense and look at what governments and political bodies are actually doing in the real world.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  105. @rec1man
    because, Hindus in the western countries, never do terrorism, create no-go zones or create street crime ;

    that´s it. If you want the white man to respect you, you have to beat him. Antiracist only love violent minorities.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. AP says:
    @Mr. Hack
    The point that I was trying to make, is that there were a number of Irish writers, who lived within and outside of Ireland, who chose to write in English about life in both Ireland and England, and who remain within the Irish oeuvre of literature. Gogol's works that depict life in Ukraine are of course safe fare for scholars of Ukrainian literature, just google in his name and see the vast amounts of studies of his works written by Ukrainian scholars. There always seems to be a place for his name in general histories of Ukrainian literature. As a personal note, as a teenager I had the great pleasure of reading
    'Taras Bulba' transcribed into the English language, and was intensely moved by its patriotic fervor towards the Ukrainian cause. Throughout my 20's, I must have reread this classic book 5-6 times and still consider it to be a masterpiece, and as I've already pointed out, Gogol himself considered this novel to be his own favorite, one that he kept rewriting throughout most of his life...

    The point that I was trying to make, is that there were a number of Irish writers, who lived within and outside of Ireland, who chose to write in English about life in both Ireland and England, and who remain within the Irish oeuvre of literature

    1. English has become Ireland’s native language (perhaps 2% of its population speak Gaelic).
    2. An Irishman who moved to England, spends his life there,is part of London’s literary scene and doesn’t ever hang out with other Irish writers, isn’t a part of Irish literature.

    Gogol’s works that depict life in Ukraine are of course safe fare for scholars of Ukrainian literature, just google in his name and see the vast amounts of studies of his works written by Ukrainian scholars.

    A recent phenomenon. Gogol’s childhood friend, the Ukrainian writer Oleksa Storozhenko, was adamant in describing Gogol as a Russian, not Ukrainian writer, and furthermore claimed that Gogol’s descriptions of Ukraine were full of mistakes and betrayed the lack of knowledge about the country, as one would expect of someone who left young and never turned back. This was the traditional consensus view among Ukrainians. None of his works were included in the curriculum of Ukrainian diaspora schools. In Galicia before the war the Russophiles liked him, the Ukrainian nationalists largely pretended he didn’t exist. As I had written the feelings were mutual – Gogol never spent time with other Ukrainian writers, never bothering to see Shevchenko when the latter was in St. Petersburg. He wrote for a Russian audience, his literary contacts were all Russians, etc. He gave them the Romanticized Ukraine that they liked and which was fashionable in St. Petersburg.

    As a personal note, as a teenager I had the great pleasure of reading ‘Taras Bulba’ transcribed into the English language, and was intensely moved by its patriotic fervor towards the Ukrainian cause.

    Sure. A lot of people liked that old movie starring Yul Brynner. But having incidental Ukrainian fans doesn’t place his career into Ukrainian literature.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. AP says:
    @Jon0815

    Poland all by itself seems to be doing finer standing up to the West.
     
    Poland isn't always going to have a government as nationalistic as the one it has now, and the West could potentially be much tougher on Poland than it is now.

    As forensic specialists will tell you – the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.
     
    That applies to individual personalities, but becomes increasingly invalid over time when applied to groups whose membership is completely replaced over time, such as nations or their governments.

    Poland isn’t always going to have a government as nationalistic as the one it has now, and the West could potentially be much tougher on Poland than it is now.

    Maybe, though Polish youth are more nationalistic than their elders so if the pendulum swings it won’t swing far.

    EU itself is becoming more nationalistic, as evidenced by Austria’s election and even Merkel’s softening on her extreme pro-immigration stance.

    “As forensic specialists will tell you – the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.”

    That applies to individual personalities, but becomes increasingly invalid over time when applied to groups whose membership is completely replaced over time, such as nations or their governments.

    Nations consist of individuals. Your approach is – you got burned twice, but trust us this third time, it’ll really be different. No thanks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow
    I wish I could be as optimistic as you. By the way, Merkel was first anti-migrant and anti-multiculturalism, then fanatically pro-migrant, now a bit less - I am not sure anyone knows what she believes or if she just follows instructions.

    Let's even assume that Poland and its few E European neighbours hold the line on migration. Tough to do over time, but let's assume Poland, Czech, Slovakia, Hungary stay demographically as they are today. That is roughly 65 million people out of over 500 million in EU. Even with a few other allies (Austria, Croatia, Baltics), they will barely break 100 million or 20% of EU population. About the same as the Third World migrants in EU. And they will be surrounded by EU dominated by the migrant-friendly liberals and increasingly the migrants themselves. This is not a prescription for success. More likely, it is prescription for marginalisation and eventual surrender. Defense is not enough, it just delays the inevitable.

    An old wisdom says that oasis never spreads, desert does. My humble view is that to save the Visegrad countries in the long run, and EU itself, the EU must change and take drastic actions to prevent all of EU (not just the east) from being over-run by Third World migration. Are they capable of it?
    , @reiner Tor

    Your approach is – you got burned twice, but trust us this third time, it’ll really be different. No thanks.
     
    On the other hand, you also advocate a western integration into a much stronger EU and NATO block. How well did German rule work out in the last century? You are banking on Germany losing its clout quickly, but I think you’re running ahead of time. Germany (and France etc.) will still be strong for the next generation, and their growing problems will only mean they will work frantically to export those problems. Or at least to destroy the eastern countries, too, so that their failure won’t look so bad.
    , @Jon0815

    Nations consist of individuals.
     
    Individuals who are completely replaced over time.

    Your approach is – you got burned twice, but trust us this third time, it’ll really be different. No thanks.
     
    My approach is to recognize that the "us" in question is literally not the same "us" which existed in 1930 or the 18th century. It's irrational to profile a nation based on events from many decades or centuries ago, as though this were the same as profiling a particular person based on their own past actions. And being guided by an irrational premise, is a good way to produce a self-destructive disaster like Maidan.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. @AP

    However, please keep in mind that Muslims historically did not have a monopoly on terrorism and that other groups–such as anarchists and Russian leftists (in Tsarist times)–also engaged in terrorism in the past.
     
    I don't recall anarchists targeting concerts full of children.

    "It would have access to the Baltic and Black Seas."

    Please take a look at the countries which control the entrances to those seas, though. Indeed, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway–all of whom are projected to become very Islamic–control the entrance to the Baltic Sea while Muslim-majority Turkey controls the access to the Black Sea. Thus, if the Intermarium will be perceived in a sufficiently negative light, those countries could try closing the opening of the Baltic and/or Black Sea.
     
    A blockade is an act of war.

    Why would, say, strict immigration control elicit a declaration of war? That's extremely unlikely. Even America despite its hostile relationships with Iran doesn't block the Persian Gulf.

    "A population of 100 million or so over a huge territory would be enough for internal security."

    Please keep in mind that this population will become much smaller over the next several decades, though.

     

    100 million is after population loss, many decades from now. Currently Intermarium has about 153 million people (143 million if you don't include Belarus).

    Also, how many people can, say, Germany sustain? After all, there might also be the issue of living space if large-scale Muslim (and Sub-Saharan African) immigration to Western Europe will cause the population there to increase beyond its carrying capacity.
     
    Germany can buy food from Intermarium. But its population is not projected to explode - natives are dying out, and newcomers experience decreased fertility rates. Overall population won't be much higher, it will just be heavily Islamic. Nobody is predicting total loss of border control.

    A population of elderly Germans and not-too-bright migrants probably isn't much of a military threat.

    Perhaps not, but wouldn’t “Germany” and “France” — by then countries populated mostly by young Arab and African Muslims — be facing a dwindling, aging, and aged Polish / Austrian / Hungarian / Ukrainian / Belarussian population?

    If Poles, Hungarians, etc., don’t start having children again, they will not be safe or strong countries under any likely scenario.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. Mr. Hack says:

    English has become Ireland’s native language (perhaps 2% of its population speak Gaelic).

    For many Ukrainians, Russian became their native language…

    Oleksa Storozhenko, was adamant in describing Gogol as a Russian, not Ukrainian writer, and furthermore claimed that Gogol’s descriptions of Ukraine were full of mistakes and betrayed the lack of knowledge about the country, as one would expect of someone who left young and never turned back.

    What Gogol lacked in actual knowledge about Ukraine and its customs first hand, was supplemented through much study and correspondence with his mother:

    Gogol began working on his Evenings as early as in 1829 when he barely turned 20. In his letters home he was pleading with his mother to tell him about “the Ukrainian customs, traditions, tales and folk wisdom at the grassroots level,” to describe the attire of a rural deacon, a wedding rite, exciting jokes… It took him three years to complete on the novel, which was finished in 1832;

    Sure, there were some inaccuracies in the book, but it wasn’t meant to be an encyclopedic expose about the customs and mores of Ukrainian peasants, but an artistic rendition well within the confines of writing a novel.

    None of his works were included in the curriculum of Ukrainian diaspora schools. In Galicia before the war the Russophiles liked him, the Ukrainian nationalists largely pretended he didn’t exist.

    I have no reason to doubt you, but in the curricula of Ukraine today, and within modern Ukrainian history of literature books, Gogol is given his due. I couldn’t locate my own copy of Czyzhevky’s ‘A History of Ukrainian Literature’ (a classic on the subject!), but strongly believe that a good amount of space is given to Gogol within this resource book. Czyzhevky, after all wrote quite a bit about Gogol. Here’s the type of modern curriculum that is taught throughout the world today, that devotes a whole section to Gogol, Lecture 14: https://portal.utoronto.ca/bbcswebdav/users/tarnawsk/PDF%20Files/218-Lecture-notes.pdf

    Sure. A lot of people liked that old movie starring Yul Brynner. But having incidental Ukrainian fans doesn’t place his career into Ukrainian literature.

    I clearly indicated that I was moved by the English transliteration of the book ‘Taras Bulba’ not the film version. Aren’t you stretching it here a bit to try and make your point?:-)

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    English has become Ireland’s native language (perhaps 2% of its population speak Gaelic).

    For many Ukrainians, Russian became their native language…
     
    But not for all. There is such a thing as Ukrainian literature. Irish literature, OTOH, is in English.

    What Gogol lacked in actual knowledge about Ukraine and its customs first hand, was supplemented through much study and correspondence with his mother
     
    Well, he had to ask his mother a lot of questions, and still got a lot of things wrong, enough for actual Ukrainians in Ukraine in his time to view him as relatively clueless about the country he had left.

    "None of his works were included in the curriculum of Ukrainian diaspora schools. In Galicia before the war the Russophiles liked him, the Ukrainian nationalists largely pretended he didn’t exist."

    I have no reason to doubt you, but in the curricula of Ukraine today, and within modern Ukrainian history of literature books, Gogol is given his due.
     
    Diaspora Ukrainian schools still don't teach him and still don't include him as Ukrainian literature.

    Ukrainian literature isn't simply - something written by a Ukrainian. Even if that something has Ukrainian themes.

    Here is Britannica about Ukrainian literature:

    https://www.britannica.com/art/Ukrainian-literature

    Gogol isn't mentioned.

    Encyclopedia of Ukraine mentions Gogol very briefly:

    http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages%5CL%5CI%5CLiterature.htm

    Most of the authors of the period also wrote in Russian; some did so exclusively and thus belong to Russian literature. The famous Nikolai Gogol is a prime example.

    Gogol did not live in Ukraine, he did not belong to any Ukrainian literary school or join any Ukrainian literary circles. He wrote in Russian to a Russian audience, and worked in the company of Russian authors, considering himself to be their peer and not a peer of the Ukrainian authors. He was an ethnic Ukrainian and, especially in the beginning drew on his experiences growing up in Ukraine (including some elements from traditional Ukrainian theater he had been exposed to), but his was not Ukrainian literature and thus he was not a Ukrainian writer (except if Ukrainian is used strictly as a description of his ethnicity).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. Beckow says:
    @AP

    Poland isn’t always going to have a government as nationalistic as the one it has now, and the West could potentially be much tougher on Poland than it is now.
     
    Maybe, though Polish youth are more nationalistic than their elders so if the pendulum swings it won't swing far.

    EU itself is becoming more nationalistic, as evidenced by Austria's election and even Merkel's softening on her extreme pro-immigration stance.

    "As forensic specialists will tell you – the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior."

    That applies to individual personalities, but becomes increasingly invalid over time when applied to groups whose membership is completely replaced over time, such as nations or their governments.
     
    Nations consist of individuals. Your approach is - you got burned twice, but trust us this third time, it'll really be different. No thanks.

    I wish I could be as optimistic as you. By the way, Merkel was first anti-migrant and anti-multiculturalism, then fanatically pro-migrant, now a bit less – I am not sure anyone knows what she believes or if she just follows instructions.

    Let’s even assume that Poland and its few E European neighbours hold the line on migration. Tough to do over time, but let’s assume Poland, Czech, Slovakia, Hungary stay demographically as they are today. That is roughly 65 million people out of over 500 million in EU. Even with a few other allies (Austria, Croatia, Baltics), they will barely break 100 million or 20% of EU population. About the same as the Third World migrants in EU. And they will be surrounded by EU dominated by the migrant-friendly liberals and increasingly the migrants themselves. This is not a prescription for success. More likely, it is prescription for marginalisation and eventual surrender. Defense is not enough, it just delays the inevitable.

    An old wisdom says that oasis never spreads, desert does. My humble view is that to save the Visegrad countries in the long run, and EU itself, the EU must change and take drastic actions to prevent all of EU (not just the east) from being over-run by Third World migration. Are they capable of it?

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Let’s even assume that Poland and its few E European neighbours hold the line on migration. Tough to do over time, but let’s assume Poland, Czech, Slovakia, Hungary stay demographically as they are today. That is roughly 65 million people out of over 500 million in EU. Even with a few other allies (Austria, Croatia, Baltics), they will barely break 100 million or 20% of EU population.
     
    Add Ukraine and Romania and you get 150+ million - Russia's population.

    And they will be surrounded by EU dominated by the migrant-friendly liberals and increasingly the migrants themselves.
     
    We don't know how politically pro-migrant the EU will be, nor how strong and capable of imposing its will the rest of the EU will be.
    , @Parbes
    "...Merkel was first anti-migrant and anti-multiculturalism, then fanatically pro-migrant, now a bit less – I am not sure anyone knows what she believes or if she just follows instructions."

    She's just a weathervane politician whose main - indeed ONLY - interests are: 1. Maintaining herself and her party in power, for which one of the requirements is preventing the formation of widespread opposition to her in both Germany AND the EU by the masses of cucked Euro-liberal intellectuals, activists, and ordinary voters (INCLUDING voting non-European minorities already in Germany, such as the Turks); 2. Looking out for the interests of the German neoliberal capitalist elite class, who are also, of course, mostly globalists; and 3. Keeping the U.S. and Anglo-Zionist hegemons satisfied and "un-angry" by complying with the dictates of the currently prevailing globo-imperial received wisdom, which, of course, precludes following any independent national sovereigntist path in things such as immigration, control of borders, etc.

    That's all there is to it, really.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. AP says:
    @Mr. Hack

    English has become Ireland’s native language (perhaps 2% of its population speak Gaelic).
     
    For many Ukrainians, Russian became their native language...

    Oleksa Storozhenko, was adamant in describing Gogol as a Russian, not Ukrainian writer, and furthermore claimed that Gogol’s descriptions of Ukraine were full of mistakes and betrayed the lack of knowledge about the country, as one would expect of someone who left young and never turned back.
     
    What Gogol lacked in actual knowledge about Ukraine and its customs first hand, was supplemented through much study and correspondence with his mother:

    Gogol began working on his Evenings as early as in 1829 when he barely turned 20. In his letters home he was pleading with his mother to tell him about “the Ukrainian customs, traditions, tales and folk wisdom at the grassroots level,” to describe the attire of a rural deacon, a wedding rite, exciting jokes… It took him three years to complete on the novel, which was finished in 1832;
     
    Sure, there were some inaccuracies in the book, but it wasn't meant to be an encyclopedic expose about the customs and mores of Ukrainian peasants, but an artistic rendition well within the confines of writing a novel.

    None of his works were included in the curriculum of Ukrainian diaspora schools. In Galicia before the war the Russophiles liked him, the Ukrainian nationalists largely pretended he didn’t exist.
     
    I have no reason to doubt you, but in the curricula of Ukraine today, and within modern Ukrainian history of literature books, Gogol is given his due. I couldn't locate my own copy of Czyzhevky's 'A History of Ukrainian Literature' (a classic on the subject!), but strongly believe that a good amount of space is given to Gogol within this resource book. Czyzhevky, after all wrote quite a bit about Gogol. Here's the type of modern curriculum that is taught throughout the world today, that devotes a whole section to Gogol, Lecture 14: https://portal.utoronto.ca/bbcswebdav/users/tarnawsk/PDF%20Files/218-Lecture-notes.pdf

    Sure. A lot of people liked that old movie starring Yul Brynner. But having incidental Ukrainian fans doesn’t place his career into Ukrainian literature.
     
    I clearly indicated that I was moved by the English transliteration of the book 'Taras Bulba' not the film version. Aren't you stretching it here a bit to try and make your point?:-)

    English has become Ireland’s native language (perhaps 2% of its population speak Gaelic).

    For many Ukrainians, Russian became their native language…

    But not for all. There is such a thing as Ukrainian literature. Irish literature, OTOH, is in English.

    What Gogol lacked in actual knowledge about Ukraine and its customs first hand, was supplemented through much study and correspondence with his mother

    Well, he had to ask his mother a lot of questions, and still got a lot of things wrong, enough for actual Ukrainians in Ukraine in his time to view him as relatively clueless about the country he had left.

    “None of his works were included in the curriculum of Ukrainian diaspora schools. In Galicia before the war the Russophiles liked him, the Ukrainian nationalists largely pretended he didn’t exist.”

    I have no reason to doubt you, but in the curricula of Ukraine today, and within modern Ukrainian history of literature books, Gogol is given his due.

    Diaspora Ukrainian schools still don’t teach him and still don’t include him as Ukrainian literature.

    Ukrainian literature isn’t simply – something written by a Ukrainian. Even if that something has Ukrainian themes.

