The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersRussian Reaction Blog
Matt Forney's Takes on Eastern Europe
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
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
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Matt Forney (now at Terror House Mag) is a manosphere/conservative writer who moved to Eastern Europe a couple of years ago. He had excellent coverage of Hungary and Orban’s politics at his Medium blog, which he unfortunately deleted.

However, you can still check out his excellent post 3 Depressing Realities About Living In Eastern Europe at Return of Kings.

Here I am reprinting his comment to my article about migrating to Eastern Europe, which almost qualifies as in article in its own right.


I can offer my two cents having lived in Eastern Europe for the past two years, first primarily in Hungary and now in Georgia (is Georgia Eastern Europe? part of it is geographically in Europe and it has historic connections to Europe through Christianity and the Russian Empire/USSR, but the culture here has a noticeably heavy Turkish/Iranian influence).

Hungary

Hungary is very much a mixed bag. Budapest is the only city of consequence there: the next largest city, Debrecen, has a population of 200,000. I’ve never been there, but I’ve been to Győr and Miskolc, which are slightly smaller, and they’re basically glorified villages. In terms of infrastructure, services, and English fluency, Budapest is the only game in town. I’d consider settling down in Győr if I married a Hungarian girl only because it’s an hour from Budapest by train (and about an hour from Vienna).

Upsides: Budapest is very livable, though not as nice as Polish cities. Good transportation infrastructure, with an extensive metro, trams, trolleybuses, and buses (though if you live in the city center, you can reach everything on foot easily). Good train and bus connections to nearby cities and Budapest’s airport has a lot of direct international flights. No Uber, but they have Taxify. Good nightlife and restaurants. English fluency is more or less universal among people under 45 (the only time I had issues is when I went to the post office). Postal service is reliable, more so than private couriers. Good shopping options: you have European brands like Tesco, Spar etc. Weather is mild: because it’s in the middle of a bunch of mountain ranges, you get warmer winters and cooler summers than surrounding countries, and little snow. Nice infrastructure, at least in the center. Lots of things to do: museums, festivals, etc. Less overt Americanization than other E.U. countries: there are only a handful of American brands (McDonald’s, Burger King, KFC, Pizza Hut, Starbucks, and I think there’s a Subway down by Blaha Lujza ter). Low cost of living for an E.U. country. Easy to get residence.

Downsides: TOURISTS everywhere. Outside of winter, downtown Budapest is clogged with tourists, mainly British stag partiers on $20 Ryanair flights. They’re loud, obnoxious, and impossible to avoid. Constant construction: two summers ago, I was woken up at six am on the dot by crews working on the sewer lines outside my house. Questionable cabling quality in the inner city: I regularly got disconnected from the Internet when I did YouTube streams or downloaded large Steam games. Lazy private couriers: ordering packages from DHL or other services is a massive pain in the ass. A preponderance of German-style “inspection shelf” toilets (if you’ve been to Germany, you know what these monstrosities are like). Also, poz is creeping in fast. The women in Hungary are getting fatter and there are tattoo parlors every other block (including, bizarrely enough, the hybrid tattoo parlor/bar or tattoo parlor/cafe, because nothing beats a vegan panini while some fat guy draws a butterfly on your ass). The Hungarian language is insanely difficult to learn; I’ve had an easier time with Russian and Ukrainian, despite them using an entirely different script. Hungarians themselves are cliquish and difficult to befriend; I’m lucky in that I had a social circle before I moved to Budapest. Gypsies are dangerous and annoying, but they’re also easy to avoid. Big homeless problem, particularly in the city center, though from what I understand the government is finally doing something about them.

Poland

Upsides: Excellent infrastructure, at least in Warsaw, Krakow, Poznań, and Przemyśl. Very fast and modern trains, trams, metro, buses etc. Warsaw’s airport is one of the nicest I’ve ever seen. Better roads than the U.S. English fluency is high in the big cities. Better Internet, postal delivery, private couriers than Hungary. Cleaner. Good selection of European shopping brands. Cost of living is the highest in Eastern Europe but still significantly lower than the U.S. or Western Europe. The Polish population is more distributed so there are a number of smaller cities like Poznań that have pretty good infrastructure and amenities. Poles are still kind of impressed with Americans but that’s fading fast.

Downsides: Poz is more advanced than anywhere else in Eastern Europe; the Poles really really want to be like their American cousins. When I was in Warsaw two months ago, bluehairs and tattoos were everywhere. A lot of overt Catholicism, but also a lot of overt homosexuality. Women are getting fat and obsessing over their careers. Warsaw is an ugly city; most of it was leveled in World War II, so it was rebuilt in an American/Soviet style and is thus very spread out and architecturally unappealing. Krakow is as full of American tourists as Budapest is full of Brits, while Poznań has a lot of German expats. American brands are everywhere: McDonald’s, Subway etc.

Serbia

Avoid. Belgrade is run-down and depressing, with crumbling buildings and dirty streets. Infrastructure is terrible: I took a train from Budapest to Belgrade and it took nine hours (for the record, the two cities are less than three hours apart by car) due to the shoddy rails. More expensive than Budapest (WTF?). I’m told Novi Sad has a better quality of life, but Novi Sad is also very small, so take that for what you will. The food in Serbia is really good: I love ćevapi and pljeskavica. People there are cliquish, though there’s surprisingly little anti-Americanism (aside from a huge installation at the parliament building blaming the Clintons for stealing Kosovo and defending Albanian war criminals); when I was there, there were a lot of people hocking Trump and Putin T-shirts. Women are less pozzed than in Hungary or Poland, but there are a shocking number of lesbians (their prime minister is a lesbian, for crying out loud).

Slovakia

Only been through here briefly a few times, in Banská Bystrica and Donovaly. Seemed like a more conservative and less developed Poland, with crappier roads and less English fluency.

Ukraine

Upsides: really attractive women. Cheap.

Downsides: bad infrastructure, not as bad as Serbia’s (at least Ukrainian trains run on time), but still pretty bad. The desirable cities like Lviv are flooded with tourists, particularly weird sex pests from both the West and the Middle East, so the women are less open to getting hit on by foreigners every day. Water is not drinkable due to heavy metal contamination. Sucky Internet. Food is of questionable quality. Nightlife and restaurants questionable. Cities are unappealing: Lviv has a nice city center, but the place falls apart when you leave it. Mukachevo has a waterfront that the city has allowed to turn into a disgusting swamp. People are constantly trying to rip you off. English fluency is spotty.

Georgia

Upsides: cheaper than Ukraine, but with a quality of life comparable to Hungary and approaching Poland in some respects. People are generally honest (though you need to watch out for Middle Eastern-style haggling culture, which is influential here). Good selection of European brands like Spar and Carrefour. Little in the way of Americanization or poz (I’ve seen maybe six bluehairs in five months, no tattoos). Easier to import goods from the U.S. Easy in general to do things like open bank accounts and start businesses. Good nightlife mainly focused around hipster-type bars. Women are more chaste than any other country I’ve been to. Minimal amount of Western tourists; mostly Russians and Iranians. Good food. Very easy to get residency. Nice infrastructure in the city center. Unlike in other parts of Europe, cashiers bag your groceries for you and you don’t have to pay to use the bathroom.

Downsides: shopping selection is inferior to E.U. countries. English fluency is spotty in Tbilisi and nonexistent elsewhere. Public transportation is lacking: the metro is reliable but only has two lines, there are no trams, and everything shuts down at midnight. Postal service is a sick joke; banks won’t even mail ATM cards to people because it’s that unreliable. People are friendly to foreigners (and super-impressed with Americans) but can be dense in a way that only Ukrainians even begin to approach. The Georgian language is almost impossible to learn: it sounds like a hybrid of Hungarian, Arabic, and Russian, and it has its own unique script on top of that. Outside the city center, the architecture is a combo of typical Soviet drudgery and modern American suburbanization.

 
Hide 141 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. [MORE]

    Matt Forney is perhaps one of the most naturally physically repulsive people I have ever seen

    • Replies: @neutral


    Somebody here once mentioned that having a hexagon face is not the most aesthetically pleasing shape.
    , @whahae


    It‘s like a Der Untermensch poster come to life.
    , @reiner Tor


    You’re probably correct, it took me a lot of effort to wank off to this one; I’m really proud that I finally managed to.
    , @Mr. XYZ


    Hott!
    , @Yevardian


    http://www.reddwarf.co.uk/features/history/evolution-of-krytens-costumes/kryten-7l.jpg
    , @Chuck


    LA CREATURA!
  2. @DFH


    Matt Forney is perhaps one of the most naturally physically repulsive people I have ever seen

    https://everipedia-storage.s3-accelerate.amazonaws.com/ProfilePics/6666610873689505596-1495592793.png

    [MORE]

    Somebody here once mentioned that having a hexagon face is not the most aesthetically pleasing shape.

  3. Well done I like brevity.

  4. @DFH


    Matt Forney is perhaps one of the most naturally physically repulsive people I have ever seen

    https://everipedia-storage.s3-accelerate.amazonaws.com/ProfilePics/6666610873689505596-1495592793.png

    [MORE]

    It‘s like a Der Untermensch poster come to life.

  5. A couple things I forgot to mention in that comment:

    1. The weather in Poland and Ukraine is always terrible: not necessarily a lot of snow, but it’s always cloudy and raining/snowing. Even in the summer, it seems like it’s always gray, wet, and cold there. The only exception is Zakarpattia in southwestern Ukraine, which is part of the Pannonian Basin and has the same weather as Hungary. In Hungary and Georgia, it seems like the sun is always shining, even in the winter. I’ve only been to Serbia in the summer and it was insanely hot there; can’t say for winter.

    2. More of a comment on expatriating in general: you’re never going to fully fit into your new country, even if you learn the language, marry a local, and live there for years. If you’re an American (or a Canadian or a Brit or whatever), you’re going to carry that with you no matter where you go, in ways that you might not expect. I’ve been out of the U.S. for two years and while I’m mostly content with life here, there are aspects of American life I still miss, and I miss the sense of community I had in the various American cities I lived in/grew up in.

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
  6. Water is not drinkable due to heavy metal contamination.

    Is that always true or it just an urban legend? I know that in Moscow the authorities have a website which publishes the results of regular water tests for each city block, but some travel guides still advise tourists to not even shower. Almost all old euro houses everywhere have lead pipes (40% of the uk housing stock does), water companies ensure that their supply is alway slightly alkaline here to prevent leeching.

    I do question the point of moving to a foreign country, shopping in euro hypermarkets and speaking English. If you have a issue with a non Latin script, then the language is beyond you. The nice thing about the Georgian letters are that they look like things so lots of memonics. Armenian ones are a pita, because they look similar to each otger and the capitals are different from the lower-case.

    German toilets are awful, but can be mitigated by starting the flush immediately. All public toilets in Georgia I’ve used have been paid (about ten cents) and mostly squat type with a grumpy attendant who guards the toilet paper. Georgia is pretty much the middle east anyway, if you’re considering it, there’s no reason not to consider Lebanon, Turkey, Armenia, Israel Azerbaijan etc.

    • Replies: @songbird
    I agree completely on german toilets.

    What is really crazy is the profusion of the same idea in America. I can see if you live in a desert area. Maybe, it even makes sense for Germans who live in a densely populated area (though I doubt it). In an area with about 40 inches of rain/year and virtually no industry, it is high-level insanity.
  7. Is that always true or it just an urban legend?

    Every single landlord/landlady I had in Ukraine deliberately told me not to drink the tap water and to get bottled water from the store. My expat friend in Kiev actually has bottled water delivered to his apartment in bulk.

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    What's the deal with water pressure within houses and apartments in Ukraine today (or other places that you've lived in)? As an American, I almost demand a good steady stream of brisk or hot water to start the day. Toilets with low water pressure are a drag too, often necessitating additional work and tools to get the job done. Drip dry is one thing, but drip wet is quite another.

    I prefer drinking water in a bottle here in the states too. Mineral water is the best.

    , @Matra
    Every single landlord/landlady I had in Ukraine deliberately told me not to drink the tap water and to get bottled water from the store.

    That's when the 25 cents 1.5 litre bottle of water at the local shops comes in handy. If Georgia is cheaper than Lviv it must be almost free.
  8. This is near worthless because it is very short on details about banging local hot blondes. Why would anyone move to Eastern Europe without roots if it were not 90% about the sex?

    • Replies: @neutral

    Why would anyone move to Eastern Europe without roots if it were not 90% about the sex?
     
    White flight happens not because people are fleeing a lack of sex, its because of too many non whites. When America and Western Europe no longer have any white places left, expect the number of fleeing people to increase a lot.
  9. @anonymous
    This is near worthless because it is very short on details about banging local hot blondes. Why would anyone move to Eastern Europe without roots if it were not 90% about the sex?

    Why would anyone move to Eastern Europe without roots if it were not 90% about the sex?

    White flight happens not because people are fleeing a lack of sex, its because of too many non whites. When America and Western Europe no longer have any white places left, expect the number of fleeing people to increase a lot.

    • Agree: BlackFlag
  10. @Matt Forney

    Is that always true or it just an urban legend?
     
    Every single landlord/landlady I had in Ukraine deliberately told me not to drink the tap water and to get bottled water from the store. My expat friend in Kiev actually has bottled water delivered to his apartment in bulk.

    What’s the deal with water pressure within houses and apartments in Ukraine today (or other places that you’ve lived in)? As an American, I almost demand a good steady stream of brisk or hot water to start the day. Toilets with low water pressure are a drag too, often necessitating additional work and tools to get the job done. Drip dry is one thing, but drip wet is quite another.

    I prefer drinking water in a bottle here in the states too. Mineral water is the best.

    • Replies: @Hyperborean

    I prefer drinking water in a bottle here in the states too. Mineral water is the best.
     