    Here is Britannica about Ukrainian literature:

    https://www.britannica.com/art/Ukrainian-literature

    Gogol isn’t mentioned.

    Encyclopedia of Ukraine mentions Gogol very briefly:

    http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages%5CL%5CI%5CLiterature.htm

    Most of the authors of the period also wrote in Russian; some did so exclusively and thus belong to Russian literature. The famous Nikolai Gogol is a prime example.

    Gogol did not live in Ukraine, he did not belong to any Ukrainian literary school or join any Ukrainian literary circles. He wrote in Russian to a Russian audience, and worked in the company of Russian authors, considering himself to be their peer and not a peer of the Ukrainian authors. He was an ethnic Ukrainian and, especially in the beginning drew on his experiences growing up in Ukraine (including some elements from traditional Ukrainian theater he had been exposed to), but his was not Ukrainian literature and thus he was not a Ukrainian writer (except if Ukrainian is used strictly as a description of his ethnicity).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack

    Diaspora Ukrainian schools still don’t teach him and still don’t include him as Ukrainian literature.
     
    The curriculum of Ukrainian literature that I've already presented was created by a diaspora instructor, Marta Tarnowsky, who teaches in Canada. Grabowych, who heads the Harvard program of Ukrainian literature, is quoted by Ms. Tarnowsky quite extensively.

    He wrote in Russian to a Russian audience, and worked in the company of Russian authors, considering himself to be their peer and not a peer of the Ukrainian authors.

     

    Really? And yet:

    N. Berg, a poet and translator, reminisces: “Most of the time Gogol preferred to be all by himself. When at a social gathering, somebody would come over to where he was sitting to ask whether he was writing anything new, he hardly answered anything, pretending he was dozing or staring blindly into nothingness, or he would just get up and leave. But when among the guests there was at least one person from Little Russia (the usual way Ukraine was referred to in Russia — tr.), he behaved quite differently… They seemed to be pulled to each other as if by a magnet; they would sit in a corner and talk all the evening long, passionately and heart-to-heart. I never saw Gogol talk like this to any of the Velikorosy (Great Russians, that is Russians, as opposed to Little Russians, Ukrainians — tr).
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. AP says:
    @Beckow
    I wish I could be as optimistic as you. By the way, Merkel was first anti-migrant and anti-multiculturalism, then fanatically pro-migrant, now a bit less - I am not sure anyone knows what she believes or if she just follows instructions.

    Let's even assume that Poland and its few E European neighbours hold the line on migration. Tough to do over time, but let's assume Poland, Czech, Slovakia, Hungary stay demographically as they are today. That is roughly 65 million people out of over 500 million in EU. Even with a few other allies (Austria, Croatia, Baltics), they will barely break 100 million or 20% of EU population. About the same as the Third World migrants in EU. And they will be surrounded by EU dominated by the migrant-friendly liberals and increasingly the migrants themselves. This is not a prescription for success. More likely, it is prescription for marginalisation and eventual surrender. Defense is not enough, it just delays the inevitable.

    An old wisdom says that oasis never spreads, desert does. My humble view is that to save the Visegrad countries in the long run, and EU itself, the EU must change and take drastic actions to prevent all of EU (not just the east) from being over-run by Third World migration. Are they capable of it?

    Let’s even assume that Poland and its few E European neighbours hold the line on migration. Tough to do over time, but let’s assume Poland, Czech, Slovakia, Hungary stay demographically as they are today. That is roughly 65 million people out of over 500 million in EU. Even with a few other allies (Austria, Croatia, Baltics), they will barely break 100 million or 20% of EU population.

    Add Ukraine and Romania and you get 150+ million – Russia’s population.

    And they will be surrounded by EU dominated by the migrant-friendly liberals and increasingly the migrants themselves.

    We don’t know how politically pro-migrant the EU will be, nor how strong and capable of imposing its will the rest of the EU will be.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow

    Add Ukraine and Romania and you get 150+ million
     
    Ukraine and Belarus will be tough to add - the whole Russia-EU issue, let's not go there. But I wouldn't count on it.

    how politically pro-migrant the EU will be
     
    Yes, we don't know. But if the 2015-6 migrant trek failed to change the Western EU elite's view - in many cases they are doubling down, listen to Juncker - I am not sure what would.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. Beckow says:
    @AP

    Let’s even assume that Poland and its few E European neighbours hold the line on migration. Tough to do over time, but let’s assume Poland, Czech, Slovakia, Hungary stay demographically as they are today. That is roughly 65 million people out of over 500 million in EU. Even with a few other allies (Austria, Croatia, Baltics), they will barely break 100 million or 20% of EU population.
     
    Add Ukraine and Romania and you get 150+ million - Russia's population.

    And they will be surrounded by EU dominated by the migrant-friendly liberals and increasingly the migrants themselves.
     
    We don't know how politically pro-migrant the EU will be, nor how strong and capable of imposing its will the rest of the EU will be.

    Add Ukraine and Romania and you get 150+ million

    Ukraine and Belarus will be tough to add – the whole Russia-EU issue, let’s not go there. But I wouldn’t count on it.

    how politically pro-migrant the EU will be

    Yes, we don’t know. But if the 2015-6 migrant trek failed to change the Western EU elite’s view – in many cases they are doubling down, listen to Juncker – I am not sure what would.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Ukraine and Belarus will be tough to add – the whole Russia-EU issue, let’s not go there. But I wouldn’t count on it.
     
    Ukraine has decent chance. It is probably important for the eastern EU project for Ukraine to be a part of it. It adds a lot of people and territory and its territory is solidly in the conservative camp alongside Poland, Hungary, etc. Belarus would join in the long-term if ever.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. Mr. Hack says:
    @AP

    English has become Ireland’s native language (perhaps 2% of its population speak Gaelic).

    For many Ukrainians, Russian became their native language…
     
    But not for all. There is such a thing as Ukrainian literature. Irish literature, OTOH, is in English.

    What Gogol lacked in actual knowledge about Ukraine and its customs first hand, was supplemented through much study and correspondence with his mother
     
    Well, he had to ask his mother a lot of questions, and still got a lot of things wrong, enough for actual Ukrainians in Ukraine in his time to view him as relatively clueless about the country he had left.

    "None of his works were included in the curriculum of Ukrainian diaspora schools. In Galicia before the war the Russophiles liked him, the Ukrainian nationalists largely pretended he didn’t exist."

    I have no reason to doubt you, but in the curricula of Ukraine today, and within modern Ukrainian history of literature books, Gogol is given his due.
     
    Diaspora Ukrainian schools still don't teach him and still don't include him as Ukrainian literature.

    Ukrainian literature isn't simply - something written by a Ukrainian. Even if that something has Ukrainian themes.

    Here is Britannica about Ukrainian literature:

    https://www.britannica.com/art/Ukrainian-literature

    Gogol isn't mentioned.

    Encyclopedia of Ukraine mentions Gogol very briefly:

    http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages%5CL%5CI%5CLiterature.htm

    Most of the authors of the period also wrote in Russian; some did so exclusively and thus belong to Russian literature. The famous Nikolai Gogol is a prime example.

    Gogol did not live in Ukraine, he did not belong to any Ukrainian literary school or join any Ukrainian literary circles. He wrote in Russian to a Russian audience, and worked in the company of Russian authors, considering himself to be their peer and not a peer of the Ukrainian authors. He was an ethnic Ukrainian and, especially in the beginning drew on his experiences growing up in Ukraine (including some elements from traditional Ukrainian theater he had been exposed to), but his was not Ukrainian literature and thus he was not a Ukrainian writer (except if Ukrainian is used strictly as a description of his ethnicity).

    Diaspora Ukrainian schools still don’t teach him and still don’t include him as Ukrainian literature.

    The curriculum of Ukrainian literature that I’ve already presented was created by a diaspora instructor, Marta Tarnowsky, who teaches in Canada. Grabowych, who heads the Harvard program of Ukrainian literature, is quoted by Ms. Tarnowsky quite extensively.

    He wrote in Russian to a Russian audience, and worked in the company of Russian authors, considering himself to be their peer and not a peer of the Ukrainian authors.

    Really? And yet:

    N. Berg, a poet and translator, reminisces: “Most of the time Gogol preferred to be all by himself. When at a social gathering, somebody would come over to where he was sitting to ask whether he was writing anything new, he hardly answered anything, pretending he was dozing or staring blindly into nothingness, or he would just get up and leave. But when among the guests there was at least one person from Little Russia (the usual way Ukraine was referred to in Russia — tr.), he behaved quite differently… They seemed to be pulled to each other as if by a magnet; they would sit in a corner and talk all the evening long, passionately and heart-to-heart. I never saw Gogol talk like this to any of the Velikorosy (Great Russians, that is Russians, as opposed to Little Russians, Ukrainians — tr).

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    The curriculum of Ukrainian literature that I’ve already presented was created by a diaspora instructor, Marta Tarnowsky
     
    I have a kid in Ukrainians school now. No Gogol. At least a few years ago, in Ukraine itself Gogol was taught as foreign literature .

    N. Berg, a poet and translator, reminisces: “Most of the time Gogol preferred to be all by himself. When at a social gathering, somebody would come over to where he was sitting to ask whether he was writing anything new, he hardly answered anything, pretending he was dozing or staring blindly into nothingness, or he would just get up and leave. But when among the guests there was at least one person from Little Russia (the usual way Ukraine was referred to in Russia — tr.), he behaved quite differently… They seemed to be pulled to each other as if by a magnet; they would sit in a corner and talk all the evening long, passionately and heart-to-heart. I never saw Gogol talk like this to any of the Velikorosy (Great Russians, that is Russians, as opposed to Little Russians, Ukrainians — tr).
     
    We are discussing whether Gogol was a Russian or Ukrainian writer. His literary peers with whom he spent time, whose opinions influenced his works, were Russians as were the principal audience for his work. He seems to be have been unfamiliar with the literary scene in Ukraine (his Ukrainian friends would bring up Shevchenko and Gogol would sort of dismissively opine that things should be written in Russian) His close personal friends were ethnic Ukrainians like himself but his literary colleagues were Russians.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. AP says:
    @Beckow

    Add Ukraine and Romania and you get 150+ million
     
    Ukraine and Belarus will be tough to add - the whole Russia-EU issue, let's not go there. But I wouldn't count on it.

    how politically pro-migrant the EU will be
     
    Yes, we don't know. But if the 2015-6 migrant trek failed to change the Western EU elite's view - in many cases they are doubling down, listen to Juncker - I am not sure what would.

    Ukraine and Belarus will be tough to add – the whole Russia-EU issue, let’s not go there. But I wouldn’t count on it.

    Ukraine has decent chance. It is probably important for the eastern EU project for Ukraine to be a part of it. It adds a lot of people and territory and its territory is solidly in the conservative camp alongside Poland, Hungary, etc. Belarus would join in the long-term if ever.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow

    Ukraine has decent chance
     
    Yes, in about 50-75 years. And only if Ukraine resolves its huge issues with their Russian population (tens of millions). And does it peacefully.

    You are a 'Ukrainian', and as many Western leaning Ukrainians you are in love with the West, EU, Nato, anything coming from the West. That love is almost totally one-sided and unrequited, nobody in the West cares much. They don't want Ukrainian goods, migrants, and problems. Some crazies in the West want to use Ukraine as a tool against Russia. That's it, a tool, and object to use - nothing at all about Ukrainian well-being. Watch what they do, not what they say. Unrequited passions tend to end badly.

    The Brussels intellectual elite doesn't want more conservatives in EU, they dread it. They want Ukrainians to fight the Russians for them. Brussels is still totally in charge in EU, so they will get what they want.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. AP says:
    @Mr. Hack

    Diaspora Ukrainian schools still don’t teach him and still don’t include him as Ukrainian literature.
     
    The curriculum of Ukrainian literature that I've already presented was created by a diaspora instructor, Marta Tarnowsky, who teaches in Canada. Grabowych, who heads the Harvard program of Ukrainian literature, is quoted by Ms. Tarnowsky quite extensively.

    He wrote in Russian to a Russian audience, and worked in the company of Russian authors, considering himself to be their peer and not a peer of the Ukrainian authors.

     

    Really? And yet:

    N. Berg, a poet and translator, reminisces: “Most of the time Gogol preferred to be all by himself. When at a social gathering, somebody would come over to where he was sitting to ask whether he was writing anything new, he hardly answered anything, pretending he was dozing or staring blindly into nothingness, or he would just get up and leave. But when among the guests there was at least one person from Little Russia (the usual way Ukraine was referred to in Russia — tr.), he behaved quite differently… They seemed to be pulled to each other as if by a magnet; they would sit in a corner and talk all the evening long, passionately and heart-to-heart. I never saw Gogol talk like this to any of the Velikorosy (Great Russians, that is Russians, as opposed to Little Russians, Ukrainians — tr).
     

    The curriculum of Ukrainian literature that I’ve already presented was created by a diaspora instructor, Marta Tarnowsky

    I have a kid in Ukrainians school now. No Gogol. At least a few years ago, in Ukraine itself Gogol was taught as foreign literature .

    N. Berg, a poet and translator, reminisces: “Most of the time Gogol preferred to be all by himself. When at a social gathering, somebody would come over to where he was sitting to ask whether he was writing anything new, he hardly answered anything, pretending he was dozing or staring blindly into nothingness, or he would just get up and leave. But when among the guests there was at least one person from Little Russia (the usual way Ukraine was referred to in Russia — tr.), he behaved quite differently… They seemed to be pulled to each other as if by a magnet; they would sit in a corner and talk all the evening long, passionately and heart-to-heart. I never saw Gogol talk like this to any of the Velikorosy (Great Russians, that is Russians, as opposed to Little Russians, Ukrainians — tr).

    We are discussing whether Gogol was a Russian or Ukrainian writer. His literary peers with whom he spent time, whose opinions influenced his works, were Russians as were the principal audience for his work. He seems to be have been unfamiliar with the literary scene in Ukraine (his Ukrainian friends would bring up Shevchenko and Gogol would sort of dismissively opine that things should be written in Russian) His close personal friends were ethnic Ukrainians like himself but his literary colleagues were Russians.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack

    I have a kid in Ukrainians school now. No Gogol.
     
    I attended Saturday Ukrainian school too, and trust me the curriculum was quite abbreviated, and I would imagine it being even more truncated today than when I went. You seem to purposely ignore the curriculum that I've cited, where actually two segments deal with Gogol, Section 14 & 15. 'Ukrainian cultural aspects' relating to Gogol is a category listed, this is what's being taught in North America at the college level.

    You're the one who has pointed out that Gogol was actually a Ukrainian. I'm only logically following your lead and pointing out that when Gogol wrote about Ukrainian themes, he should be looked upon as an Ukrainian author, even though he wrote in Russian. I'm not trying to elevate his stature to that of Shevchenko as far as his importance as a Ukrainian writer, but even Shevchenko wrote some books in Russian and it's well known that he kept his personal diary in Russian, not in Ukrainian.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. Mr. Hack says:
    @AP

    The curriculum of Ukrainian literature that I’ve already presented was created by a diaspora instructor, Marta Tarnowsky
     
    I have a kid in Ukrainians school now. No Gogol. At least a few years ago, in Ukraine itself Gogol was taught as foreign literature .

    N. Berg, a poet and translator, reminisces: “Most of the time Gogol preferred to be all by himself. When at a social gathering, somebody would come over to where he was sitting to ask whether he was writing anything new, he hardly answered anything, pretending he was dozing or staring blindly into nothingness, or he would just get up and leave. But when among the guests there was at least one person from Little Russia (the usual way Ukraine was referred to in Russia — tr.), he behaved quite differently… They seemed to be pulled to each other as if by a magnet; they would sit in a corner and talk all the evening long, passionately and heart-to-heart. I never saw Gogol talk like this to any of the Velikorosy (Great Russians, that is Russians, as opposed to Little Russians, Ukrainians — tr).
     
    We are discussing whether Gogol was a Russian or Ukrainian writer. His literary peers with whom he spent time, whose opinions influenced his works, were Russians as were the principal audience for his work. He seems to be have been unfamiliar with the literary scene in Ukraine (his Ukrainian friends would bring up Shevchenko and Gogol would sort of dismissively opine that things should be written in Russian) His close personal friends were ethnic Ukrainians like himself but his literary colleagues were Russians.

    I have a kid in Ukrainians school now. No Gogol.

    I attended Saturday Ukrainian school too, and trust me the curriculum was quite abbreviated, and I would imagine it being even more truncated today than when I went. You seem to purposely ignore the curriculum that I’ve cited, where actually two segments deal with Gogol, Section 14 & 15. ‘Ukrainian cultural aspects’ relating to Gogol is a category listed, this is what’s being taught in North America at the college level.

    You’re the one who has pointed out that Gogol was actually a Ukrainian. I’m only logically following your lead and pointing out that when Gogol wrote about Ukrainian themes, he should be looked upon as an Ukrainian author, even though he wrote in Russian. I’m not trying to elevate his stature to that of Shevchenko as far as his importance as a Ukrainian writer, but even Shevchenko wrote some books in Russian and it’s well known that he kept his personal diary in Russian, not in Ukrainian.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    I think you both said what could be said about Gogol, moreover, you are both in agreement with each other about the facts. It’s not very productive to argue about terminology, i.e. whether Gogol should be considered part of the Ukrainian or Russian literature (or both).

    The original point was brain drain. Gogol was an example of someone talented who moved to Russia. Had he married, he’d probably have married a Russian woman. His descendants would be Russians. Had he worked in a more ordinary occupation (like engineering or architecture), his work would have been little benefit to Ukraine. Etc.

    So regardless of the concrete example, brain drain did affect Ukraine, talented people did move out of Ukraine to Russia.

    Though it’s difficult to imagine how that wouldn’t be the case with any other integration, where Ukraine was bound to be the poor periphery anyway. So it’s an argument against integration in general.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. @Mr. Hack

    I have a kid in Ukrainians school now. No Gogol.
     
    I attended Saturday Ukrainian school too, and trust me the curriculum was quite abbreviated, and I would imagine it being even more truncated today than when I went. You seem to purposely ignore the curriculum that I've cited, where actually two segments deal with Gogol, Section 14 & 15. 'Ukrainian cultural aspects' relating to Gogol is a category listed, this is what's being taught in North America at the college level.

    You're the one who has pointed out that Gogol was actually a Ukrainian. I'm only logically following your lead and pointing out that when Gogol wrote about Ukrainian themes, he should be looked upon as an Ukrainian author, even though he wrote in Russian. I'm not trying to elevate his stature to that of Shevchenko as far as his importance as a Ukrainian writer, but even Shevchenko wrote some books in Russian and it's well known that he kept his personal diary in Russian, not in Ukrainian.

    I think you both said what could be said about Gogol, moreover, you are both in agreement with each other about the facts. It’s not very productive to argue about terminology, i.e. whether Gogol should be considered part of the Ukrainian or Russian literature (or both).

    The original point was brain drain. Gogol was an example of someone talented who moved to Russia. Had he married, he’d probably have married a Russian woman. His descendants would be Russians. Had he worked in a more ordinary occupation (like engineering or architecture), his work would have been little benefit to Ukraine. Etc.

    So regardless of the concrete example, brain drain did affect Ukraine, talented people did move out of Ukraine to Russia.

    Though it’s difficult to imagine how that wouldn’t be the case with any other integration, where Ukraine was bound to be the poor periphery anyway. So it’s an argument against integration in general.

    Read More
    • Agree: Mr. Hack
    • Replies: @melanf

    The original point was brain drain. Gogol was an example of someone talented who moved to Russia. Had he married, he’d probably have married a Russian woman. His descendants would be Russians.
     
    Hmm. But when the field Marshal Rumyantsev (famous commander and presumably the illegitimate son of Peter the Great) was awarded estates in the Ukraine, he surrounded himself harem concubines, and probably had lots of children - its brain drain from Russia to Ukraine?

    Had he worked in a more ordinary occupation (like engineering or architecture), his work would have been little benefit to Ukraine. Etc.
     

    In "Ukraine" built a lot engineers and architects from St. Petersburg (directed by the Imperial government): Charles Gascoigne, John Hughes, Francesco Rastrelli, Charles Cameron. Examples to the contrary I don't know.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. Parbes says:
    @Beckow
    I wish I could be as optimistic as you. By the way, Merkel was first anti-migrant and anti-multiculturalism, then fanatically pro-migrant, now a bit less - I am not sure anyone knows what she believes or if she just follows instructions.

    Let's even assume that Poland and its few E European neighbours hold the line on migration. Tough to do over time, but let's assume Poland, Czech, Slovakia, Hungary stay demographically as they are today. That is roughly 65 million people out of over 500 million in EU. Even with a few other allies (Austria, Croatia, Baltics), they will barely break 100 million or 20% of EU population. About the same as the Third World migrants in EU. And they will be surrounded by EU dominated by the migrant-friendly liberals and increasingly the migrants themselves. This is not a prescription for success. More likely, it is prescription for marginalisation and eventual surrender. Defense is not enough, it just delays the inevitable.

    An old wisdom says that oasis never spreads, desert does. My humble view is that to save the Visegrad countries in the long run, and EU itself, the EU must change and take drastic actions to prevent all of EU (not just the east) from being over-run by Third World migration. Are they capable of it?

    “…Merkel was first anti-migrant and anti-multiculturalism, then fanatically pro-migrant, now a bit less – I am not sure anyone knows what she believes or if she just follows instructions.”

    She’s just a weathervane politician whose main – indeed ONLY – interests are: 1. Maintaining herself and her party in power, for which one of the requirements is preventing the formation of widespread opposition to her in both Germany AND the EU by the masses of cucked Euro-liberal intellectuals, activists, and ordinary voters (INCLUDING voting non-European minorities already in Germany, such as the Turks); 2. Looking out for the interests of the German neoliberal capitalist elite class, who are also, of course, mostly globalists; and 3. Keeping the U.S. and Anglo-Zionist hegemons satisfied and “un-angry” by complying with the dictates of the currently prevailing globo-imperial received wisdom, which, of course, precludes following any independent national sovereigntist path in things such as immigration, control of borders, etc.

    That’s all there is to it, really.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow

    1. Maintaining herself and her party in power, for which one of the requirements is preventing the formation of widespread opposition to her in both Germany AND the EU by the masses of cucked Euro-liberal intellectuals
     
    The best way for 1) in 2015 was to stay firm and follow the 'refugee' laws. In other words, do exactly the opposite of what Merkel did. Nothing jeopardised her popularity more than the infamous million-migrant trek. It was a political disaster for CDU and Merkel. They might not recover for a generation.

    Point 2) (neoliberal globalist interests) is directly opposed to this and because of 3) (US Interests), Merkel and CDU abandoned goal 1). That tells us a lot. People arguing that it is all about 'staying in power' overlook the fact that by far the best way to stay in power would be to do what majority of their voters want. Merkel did the opposite, so there are other motivations.

    I define 1) as 'pleasing voters', I think it is a heart of any democracy, nothing negative. If you assume that Merkel and CDU are only concerned with Euro-liberal intellectuals, we have a bigger problem. The fact that 1) has become clearly a secondary goal in the West tells us a lot.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. @AP

    Poland isn’t always going to have a government as nationalistic as the one it has now, and the West could potentially be much tougher on Poland than it is now.
     
    Maybe, though Polish youth are more nationalistic than their elders so if the pendulum swings it won't swing far.

    EU itself is becoming more nationalistic, as evidenced by Austria's election and even Merkel's softening on her extreme pro-immigration stance.

    "As forensic specialists will tell you – the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior."

    That applies to individual personalities, but becomes increasingly invalid over time when applied to groups whose membership is completely replaced over time, such as nations or their governments.
     
    Nations consist of individuals. Your approach is - you got burned twice, but trust us this third time, it'll really be different. No thanks.

    Your approach is – you got burned twice, but trust us this third time, it’ll really be different. No thanks.

    On the other hand, you also advocate a western integration into a much stronger EU and NATO block. How well did German rule work out in the last century? You are banking on Germany losing its clout quickly, but I think you’re running ahead of time. Germany (and France etc.) will still be strong for the next generation, and their growing problems will only mean they will work frantically to export those problems. Or at least to destroy the eastern countries, too, so that their failure won’t look so bad.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. Jon0815 says:
    @AP

    Poland isn’t always going to have a government as nationalistic as the one it has now, and the West could potentially be much tougher on Poland than it is now.
     
    Maybe, though Polish youth are more nationalistic than their elders so if the pendulum swings it won't swing far.

    EU itself is becoming more nationalistic, as evidenced by Austria's election and even Merkel's softening on her extreme pro-immigration stance.

    "As forensic specialists will tell you – the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior."

    That applies to individual personalities, but becomes increasingly invalid over time when applied to groups whose membership is completely replaced over time, such as nations or their governments.
     
    Nations consist of individuals. Your approach is - you got burned twice, but trust us this third time, it'll really be different. No thanks.

    Nations consist of individuals.

    Individuals who are completely replaced over time.

    Your approach is – you got burned twice, but trust us this third time, it’ll really be different. No thanks.

    My approach is to recognize that the “us” in question is literally not the same “us” which existed in 1930 or the 18th century. It’s irrational to profile a nation based on events from many decades or centuries ago, as though this were the same as profiling a particular person based on their own past actions. And being guided by an irrational premise, is a good way to produce a self-destructive disaster like Maidan.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Nations consist of individuals.

    Individuals who are completely replaced over time.
     
    And who were raised by their predecessors and who share their predecessors' culture and assumptions. They are not blank slates.

    My approach is to recognize that the “us” in question is literally not the same “us” which existed in 1930 or the 18th century. It’s irrational to profile a nation based on events from many decades or centuries ago, as though this were the same as profiling a particular person based on their own past actions. And being guided by an irrational premise, is a good way to produce a self-destructive disaster like Maidan.
     
    People actually living in Ukraine, who know more about the results of Maidan than you do, do not consider it a "disaster" and do not wish Yanukovich was back or that Ukraine would reverse course and once again pursue integration with Russia.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. melanf says:
    @AP

    Serfdom in Left-Bank Ukraine was destroyed as a result of the native rebellion

    In this case, and serfdom was re-introduced by natives too.
     
    Nonsense.

    Natives rebels largely got rid of serfdom on their own. Khmelytsky drove away the Poles in 1648.
    Moscow stepped in a few years later (1654), after serfdom was already largely destroyed.

    Moscow itself reimposed serfdom, native elites just collaborated, accepting loss of autonomy in exchange for harsher serfdom.

    So - reducing serfdom - native initiative. Reimposing it - Moscow thing.

    "Good that you admit that under Russian rule serfdom got much worse than it would have been had Ukrainian landlords not had Moscow’s power to back them up vis a vis their peasants."

    In this case (without Moscow) would be (instead of Gogol and the like) Polish landlord with their yoke
     
    Unknown. A Swedish alliance would have been possible, a Turkish one, etc.

    "In an earlier discussion you conceded that under similar climate and social conditions Russian and Polish serfdoms were about the same."

    But “social conditions” were different. In particular, in Russia the peasants had been protected from the excessive oppression by huge number of religious holidays
     
    Russian peasants from the south but not close to the frontier were just as enserfed as were Polish peasants. Central and southern Ukrainian serfs under Poland were less enserfed than were Russian peasants (or Polish ones and western Ukrainian ones).

    "None of those people were swineherds or peasants – all were from noble or officer families"

    Which appeared due to the destruction of the Polish authorities, and the transition of the left-Bank Ukraine under Russian rule
     
    There were lots of nobles in Ukraine prior to Khmelytsky's uprising (including, of course, Khmelytsky himself). They did not "appear" due to Moscow's rule.

    Moreover, you do not seem to have a realistic view of Russian rule. Ukraine ruled itself until 1709, Moscow was largely a protector; after Poltava Ukraine's autonomy was gradually getting abolished.

    Under Polish rule, these people would be swineherds (as an alternative – would become the Catholic poles)
     
    Khmelnytsky was a swineherd? Or a Catholic Pole? I had no idea.

    "Russia’s gain was Ukraine’s loss"

    And how (in the three mentioned cases – for Gogol, Berezovsky and Bortniansky)? Please decide.
    If Gogol Ukrainian writer – what’s the difference where he wrote his books? If Gogol because of the move to Petersburg was transformed into Russian (from Ukrainian), then you should not call Gogol a Ukrainian writer (which you repeatedly do)
     
    Educated talented Ukrainians left Ukraine and moved to Russia, contributing to Russia's civilization and culture and leaving behind their own. That's the brain drain that occurred under Moscow's rule.

    Gogol was a Ukrainian, whose father was a Ukrainian playwright and he as a child is supposed to have written some works in Ukrainian. But he moved to Russia and became a figure in Russian, not Ukrainian literature. As person he was a Ukrainian, but as a cultural figure/writer he was obviously lost to Ukraine, he was a Russian. Russia's gain, Ukraine's loss.

    So Russian rule meant - expansion and harshening of serfdom, and brain drain of talented Ukrainians from Ukraine and to Russia.

    In this case, and serfdom was re-introduced by natives too.

    Natives rebels largely got rid of serfdom on their own.

    Natives rebels largely got rid of serfdom, and the Moscow Tsar, this state of Affairs legalized
    Later, the natives had restored serfdom (in those circumstances it was the only way to develop the economy), and Catherine legalized it

    Khmelytsky drove away the Poles in 1648.

    And then begged the Tsar to recognize Moscow’s authority over Ukraine. Ie Khmelnytsky considered “independent” victory over Poland impossible.

    In this case (without Moscow) would be (instead of Gogol and the like) Polish landlord with their yoke

    Unknown. A Swedish alliance would have been possible, a Turkish one, etc.

    And the Alliance with France, Britain, Manchu China, Mughal, etc. But the real alternative was the Polish Ukraine, where for potential Gogol and Ostrogradsky was assigned the role of swineherd

    Russian peasants from the south but not close to the frontier were just as enserfed as were Polish peasants. Central and southern Ukrainian serfs under Poland were less enserfed than were Russian peasants (or Polish ones and western Ukrainian ones).

    This is obviously incorrect statement, as in the Polish Ukraine happened several bloody uprisings under the slogan of the transition under Russian rule.

    “None of those people were swineherds or peasants – all were from noble or officer families”
    Which appeared due to the destruction of the Polish authorities, and the transition of the left-Bank Ukraine under Russian rule

    There were lots of nobles in Ukraine prior to Khmelytsky’s uprising (including, of course, Khmelytsky himself). They did not “appear” due to Moscow’s rule.

    The fate of Khmelnytskyi you know. He became a rebel, after the murder of his the son by poles.
    for such as Khmel’nytskyi choice was – revolt or disappear

    Moreover, you do not seem to have a realistic view of Russian rule. Ukraine ruled itself until 1709

    You see, by your logic, Russian rule brought unprecedented benefits to Ukraine . heh heh heh. And if the Ukrainian elite is not pissed away everything so poorly..

    Under Polish rule, these people would be swineherds (as an alternative – would become the Catholic poles)

    Khmelnytsky was a swineherd? Or a Catholic Pole? I had no idea.

    Without Moscow Khmelnitsky would be a dead rebel (maybe exile in Turkey).
    But his descendants would be swineherds or poles.

    Gogol was a Ukrainian, whose father was a Ukrainian playwright and he as a child is supposed to have written some works in Ukrainian. But he moved to Russia and became a figure in Russian, not Ukrainian literature. As person he was a Ukrainian, but as a cultural figure/writer he was obviously lost to Ukraine, he was a Russian.

    The position is understandable, but in your case it is absolutely incredible doublethink. You, and only you have argued that in the case of the princes Vyshnevetsky a complete change of religion, language, culture, and active voluntary participation in the extermination of former compatriots, means absolutely nothing, and brought no harm to Ukraine. But the fact that Gogol wrote in Russian (about Ukraine) «as a cultural figure/writer he was obviously lost to Ukraine». The alternative however was the conversation in pure Ukrainian language with pigs Polish landlord

    So Russian rule meant – expansion and harshening of serfdom, and brain drain of talented Ukrainians from Ukraine and to Russia.

    Emotional reason in your case is understandable, but this is pure “orwellisation” of history.

    Read More
    • Replies: @szopen
    Have you ever heard about senator Kisiel, orthodox and RUthenian, who tried talk reason with Chmielnicki?
    Or, for taht matter, have you heard about Hadziacz union?
    , @AP

    "Natives rebels largely got rid of serfdom on their own."

    Natives rebels largely got rid of serfdom, and the Moscow Tsar, this state of Affairs legalized
     
    Moscow didn't care about serfs, Moscow brought rebels under its protection. Had Moscow in 1656 insisted on Catherine II's conditions there would have been no Rebel-Moscow treaty.

    The fate of Khmelnytskyi you know. He became a rebel, after the murder of his the son by poles.
    for such as Khmel’nytskyi choice was – revolt or disappear
     
    As szopen pointed out, you never heard of Adam Kisiel?

    If not for Poles, Khmelytsky would have stayed in Turkish captivity. Polish king ransomed him out. His son was not murdered, but beaten. Khmelnytsky was driven off his land by a Polish magnate who could defy the Polish king (who was friendly towards Khmelnytsky).

    "Moreover, you do not seem to have a realistic view of Russian rule. Ukraine ruled itself until 1709"

    You see, by your logic, Russian rule brought unprecedented benefits to Ukraine .
     
    Russian protection brought temporary benefits but long-term disaster. Russians now are arguing for Ukrainians to try again. No thanks.

    "Khmelnytsky was a swineherd? Or a Catholic Pole? I had no idea."

    Without Moscow Khmelnitsky would be a dead rebel (maybe exile in Turkey).
    But his descendants would be swineherds or poles
     
    The problem is that there were plenty of Orthodox Ruthenians who did not rebel, and whose descendants would not have been swineherds or Poles.

    The position is understandable, but in your case it is absolutely incredible doublethink.
     
    Nonsense. It is very consistent.

    You, and only you have argued that in the case of the princes Vyshnevetsky a complete change of religion, language, culture, and active voluntary participation in the extermination of former compatriots, means absolutely nothing, and brought no harm to Ukraine. But the fact that Gogol wrote in Russian (about Ukraine) «as a cultural figure/writer he was obviously lost to Ukraine».
     
    Here we see where Russian nationalist and Ukrainian nationalist mythmakers agree on something.

    Vyshnevetsky stayed in Ukraine and invested heavily into it, financially supporting various Orthodox monasteries and the famous Kiev Orthodox Academy. He also kept the place peaceful and safe from Tatar raids. The lands that Vyshnyvetsky had developed and protected were the heartland of Ukrainian culture. He was forced by the rebels out of his homeland.

    The rebels whom he tried to exterminate sacked many of the monasteries and brought into Ukraine their Tatar allies, who killed and enslaved 10,000s of Ukrainians.

    Gogol, in contrast to Vyshnevetsky, voluntarily left Ukraine and did nothing for it.

    As for language, the rebel officers were as Polish-speaking as Vyshnevetsky. Polish was the language of command for the rebels. Their books were printed in Polish, their elites studied at Orthodox schools that used Polish and Latin. Vyshenyvetsky's personal conversion to Roman Catholicism, not his language set him apart from the rebel leaders. But his consistent declaration of himself as a Rus and his lavish support for Orthodox institutions tells us it was not a "national" conversion.

    The alternative however was the conversation in pure Ukrainian language with pigs Polish landlord
     
    Is a Polish-speaking elite worse than a Russian-speaking elite?

    What likely would have happened is what did eventually happen - in the 19th century the non-Ukrainian speaking elite would adopt the peasant vernacular speech and standardize it. This is what Russian and Polish speakers did under the tsars, there is no reason to think it would not have happened within the Commonwealth. Indeed a similar process occurred with German-speaking elites or Swedish-speaking elites elsewhere in Europe. However under Russia this movement was crushed and stifled.

    In contrast, the Ukrainian locals would have been in a much stronger position had they been part of the Commonwealth because Poland is not nearly as large and strong relative to Ukraine as Russia is. So despite the short-term "benefit" of Russian protection (no rebellion at all would have been preferable), in the long run it was a complete disaster for Ukraine. There is a parallel here to seeking short-term benefit by integrating with Russia.