    That sounds expensive, especially if it's a rich country like USA. I am surprised no one mentioned boiling water instead.
    , @g2k
    Low pressure/flow and insufficient monitoring of ph is likely to be the big contributor to lead in the water in Eastern Europe, if it is even a problem. It's highly unlikely that the water leaves the treatment works contaminated (if it's that bad then why bother pumping it), if any lead is absorbed, it'll be from internal plumbing. I know for a fact that my 1930s English house has a lead pipe from the street to the kitchen sink, so I'll leave it to run before drinking from it, the pressure and flow is very high, so it has no time to pick up contamination. What's more, the uk has a program of orthophosphate dosing to raise the water ph. The Flint scandal happened when they fed slightly acidic water through old lead pipes. If you live in an apartment where water only dribbles out of the tap, then it could've been hanging around for ages in the system absorbing contaminants. The thing is that, none of these factors are unique to eastern europe. Lead pipes are still very common everywhere and taps (fawcetts) have lead added to them to prevent pinholes during casting. The horrific brezhnevkas, plattenbaus etc will likely be lead free, stalinkas likely not. If you live in a hard water area, then your water will be naturally alkaline, so probably ok.
  11. @DFH


    Matt Forney is perhaps one of the most naturally physically repulsive people I have ever seen

    https://everipedia-storage.s3-accelerate.amazonaws.com/ProfilePics/6666610873689505596-1495592793.png

    [MORE]

    You’re probably correct, it took me a lot of effort to wank off to this one; I’m really proud that I finally managed to.

    • LOL: DFH
  12. @Mr. Hack
    What's the deal with water pressure within houses and apartments in Ukraine today (or other places that you've lived in)? As an American, I almost demand a good steady stream of brisk or hot water to start the day. Toilets with low water pressure are a drag too, often necessitating additional work and tools to get the job done. Drip dry is one thing, but drip wet is quite another.

    I prefer drinking water in a bottle here in the states too. Mineral water is the best.

    I prefer drinking water in a bottle here in the states too. Mineral water is the best.

    That sounds expensive, especially if it’s a rich country like USA. I am surprised no one mentioned boiling water instead.

    • Replies: @Hyperborean
    What does tap water taste like in America? I don’t have any impressions of the other regions' water but I remember I found it tasted a lot like chlorine in California on a visit a few years ago.
  13. @Hyperborean

    I prefer drinking water in a bottle here in the states too. Mineral water is the best.
     
    That sounds expensive, especially if it's a rich country like USA. I am surprised no one mentioned boiling water instead.

    What does tap water taste like in America? I don’t have any impressions of the other regions’ water but I remember I found it tasted a lot like chlorine in California on a visit a few years ago.

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    Tap water usually does taste chlorinated, sometimes more sometimes less so. I do use tap water for making coffee or tea, boiling potatoes etc; I buy and use purified water at the supermarket for making soups. It's anywhere from $.25 to $1.00 per gallon. Mineral water is a luxury that I allow myself, as I don't smoke or drink alcoholic beverages much. It costs approximately $1.50 per 1.5 liter. It's a great natural source of calcium and magnesium and tastes great too. I should look into putting a filter on my tap...

    I drink good 'spring water' at work all day long.

    , @Mikhail
    The quality of tap water varies in the US. Many, if not most US government employed health officials and some others, say that most US tap water is either on par, if not healthier, than much of the bottled water.

    In NY, a three liter of Poland Spring can be had for $1.25, with some other brands at that amount selling for $1.00.

    A health issue brought up about bottled water concerns the plastic it comes in. The plastic used in the Poland Spring bottled water is said to be among the healthiest.
    , @AP
    It depends on region. In New England it tastes pretty much like bottled water (they actually bottle it and sell it around the country).

    But in regions without a lot of rainy mountains it tastes chlorinated and bad.
  14. @Hyperborean
    What does tap water taste like in America? I don’t have any impressions of the other regions' water but I remember I found it tasted a lot like chlorine in California on a visit a few years ago.

    Tap water usually does taste chlorinated, sometimes more sometimes less so. I do use tap water for making coffee or tea, boiling potatoes etc; I buy and use purified water at the supermarket for making soups. It’s anywhere from $.25 to $1.00 per gallon. Mineral water is a luxury that I allow myself, as I don’t smoke or drink alcoholic beverages much. It costs approximately $1.50 per 1.5 liter. It’s a great natural source of calcium and magnesium and tastes great too. I should look into putting a filter on my tap…

    I drink good ‘spring water’ at work all day long.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    You don't have a water filter?
    , @Dmitry
    Yes, also where my family are, the fashionable thing for most people is receiving bottled water for drinking (delivered conveniently in the truck) - mainly because of contamination scandals.

    Personally, I often drank the tap water without thinking. But it's probably not a good idea if you are responsible parent with children to let them drink that "water" (even if you filter this chemical cocktail).

  15. @g2k

    Water is not drinkable due to heavy metal contamination.
     
    Is that always true or it just an urban legend? I know that in Moscow the authorities have a website which publishes the results of regular water tests for each city block, but some travel guides still advise tourists to not even shower. Almost all old euro houses everywhere have lead pipes (40% of the uk housing stock does), water companies ensure that their supply is alway slightly alkaline here to prevent leeching.

    I do question the point of moving to a foreign country, shopping in euro hypermarkets and speaking English. If you have a issue with a non Latin script, then the language is beyond you. The nice thing about the Georgian letters are that they look like things so lots of memonics. Armenian ones are a pita, because they look similar to each otger and the capitals are different from the lower-case.

    German toilets are awful, but can be mitigated by starting the flush immediately. All public toilets in Georgia I've used have been paid (about ten cents) and mostly squat type with a grumpy attendant who guards the toilet paper. Georgia is pretty much the middle east anyway, if you're considering it, there's no reason not to consider Lebanon, Turkey, Armenia, Israel Azerbaijan etc.

    I agree completely on german toilets.

    What is really crazy is the profusion of the same idea in America. I can see if you live in a desert area. Maybe, it even makes sense for Germans who live in a densely populated area (though I doubt it). In an area with about 40 inches of rain/year and virtually no industry, it is high-level insanity.

    • Replies: @g2k
    Sorry, it looks as if you don't understand what a German toilet is, you're confusing it with a watersaver. Apologies in advance for crudeness here, but, basically, you crap onto a dry ledge so you can inspect your "business" before the water flushes it forwards then back round a u-bend underneath the ledge. They're filthy, stinky things, that need to be brushed after every use, much worse than a squatter and they're very common in Central Europe.
  16. @Mr. Hack
    Tap water usually does taste chlorinated, sometimes more sometimes less so. I do use tap water for making coffee or tea, boiling potatoes etc; I buy and use purified water at the supermarket for making soups. It's anywhere from $.25 to $1.00 per gallon. Mineral water is a luxury that I allow myself, as I don't smoke or drink alcoholic beverages much. It costs approximately $1.50 per 1.5 liter. It's a great natural source of calcium and magnesium and tastes great too. I should look into putting a filter on my tap...

    I drink good 'spring water' at work all day long.

    You don’t have a water filter?