    So Russian rule meant – expansion and harshening of serfdom, and brain drain of talented Ukrainians from Ukraine and to Russia.

    this is pure “orwellisation” of history.
     
    Facts - serfdom expanded and became harsher as Russian rule replaced Ukrainian autonomy. Under Russia talented Ukrainians left for Russia, benefiting Russia and harming Ukraine. Nothing Orwellian about these correct statements.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. @Beckow
    The real danger for Poland (and Visegrad countries) is the slow movement of some of the 60 million Third World immigrants already in Western Europe east. They have a full right to do it today. They can establish ethnic beach-heads in big cities and continue bringing their relatives from EU and from outside of EU. This is exactly how it happened in UK, France, ...

    Difficult language doesn't protect you - there will be communities in large cities that will speak their native languages, or English-French. That is perfectly feasible. Why would they care about becoming citizens? As EU citizens they can live anywhere they want to inside EU.

    You are too wide-eyed optimistic on automation. Many jobs cannot be automated, and greedy business people will always bring cheaper labor to do service jobs, restaurants, hotels, or IT, or call centers, etc...

    EU has free movement of people. That is great as long as the current Third World dwellers in WE don't decide that moving east is actually quite profitable. And there is nothing Poland can legally do to stop them. Once they are there, many others directly from Third World countries will be able to come via family reunification, fake 'kabob' jobs, student visas, or just as visitors overstaying their visas. Exactly the same process as UK in 90's or 2000's.

    Beckow, on your skepticism regarding automation, it is useful to keep two things in mind. First, technological changes happen in S-curves, and not in linear fashion. Something becomes expensive for a long time and then gradual change occurs. As this very gradual change happens, people who think in linear terms simply extrapolate from that trend onwards to the future. Look at the mass adoption of smartphones or for that matter the massive plunge in solar energy costs. Both were unforseen to happen as quickly as they did. Now we will see a similar S-curve with EV adoption.

    Look at the situation even 5 years ago. AI has improved massively. 10 years ago, people were saying that quantum computers – real ones – wouldn’t happen before 2050, if even that. Now it is mainstream to say it will happen within 5 years. Google will come out with their own very shortly. A huge number of breakthroughs have happened in the quantum computing space. Go to arkivx.com and look for yourself.

    So in short, it is the skeptics who have the burden of proof given how technology has again and again surprised to the upside in how quickly it changes. Why would AI/quantum computing be different? As for jobs, I think most service jobs will either be heavily automated/heavily enchanced or outright replaced. It’s not just low-level jobs. In fact, some of the jobs that could be replaced are doctors. An AI, paired with a modern smartphone, can already outperform the median doctor in various diagnoses. Imagine what it’ll be like even within 10 years, not to say 15 or 20. Some jobs, like hairdresser and the like will also get automated. Only the very best (the trendsetters) will remain, the rest of us don’t care if we’re cut by a human or a robot. Driving will be automated. A lot of routine jobs will as hell. Amazon is already experimenting with cashier-free shops. They have sensors which register what you pick up and with you in a shop and automatically charge you for it once you leave the shop. It’s on trial in a store in Seattle as I write this. I could go on endlessly. As I said, it’s the skeptics who are behind the curve not the other way around. That was true with solar prices/smartphone adoption and it was true with EVs just a few years ago. Now AI. The reactionary mind is always dull and slow.

    As for your point on EU migration. Look at this chart:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_average_wage#Maps

    Poland and EE is not going to converge any time soon. By the time we get to an eventual convergence, say 2040s at the earliest, the question then would be if there is need for an EU at all. Remember that much of WE’s sway/power over EE lies in economic factors. Once that is removed, what pressure do they have left? I already mentioned that EU funds will be cut in 2020. Even if they weren’t, as a percentage of GDP they have continually declined from the first cohesion fund program until the current one. That will continue regardless.

    Plus, you’re making the mistake of assuming static political preferences. Le Pen won French (ethnic) youth in the 2nd round. AfD, while a party with many problems of muh civic nationalism, is nevertheless a step in the right direction. SD will have their best election-showing yet next year in Sweden. More radical forms of nationalism is also growing. I think a bigger problem for EE would be social instability in the West and significant sectarian strife. That would damage our export markets.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. Beckow says:
    @Parbes
    "...Merkel was first anti-migrant and anti-multiculturalism, then fanatically pro-migrant, now a bit less – I am not sure anyone knows what she believes or if she just follows instructions."

    She's just a weathervane politician whose main - indeed ONLY - interests are: 1. Maintaining herself and her party in power, for which one of the requirements is preventing the formation of widespread opposition to her in both Germany AND the EU by the masses of cucked Euro-liberal intellectuals, activists, and ordinary voters (INCLUDING voting non-European minorities already in Germany, such as the Turks); 2. Looking out for the interests of the German neoliberal capitalist elite class, who are also, of course, mostly globalists; and 3. Keeping the U.S. and Anglo-Zionist hegemons satisfied and "un-angry" by complying with the dictates of the currently prevailing globo-imperial received wisdom, which, of course, precludes following any independent national sovereigntist path in things such as immigration, control of borders, etc.

    That's all there is to it, really.

    1. Maintaining herself and her party in power, for which one of the requirements is preventing the formation of widespread opposition to her in both Germany AND the EU by the masses of cucked Euro-liberal intellectuals

    The best way for 1) in 2015 was to stay firm and follow the ‘refugee’ laws. In other words, do exactly the opposite of what Merkel did. Nothing jeopardised her popularity more than the infamous million-migrant trek. It was a political disaster for CDU and Merkel. They might not recover for a generation.

    Point 2) (neoliberal globalist interests) is directly opposed to this and because of 3) (US Interests), Merkel and CDU abandoned goal 1). That tells us a lot. People arguing that it is all about ‘staying in power’ overlook the fact that by far the best way to stay in power would be to do what majority of their voters want. Merkel did the opposite, so there are other motivations.

    I define 1) as ‘pleasing voters’, I think it is a heart of any democracy, nothing negative. If you assume that Merkel and CDU are only concerned with Euro-liberal intellectuals, we have a bigger problem. The fact that 1) has become clearly a secondary goal in the West tells us a lot.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Parbes
    I said "the masses of CUCKED Euro-liberal intellectuals, activists, and ordinary voters (including voting non-European minorities already in Germany, such as the Turks)" - not the un-cucked majority of voters who, as normal people, were and are against the migrant invasion. "CUCKED" is the operative word here.

    "If you assume that Merkel and CDU are only concerned with Euro-liberal intellectuals, we have a bigger problem."

    I certainly think that Merkel and her ilk DO value the opinions, pretensions and sensitivities of Euro-liberal intellectuals and activists much more than those of normal people who don't subscribe to the Euro-liberal worldview - and that is a huge part of the problem.
    , @German_reader

    Nothing jeopardised her popularity more than the infamous million-migrant trek.
     
    She was lauded enthusiastically by the German media for it, also by the churches, and many left-wing celebrities have stated their admiration for her "courage". The entire establishment is behind her. It also brought her closer to the Greens, and a CDU-Greens alliance has long been a goal of Merkel...influential members of her coterie like Peter Altmaier have been working towards that since the 1990s.
    Yeah sure, she's also hated by a non-trivial part of the German population like no other chancellor since 1949. But as long as the media and the political class support her (and so far they've done so to a shocking extent, despite severe losses for the CDU in several elections), that doesn't matter. Merkel has been in politics for 30 years, she never lived in the federal republic as a normal citizen, the concerns of average people aren't important to her.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. Beckow says:
    @AP

    Ukraine and Belarus will be tough to add – the whole Russia-EU issue, let’s not go there. But I wouldn’t count on it.
     
    Ukraine has decent chance. It is probably important for the eastern EU project for Ukraine to be a part of it. It adds a lot of people and territory and its territory is solidly in the conservative camp alongside Poland, Hungary, etc. Belarus would join in the long-term if ever.

    Ukraine has decent chance

    Yes, in about 50-75 years. And only if Ukraine resolves its huge issues with their Russian population (tens of millions). And does it peacefully.

    You are a ‘Ukrainian’, and as many Western leaning Ukrainians you are in love with the West, EU, Nato, anything coming from the West. That love is almost totally one-sided and unrequited, nobody in the West cares much. They don’t want Ukrainian goods, migrants, and problems. Some crazies in the West want to use Ukraine as a tool against Russia. That’s it, a tool, and object to use – nothing at all about Ukrainian well-being. Watch what they do, not what they say. Unrequited passions tend to end badly.

    The Brussels intellectual elite doesn’t want more conservatives in EU, they dread it. They want Ukrainians to fight the Russians for them. Brussels is still totally in charge in EU, so they will get what they want.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    And only if Ukraine resolves its huge issues with their Russian population (tens of millions).
     
    In 2001 Ukraine had 8.3 million Russians. With population decline and the loss of Crimea and urban Donbas this is probably down to around 4 million...not "tens of millions."

    That love is almost totally one-sided and unrequited, nobody in the West cares much. They don’t want Ukrainian goods, migrants, and problems
     
    I care more about the attitudes of Polish elites than of Brussels elites. And they are different.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. Parbes says:
    @Beckow

    1. Maintaining herself and her party in power, for which one of the requirements is preventing the formation of widespread opposition to her in both Germany AND the EU by the masses of cucked Euro-liberal intellectuals
     
    The best way for 1) in 2015 was to stay firm and follow the 'refugee' laws. In other words, do exactly the opposite of what Merkel did. Nothing jeopardised her popularity more than the infamous million-migrant trek. It was a political disaster for CDU and Merkel. They might not recover for a generation.

    Point 2) (neoliberal globalist interests) is directly opposed to this and because of 3) (US Interests), Merkel and CDU abandoned goal 1). That tells us a lot. People arguing that it is all about 'staying in power' overlook the fact that by far the best way to stay in power would be to do what majority of their voters want. Merkel did the opposite, so there are other motivations.

    I define 1) as 'pleasing voters', I think it is a heart of any democracy, nothing negative. If you assume that Merkel and CDU are only concerned with Euro-liberal intellectuals, we have a bigger problem. The fact that 1) has become clearly a secondary goal in the West tells us a lot.

    I said “the masses of CUCKED Euro-liberal intellectuals, activists, and ordinary voters (including voting non-European minorities already in Germany, such as the Turks)” – not the un-cucked majority of voters who, as normal people, were and are against the migrant invasion. “CUCKED” is the operative word here.

    “If you assume that Merkel and CDU are only concerned with Euro-liberal intellectuals, we have a bigger problem.”

    I certainly think that Merkel and her ilk DO value the opinions, pretensions and sensitivities of Euro-liberal intellectuals and activists much more than those of normal people who don’t subscribe to the Euro-liberal worldview – and that is a huge part of the problem.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow

    Merkel and her ilk DO value the opinions, pretensions and sensitivities of Euro-liberal intellectuals and activists much more than those of normal people
     
    True. But I still struggle with it because it is so politically counter-intuitive. There is a difference in the voters' common-sense quotient between Eastern Europe, and the West (roughly speaking).

    We also have the pretentious Euro-global-liberals in East-Central Europe. All capitols and large cities are dominated by them. So are the media, culture, academia, etc... But the bulk of the population maintains a very healthy skepticism about them. They cannot win elections and they are kept in a box (TV shows, seminars, Oscar-seeking movies,...). The liberals maintain influence purely with Western money, NGO's, and by extensive 'gaming' of the system: endless 'new faces' (ala Macron) and 'reform parties', betrayals after getting elected, 'anti-corruption' movements. Without support from the West the liberals here would collapse to a small discussion group occasionally meeting for coffee. It is the Western money that keeps them alive.

    How did the West descend to the level of liberal intellectual elites having such undue influence?
    Something in the Western psyche itself broke, your inability to see one's self-interest clearly. The decades of pro-liberal heavy propaganda (and Hollywood) was more effective - and more harmful - than the clueless communist propaganda.

    Well, good luck. Or you might have to move.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. @Beckow

    1. Maintaining herself and her party in power, for which one of the requirements is preventing the formation of widespread opposition to her in both Germany AND the EU by the masses of cucked Euro-liberal intellectuals
     
    The best way for 1) in 2015 was to stay firm and follow the 'refugee' laws. In other words, do exactly the opposite of what Merkel did. Nothing jeopardised her popularity more than the infamous million-migrant trek. It was a political disaster for CDU and Merkel. They might not recover for a generation.

    Point 2) (neoliberal globalist interests) is directly opposed to this and because of 3) (US Interests), Merkel and CDU abandoned goal 1). That tells us a lot. People arguing that it is all about 'staying in power' overlook the fact that by far the best way to stay in power would be to do what majority of their voters want. Merkel did the opposite, so there are other motivations.

    I define 1) as 'pleasing voters', I think it is a heart of any democracy, nothing negative. If you assume that Merkel and CDU are only concerned with Euro-liberal intellectuals, we have a bigger problem. The fact that 1) has become clearly a secondary goal in the West tells us a lot.

    Nothing jeopardised her popularity more than the infamous million-migrant trek.

    She was lauded enthusiastically by the German media for it, also by the churches, and many left-wing celebrities have stated their admiration for her “courage”. The entire establishment is behind her. It also brought her closer to the Greens, and a CDU-Greens alliance has long been a goal of Merkel…influential members of her coterie like Peter Altmaier have been working towards that since the 1990s.
    Yeah sure, she’s also hated by a non-trivial part of the German population like no other chancellor since 1949. But as long as the media and the political class support her (and so far they’ve done so to a shocking extent, despite severe losses for the CDU in several elections), that doesn’t matter. Merkel has been in politics for 30 years, she never lived in the federal republic as a normal citizen, the concerns of average people aren’t important to her.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow
    Greens look like one of the first (successful) attempts to create a fake 'new' political force to use when needed. Now there is an avalanche of these 'new' forces that are formed from nowhere, funded, given a mission, and then often self-destruct.

    Political engineering at its best :)... West seems to be heading from a two-party monopoly (tweedledee-tweedledum) to a more chaotic way of controlling the society by a constant churn, fake 'newness' and deception. We will see a lot of 'Macrons' in the near future, 'Pirate' parties, etc... - they are probably testing a few right now. The key is to confuse the voters and to 'adopt' some of the issues without any intention to change anything. What would a German 'Macron' be like?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. Beckow says:
    @Parbes
    I said "the masses of CUCKED Euro-liberal intellectuals, activists, and ordinary voters (including voting non-European minorities already in Germany, such as the Turks)" - not the un-cucked majority of voters who, as normal people, were and are against the migrant invasion. "CUCKED" is the operative word here.

    "If you assume that Merkel and CDU are only concerned with Euro-liberal intellectuals, we have a bigger problem."

    I certainly think that Merkel and her ilk DO value the opinions, pretensions and sensitivities of Euro-liberal intellectuals and activists much more than those of normal people who don't subscribe to the Euro-liberal worldview - and that is a huge part of the problem.

    Merkel and her ilk DO value the opinions, pretensions and sensitivities of Euro-liberal intellectuals and activists much more than those of normal people

    True. But I still struggle with it because it is so politically counter-intuitive. There is a difference in the voters’ common-sense quotient between Eastern Europe, and the West (roughly speaking).

    We also have the pretentious Euro-global-liberals in East-Central Europe. All capitols and large cities are dominated by them. So are the media, culture, academia, etc… But the bulk of the population maintains a very healthy skepticism about them. They cannot win elections and they are kept in a box (TV shows, seminars, Oscar-seeking movies,…). The liberals maintain influence purely with Western money, NGO’s, and by extensive ‘gaming’ of the system: endless ‘new faces’ (ala Macron) and ‘reform parties’, betrayals after getting elected, ‘anti-corruption’ movements. Without support from the West the liberals here would collapse to a small discussion group occasionally meeting for coffee. It is the Western money that keeps them alive.

    How did the West descend to the level of liberal intellectual elites having such undue influence?
    Something in the Western psyche itself broke, your inability to see one’s self-interest clearly. The decades of pro-liberal heavy propaganda (and Hollywood) was more effective – and more harmful – than the clueless communist propaganda.

    Well, good luck. Or you might have to move.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. szopen says:
    @melanf


    In this case, and serfdom was re-introduced by natives too.
     
    Natives rebels largely got rid of serfdom on their own.
     
    Natives rebels largely got rid of serfdom, and the Moscow Tsar, this state of Affairs legalized
    Later, the natives had restored serfdom (in those circumstances it was the only way to develop the economy), and Catherine legalized it

    Khmelytsky drove away the Poles in 1648.
     
    And then begged the Tsar to recognize Moscow's authority over Ukraine. Ie Khmelnytsky considered "independent" victory over Poland impossible.


    In this case (without Moscow) would be (instead of Gogol and the like) Polish landlord with their yoke
     
    Unknown. A Swedish alliance would have been possible, a Turkish one, etc.
     
    And the Alliance with France, Britain, Manchu China, Mughal, etc. But the real alternative was the Polish Ukraine, where for potential Gogol and Ostrogradsky was assigned the role of swineherd

    Russian peasants from the south but not close to the frontier were just as enserfed as were Polish peasants. Central and southern Ukrainian serfs under Poland were less enserfed than were Russian peasants (or Polish ones and western Ukrainian ones).
     
    This is obviously incorrect statement, as in the Polish Ukraine happened several bloody uprisings under the slogan of the transition under Russian rule.


    “None of those people were swineherds or peasants – all were from noble or officer families”
    Which appeared due to the destruction of the Polish authorities, and the transition of the left-Bank Ukraine under Russian rule
     
    There were lots of nobles in Ukraine prior to Khmelytsky’s uprising (including, of course, Khmelytsky himself). They did not “appear” due to Moscow’s rule.
     
    The fate of Khmelnytskyi you know. He became a rebel, after the murder of his the son by poles.
    for such as Khmel'nytskyi choice was - revolt or disappear

    Moreover, you do not seem to have a realistic view of Russian rule. Ukraine ruled itself until 1709
     
    You see, by your logic, Russian rule brought unprecedented benefits to Ukraine . heh heh heh. And if the Ukrainian elite is not pissed away everything so poorly..


    Under Polish rule, these people would be swineherds (as an alternative – would become the Catholic poles)
     
    Khmelnytsky was a swineherd? Or a Catholic Pole? I had no idea.