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    Like I said, I limit my use of tap water to areas where boiling water is used. But I would like to add a filter - any recommendations?
  17. @DFH


    Matt Forney is perhaps one of the most naturally physically repulsive people I have ever seen

    https://everipedia-storage.s3-accelerate.amazonaws.com/ProfilePics/6666610873689505596-1495592793.png

    [MORE]

    Hott!

  18. @Mr. XYZ
    You don't have a water filter?

    Like I said, I limit my use of tap water to areas where boiling water is used. But I would like to add a filter – any recommendations?

    • Replies: @Epigon
    Boiling does nothing to fluorinated, chlorinated water, nor helps with heavy metal contamination.
  19. @Hyperborean
    What does tap water taste like in America? I don’t have any impressions of the other regions' water but I remember I found it tasted a lot like chlorine in California on a visit a few years ago.

    The quality of tap water varies in the US. Many, if not most US government employed health officials and some others, say that most US tap water is either on par, if not healthier, than much of the bottled water.

    In NY, a three liter of Poland Spring can be had for $1.25, with some other brands at that amount selling for $1.00.

    A health issue brought up about bottled water concerns the plastic it comes in. The plastic used in the Poland Spring bottled water is said to be among the healthiest.

  20. @Mr. Hack
    Like I said, I limit my use of tap water to areas where boiling water is used. But I would like to add a filter - any recommendations?

    Boiling does nothing to fluorinated, chlorinated water, nor helps with heavy metal contamination.

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack

    But I would like to add a filter – any recommendations?
     
    Perhaps, something that costs less than 27K & that is produced in the heart of Germany can be recommended? We all know that I'm playing with death...S...O...S...?
    , @The Big Red Scary
    Chlorine evaporates, fluorine and heavy metals do not.
  21. @Epigon
    Boiling does nothing to fluorinated, chlorinated water, nor helps with heavy metal contamination.

    But I would like to add a filter – any recommendations?

    Perhaps, something that costs less than 27K & that is produced in the heart of Germany can be recommended? We all know that I’m playing with death…S…O…S…?

  22. @songbird
    I agree completely on german toilets.

    What is really crazy is the profusion of the same idea in America. I can see if you live in a desert area. Maybe, it even makes sense for Germans who live in a densely populated area (though I doubt it). In an area with about 40 inches of rain/year and virtually no industry, it is high-level insanity.

    Sorry, it looks as if you don’t understand what a German toilet is, you’re confusing it with a watersaver. Apologies in advance for crudeness here, but, basically, you crap onto a dry ledge so you can inspect your “business” before the water flushes it forwards then back round a u-bend underneath the ledge. They’re filthy, stinky things, that need to be brushed after every use, much worse than a squatter and they’re very common in Central Europe.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Squatters are the healthiest toilets so I wouldn't shit on them (ha ha).

    But yes the German ones are disgusting.
    , @AP
    I wondered why they ever did that.
    , @songbird
    Well, that definitely would be worse. I'm frankly surprised such a thing exists. It seems to be at such variance with what seems to be a German obsession with cleanliness. Plus it seems almost medieval, or at least a relic, when so much of Germany was destroyed by war.
  23. You have scratched the surface of the region, mostly correctly (on that I congratulate you). The large eastern European lebensraum is probably the original homeland of most Europeans before they spread in all directions 5-10,000 years ago. It is fertile, has a nice geography, decent weather (I like snow and clouds better than endless sun), lots of water, mountains, wide rivers…

    It is geographically one of the best places to be. It has also stayed as it has always been: European. It has good infrastructure, educated population, is self-sufficient in food.

    Historically it had a problem because it was too open and too central. It was also an early playground for the Western ideologies, incl. supporting the Ottoman expansions (UK, France), and the endless attempts by the West to ‘colonise‘ the area – sometimes peacefully, often not. Two events that ended that were the expulsion of the Ottomans (done by the Habsburgs and Russia), and then the shattering defeat that the West received in WWII in eastern Europe. Germany largely represented the Western ambitions and was quietly encouraged to ‘attack east’, and the defeat was complete. That allowed for a very rapid development post-1945 – for all the problems with commies, the local countries finally consolidated, grew rapidly and experienced peace for 2 generations.

    All real wars are demographic – everything else are just different versions of pillaging. West is in a demographic war and it seems to have given up. To voluntarily or absent-mindedly allow for its own native population to be displaced is beyond idiotic. To my best knowledge it has never happened to an advanced civilisation. Blaming only the elites is pointless – people are responsible for their elites, and most people in the West go along with the destructive policies. This is not done to the Western populations, they are doing it to themselves.

    I am an agnostic on whether the core West can recover. The numbers and trends are not good and there is no way to explain away what we see in Berlin, London or Paris. I am also cautious about how simply leaving and moving to the still-preserved east is a solution. It exacerbates the situation by reinforcing some of the worst trends, it empowers the local comprador class in the east because there is a natural dynamic for the expats and compradors to meet and collaborate. It opens it to the trans-migrating Third Worlders – they feel more comfortable in ‘global’ cities with ex-pats.

    • Agree: WHAT, Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @AP
    I congratulate on writing a post I agree with. When you do that, I admit it.
  24. He fixates on bluehairs way too much. In Eastern Europe it just means ugly slut desperate for attention, no political leanings attached.

  25. @g2k
    Sorry, it looks as if you don't understand what a German toilet is, you're confusing it with a watersaver. Apologies in advance for crudeness here, but, basically, you crap onto a dry ledge so you can inspect your "business" before the water flushes it forwards then back round a u-bend underneath the ledge. They're filthy, stinky things, that need to be brushed after every use, much worse than a squatter and they're very common in Central Europe.

    Squatters are the healthiest toilets so I wouldn’t shit on them (ha ha).

    But yes the German ones are disgusting.

  26. @Mr. Hack
    What's the deal with water pressure within houses and apartments in Ukraine today (or other places that you've lived in)? As an American, I almost demand a good steady stream of brisk or hot water to start the day. Toilets with low water pressure are a drag too, often necessitating additional work and tools to get the job done. Drip dry is one thing, but drip wet is quite another.

    I prefer drinking water in a bottle here in the states too. Mineral water is the best.

    Low pressure/flow and insufficient monitoring of ph is likely to be the big contributor to lead in the water in Eastern Europe, if it is even a problem. It’s highly unlikely that the water leaves the treatment works contaminated (if it’s that bad then why bother pumping it), if any lead is absorbed, it’ll be from internal plumbing. I know for a fact that my 1930s English house has a lead pipe from the street to the kitchen sink, so I’ll leave it to run before drinking from it, the pressure and flow is very high, so it has no time to pick up contamination. What’s more, the uk has a program of orthophosphate dosing to raise the water ph. The Flint scandal happened when they fed slightly acidic water through old lead pipes. If you live in an apartment where water only dribbles out of the tap, then it could’ve been hanging around for ages in the system absorbing contaminants. The thing is that, none of these factors are unique to eastern europe. Lead pipes are still very common everywhere and taps (fawcetts) have lead added to them to prevent pinholes during casting. The horrific brezhnevkas, plattenbaus etc will likely be lead free, stalinkas likely not. If you live in a hard water area, then your water will be naturally alkaline, so probably ok.