     

    Without Moscow Khmelnitsky would be a dead rebel (maybe exile in Turkey).
    But his descendants would be swineherds or poles.

    Gogol was a Ukrainian, whose father was a Ukrainian playwright and he as a child is supposed to have written some works in Ukrainian. But he moved to Russia and became a figure in Russian, not Ukrainian literature. As person he was a Ukrainian, but as a cultural figure/writer he was obviously lost to Ukraine, he was a Russian.
     
    The position is understandable, but in your case it is absolutely incredible doublethink. You, and only you have argued that in the case of the princes Vyshnevetsky a complete change of religion, language, culture, and active voluntary participation in the extermination of former compatriots, means absolutely nothing, and brought no harm to Ukraine. But the fact that Gogol wrote in Russian (about Ukraine) «as a cultural figure/writer he was obviously lost to Ukraine». The alternative however was the conversation in pure Ukrainian language with pigs Polish landlord

    So Russian rule meant – expansion and harshening of serfdom, and brain drain of talented Ukrainians from Ukraine and to Russia.
     
    Emotional reason in your case is understandable, but this is pure "orwellisation" of history.

    Have you ever heard about senator Kisiel, orthodox and RUthenian, who tried talk reason with Chmielnicki?
    Or, for taht matter, have you heard about Hadziacz union?

    Read More
    • Replies: @melanf

    Have you ever heard about senator Kisiel, orthodox and RUthenian
     
    Who was the last of the Mohicans. Soon the poles adopted a law prohibiting the noble status. for the Orthodox population of the Commonwealth. But the Orthodox could be swineherds (although especially patriotic poles discussed plans for the complete destruction of the Orthodox population)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. AP says:
    @Jon0815

    Nations consist of individuals.
     
    Individuals who are completely replaced over time.

    Your approach is – you got burned twice, but trust us this third time, it’ll really be different. No thanks.
     
    My approach is to recognize that the "us" in question is literally not the same "us" which existed in 1930 or the 18th century. It's irrational to profile a nation based on events from many decades or centuries ago, as though this were the same as profiling a particular person based on their own past actions. And being guided by an irrational premise, is a good way to produce a self-destructive disaster like Maidan.

    Nations consist of individuals.

    Individuals who are completely replaced over time.

    And who were raised by their predecessors and who share their predecessors’ culture and assumptions. They are not blank slates.

    My approach is to recognize that the “us” in question is literally not the same “us” which existed in 1930 or the 18th century. It’s irrational to profile a nation based on events from many decades or centuries ago, as though this were the same as profiling a particular person based on their own past actions. And being guided by an irrational premise, is a good way to produce a self-destructive disaster like Maidan.

    People actually living in Ukraine, who know more about the results of Maidan than you do, do not consider it a “disaster” and do not wish Yanukovich was back or that Ukraine would reverse course and once again pursue integration with Russia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jon0815

    And who were raised by their predecessors and who share their predecessors’ culture and assumptions. They are not blank slates.
     
    Russian culture and assumptions are obviously very different today from what existed 80 years ago, let alone centuries ago. The language remains very similar, but opinion on political, socioeconomic, and moral questions is certainly not. What % of Russians today would agree that absolute monarchy is the best form of government? Of course, there are some genetic traits, like IQ, that are passed down through the generations. But it seems unlikely that Russians possess an "anti-Ukrainian" gene (not to mention that the rulers responsible for the grievances you cited- expansion of serfdom, and the 1930s famine- weren't even ethnic Russians).

    People actually living in Ukraine, who know more about the results of Maidan than you do, do not consider it a “disaster” and do not wish Yanukovich was back or that Ukraine would reverse course and once again pursue integration with Russia
     
    There's a natural human tendency not to want to admit mistakes. So Ukrainians have turned against Poroshenko, but haven't yet made the leap to questioning Maidanism itself. But eventually they might begin to do so, when whoever succeeds Poroshenko also inevitably fails to deliver on Maidan's promises. Meanwhile, it's apparent to every reasonable outside observer that, like every neocon project, Maidan has been a complete disaster. It will be interesting to see whether Maidanist Ukraine is able to snatch the title of Europe's poorest country from Moldova (which went from 55% of Ukraine's per capita GDP in 2013, to 87% in 2016).

    Imagine that in 2013, a time traveler from 2017 had informed Ukrainians that in the first four years post-Maidan, Ukraine would lose Crimea and Donbass, more than 10,000 Ukrainians would be killed in a civil war, real per capita GDP growth would average -5%, and there would be no prospect of EU membership anytime in the foreseeable future. I suspect that with that knowledge, support for Maidan would have been substantially less.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. AP says:
    @Beckow

    Ukraine has decent chance
     
    Yes, in about 50-75 years. And only if Ukraine resolves its huge issues with their Russian population (tens of millions). And does it peacefully.

    You are a 'Ukrainian', and as many Western leaning Ukrainians you are in love with the West, EU, Nato, anything coming from the West. That love is almost totally one-sided and unrequited, nobody in the West cares much. They don't want Ukrainian goods, migrants, and problems. Some crazies in the West want to use Ukraine as a tool against Russia. That's it, a tool, and object to use - nothing at all about Ukrainian well-being. Watch what they do, not what they say. Unrequited passions tend to end badly.

    The Brussels intellectual elite doesn't want more conservatives in EU, they dread it. They want Ukrainians to fight the Russians for them. Brussels is still totally in charge in EU, so they will get what they want.

    And only if Ukraine resolves its huge issues with their Russian population (tens of millions).

    In 2001 Ukraine had 8.3 million Russians. With population decline and the loss of Crimea and urban Donbas this is probably down to around 4 million…not “tens of millions.”

    That love is almost totally one-sided and unrequited, nobody in the West cares much. They don’t want Ukrainian goods, migrants, and problems

    I care more about the attitudes of Polish elites than of Brussels elites. And they are different.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow

    down to around 4 million
     
    Wow, how proud you are of eliminating the evil 'Russians'. Very Western, you might get some brownie points.

    Now for reality: Russian speakers are still almost one half of Ukraine. People who think of themselves as Russian (ethnically) were 17% in the last census. You can dream, but they are still there. Ukraine also lost a few million Ukrainians who emigrated to Poland (EU) and also to Russia.

    I care more about the attitudes of Polish elites
     
    Not just Polish, but 'elites', good one. Maybe you can start another bloody (and suicidial invasion to the east). Or just merge with Western Ukraine and get them into EU that way. I don't think Brussels would approve - they would lose the ability to fight the 'Russkies'. And it is still Brussels that calls the shots.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. melanf says:
    @szopen
    Have you ever heard about senator Kisiel, orthodox and RUthenian, who tried talk reason with Chmielnicki?
    Or, for taht matter, have you heard about Hadziacz union?

    Have you ever heard about senator Kisiel, orthodox and RUthenian

    Who was the last of the Mohicans. Soon the poles adopted a law prohibiting the noble status. for the Orthodox population of the Commonwealth. But the Orthodox could be swineherds (although especially patriotic poles discussed plans for the complete destruction of the Orthodox population)

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Soon the poles adopted a law prohibiting the noble status for the Orthodox population of the Commonwealth.
     
    And then there was the Treaty of Hadiach whose specific features included:

    - admission to the Senate of Orthodox ecclesiastic members: the Archbishop (metropolitan) of Kiev and other Orthodox bishops (of Lutsk, Lviv, Przemyśl, Chełm and Mstislav) and elevation of the Orthodox religion and Church to the same level as Catholicism.

    - ennoblement of Cossack elders (starshyna kozatska). Each year the hetman would recommend to the king 1,000 Cossacks to receive a patent of hereditary nobility, and up to 100 Cossacks in each military regiment could be personally ennobled as well.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. Beckow says:
    @German_reader

    Nothing jeopardised her popularity more than the infamous million-migrant trek.
     
    She was lauded enthusiastically by the German media for it, also by the churches, and many left-wing celebrities have stated their admiration for her "courage". The entire establishment is behind her. It also brought her closer to the Greens, and a CDU-Greens alliance has long been a goal of Merkel...influential members of her coterie like Peter Altmaier have been working towards that since the 1990s.
    Yeah sure, she's also hated by a non-trivial part of the German population like no other chancellor since 1949. But as long as the media and the political class support her (and so far they've done so to a shocking extent, despite severe losses for the CDU in several elections), that doesn't matter. Merkel has been in politics for 30 years, she never lived in the federal republic as a normal citizen, the concerns of average people aren't important to her.

    Greens look like one of the first (successful) attempts to create a fake ‘new’ political force to use when needed. Now there is an avalanche of these ‘new’ forces that are formed from nowhere, funded, given a mission, and then often self-destruct.

    Political engineering at its best :)… West seems to be heading from a two-party monopoly (tweedledee-tweedledum) to a more chaotic way of controlling the society by a constant churn, fake ‘newness’ and deception. We will see a lot of ‘Macrons’ in the near future, ‘Pirate’ parties, etc… – they are probably testing a few right now. The key is to confuse the voters and to ‘adopt’ some of the issues without any intention to change anything. What would a German ‘Macron’ be like?

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    What would a German ‘Macron’ be like?
     
    Maybe Christian Lindner from the liberal FDP would like to be that. I don't think he'd get the support of German media though which generally is rather anti-FDP and criticised him for breaking off coalition talks with CDU/CSU and Greens.
    And I wouldn't even say the Greens are "fake"...unfortunately they really do represent a certain milieu in the German bourgeoisie, one which has disproportionate influence in the media.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. @Beckow
    Greens look like one of the first (successful) attempts to create a fake 'new' political force to use when needed. Now there is an avalanche of these 'new' forces that are formed from nowhere, funded, given a mission, and then often self-destruct.

    Political engineering at its best :)... West seems to be heading from a two-party monopoly (tweedledee-tweedledum) to a more chaotic way of controlling the society by a constant churn, fake 'newness' and deception. We will see a lot of 'Macrons' in the near future, 'Pirate' parties, etc... - they are probably testing a few right now. The key is to confuse the voters and to 'adopt' some of the issues without any intention to change anything. What would a German 'Macron' be like?

    What would a German ‘Macron’ be like?

    Maybe Christian Lindner from the liberal FDP would like to be that. I don’t think he’d get the support of German media though which generally is rather anti-FDP and criticised him for breaking off coalition talks with CDU/CSU and Greens.
    And I wouldn’t even say the Greens are “fake”…unfortunately they really do represent a certain milieu in the German bourgeoisie, one which has disproportionate influence in the media.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow
    What I meant about the Greens is that they have been coopted and used. I think the sentiment behind them was - and is - real. But they got behind-the-scenes support as a useful chess piece in the changing political landscape.

    Christian Lindner could work. A perfect 'Macron-like' candidate needs to have some controversy in his/her past. So people can project their hopes. I don't know anything about him, so he might be unusable. German establishment needs a new story, new face, they will find somebody.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. AP says:
    @melanf


    In this case, and serfdom was re-introduced by natives too.
     
    Natives rebels largely got rid of serfdom on their own.
     
    Natives rebels largely got rid of serfdom, and the Moscow Tsar, this state of Affairs legalized
    Later, the natives had restored serfdom (in those circumstances it was the only way to develop the economy), and Catherine legalized it

    Khmelytsky drove away the Poles in 1648.
     
    And then begged the Tsar to recognize Moscow's authority over Ukraine. Ie Khmelnytsky considered "independent" victory over Poland impossible.


    In this case (without Moscow) would be (instead of Gogol and the like) Polish landlord with their yoke
     
    Unknown. A Swedish alliance would have been possible, a Turkish one, etc.
     
    And the Alliance with France, Britain, Manchu China, Mughal, etc. But the real alternative was the Polish Ukraine, where for potential Gogol and Ostrogradsky was assigned the role of swineherd

    Russian peasants from the south but not close to the frontier were just as enserfed as were Polish peasants. Central and southern Ukrainian serfs under Poland were less enserfed than were Russian peasants (or Polish ones and western Ukrainian ones).
     
    This is obviously incorrect statement, as in the Polish Ukraine happened several bloody uprisings under the slogan of the transition under Russian rule.


    “None of those people were swineherds or peasants – all were from noble or officer families”
    Which appeared due to the destruction of the Polish authorities, and the transition of the left-Bank Ukraine under Russian rule
     
    There were lots of nobles in Ukraine prior to Khmelytsky’s uprising (including, of course, Khmelytsky himself). They did not “appear” due to Moscow’s rule.
     
    The fate of Khmelnytskyi you know. He became a rebel, after the murder of his the son by poles.
    for such as Khmel'nytskyi choice was - revolt or disappear

    Moreover, you do not seem to have a realistic view of Russian rule. Ukraine ruled itself until 1709
     
    You see, by your logic, Russian rule brought unprecedented benefits to Ukraine . heh heh heh. And if the Ukrainian elite is not pissed away everything so poorly..


    Under Polish rule, these people would be swineherds (as an alternative – would become the Catholic poles)
     
    Khmelnytsky was a swineherd? Or a Catholic Pole? I had no idea.

     

    Without Moscow Khmelnitsky would be a dead rebel (maybe exile in Turkey).
    But his descendants would be swineherds or poles.

    Gogol was a Ukrainian, whose father was a Ukrainian playwright and he as a child is supposed to have written some works in Ukrainian. But he moved to Russia and became a figure in Russian, not Ukrainian literature. As person he was a Ukrainian, but as a cultural figure/writer he was obviously lost to Ukraine, he was a Russian.
     
    The position is understandable, but in your case it is absolutely incredible doublethink. You, and only you have argued that in the case of the princes Vyshnevetsky a complete change of religion, language, culture, and active voluntary participation in the extermination of former compatriots, means absolutely nothing, and brought no harm to Ukraine. But the fact that Gogol wrote in Russian (about Ukraine) «as a cultural figure/writer he was obviously lost to Ukraine». The alternative however was the conversation in pure Ukrainian language with pigs Polish landlord

    So Russian rule meant – expansion and harshening of serfdom, and brain drain of talented Ukrainians from Ukraine and to Russia.
     
    Emotional reason in your case is understandable, but this is pure "orwellisation" of history.

    “Natives rebels largely got rid of serfdom on their own.”

    Natives rebels largely got rid of serfdom, and the Moscow Tsar, this state of Affairs legalized

    Moscow didn’t care about serfs, Moscow brought rebels under its protection. Had Moscow in 1656 insisted on Catherine II’s conditions there would have been no Rebel-Moscow treaty.

    The fate of Khmelnytskyi you know. He became a rebel, after the murder of his the son by poles.
    for such as Khmel’nytskyi choice was – revolt or disappear

    As szopen pointed out, you never heard of Adam Kisiel?

    If not for Poles, Khmelytsky would have stayed in Turkish captivity. Polish king ransomed him out. His son was not murdered, but beaten. Khmelnytsky was driven off his land by a Polish magnate who could defy the Polish king (who was friendly towards Khmelnytsky).

    “Moreover, you do not seem to have a realistic view of Russian rule. Ukraine ruled itself until 1709″

    You see, by your logic, Russian rule brought unprecedented benefits to Ukraine .

    Russian protection brought temporary benefits but long-term disaster. Russians now are arguing for Ukrainians to try again. No thanks.

    “Khmelnytsky was a swineherd? Or a Catholic Pole? I had no idea.”

    Without Moscow Khmelnitsky would be a dead rebel (maybe exile in Turkey).
    But his descendants would be swineherds or poles

    The problem is that there were plenty of Orthodox Ruthenians who did not rebel, and whose descendants would not have been swineherds or Poles.

    The position is understandable, but in your case it is absolutely incredible doublethink.

    Nonsense. It is very consistent.

    You, and only you have argued that in the case of the princes Vyshnevetsky a complete change of religion, language, culture, and active voluntary participation in the extermination of former compatriots, means absolutely nothing, and brought no harm to Ukraine. But the fact that Gogol wrote in Russian (about Ukraine) «as a cultural figure/writer he was obviously lost to Ukraine».

    Here we see where Russian nationalist and Ukrainian nationalist mythmakers agree on something.

    Vyshnevetsky stayed in Ukraine and invested heavily into it, financially supporting various Orthodox monasteries and the famous Kiev Orthodox Academy. He also kept the place peaceful and safe from Tatar raids. The lands that Vyshnyvetsky had developed and protected were the heartland of Ukrainian culture. He was forced by the rebels out of his homeland.

    The rebels whom he tried to exterminate sacked many of the monasteries and brought into Ukraine their Tatar allies, who killed and enslaved 10,000s of Ukrainians.

    Gogol, in contrast to Vyshnevetsky, voluntarily left Ukraine and did nothing for it.

    As for language, the rebel officers were as Polish-speaking as Vyshnevetsky. Polish was the language of command for the rebels. Their books were printed in Polish, their elites studied at Orthodox schools that used Polish and Latin. Vyshenyvetsky’s personal conversion to Roman Catholicism, not his language set him apart from the rebel leaders. But his consistent declaration of himself as a Rus and his lavish support for Orthodox institutions tells us it was not a “national” conversion.

    The alternative however was the conversation in pure Ukrainian language with pigs Polish landlord

    Is a Polish-speaking elite worse than a Russian-speaking elite?

    What likely would have happened is what did eventually happen – in the 19th century the non-Ukrainian speaking elite would adopt the peasant vernacular speech and standardize it. This is what Russian and Polish speakers did under the tsars, there is no reason to think it would not have happened within the Commonwealth. Indeed a similar process occurred with German-speaking elites or Swedish-speaking elites elsewhere in Europe. However under Russia this movement was crushed and stifled.

    In contrast, the Ukrainian locals would have been in a much stronger position had they been part of the Commonwealth because Poland is not nearly as large and strong relative to Ukraine as Russia is. So despite the short-term “benefit” of Russian protection (no rebellion at all would have been preferable), in the long run it was a complete disaster for Ukraine. There is a parallel here to seeking short-term benefit by integrating with Russia.

    So Russian rule meant – expansion and harshening of serfdom, and brain drain of talented Ukrainians from Ukraine and to Russia.

    this is pure “orwellisation” of history.

    Facts – serfdom expanded and became harsher as Russian rule replaced Ukrainian autonomy. Under Russia talented Ukrainians left for Russia, benefiting Russia and harming Ukraine. Nothing Orwellian about these correct statements.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. Beckow says:
    @AP

    And only if Ukraine resolves its huge issues with their Russian population (tens of millions).
     
    In 2001 Ukraine had 8.3 million Russians. With population decline and the loss of Crimea and urban Donbas this is probably down to around 4 million...not "tens of millions."

    That love is almost totally one-sided and unrequited, nobody in the West cares much. They don’t want Ukrainian goods, migrants, and problems
     
    I care more about the attitudes of Polish elites than of Brussels elites. And they are different.

    down to around 4 million

    Wow, how proud you are of eliminating the evil ‘Russians’. Very Western, you might get some brownie points.

    Now for reality: Russian speakers are still almost one half of Ukraine. People who think of themselves as Russian (ethnically) were 17% in the last census. You can dream, but they are still there. Ukraine also lost a few million Ukrainians who emigrated to Poland (EU) and also to Russia.

    I care more about the attitudes of Polish elites

    Not just Polish, but ‘elites’, good one. Maybe you can start another bloody (and suicidial invasion to the east). Or just merge with Western Ukraine and get them into EU that way. I don’t think Brussels would approve – they would lose the ability to fight the ‘Russkies’. And it is still Brussels that calls the shots.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Half?? Don't most Ukrainians speak Russian?
    , @AP

    "down to around 4 million"

    Wow, how proud you are of eliminating the evil ‘Russians’. Very Western, you might get some brownie points.
     
    Russians eliminated the ones in Crimea from Ukraine, and the ones in Donbas eliminated themselves with Russian help.

    Now for reality: Russian speakers are still almost one half of Ukraine.
     
    They were about half prior to recent events. They are now certainly less than half. The Russian-speakers in Kiev are mostly pro-West, Ukrainian nationalists.

    People who think of themselves as Russian (ethnically) were 17% in the last census.
     
    That was when Ukraine included Crimea and Donbas. Now they are probably around 9%. That's about the same as the Hungarian percentage of Slovakia.

    Why would 17% still be there now that Crimea and Donbas are gone?

    Ukraine also lost a few million Ukrainians who emigrated to Poland (EU) and also to Russia.
     
    And many Russians also moved to Russia. AFAIK there is no evidence suggesting that ethnic Ukrainians have left Ukraine at a higher rate than have ethnic Russians.

    Your extreme exaggeration of the Russian presence in Ukraine is noted.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Beckow

    down to around 4 million
     
    Wow, how proud you are of eliminating the evil 'Russians'. Very Western, you might get some brownie points.

    Now for reality: Russian speakers are still almost one half of Ukraine. People who think of themselves as Russian (ethnically) were 17% in the last census. You can dream, but they are still there. Ukraine also lost a few million Ukrainians who emigrated to Poland (EU) and also to Russia.

    I care more about the attitudes of Polish elites
     
    Not just Polish, but 'elites', good one. Maybe you can start another bloody (and suicidial invasion to the east). Or just merge with Western Ukraine and get them into EU that way. I don't think Brussels would approve - they would lose the ability to fight the 'Russkies'. And it is still Brussels that calls the shots.

    Half?? Don’t most Ukrainians speak Russian?

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    Urban Ukrainians, yes. Overall, it was about half prior to Crimea and Donbas leaving and certainly less than half now.

    Here is a massive study from when Ukraine still included Crimea and Donbas:

    http://www.kiis.com.ua/materials/articles_HVE/16_linguaethnical.pdf

    Page 5. 40.5% Ukrainian, 43.1% Russian, the rest use both equally and have no preference.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. Beckow says:
    @German_reader

    What would a German ‘Macron’ be like?
     
    Maybe Christian Lindner from the liberal FDP would like to be that. I don't think he'd get the support of German media though which generally is rather anti-FDP and criticised him for breaking off coalition talks with CDU/CSU and Greens.
    And I wouldn't even say the Greens are "fake"...unfortunately they really do represent a certain milieu in the German bourgeoisie, one which has disproportionate influence in the media.

    What I meant about the Greens is that they have been coopted and used. I think the sentiment behind them was – and is – real. But they got behind-the-scenes support as a useful chess piece in the changing political landscape.

    Christian Lindner could work. A perfect ‘Macron-like’ candidate needs to have some controversy in his/her past. So people can project their hopes. I don’t know anything about him, so he might be unusable. German establishment needs a new story, new face, they will find somebody.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. Talha says:
    @Mr. XYZ
    @reiner_Tor:

    Beyond absurd. It already had those Muslims to begin with, and got rid of as many of them (the vast majority within the pre-1967 borders) as it thought it could get away with. It then absorbed a huge number of Jewish immigrants, and still it’s there trying to engineer pro-natalist policies in a way to discourage Muslims from having children but trying to encourage Jews to have more, essentially trying to outbreed Muslims in an already overpopulated country. If this sounds insane, that’s because it is.

    In the absence of large scale French immigration France has no hope of not Islamizing slowly with its large and ever growing Muslim population.
     
    Please keep in mind that Muslims aren't breeding anywhere near as much as they did in the mid-20th century, though. Indeed, a typical Muslim might have had seven or eight children in 1950 but might only have three children right now. Thus, countries such as France might not need non-Muslim immigration as badly as Israel needed non-Muslim immigration. Indeed, this will be especially true if countries such as France severely restrict Muslim immigration.

    Because their numbers are not expected to grow through further immigration or family reunification, or whatever. Israeli Muslims only have natural growth. As opposed to Jews, who are immigrants and their numbers did grow through immigration, and it’s not impossible to imagine further mass immigration, for example if Europe gets Islamized.
     
    Are Israeli Muslims not allowed to import Muslims from abroad to marry?

    Also, please keep in mind that Western Europe can close its doors to Muslim immigrants.

    The Israeli Jewish population has its nationalist/religious (the two are the same from the point of national survival with the archaic Jewish religion) subpopulation which is breeding like rabbits. This is absent in all European countries.
     
    For now. However, as the breeders become a larger and larger percentage of the total population, this might change in Europe.

    By the way Muslims are only 17.4% in Israel, not 20%.
     
    Thanks for this correction.

    Enjoyed reading your comments – thinking out of the box – I like it.

    One point; that Ayoub Kara guy is Druze – they have a different status in Israel since they are Arab, but are not Muslim.

    It’ll be very interesting how these trends play out in the next few decades. My guess is that, due to the issues that the normal people in Europe are seeing due to the influx of refugees (and sometimes invaders) from the ME is that Europe is going to start; 1) closing up borders and 2) politically trying to stop the US from doing any more meddling in the ME for which they have to pay they most obvious price. Less broken countries = less refugees = less sympathy for rule-breakers with respect to borders.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. AP says:
    @melanf

    Have you ever heard about senator Kisiel, orthodox and RUthenian
     
    Who was the last of the Mohicans. Soon the poles adopted a law prohibiting the noble status. for the Orthodox population of the Commonwealth. But the Orthodox could be swineherds (although especially patriotic poles discussed plans for the complete destruction of the Orthodox population)

    Soon the poles adopted a law prohibiting the noble status for the Orthodox population of the Commonwealth.

    And then there was the Treaty of Hadiach whose specific features included:

    - admission to the Senate of Orthodox ecclesiastic members: the Archbishop (metropolitan) of Kiev and other Orthodox bishops (of Lutsk, Lviv, Przemyśl, Chełm and Mstislav) and elevation of the Orthodox religion and Church to the same level as Catholicism.

    - ennoblement of Cossack elders (starshyna kozatska). Each year the hetman would recommend to the king 1,000 Cossacks to receive a patent of hereditary nobility, and up to 100 Cossacks in each military regiment could be personally ennobled as well.

    Read More
    • Replies: @melanf


    Soon the poles adopted a law prohibiting the noble status for the Orthodox population of the Commonwealth.
     
    And then there was the Treaty of Hadiach whose specific features included:
    - admission to the Senate of Orthodox ecclesiastic members:....
     
    funny joke

    "In 1673, the Orthodox of the Commonwealth were prohibited from acquiring noble status. In 1717 and 1733, religious dissenters (i.e Orthodox) were banned from participating in Diets ... In 1699 Orthodox burghers were prohibited from holding council offices in the royal towns…. Among the major factors that contributed to the Polonization of the Ruthenian elites was the decline in the use of the Ruthenian language. In 1696, when the Commonwealth Diet adopted a resolution making the use of Polish obligatory in jurisprudence and administration.. Thus the equalization of noble rights in the Commonwealth went hand in hand with linguistic and cultural Polonization…" etc., etc.

    S. M. Plokhy , "The Origins of the Slavic Nations: Premodern Identities in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus"

    But the Orthodox in the Commonwealth were allowed to be swineherds (in the estates of the Polish landlords), and absolutely free talk with the pigs in their Ruthenians language. However the poles began to think, not too great favour on their part to Orthodox?

    "Accordingto the plan, Jews were to be employed to undermine the economic status of Ruthenian burghers,whileTatars were to be used against the populace of Right-BankUkraine, Podilia,and Volhynia if it rose in defense of its faith. The devastated lands would then be settled by migrants from Poland"

    But of course Treaty of Hadiach guaranteed full freedom and equality, Jeremiah Vishnevetskii was a Ruthenian patriot, and Auschwitz was a resort.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. AP says:
    @Beckow

    down to around 4 million
     
    Wow, how proud you are of eliminating the evil 'Russians'. Very Western, you might get some brownie points.

    Now for reality: Russian speakers are still almost one half of Ukraine. People who think of themselves as Russian (ethnically) were 17% in the last census. You can dream, but they are still there. Ukraine also lost a few million Ukrainians who emigrated to Poland (EU) and also to Russia.

    I care more about the attitudes of Polish elites
     
    Not just Polish, but 'elites', good one. Maybe you can start another bloody (and suicidial invasion to the east). Or just merge with Western Ukraine and get them into EU that way. I don't think Brussels would approve - they would lose the ability to fight the 'Russkies'. And it is still Brussels that calls the shots.

    “down to around 4 million”

    Wow, how proud you are of eliminating the evil ‘Russians’. Very Western, you might get some brownie points.

    Russians eliminated the ones in Crimea from Ukraine, and the ones in Donbas eliminated themselves with Russian help.

    Now for reality: Russian speakers are still almost one half of Ukraine.

    They were about half prior to recent events. They are now certainly less than half. The Russian-speakers in Kiev are mostly pro-West, Ukrainian nationalists.

    People who think of themselves as Russian (ethnically) were 17% in the last census.

    That was when Ukraine included Crimea and Donbas. Now they are probably around 9%. That’s about the same as the Hungarian percentage of Slovakia.

    Why would 17% still be there now that Crimea and Donbas are gone?

    Ukraine also lost a few million Ukrainians who emigrated to Poland (EU) and also to Russia.

    And many Russians also moved to Russia. AFAIK there is no evidence suggesting that ethnic Ukrainians have left Ukraine at a higher rate than have ethnic Russians.

    Your extreme exaggeration of the Russian presence in Ukraine is noted.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow
    'Extreme'? Well, let's say that not half are Russian speakers, but only 40%, or 32%, or even 25% - that is still a lot, millions upon millions. I strongly doubt that most of the Russian speakers embraced Ukrainian nationalism - in times of civil war and 'extreme' danger to anyone with pro-Russian views, it won't come out. But people don't change.

    The real problem for Ukraine is its incredible shrinkage of population. I believe in 1991 they were around 50 million. Even the most optimistic scenarios have Ukraine today at around 40 million or less. The young ones are leaving.

    In Slovakia, Hungarians have their own schools, media and are represented in the government. Last time I checked, Ukraine banned Hungarian schools pissing of Budapest (yes, easy to do). If Ukraine would treat its minorities - incl. Russians - in a decent way there would be no civil war, no separatism, and they would be more likely to be allowed into EU.

    Ukraine has a 2017 GNP of $90 billion (in US dollars). That is down about half from 2013. Average incomes are down in double digits. Foreign debt is almost 50% higher. Ukrainian money lost 2/3 of its value in 3 years. Are you sure relatively booming Poland wants to take that on?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. AP says:
    @Anon
    Half?? Don't most Ukrainians speak Russian?

    Urban Ukrainians, yes. Overall, it was about half prior to Crimea and Donbas leaving and certainly less than half now.

    Here is a massive study from when Ukraine still included Crimea and Donbas:

    http://www.kiis.com.ua/materials/articles_HVE/16_linguaethnical.pdf

    Page 5. 40.5% Ukrainian, 43.1% Russian, the rest use both equally and have no preference.

    Read More
    • Replies: @melanf

    People actually living in Ukraine, who know more about the results of Maidan than you do, do not consider it a “disaster” and do not wish Yanukovich was back
     
    Probably post-reaction to the revolution of 1917 was the same. However, if I'm not mistaken, the vast majority of Ukrainians believe that their life only got worse
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. melanf says:
    @AP

    Soon the poles adopted a law prohibiting the noble status for the Orthodox population of the Commonwealth.
     
    And then there was the Treaty of Hadiach whose specific features included:

    - admission to the Senate of Orthodox ecclesiastic members: the Archbishop (metropolitan) of Kiev and other Orthodox bishops (of Lutsk, Lviv, Przemyśl, Chełm and Mstislav) and elevation of the Orthodox religion and Church to the same level as Catholicism.

    - ennoblement of Cossack elders (starshyna kozatska). Each year the hetman would recommend to the king 1,000 Cossacks to receive a patent of hereditary nobility, and up to 100 Cossacks in each military regiment could be personally ennobled as well.

    Soon the poles adopted a law prohibiting the noble status for the Orthodox population of the Commonwealth.

    And then there was the Treaty of Hadiach whose specific features included:
    - admission to the Senate of Orthodox ecclesiastic members:….

    funny joke

    In 1673, the Orthodox of the Commonwealth were prohibited from acquiring noble status. In 1717 and 1733, religious dissenters (i.e Orthodox) were banned from participating in Diets … In 1699 Orthodox burghers were prohibited from holding council offices in the royal towns…. Among the major factors that contributed to the Polonization of the Ruthenian elites was the decline in the use of the Ruthenian language. In 1696, when the Commonwealth Diet adopted a resolution making the use of Polish obligatory in jurisprudence and administration.. Thus the equalization of noble rights in the Commonwealth went hand in hand with linguistic and cultural Polonization…” etc., etc.

    S. M. Plokhy , “The Origins of the Slavic Nations: Premodern Identities in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus”

    But the Orthodox in the Commonwealth were allowed to be swineherds (in the estates of the Polish landlords), and absolutely free talk with the pigs in their Ruthenians language. However the poles began to think, not too great favour on their part to Orthodox?

    Accordingto the plan, Jews were to be employed to undermine the economic status of Ruthenian burghers,whileTatars were to be used against the populace of Right-BankUkraine, Podilia,and Volhynia if it rose in defense of its faith. The devastated lands would then be settled by migrants from Poland

    But of course Treaty of Hadiach guaranteed full freedom and equality, Jeremiah Vishnevetskii was a Ruthenian patriot, and Auschwitz was a resort.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    1. Response to war with Orthodox Russia and consequence of the loss of most of the Orthodox elite during the Khmelytsky uprising, and understandable wish for another elite to not arise.

    2. Uniate church remained as a Rus bastion.

    3. And how is this worse than Russification policies that Russia would implement in the 19th century?

    But the Orthodox in the Commonwealth were allowed to be swineherds (in the estates of the Polish landlords),
     
    There were still many Orthodox noblemen when Russia took over.

    According to the plan, Jews were to be employed to undermine the economic status of Ruthenian burghers, while Tatars were to be used against the populace of Right-Bank Ukraine, Podilia,and Volhynia if it rose in defense of its faith. The devastated lands would then be settled by migrants from Poland”
     
    This was an anonymous pamphlet, not policy. You conveniently forget to post that fact.

    :::::::::::::::::::::::::

    So what did the linguistically Polonized Rus do in the 19th century:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ch%C5%82opomania

    Chłopomania spread into Carpathian Ruthenia and the Russian Empire, touching the westernmost parts of Ukraine (Right-bank Ukraine, Podolia etc.). This section of the movement merged into the larger Ukrainophile current, which brought together partisans and sympathizers of Ukrainian nationalism irrespective of cultural or ethnic background. Russian scholar Aleksei I. Miller defines the social makeup of some chłopomania groups (whose members are known as chłopomani or khlopomany) in terms of reversed acculturation: "Khlopomany were young people from Polish or traditionally Polonized families who, due to their populist convictions, rejected social and cultural belonging to their stratum and strove to approach the local peasantry."[2] Similarly, Canadian researcher John-Paul Himka describes the Ukrainian chłopomani as "primarily Poles of Right Bank Ukraine", noting that their contribution was in line with a tradition of "Ukrainophile" cooperation against the Russians and the Russophiles.[4] In reference to the cultural crossover between the two ethnic versions of chłopomania, French historian Daniel Beauvois noted that "in certain numbers", chłopomani from within the Polish gentry contributed to "reinforcing the Ukrainian movement".[1] Miller however focuses on the movement's role in exacerbating tensions between Ukrainians, Poles and the Russian administrators. He writes: "The government could not but rejoice at the fact that some khlopomany renounced their Catholic faith, converted to Orthodoxy, and refused to support the Polish national movement. However, the Polish ill-wishers were quick to draw the government's attention to the subversive flavor of the khlopomany's social views and their pro-Ukrainophile orientation. The authorities were more often than not inclined to pay heed to these accusations, being guided more by the instinct of social solidarity with Polish landowners than by the strategy of national confrontation with the Poles."[2]

    According to Himka, the earliest chłopomani, active in the early 1860s, included Paulin Święcicki, who dedicated much of his career to advancing the Ukrainian cause.[4] Among the best-known representatives of this circle of intellectuals are Stanisław Wyspiański (whose The Wedding is occasionally associated with chłopomania as its standard manifesto).[3] In 1900 Wyspiański married the mother of his four children Teodora Pytko from a village near Kraków. In November of the same year he participated in the peasant wedding of his friend, poet Lucjan Rydel in Bronowice.[5][6][7] Other prominent figures include intellectuals associated with the Ukrainian magazine Osnova, primarily Volodymyr Antonovych and Tadei Rylsky,[2] as well as poet Pavlo Chubynsky.