  27. Slovakia has the best roads and transport infrastructure in the entire region Matt covered. Not, however, the pass from Bystrica through Donovaly to Ruzomberok. That road is very scenic though.

  28. Regarding these posts on seeking out a ‘based’ country in which to live, a good suggestion is Italy

    For the distinctive reason it is the leading country going post-poz, actively doing poz-reversal

    Not only because of what they’ve done to sudden-stop the migration tides

    But beyond that, they are putting in measures to, e.g., revise the divorce laws so they are less biased against men, restoring some balance … a dose of healthy trad values comes naturally to Italians

    In a matter of months there has been revolutionary cultural change there, the Italian mind-set has shifted … they have passed peak poz and now are at the vanguard of the new Europe

    Whereas Eastern Europe is still partly heading into the poz and maybe needs to go ‘through’ it before it can go beyond it

    Sunny weather, good living, a relaxed atmosphere … Italy merits a look

    • Replies: @Beckow

    Italy is a leading country going post-poz, actively doing poz-reversal
     
    I agree that Italy has - rather unexpectedly - stepped up. It is probably the brightest spot in 2018-19.

    But is is also a test of what can be 'reversed'. To restrict new boats is relatively easy, in its own quiet way both Germany and Austria have done the same. In the big picture a moratorium doesn't do much.

    The question is what is reversible. And we have to remember that due to the chain migration dynamics, the status quo is unsustainable - it will get worse on its own. If Italy (basically Salvini) fails to make a dent in reversing what has already happened, it will be a small blip on the way down. It will also confirm that the global rulers will use any means, media, pope, academia, courts, Antifa, to prevent any restoration of sanity. If Italy fails, who else will try?

  29. Poland is realistically the most conservative state in Eastern Europe because it has the lowest amount of abortions and divorces. There are no other criteria as to measure conservatism. If your country has a liberal abortion law, then it’s not conservative. Simple

    • Agree: AP
    • Replies: @WHAT
    Infinite sodomites without abortions, ok.
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    Cuckservative nonsense.

    In that case, our escapist traditionalist would be well served going to Brazil or most Central American countries - twice lower divorce rate than Poland, even stricter ban on abortions.

    Or, until very recently (before it decriminalized abortion), to Ireland. Again, a much lower divorce rate (15%) relative to Poland (33%). Even if ruled by a gay Indian who wants to invite in 1 million migrants by 2040.

    Of course, Ireland is also one of the most rapidly liberalizing countries in Europe. Trendlines matter, too.
    , @Svigor
    This works for homogeneous countries, but breaks down in multiracial ones. Here in America blacks use abortion as contraception, and if we banned abortion their birthrate would run away from ours.

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/01/21/womens-march-teen-boasts-about-her-multiple-abortions-i-dont-give-a-fk/

    That thing aborting twice is a much better outcome than it giving birth twice. I'm very grateful it had a choice.

    There's really no explaining this to the idiots like Glen Beck.

  30. Matt Forney’s concerns:

    ” I didn’t expect Europe to be full of 24-hour Walmarts where I could wander in at three in the morning in my boxers to do my grocery shopping. However, Europe is missing a lot of the comforts that Americans take for granted. For example, Sunday shopping is severely restricted in Hungary, with most stores closed. If you’re out of food or anything else and the 24/7 convenience stores don’t carry it, you’re shit out of luck until Monday morning.”

    “Similarly, Tinder, once one of the easiest ways to meet women in Eastern Europe, has significantly dropped off in quality over the past year. In Budapest, women on Tinder have become increasingly flaky, refusing to answer messages and using the app to gain unearned attention from men. Smartphone addiction and online attention whoring have also been on the increase in Eastern Europe, meaning that meeting girls is only going to get more difficult as time wears on (though the further east you go, the slower these trends are occurring).”

    Does Budapest or for that matter any other country need American losers like Matt Forney?

    • LOL: Dmitry
    • Replies: @DFH
    The ugly American in every possible sense. I feel the Phillipines would be more his speed, but I guess he already tried that once.

    https://i2.wp.com/thisistrouble.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Do-the-Philippines.jpg?resize=683%2C1024&ssl=1

    If you want to read a very funny account (by the man himself) of Matt Forney's attempts to seduce a literal coke whore more than a decade older than him, I would recommend this however.

    https://archive.fo/2q628
    , @Hyperborean

    For example, not only do you have to pay for plastic bags when you go shopping, you have to bag your own groceries like a slave. You have to pay to use a shopping cart (though you get refunded when you’re done). You have to pay for ketchup when you go to McDonald’s.

    [...]

    I definitely don’t like having to bag groceries, because that’s what retail workers are for (and also because I forget to bring a bag when I go shopping half the time).
     
    Oh, the humanity!
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    Those are all extremely legitimate considerations.

    And one, going by the description of Budapest, in which Moscow compares very favorably on both counts.
  31. @utu
    Matt Forney's concerns:

    " I didn’t expect Europe to be full of 24-hour Walmarts where I could wander in at three in the morning in my boxers to do my grocery shopping. However, Europe is missing a lot of the comforts that Americans take for granted. For example, Sunday shopping is severely restricted in Hungary, with most stores closed. If you’re out of food or anything else and the 24/7 convenience stores don’t carry it, you’re shit out of luck until Monday morning."

    "Similarly, Tinder, once one of the easiest ways to meet women in Eastern Europe, has significantly dropped off in quality over the past year. In Budapest, women on Tinder have become increasingly flaky, refusing to answer messages and using the app to gain unearned attention from men. Smartphone addiction and online attention whoring have also been on the increase in Eastern Europe, meaning that meeting girls is only going to get more difficult as time wears on (though the further east you go, the slower these trends are occurring)."

    Does Budapest or for that matter any other country need American losers like Matt Forney?

    The ugly American in every possible sense. I feel the Phillipines would be more his speed, but I guess he already tried that once.

    https://i2.wp.com/thisistrouble.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Do-the-Philippines.jpg?resize=683%2C1024&ssl=1

    If you want to read a very funny account (by the man himself) of Matt Forney’s attempts to seduce a literal coke whore more than a decade older than him, I would recommend this however.

    https://archive.fo/2q628

    • Agree: utu
    • LOL: Yevardian
    • Replies: @Yevardian
    Neil Strauss is still probably the bottom of the barrel when it came to unintentional 'PUA' comedy, but this piece is pretty close. Still doesn't quite beat Strauss jacking off his flaccid member in his friend's bathtub in an attempt to seduce two teenage twins when he was invited over to their place for a party.
  32. @Hyperborean
    What does tap water taste like in America? I don’t have any impressions of the other regions' water but I remember I found it tasted a lot like chlorine in California on a visit a few years ago.

    It depends on region. In New England it tastes pretty much like bottled water (they actually bottle it and sell it around the country).

    But in regions without a lot of rainy mountains it tastes chlorinated and bad.

    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    AP:

    New York City water is absolutely topnotch. It comes from upstate's Catskill Region some hundreds of miles away. And all the accompanying magnificent infrastructure was designed and carried out under a supposedly corrupt Tammany Hall which was run by the Irish.
  33. @g2k
    Sorry, it looks as if you don't understand what a German toilet is, you're confusing it with a watersaver. Apologies in advance for crudeness here, but, basically, you crap onto a dry ledge so you can inspect your "business" before the water flushes it forwards then back round a u-bend underneath the ledge. They're filthy, stinky things, that need to be brushed after every use, much worse than a squatter and they're very common in Central Europe.

    I wondered why they ever did that.

    • Replies: @German_reader
    Supposedly so you can inspect your stool for worms or signs of disease.
    Or maybe Germans are just fascinated with shit and like looking at it (German swear words and insults mostly have to do with faeces after all).
    Those "German" toilets are increasingly going out of fashion in Germany as well though, most new toilets aren't like that anymore.
  34. @Brabantian
    Regarding these posts on seeking out a 'based' country in which to live, a good suggestion is Italy

    For the distinctive reason it is the leading country going post-poz, actively doing poz-reversal

    Not only because of what they've done to sudden-stop the migration tides

    But beyond that, they are putting in measures to, e.g., revise the divorce laws so they are less biased against men, restoring some balance ... a dose of healthy trad values comes naturally to Italians

    In a matter of months there has been revolutionary cultural change there, the Italian mind-set has shifted ... they have passed peak poz and now are at the vanguard of the new Europe

    Whereas Eastern Europe is still partly heading into the poz and maybe needs to go 'through' it before it can go beyond it

    Sunny weather, good living, a relaxed atmosphere ... Italy merits a look

    Italy is a leading country going post-poz, actively doing poz-reversal

    I agree that Italy has – rather unexpectedly – stepped up. It is probably the brightest spot in 2018-19.

    But is is also a test of what can be ‘reversed‘. To restrict new boats is relatively easy, in its own quiet way both Germany and Austria have done the same. In the big picture a moratorium doesn’t do much.

    The question is what is reversible. And we have to remember that due to the chain migration dynamics, the status quo is unsustainable – it will get worse on its own. If Italy (basically Salvini) fails to make a dent in reversing what has already happened, it will be a small blip on the way down. It will also confirm that the global rulers will use any means, media, pope, academia, courts, Antifa, to prevent any restoration of sanity. If Italy fails, who else will try?

  35. @Turgot
    Poland is realistically the most conservative state in Eastern Europe because it has the lowest amount of abortions and divorces. There are no other criteria as to measure conservatism. If your country has a liberal abortion law, then it's not conservative. Simple

    Infinite sodomites without abortions, ok.

    • Replies: @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    A sodomite can be redeemed.

    An aborted fetus cannot.
  36. @AP
    I wondered why they ever did that.

    Supposedly so you can inspect your stool for worms or signs of disease.
    Or maybe Germans are just fascinated with shit and like looking at it (German swear words and insults mostly have to do with faeces after all).
    Those “German” toilets are increasingly going out of fashion in Germany as well though, most new toilets aren’t like that anymore.

    • Replies: @utu
    Mozart and scatology
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozart_and_scatology

    Personally I would not make a big deal out of it. And I do not think there is anything special about it on account of Germans. People were using chamber pots and everybody was looking at and sniffing urine and stool whether in France, England or Germany.
  37. @Mr. Hack
    Tap water usually does taste chlorinated, sometimes more sometimes less so. I do use tap water for making coffee or tea, boiling potatoes etc; I buy and use purified water at the supermarket for making soups. It's anywhere from $.25 to $1.00 per gallon. Mineral water is a luxury that I allow myself, as I don't smoke or drink alcoholic beverages much. It costs approximately $1.50 per 1.5 liter. It's a great natural source of calcium and magnesium and tastes great too. I should look into putting a filter on my tap...

    I drink good 'spring water' at work all day long.

    Yes, also where my family are, the fashionable thing for most people is receiving bottled water for drinking (delivered conveniently in the truck) – mainly because of contamination scandals.

    Personally, I often drank the tap water without thinking. But it’s probably not a good idea if you are responsible parent with children to let them drink that “water” (even if you filter this chemical cocktail).

  38. @German_reader
    Supposedly so you can inspect your stool for worms or signs of disease.
    Or maybe Germans are just fascinated with shit and like looking at it (German swear words and insults mostly have to do with faeces after all).
    Those "German" toilets are increasingly going out of fashion in Germany as well though, most new toilets aren't like that anymore.

    Mozart and scatology
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozart_and_scatology

    Personally I would not make a big deal out of it. And I do not think there is anything special about it on account of Germans. People were using chamber pots and everybody was looking at and sniffing urine and stool whether in France, England or Germany.

  39. @AP
    It depends on region. In New England it tastes pretty much like bottled water (they actually bottle it and sell it around the country).

    But in regions without a lot of rainy mountains it tastes chlorinated and bad.

    AP:

    New York City water is absolutely topnotch. It comes from upstate’s Catskill Region some hundreds of miles away. And all the accompanying magnificent infrastructure was designed and carried out under a supposedly corrupt Tammany Hall which was run by the Irish.

    • Agree: AP
    • Replies: @utu
    Ask the question how much money was stolen by cronies when building the aqueduct.
  40. @Beckow
    You have scratched the surface of the region, mostly correctly (on that I congratulate you). The large eastern European lebensraum is probably the original homeland of most Europeans before they spread in all directions 5-10,000 years ago. It is fertile, has a nice geography, decent weather (I like snow and clouds better than endless sun), lots of water, mountains, wide rivers...

    It is geographically one of the best places to be. It has also stayed as it has always been: European. It has good infrastructure, educated population, is self-sufficient in food.

    Historically it had a problem because it was too open and too central. It was also an early playground for the Western ideologies, incl. supporting the Ottoman expansions (UK, France), and the endless attempts by the West to 'colonise' the area - sometimes peacefully, often not. Two events that ended that were the expulsion of the Ottomans (done by the Habsburgs and Russia), and then the shattering defeat that the West received in WWII in eastern Europe. Germany largely represented the Western ambitions and was quietly encouraged to 'attack east', and the defeat was complete. That allowed for a very rapid development post-1945 - for all the problems with commies, the local countries finally consolidated, grew rapidly and experienced peace for 2 generations.

    All real wars are demographic - everything else are just different versions of pillaging. West is in a demographic war and it seems to have given up. To voluntarily or absent-mindedly allow for its own native population to be displaced is beyond idiotic. To my best knowledge it has never happened to an advanced civilisation. Blaming only the elites is pointless - people are responsible for their elites, and most people in the West go along with the destructive policies. This is not done to the Western populations, they are doing it to themselves.

    I am an agnostic on whether the core West can recover. The numbers and trends are not good and there is no way to explain away what we see in Berlin, London or Paris. I am also cautious about how simply leaving and moving to the still-preserved east is a solution. It exacerbates the situation by reinforcing some of the worst trends, it empowers the local comprador class in the east because there is a natural dynamic for the expats and compradors to meet and collaborate. It opens it to the trans-migrating Third Worlders - they feel more comfortable in 'global' cities with ex-pats.