    ::::::::::::::::::::::::

    Plokhy's also writes that not only Ukrainian clerics but sons of Cossack officers and nobles migrated to Russia to pursue their careers. There were twice as many Ukrainian as Russian doctors, and over 1/3 of the students in St. Petersburg teachers college were Ukrainians. So -brain drain.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. Beckow says:
    @AP

    "down to around 4 million"

    Wow, how proud you are of eliminating the evil ‘Russians’. Very Western, you might get some brownie points.
     
    Russians eliminated the ones in Crimea from Ukraine, and the ones in Donbas eliminated themselves with Russian help.

    Now for reality: Russian speakers are still almost one half of Ukraine.
     
    They were about half prior to recent events. They are now certainly less than half. The Russian-speakers in Kiev are mostly pro-West, Ukrainian nationalists.

    People who think of themselves as Russian (ethnically) were 17% in the last census.
     
    That was when Ukraine included Crimea and Donbas. Now they are probably around 9%. That's about the same as the Hungarian percentage of Slovakia.

    Why would 17% still be there now that Crimea and Donbas are gone?

    Ukraine also lost a few million Ukrainians who emigrated to Poland (EU) and also to Russia.
     
    And many Russians also moved to Russia. AFAIK there is no evidence suggesting that ethnic Ukrainians have left Ukraine at a higher rate than have ethnic Russians.

    Your extreme exaggeration of the Russian presence in Ukraine is noted.

    Extreme‘? Well, let’s say that not half are Russian speakers, but only 40%, or 32%, or even 25% – that is still a lot, millions upon millions. I strongly doubt that most of the Russian speakers embraced Ukrainian nationalism – in times of civil war and ‘extreme’ danger to anyone with pro-Russian views, it won’t come out. But people don’t change.

    The real problem for Ukraine is its incredible shrinkage of population. I believe in 1991 they were around 50 million. Even the most optimistic scenarios have Ukraine today at around 40 million or less. The young ones are leaving.

    In Slovakia, Hungarians have their own schools, media and are represented in the government. Last time I checked, Ukraine banned Hungarian schools pissing of Budapest (yes, easy to do). If Ukraine would treat its minorities – incl. Russians – in a decent way there would be no civil war, no separatism, and they would be more likely to be allowed into EU.

    Ukraine has a 2017 GNP of $90 billion (in US dollars). That is down about half from 2013. Average incomes are down in double digits. Foreign debt is almost 50% higher. Ukrainian money lost 2/3 of its value in 3 years. Are you sure relatively booming Poland wants to take that on?

    Read More
    • Agree: melanf
    • Replies: @Anon
    Do you also think Irish independentism is backed only by Gaelic speakers?
    , @AP

    ‘Extreme‘? Well, let’s say that not half are Russian speakers, but only 40%, or 32%, or even 25% – that is still a lot, millions upon millions.
     
    You wrote tens of millions of Russians, when actual number is around 4 million. Yes, that is extreme exaggeration.

    I strongly doubt that most of the Russian speakers embraced Ukrainian nationalism
     
    You who thought there was tens of millions of Russians in Ukraine when there are only 4 million are welcome to your strong doubts.

    Ukraine currently is probably a little more than 1/3 Russian-speaking. Of those - perhaps a little less than half have embraced Ukrainian nationalism. Kiev is Russian speaking and nationalist. The extremists in Azov battalion and Right Sector are mostly Russian-speaking. To equate Russian-speaking with opposition to Ukrainian nationalism is silly.

    Last time I checked, Ukraine banned Hungarian schools
     
    Ukraine banned secondary schools that don't use the Ukrainian language at all (or use it 1-3 hours per week). Kids form those schools were unable to take national university entrance exams. Now the secondary schools will be half in Ukrainian and half in Hungarian. Such discrimination.

    Ukraine has a 2017 GNP of $90 billion (in US dollars). That is down about half from 2013.
     
    That's an artifact of the currency value collapse. Something similar happened in Russia with the ruble. By your logic Russia should not have taken Crimea?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Beckow
    'Extreme'? Well, let's say that not half are Russian speakers, but only 40%, or 32%, or even 25% - that is still a lot, millions upon millions. I strongly doubt that most of the Russian speakers embraced Ukrainian nationalism - in times of civil war and 'extreme' danger to anyone with pro-Russian views, it won't come out. But people don't change.

    The real problem for Ukraine is its incredible shrinkage of population. I believe in 1991 they were around 50 million. Even the most optimistic scenarios have Ukraine today at around 40 million or less. The young ones are leaving.

    In Slovakia, Hungarians have their own schools, media and are represented in the government. Last time I checked, Ukraine banned Hungarian schools pissing of Budapest (yes, easy to do). If Ukraine would treat its minorities - incl. Russians - in a decent way there would be no civil war, no separatism, and they would be more likely to be allowed into EU.

    Ukraine has a 2017 GNP of $90 billion (in US dollars). That is down about half from 2013. Average incomes are down in double digits. Foreign debt is almost 50% higher. Ukrainian money lost 2/3 of its value in 3 years. Are you sure relatively booming Poland wants to take that on?

    Do you also think Irish independentism is backed only by Gaelic speakers?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow

    Irish independentism is backed only by Gaelic speakers?
     
    Well, Ukraine is independent. This is about minority rights, not independence.

    Gaelic has (unfortunately) gone out of use quite some time ago, so your analogy is very wobbly. I can list for you dozen countries in EU that have minorities with full language rights and even autonomy (Swedes in Finland, Hungarians in Romania, Austrians in Italy, Turks in Bulgaria,...). Why aren't Russians in Ukraine entitled to the same treatment?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. Beckow says:
    @Anon
    Do you also think Irish independentism is backed only by Gaelic speakers?

    Irish independentism is backed only by Gaelic speakers?

    Well, Ukraine is independent. This is about minority rights, not independence.

    Gaelic has (unfortunately) gone out of use quite some time ago, so your analogy is very wobbly. I can list for you dozen countries in EU that have minorities with full language rights and even autonomy (Swedes in Finland, Hungarians in Romania, Austrians in Italy, Turks in Bulgaria,…). Why aren’t Russians in Ukraine entitled to the same treatment?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    My point is that "Russian-speakers" are not same as "Russians". Gaelic was analagous in my usage to Ukrainian, not Russian, which was analagous to English.

    But if Russians want rights to teach children in their language, other cultural concessions, I don't see why not, unfortunately I am not in charge in Ukraine.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Beckow

    Irish independentism is backed only by Gaelic speakers?
     
    Well, Ukraine is independent. This is about minority rights, not independence.

    Gaelic has (unfortunately) gone out of use quite some time ago, so your analogy is very wobbly. I can list for you dozen countries in EU that have minorities with full language rights and even autonomy (Swedes in Finland, Hungarians in Romania, Austrians in Italy, Turks in Bulgaria,...). Why aren't Russians in Ukraine entitled to the same treatment?

    My point is that “Russian-speakers” are not same as “Russians”. Gaelic was analagous in my usage to Ukrainian, not Russian, which was analagous to English.

    But if Russians want rights to teach children in their language, other cultural concessions, I don’t see why not, unfortunately I am not in charge in Ukraine.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow
    Your analogies are very tricky, and thus imprecise. Ukrainian and Russian are closely related, English and Gaelic are nor. History, geography and linguistics are very different. But all analogies tend to be misleading.

    If someone can explain why is Ukraine allowed to have a completely upside-down minority policies, please do so. EU has minority treatment standards. If it waves its own standards because 'Russians' are involved, it has nothing left and becomes even more of a laughing stock. Double standards simply mean they have no standards.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. melanf says:
    @reiner Tor
    I think you both said what could be said about Gogol, moreover, you are both in agreement with each other about the facts. It’s not very productive to argue about terminology, i.e. whether Gogol should be considered part of the Ukrainian or Russian literature (or both).

    The original point was brain drain. Gogol was an example of someone talented who moved to Russia. Had he married, he’d probably have married a Russian woman. His descendants would be Russians. Had he worked in a more ordinary occupation (like engineering or architecture), his work would have been little benefit to Ukraine. Etc.

    So regardless of the concrete example, brain drain did affect Ukraine, talented people did move out of Ukraine to Russia.

    Though it’s difficult to imagine how that wouldn’t be the case with any other integration, where Ukraine was bound to be the poor periphery anyway. So it’s an argument against integration in general.

    The original point was brain drain. Gogol was an example of someone talented who moved to Russia. Had he married, he’d probably have married a Russian woman. His descendants would be Russians.

    Hmm. But when the field Marshal Rumyantsev (famous commander and presumably the illegitimate son of Peter the Great) was awarded estates in the Ukraine, he surrounded himself harem concubines, and probably had lots of children – its brain drain from Russia to Ukraine?

    Had he worked in a more ordinary occupation (like engineering or architecture), his work would have been little benefit to Ukraine. Etc.

    In “Ukraine” built a lot engineers and architects from St. Petersburg (directed by the Imperial government): Charles Gascoigne, John Hughes, Francesco Rastrelli, Charles Cameron. Examples to the contrary I don’t know.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    But when the field Marshal Rumyantsev (famous commander and presumably the illegitimate son of Peter the Great) was awarded estates in the Ukraine, he surrounded himself harem concubines, and probably had lots of children – its brain drain from Russia to Ukraine?
     
    The Russian colonial governor who helped abolish Ukraine's autonomy sent his sons to St. Petersburg. The Ukrainian colony was a place to exploit.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. Jon0815 says:
    @AP

    Nations consist of individuals.

    Individuals who are completely replaced over time.
     
    And who were raised by their predecessors and who share their predecessors' culture and assumptions. They are not blank slates.

    My approach is to recognize that the “us” in question is literally not the same “us” which existed in 1930 or the 18th century. It’s irrational to profile a nation based on events from many decades or centuries ago, as though this were the same as profiling a particular person based on their own past actions. And being guided by an irrational premise, is a good way to produce a self-destructive disaster like Maidan.
     
    People actually living in Ukraine, who know more about the results of Maidan than you do, do not consider it a "disaster" and do not wish Yanukovich was back or that Ukraine would reverse course and once again pursue integration with Russia.

    And who were raised by their predecessors and who share their predecessors’ culture and assumptions. They are not blank slates.

    Russian culture and assumptions are obviously very different today from what existed 80 years ago, let alone centuries ago. The language remains very similar, but opinion on political, socioeconomic, and moral questions is certainly not. What % of Russians today would agree that absolute monarchy is the best form of government? Of course, there are some genetic traits, like IQ, that are passed down through the generations. But it seems unlikely that Russians possess an “anti-Ukrainian” gene (not to mention that the rulers responsible for the grievances you cited- expansion of serfdom, and the 1930s famine- weren’t even ethnic Russians).

    People actually living in Ukraine, who know more about the results of Maidan than you do, do not consider it a “disaster” and do not wish Yanukovich was back or that Ukraine would reverse course and once again pursue integration with Russia

    There’s a natural human tendency not to want to admit mistakes. So Ukrainians have turned against Poroshenko, but haven’t yet made the leap to questioning Maidanism itself. But eventually they might begin to do so, when whoever succeeds Poroshenko also inevitably fails to deliver on Maidan’s promises. Meanwhile, it’s apparent to every reasonable outside observer that, like every neocon project, Maidan has been a complete disaster. It will be interesting to see whether Maidanist Ukraine is able to snatch the title of Europe’s poorest country from Moldova (which went from 55% of Ukraine’s per capita GDP in 2013, to 87% in 2016).

    Imagine that in 2013, a time traveler from 2017 had informed Ukrainians that in the first four years post-Maidan, Ukraine would lose Crimea and Donbass, more than 10,000 Ukrainians would be killed in a civil war, real per capita GDP growth would average -5%, and there would be no prospect of EU membership anytime in the foreseeable future. I suspect that with that knowledge, support for Maidan would have been substantially less.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Russian culture and assumptions are obviously very different today from what existed 80 years ago, let alone centuries ago.
     
    Prevalent attitude seen today in Russia: Ukrainian is a fake language, Ukrainians are confused Russians, West is bad, etc. etc. Union with such a people who outnumbers your own 3:1 is a good idea? No thanks.

    There’s a natural human tendency not to want to admit mistakes. So Ukrainians have turned against Poroshenko, but haven’t yet made the leap to questioning Maidanism itself. But eventually they might begin to do so, when whoever succeeds Poroshenko also inevitably fails to deliver on Maidan’s promises.
     
    Corruption remains bad, but economy has stabilized and is improving. Certain regions have already recovered fully. These were the most pro-Maidan regions. I doubt they would have second thoughts. Kharkiv has not recovered but it wasn't pro-Maidan to begin with.

    It will be interesting to see whether Maidanist Ukraine is able to snatch the title of Europe’s poorest country from Moldova (which went from 55% of Ukraine’s per capita GDP in 2013, to 87% in 2016).
     
    Moldova had 63% of Ukraine's per capita GDP PPP in 2016.

    If you want to play the game of nominal per capita GDP, you can consider that Russia's per capita nominal GDP is now only 93% that of Romania, thanks to ruble devaluation.

    real per capita GDP growth would average -5%,
     
    This includes the crash of 2014-2015. It was followed by two years of growth. Not very honest way of describing post-Maidan performance, sorry.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. melanf says:
    @AP
    Urban Ukrainians, yes. Overall, it was about half prior to Crimea and Donbas leaving and certainly less than half now.

    Here is a massive study from when Ukraine still included Crimea and Donbas:

    http://www.kiis.com.ua/materials/articles_HVE/16_linguaethnical.pdf

    Page 5. 40.5% Ukrainian, 43.1% Russian, the rest use both equally and have no preference.

    People actually living in Ukraine, who know more about the results of Maidan than you do, do not consider it a “disaster” and do not wish Yanukovich was back

    Probably post-reaction to the revolution of 1917 was the same. However, if I’m not mistaken, the vast majority of Ukrainians believe that their life only got worse

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. AP says:
    @melanf

    The original point was brain drain. Gogol was an example of someone talented who moved to Russia. Had he married, he’d probably have married a Russian woman. His descendants would be Russians.
     
    Hmm. But when the field Marshal Rumyantsev (famous commander and presumably the illegitimate son of Peter the Great) was awarded estates in the Ukraine, he surrounded himself harem concubines, and probably had lots of children - its brain drain from Russia to Ukraine?

    Had he worked in a more ordinary occupation (like engineering or architecture), his work would have been little benefit to Ukraine. Etc.
     

    In "Ukraine" built a lot engineers and architects from St. Petersburg (directed by the Imperial government): Charles Gascoigne, John Hughes, Francesco Rastrelli, Charles Cameron. Examples to the contrary I don't know.

    But when the field Marshal Rumyantsev (famous commander and presumably the illegitimate son of Peter the Great) was awarded estates in the Ukraine, he surrounded himself harem concubines, and probably had lots of children – its brain drain from Russia to Ukraine?

    The Russian colonial governor who helped abolish Ukraine’s autonomy sent his sons to St. Petersburg. The Ukrainian colony was a place to exploit.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. AP says:
    @Beckow
    'Extreme'? Well, let's say that not half are Russian speakers, but only 40%, or 32%, or even 25% - that is still a lot, millions upon millions. I strongly doubt that most of the Russian speakers embraced Ukrainian nationalism - in times of civil war and 'extreme' danger to anyone with pro-Russian views, it won't come out. But people don't change.

    The real problem for Ukraine is its incredible shrinkage of population. I believe in 1991 they were around 50 million. Even the most optimistic scenarios have Ukraine today at around 40 million or less. The young ones are leaving.

    In Slovakia, Hungarians have their own schools, media and are represented in the government. Last time I checked, Ukraine banned Hungarian schools pissing of Budapest (yes, easy to do). If Ukraine would treat its minorities - incl. Russians - in a decent way there would be no civil war, no separatism, and they would be more likely to be allowed into EU.

    Ukraine has a 2017 GNP of $90 billion (in US dollars). That is down about half from 2013. Average incomes are down in double digits. Foreign debt is almost 50% higher. Ukrainian money lost 2/3 of its value in 3 years. Are you sure relatively booming Poland wants to take that on?

    ‘Extreme‘? Well, let’s say that not half are Russian speakers, but only 40%, or 32%, or even 25% – that is still a lot, millions upon millions.

    You wrote tens of millions of Russians, when actual number is around 4 million. Yes, that is extreme exaggeration.

    I strongly doubt that most of the Russian speakers embraced Ukrainian nationalism

    You who thought there was tens of millions of Russians in Ukraine when there are only 4 million are welcome to your strong doubts.

    Ukraine currently is probably a little more than 1/3 Russian-speaking. Of those – perhaps a little less than half have embraced Ukrainian nationalism. Kiev is Russian speaking and nationalist. The extremists in Azov battalion and Right Sector are mostly Russian-speaking. To equate Russian-speaking with opposition to Ukrainian nationalism is silly.

    Last time I checked, Ukraine banned Hungarian schools

    Ukraine banned secondary schools that don’t use the Ukrainian language at all (or use it 1-3 hours per week). Kids form those schools were unable to take national university entrance exams. Now the secondary schools will be half in Ukrainian and half in Hungarian. Such discrimination.

    Ukraine has a 2017 GNP of $90 billion (in US dollars). That is down about half from 2013.

    That’s an artifact of the currency value collapse. Something similar happened in Russia with the ruble. By your logic Russia should not have taken Crimea?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow
    You are back to your manipulative ways. That shows a weakness in your argument, not strength, do you realize that?

    One small thing: 25% or 32% of 40 million is 10 million or more. Some remedial math would help you argue better.

    Some of the collapse is an 'artifact of currency collapse', but not all. Most is simply a drop in wages and a drop in many economic activities. Plus higher utilities, school payments, drugs, imports,... The living standards in Ukraine definitely dropped since 2013. We can argue exactly by how much, but after increasing country debt by almost 50% and getting the EU Association, how come the living standards dropped? Or are we to see a boom in Ukraine any day now? Based on what? Exporting what to whom? Or maybe borrowing more? Do you also realise that Ukrainian exports have dropped to 1/3 of 2013 and now consists of about half agricultural products.

    Crimea incomes, pensions and living standards have gone up anywhere between 50 to 100%. That's why 90% of people in Crimea are happy. Money is money and they are getting more than before. You can ignore it, but then you just become irrelevant.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. AP says:
    @Jon0815

    And who were raised by their predecessors and who share their predecessors’ culture and assumptions. They are not blank slates.
     
    Russian culture and assumptions are obviously very different today from what existed 80 years ago, let alone centuries ago. The language remains very similar, but opinion on political, socioeconomic, and moral questions is certainly not. What % of Russians today would agree that absolute monarchy is the best form of government? Of course, there are some genetic traits, like IQ, that are passed down through the generations. But it seems unlikely that Russians possess an "anti-Ukrainian" gene (not to mention that the rulers responsible for the grievances you cited- expansion of serfdom, and the 1930s famine- weren't even ethnic Russians).

    People actually living in Ukraine, who know more about the results of Maidan than you do, do not consider it a “disaster” and do not wish Yanukovich was back or that Ukraine would reverse course and once again pursue integration with Russia
     
    There's a natural human tendency not to want to admit mistakes. So Ukrainians have turned against Poroshenko, but haven't yet made the leap to questioning Maidanism itself. But eventually they might begin to do so, when whoever succeeds Poroshenko also inevitably fails to deliver on Maidan's promises. Meanwhile, it's apparent to every reasonable outside observer that, like every neocon project, Maidan has been a complete disaster. It will be interesting to see whether Maidanist Ukraine is able to snatch the title of Europe's poorest country from Moldova (which went from 55% of Ukraine's per capita GDP in 2013, to 87% in 2016).

    Imagine that in 2013, a time traveler from 2017 had informed Ukrainians that in the first four years post-Maidan, Ukraine would lose Crimea and Donbass, more than 10,000 Ukrainians would be killed in a civil war, real per capita GDP growth would average -5%, and there would be no prospect of EU membership anytime in the foreseeable future. I suspect that with that knowledge, support for Maidan would have been substantially less.

    Russian culture and assumptions are obviously very different today from what existed 80 years ago, let alone centuries ago.

    Prevalent attitude seen today in Russia: Ukrainian is a fake language, Ukrainians are confused Russians, West is bad, etc. etc. Union with such a people who outnumbers your own 3:1 is a good idea? No thanks.

    There’s a natural human tendency not to want to admit mistakes. So Ukrainians have turned against Poroshenko, but haven’t yet made the leap to questioning Maidanism itself. But eventually they might begin to do so, when whoever succeeds Poroshenko also inevitably fails to deliver on Maidan’s promises.

    Corruption remains bad, but economy has stabilized and is improving. Certain regions have already recovered fully. These were the most pro-Maidan regions. I doubt they would have second thoughts. Kharkiv has not recovered but it wasn’t pro-Maidan to begin with.

    It will be interesting to see whether Maidanist Ukraine is able to snatch the title of Europe’s poorest country from Moldova (which went from 55% of Ukraine’s per capita GDP in 2013, to 87% in 2016).

    Moldova had 63% of Ukraine’s per capita GDP PPP in 2016.

    If you want to play the game of nominal per capita GDP, you can consider that Russia’s per capita nominal GDP is now only 93% that of Romania, thanks to ruble devaluation.

    real per capita GDP growth would average -5%,

    This includes the crash of 2014-2015. It was followed by two years of growth. Not very honest way of describing post-Maidan performance, sorry.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. Beckow says:
    @AP

    ‘Extreme‘? Well, let’s say that not half are Russian speakers, but only 40%, or 32%, or even 25% – that is still a lot, millions upon millions.
     
    You wrote tens of millions of Russians, when actual number is around 4 million. Yes, that is extreme exaggeration.

    I strongly doubt that most of the Russian speakers embraced Ukrainian nationalism
     
    You who thought there was tens of millions of Russians in Ukraine when there are only 4 million are welcome to your strong doubts.

    Ukraine currently is probably a little more than 1/3 Russian-speaking. Of those - perhaps a little less than half have embraced Ukrainian nationalism. Kiev is Russian speaking and nationalist. The extremists in Azov battalion and Right Sector are mostly Russian-speaking. To equate Russian-speaking with opposition to Ukrainian nationalism is silly.

    Last time I checked, Ukraine banned Hungarian schools
     
    Ukraine banned secondary schools that don't use the Ukrainian language at all (or use it 1-3 hours per week). Kids form those schools were unable to take national university entrance exams. Now the secondary schools will be half in Ukrainian and half in Hungarian. Such discrimination.

    Ukraine has a 2017 GNP of $90 billion (in US dollars). That is down about half from 2013.
     
    That's an artifact of the currency value collapse. Something similar happened in Russia with the ruble. By your logic Russia should not have taken Crimea?

    You are back to your manipulative ways. That shows a weakness in your argument, not strength, do you realize that?

    One small thing: 25% or 32% of 40 million is 10 million or more. Some remedial math would help you argue better.

    Some of the collapse is an ‘artifact of currency collapse‘, but not all. Most is simply a drop in wages and a drop in many economic activities. Plus higher utilities, school payments, drugs, imports,… The living standards in Ukraine definitely dropped since 2013. We can argue exactly by how much, but after increasing country debt by almost 50% and getting the EU Association, how come the living standards dropped? Or are we to see a boom in Ukraine any day now? Based on what? Exporting what to whom? Or maybe borrowing more? Do you also realise that Ukrainian exports have dropped to 1/3 of 2013 and now consists of about half agricultural products.

    Crimea incomes, pensions and living standards have gone up anywhere between 50 to 100%. That’s why 90% of people in Crimea are happy. Money is money and they are getting more than before. You can ignore it, but then you just become irrelevant.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    You are back to your manipulative ways. That shows a weakness in your argument, not strength, do you realize that?
     
    You are describing yourself. Perfectly.

    One small thing: 25% or 32% of 40 million is 10 million or more.
     
    Let me remind you that you wrote:

    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/eurabia-update/#comment-2105383

    "And only if Ukraine resolves its huge issues with their Russian population (tens of millions)."

    So, liar, you were discussing Russians, not Russian-speakers. There were were about 8 million Russians, now there are about 4 million Russians.

    Now you are attempting to be manipulative, and to change the discussion to one of Russian-speakers. But you fail even there - 33% of 40 million is about 13 million, not "tens of millions."


    Some of the collapse is an ‘artifact of currency collapse‘, but not all. Most is simply a drop in wages and a drop in many economic activities. Plus higher utilities, school payments, drugs, imports,… The living standards in Ukraine definitely dropped since 2013

     

    Sure, but not as much as nominal GDP suggests. They have dropped a little in Russia also, but not enough to suggest that Russia is now poorer than Romania, because its per capita nominal GDP is now about 7% lower than that of Romania.

    Here is Ukraine's per capita GDP PP:

    https://tradingeconomics.com/ukraine/gdp-per-capita-ppp

    It was $8,340 in 2013, down to $7,465 in 2015, and up to $7,668 in 2016. It will probably be around $7,900 in 2017. Which is almost 95% of its 2013 amount.


    Do you also realise that Ukrainian exports have dropped to 1/3 of 2013 and now consists of about half agricultural products.
     
    Here you are, lying again. You can't help yourself.

    Ukrainian exports:

    https://tradingeconomics.com/ukraine/exports

    They are about 2/3 of what they were in 2013.

    Taking into account loss of 10% of the population this decline becomes a little less severe.

    In terms of exports of goods it is about 40% agricultural products; however Ukraine also exports services (IT outsourcing) so that % drops.

    So, just to keep track, Beckow - you lied when you transformed 4 million Russians in Ukraine into tens of millions, and you lied when you transformed Ukraine's current 2/3 of 2013 export volume into 1/3.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. AP says:
    @melanf


    Soon the poles adopted a law prohibiting the noble status for the Orthodox population of the Commonwealth.
     
    And then there was the Treaty of Hadiach whose specific features included:
    - admission to the Senate of Orthodox ecclesiastic members:....
     
    funny joke

    "In 1673, the Orthodox of the Commonwealth were prohibited from acquiring noble status. In 1717 and 1733, religious dissenters (i.e Orthodox) were banned from participating in Diets ... In 1699 Orthodox burghers were prohibited from holding council offices in the royal towns…. Among the major factors that contributed to the Polonization of the Ruthenian elites was the decline in the use of the Ruthenian language. In 1696, when the Commonwealth Diet adopted a resolution making the use of Polish obligatory in jurisprudence and administration.. Thus the equalization of noble rights in the Commonwealth went hand in hand with linguistic and cultural Polonization…" etc., etc.

    S. M. Plokhy , "The Origins of the Slavic Nations: Premodern Identities in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus"

    But the Orthodox in the Commonwealth were allowed to be swineherds (in the estates of the Polish landlords), and absolutely free talk with the pigs in their Ruthenians language. However the poles began to think, not too great favour on their part to Orthodox?

    "Accordingto the plan, Jews were to be employed to undermine the economic status of Ruthenian burghers,whileTatars were to be used against the populace of Right-BankUkraine, Podilia,and Volhynia if it rose in defense of its faith. The devastated lands would then be settled by migrants from Poland"

    But of course Treaty of Hadiach guaranteed full freedom and equality, Jeremiah Vishnevetskii was a Ruthenian patriot, and Auschwitz was a resort.

    1. Response to war with Orthodox Russia and consequence of the loss of most of the Orthodox elite during the Khmelytsky uprising, and understandable wish for another elite to not arise.

    2. Uniate church remained as a Rus bastion.

    3. And how is this worse than Russification policies that Russia would implement in the 19th century?

    But the Orthodox in the Commonwealth were allowed to be swineherds (in the estates of the Polish landlords),

    There were still many Orthodox noblemen when Russia took over.

    According to the plan, Jews were to be employed to undermine the economic status of Ruthenian burghers, while Tatars were to be used against the populace of Right-Bank Ukraine, Podilia,and Volhynia if it rose in defense of its faith. The devastated lands would then be settled by migrants from Poland”

    This was an anonymous pamphlet, not policy. You conveniently forget to post that fact.

    :::::::::::::::::::::::::

    So what did the linguistically Polonized Rus do in the 19th century:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ch%C5%82opomania

    Chłopomania spread into Carpathian Ruthenia and the Russian Empire, touching the westernmost parts of Ukraine (Right-bank Ukraine, Podolia etc.). This section of the movement merged into the larger Ukrainophile current, which brought together partisans and sympathizers of Ukrainian nationalism irrespective of cultural or ethnic background. Russian scholar Aleksei I. Miller defines the social makeup of some chłopomania groups (whose members are known as chłopomani or khlopomany) in terms of reversed acculturation: “Khlopomany were young people from Polish or traditionally Polonized families who, due to their populist convictions, rejected social and cultural belonging to their stratum and strove to approach the local peasantry.”[2] Similarly, Canadian researcher John-Paul Himka describes the Ukrainian chłopomani as “primarily Poles of Right Bank Ukraine”, noting that their contribution was in line with a tradition of “Ukrainophile” cooperation against the Russians and the Russophiles.[4] In reference to the cultural crossover between the two ethnic versions of chłopomania, French historian Daniel Beauvois noted that “in certain numbers”, chłopomani from within the Polish gentry contributed to “reinforcing the Ukrainian movement”.[1] Miller however focuses on the movement’s role in exacerbating tensions between Ukrainians, Poles and the Russian administrators. He writes: “The government could not but rejoice at the fact that some khlopomany renounced their Catholic faith, converted to Orthodoxy, and refused to support the Polish national movement. However, the Polish ill-wishers were quick to draw the government’s attention to the subversive flavor of the khlopomany’s social views and their pro-Ukrainophile orientation. The authorities were more often than not inclined to pay heed to these accusations, being guided more by the instinct of social solidarity with Polish landowners than by the strategy of national confrontation with the Poles.”[2]

    According to Himka, the earliest chłopomani, active in the early 1860s, included Paulin Święcicki, who dedicated much of his career to advancing the Ukrainian cause.[4] Among the best-known representatives of this circle of intellectuals are Stanisław Wyspiański (whose The Wedding is occasionally associated with chłopomania as its standard manifesto).[3] In 1900 Wyspiański married the mother of his four children Teodora Pytko from a village near Kraków. In November of the same year he participated in the peasant wedding of his friend, poet Lucjan Rydel in Bronowice.[5][6][7] Other prominent figures include intellectuals associated with the Ukrainian magazine Osnova, primarily Volodymyr Antonovych and Tadei Rylsky,[2] as well as poet Pavlo Chubynsky.

    ::::::::::::::::::::::::

    Plokhy’s also writes that not only Ukrainian clerics but sons of Cossack officers and nobles migrated to Russia to pursue their careers. There were twice as many Ukrainian as Russian doctors, and over 1/3 of the students in St. Petersburg teachers college were Ukrainians. So -brain drain.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. Beckow says:
    @Anon
    My point is that "Russian-speakers" are not same as "Russians". Gaelic was analagous in my usage to Ukrainian, not Russian, which was analagous to English.

    But if Russians want rights to teach children in their language, other cultural concessions, I don't see why not, unfortunately I am not in charge in Ukraine.

    Your analogies are very tricky, and thus imprecise. Ukrainian and Russian are closely related, English and Gaelic are nor. History, geography and linguistics are very different. But all analogies tend to be misleading.

    If someone can explain why is Ukraine allowed to have a completely upside-down minority policies, please do so. EU has minority treatment standards. If it waves its own standards because ‘Russians’ are involved, it has nothing left and becomes even more of a laughing stock. Double standards simply mean they have no standards.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    An analogy is an illustration. Since it is an illustration by means of some other situation it will necessarily be "imprecise". If you can show how the "imprecise" features of the analogy affect the meaning I pointed out, please do so.

    1. Ukraine is part of EU? If it is or becomes so it must follow whatever standards are a condition of EU membership. We did not start out talking about these things and I am not an expert on the matter, so please describe (a) what these standards are and (b) what the Ukraine must do to become part of EU.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Beckow
    Your analogies are very tricky, and thus imprecise. Ukrainian and Russian are closely related, English and Gaelic are nor. History, geography and linguistics are very different. But all analogies tend to be misleading.

    If someone can explain why is Ukraine allowed to have a completely upside-down minority policies, please do so. EU has minority treatment standards. If it waves its own standards because 'Russians' are involved, it has nothing left and becomes even more of a laughing stock. Double standards simply mean they have no standards.

    An analogy is an illustration. Since it is an illustration by means of some other situation it will necessarily be “imprecise”. If you can show how the “imprecise” features of the analogy affect the meaning I pointed out, please do so.

    1. Ukraine is part of EU? If it is or becomes so it must follow whatever standards are a condition of EU membership. We did not start out talking about these things and I am not an expert on the matter, so please describe (a) what these standards are and (b) what the Ukraine must do to become part of EU.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. AP says:
    @Beckow
    You are back to your manipulative ways. That shows a weakness in your argument, not strength, do you realize that?

    One small thing: 25% or 32% of 40 million is 10 million or more. Some remedial math would help you argue better.

    Some of the collapse is an 'artifact of currency collapse', but not all. Most is simply a drop in wages and a drop in many economic activities. Plus higher utilities, school payments, drugs, imports,... The living standards in Ukraine definitely dropped since 2013. We can argue exactly by how much, but after increasing country debt by almost 50% and getting the EU Association, how come the living standards dropped? Or are we to see a boom in Ukraine any day now? Based on what? Exporting what to whom? Or maybe borrowing more? Do you also realise that Ukrainian exports have dropped to 1/3 of 2013 and now consists of about half agricultural products.

    Crimea incomes, pensions and living standards have gone up anywhere between 50 to 100%. That's why 90% of people in Crimea are happy. Money is money and they are getting more than before. You can ignore it, but then you just become irrelevant.

    You are back to your manipulative ways. That shows a weakness in your argument, not strength, do you realize that?

    You are describing yourself. Perfectly.

    One small thing: 25% or 32% of 40 million is 10 million or more.

    Let me remind you that you wrote:

    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/eurabia-update/#comment-2105383

    “And only if Ukraine resolves its huge issues with their Russian population (tens of millions).

    So, liar, you were discussing Russians, not Russian-speakers. There were were about 8 million Russians, now there are about 4 million Russians.

    Now you are attempting to be manipulative, and to change the discussion to one of Russian-speakers. But you fail even there – 33% of 40 million is about 13 million, not “tens of millions.”

    Some of the collapse is an ‘artifact of currency collapse‘, but not all. Most is simply a drop in wages and a drop in many economic activities. Plus higher utilities, school payments, drugs, imports,… The living standards in Ukraine definitely dropped since 2013

    Sure, but not as much as nominal GDP suggests. They have dropped a little in Russia also, but not enough to suggest that Russia is now poorer than Romania, because its per capita nominal GDP is now about 7% lower than that of Romania.

    Here is Ukraine’s per capita GDP PP:

    https://tradingeconomics.com/ukraine/gdp-per-capita-ppp

    It was $8,340 in 2013, down to $7,465 in 2015, and up to $7,668 in 2016. It will probably be around $7,900 in 2017. Which is almost 95% of its 2013 amount.

    Do you also realise that Ukrainian exports have dropped to 1/3 of 2013 and now consists of about half agricultural products.

    Here you are, lying again. You can’t help yourself.

    Ukrainian exports:

    https://tradingeconomics.com/ukraine/exports

    They are about 2/3 of what they were in 2013.

    Taking into account loss of 10% of the population this decline becomes a little less severe.

    In terms of exports of goods it is about 40% agricultural products; however Ukraine also exports services (IT outsourcing) so that % drops.

    So, just to keep track, Beckow – you lied when you transformed 4 million Russians in Ukraine into tens of millions, and you lied when you transformed Ukraine’s current 2/3 of 2013 export volume into 1/3.

    Read More
    • Agree: Mr. Hack
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. AP, you are doing God’s work in dealing with the 3rd-tier trolls. Bless you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    Thank you. I am a fan of your posts and I consider your high regard for mine as an honor.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. AP says:
    @Polish Perspective
    AP, you are doing God's work in dealing with the 3rd-tier trolls. Bless you.

    Thank you. I am a fan of your posts and I consider your high regard for mine as an honor.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - You can also follow this blog from my website *akarlin.com* and/or subscribe to this *feed*. *Comments policy*.


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Anatoly Karlin Comments via RSS