    I congratulate on writing a post I agree with. When you do that, I admit it.

  41. @WHAT
    Infinite sodomites without abortions, ok.

    A sodomite can be redeemed.

    An aborted fetus cannot.

    • Replies: @silviosilver

    An aborted fetus cannot.
     
    So what? It was a never a human being, so it doesn't matter.

    Since blacks abort at significantly higher rates than whites, abortion has been good for America.

    I wish there was much more abortion, particularly among the lower classes.

    Conservatives are simply too stupid and besotted with christcuckery to adopt such attitudes.
  42. @Dan Hayes
    AP:

    New York City water is absolutely topnotch. It comes from upstate's Catskill Region some hundreds of miles away. And all the accompanying magnificent infrastructure was designed and carried out under a supposedly corrupt Tammany Hall which was run by the Irish.

    Ask the question how much money was stolen by cronies when building the aqueduct.

    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    utu:

    More important than the question of how much the "cronies" stole was what was built. And any Tammany Hall transgressions were small potatoes in comparison to such contemporary lootings as Boston's "Big Dig".
  43. @Matt Forney

    Is that always true or it just an urban legend?
     
    Every single landlord/landlady I had in Ukraine deliberately told me not to drink the tap water and to get bottled water from the store. My expat friend in Kiev actually has bottled water delivered to his apartment in bulk.

    Every single landlord/landlady I had in Ukraine deliberately told me not to drink the tap water and to get bottled water from the store.

    That’s when the 25 cents 1.5 litre bottle of water at the local shops comes in handy. If Georgia is cheaper than Lviv it must be almost free.

  44. ‘The perfect enemy’: How two Jewish American political consultants ‘started a deliberate plot to smear George Soros to help Hungarian PM and helped to create the world’s largest anti-Semitic conspiracy theory’
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6616827/How-two-Jewish-American-political-consultants-started-deliberate-plot-smear-George-Soros.html

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    At least in Hungary Soros has been a hated figure (and a stuff of conspiracy theories) for decades, the consultants exaggerated their own role in it.
  45. The Sunday shopping restriction was Orbán’s idea, and he had to reverse it. So now there is Sunday shopping.

  46. @utu
    'The perfect enemy': How two Jewish American political consultants 'started a deliberate plot to smear George Soros to help Hungarian PM and helped to create the world's largest anti-Semitic conspiracy theory'
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6616827/How-two-Jewish-American-political-consultants-started-deliberate-plot-smear-George-Soros.html

    At least in Hungary Soros has been a hated figure (and a stuff of conspiracy theories) for decades, the consultants exaggerated their own role in it.

    • Replies: @utu
    Sure. No question about that people in Eastern Europe began to notice things and begin to wonder about the role of Soros and his 'cultural initiatives' in the region. That he was Jewish was just a cherry on top and they did not need two Jews to tell them it. This was not the reason I posted it.

    The important part of the article is that the two guys were Netanyahu's men, that Netanyahu was supporting and behind Orban from the very beginning. The question is whether would we have Orban and similar minded politicians in Europe and the US if it was not for the shenanigans of deep right wing Israel politics in combination with the shenanigans of deep right wing American politics to weaken the EU and Germany in particular? My pessimistic answer is no: whatever goes on the left or on the right is not likely to happen w/o an approval of one of the two Jewish factions.

    One theory explaining Orban's success is that the post-communist nomenclature in Hungary unlike in the Czechoslovakia or Poland did not get sufficiently incorporated in the new elite depended on the West, that the West outplayed them so they decided to back Orban as he could promulgate the reshuffling of the elite to their liking. Likudniks and CIA extended helping hand in the process. In Poland or Czechoslovakia nothing that radical as Orban could happen as the security apparatus new and old were in synch with the EU. In Poland an attempt at breaking this synch began in 2015 but it is half-assed compared to Hungary.
  47. Fertility rates in Eastern Europe are still far too low. Quite frankly if there is no drastic increase in the rates, they are doomed as well.

    For 2017:

    Russia: 1.62 (Ethnic Russian TFR is lower)
    Ukraine: 1.38
    Poland: 1.46
    Romania: 1.64 in 2016
    Czech Republic: 1.67
    Hungary: 1.50
    Slovakia: 1.52

    Not exactly great numbers. These numbers have also picked up since 2010, so the situation is going to worse pretty quickly in terms of absolute births. Hungary, Poland, Ukraine and Russia all have stagnant or falling fertility again.

    These numbers are still much better than southern (1.3) or western (1.7 TOTAL – 1.4 native and 3 foreigner). But it’s not enough.

  48. @utu
    Matt Forney's concerns:

    " I didn’t expect Europe to be full of 24-hour Walmarts where I could wander in at three in the morning in my boxers to do my grocery shopping. However, Europe is missing a lot of the comforts that Americans take for granted. For example, Sunday shopping is severely restricted in Hungary, with most stores closed. If you’re out of food or anything else and the 24/7 convenience stores don’t carry it, you’re shit out of luck until Monday morning."

    "Similarly, Tinder, once one of the easiest ways to meet women in Eastern Europe, has significantly dropped off in quality over the past year. In Budapest, women on Tinder have become increasingly flaky, refusing to answer messages and using the app to gain unearned attention from men. Smartphone addiction and online attention whoring have also been on the increase in Eastern Europe, meaning that meeting girls is only going to get more difficult as time wears on (though the further east you go, the slower these trends are occurring)."

    Does Budapest or for that matter any other country need American losers like Matt Forney?

    For example, not only do you have to pay for plastic bags when you go shopping, you have to bag your own groceries like a slave. You have to pay to use a shopping cart (though you get refunded when you’re done). You have to pay for ketchup when you go to McDonald’s.

    […]

    I definitely don’t like having to bag groceries, because that’s what retail workers are for (and also because I forget to bring a bag when I go shopping half the time).

    Oh, the humanity!

  49. The “German” toilet (it was the default in Hungary for decades, too) has a number of advantages. When having an infection, you can give a sample to the doctor more easily. And your shit doesn’t splash into the water, making your ass wet with water of questionable hygiene. This latter was the reason I never clearly preferred those modern toilets.

    And yes, probably squatting toilets would be the best.

    • Replies: @German_reader

    And yes, probably squatting toilets would be the best.
     
    Why, because your bowels aren't constricted when squatting?
    Sounds difficult though to find the right balance, when you're not used to it or just clumsy.
  50. @utu
    Ask the question how much money was stolen by cronies when building the aqueduct.

    utu:

    More important than the question of how much the “cronies” stole was what was built. And any Tammany Hall transgressions were small potatoes in comparison to such contemporary lootings as Boston’s “Big Dig”.

    • Replies: @utu
    I have responded to you only because of this part you wrote:

    carried out under a supposedly corrupt Tammany Hall
     
    That they built the aqueduct is not a proof they were not corrupt as that Pharaohs built pyramids which are still standing is not a proof there was no slavery there. That they were effective on top of the corruption may speak more about America than the Irish who were involved.
  51. @reiner Tor
    The “German” toilet (it was the default in Hungary for decades, too) has a number of advantages. When having an infection, you can give a sample to the doctor more easily. And your shit doesn’t splash into the water, making your ass wet with water of questionable hygiene. This latter was the reason I never clearly preferred those modern toilets.

    And yes, probably squatting toilets would be the best.

    And yes, probably squatting toilets would be the best.

    Why, because your bowels aren’t constricted when squatting?
    Sounds difficult though to find the right balance, when you’re not used to it or just clumsy.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    I’m not used to it either, but obviously it’s the natural position, so it’d be better if we all used it since childhood.

    Many people cannot even properly squat at all, much less for several minutes, so the infrastructure cannot really be moved there.
    , @Anonymous
    Hemorrhoids. Sit down toilets, along with modern sedentary lifestyles, seem to be the major cause of them. There's a popular product called the Squatty Potty, which is basically just a foot stool, that reproduces the squatting position. Although I don't think it reproduces it completely, since in a real squat, the weight is on your lower legs and feet, whereas with the Squatty Potty, the weight is still on your backside.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbYWhdLO43Q
  52. As an aside, I wonder how the anglosphere is as a potential “last refuge” for whites.

    I know this is surprising, but in Ontario, Canada, whites seem to actually have a higher fertility rate than non-whites (based on my own calculations). The immigrants come to horrendously expensive Toronto, and don’t really procreate. White rural areas have higher fertility.

    From my own TFR calculations for 2016:

    Health Regions above 85% White -TFR of 1.59 – 33,000 total births
    Health Regions between 85% and 51% White – TFR of 1.42 – 45,000 total births
    Health Regions below 51% white – TFR of 1.32 – 55,000 total births

    A few words: 9% of the 85%+ white areas were from University towns – skewing the TFR far lower than it really is. So we can conservatively estimate a TFR of 1.62 for white, rural Ontario. We have a shit tonne of land, and non-whites are scared of leaving Toronto (due to weather and people). It is essentially a containment zone.

    They are still flooding in far faster than a measly TFR of 1.6 can handle (we are being swamped by Hindoos and Chinese and Muslims) – BUT it’s still nice to see. The 2nd generation urban kids feel like they’re in a foreign country when they step out of the Greater Toronto Area. This is actually a GOOD thing.

    • Replies: @melanf

    As an aside, I wonder how the anglosphere is as a potential “last refuge” for whites.
    I know this is surprising, but in Ontario, Canada, whites seem to actually have a higher fertility rate than non-whites (based on my own calculations).
     
    This is a universal phenomenon. Here is the fertility rate for some >90% Russian rural areas:

    Irkutsk region, Ust-UDI district-2,96
    TRANS-Baikal territory, gazimuro-Zavodsky district-2,88
    Irkutsk region, Kachugsky district-2,67
    Perm Krai, 'shesosnovskoe district - 2,60
    Kostroma oblast, Pyschyug district to - 2.51
    Permskiy Kray, chastinskiy rayon - 2,46
    Vologda region, Babushkinsky district-2,44

    etc., etc.

    (for comparison, Algeria's fertility rate 2.6 Kenya's fertility rate 3.8)

    In Siberia there is Der Deutsche Nationalrayon Asowo (German national district Asowo) where the coefficient of natural growth in 2016 is + 2.6 (in Germany, coef. negative = - 2.44). Although I do not know what gains from ethnic Germans

    http://mgpr.omskportal.ru/ru/government/News/2018/06/08/1528424748852/PageContent/0/image/%D1%84%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C.jpg

    In the Altai Nationalkreis Halbstadt (German national district Halbstadt In the Altai )- natural increase in 2011 around +5 and the coefficient of birth rate of about 2.6

    https://a.radikal.ru/a16/1901/71/3ba876a4cbda.jpg

    Probably a similar phenomenon (high rural white fertility) can be found almost everywhere in "white" countries

  53. @g2k
    Sorry, it looks as if you don't understand what a German toilet is, you're confusing it with a watersaver. Apologies in advance for crudeness here, but, basically, you crap onto a dry ledge so you can inspect your "business" before the water flushes it forwards then back round a u-bend underneath the ledge. They're filthy, stinky things, that need to be brushed after every use, much worse than a squatter and they're very common in Central Europe.

    Well, that definitely would be worse. I’m frankly surprised such a thing exists. It seems to be at such variance with what seems to be a German obsession with cleanliness. Plus it seems almost medieval, or at least a relic, when so much of Germany was destroyed by war.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    I think it’s cleaner (but stinkier) than the one you are used to. Your ass doesn’t get from the splash, because it doesn’t drop into water.
  54. @reiner Tor
    At least in Hungary Soros has been a hated figure (and a stuff of conspiracy theories) for decades, the consultants exaggerated their own role in it.

    Sure. No question about that people in Eastern Europe began to notice things and begin to wonder about the role of Soros and his ‘cultural initiatives’ in the region. That he was Jewish was just a cherry on top and they did not need two Jews to tell them it. This was not the reason I posted it.

    The important part of the article is that the two guys were Netanyahu’s men, that Netanyahu was supporting and behind Orban from the very beginning. The question is whether would we have Orban and similar minded politicians in Europe and the US if it was not for the shenanigans of deep right wing Israel politics in combination with the shenanigans of deep right wing American politics to weaken the EU and Germany in particular? My pessimistic answer is no: whatever goes on the left or on the right is not likely to happen w/o an approval of one of the two Jewish factions.

    One theory explaining Orban’s success is that the post-communist nomenclature in Hungary unlike in the Czechoslovakia or Poland did not get sufficiently incorporated in the new elite depended on the West, that the West outplayed them so they decided to back Orban as he could promulgate the reshuffling of the elite to their liking. Likudniks and CIA extended helping hand in the process. In Poland or Czechoslovakia nothing that radical as Orban could happen as the security apparatus new and old were in synch with the EU. In Poland an attempt at breaking this synch began in 2015 but it is half-assed compared to Hungary.

    • Agree: Epigon
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    The nomenclature was banned from holding office in Czechoslovakia, but not in Hungary. They got integrated into the consensus. Orbán needed to make amends with some of them, but the entrenched interests were mostly in other parties, even on the right his party was too young. (Fidesz was originally an acronym of “Young Democrats’ Alliance,” party members were on average below 30 around 1990, when it was still a liberal party.)

    His relations with Jews are very simple. He understands that he needs to be on good terms with some Jews. So he makes sure to pay those Jews who are willing to work for him.
  55. @German_reader

    And yes, probably squatting toilets would be the best.
     
    Why, because your bowels aren't constricted when squatting?
    Sounds difficult though to find the right balance, when you're not used to it or just clumsy.

    I’m not used to it either, but obviously it’s the natural position, so it’d be better if we all used it since childhood.

    Many people cannot even properly squat at all, much less for several minutes, so the infrastructure cannot really be moved there.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    You still come across them in provincial Russia, though they are rapidly disappearing under the onslaught of Westernization.

    I think the libs/SWPLs associate them with Asiaticness.
    , @ThreeCranes
    Even more natural than squatting is supporting your weight with your arms, like you're doing a dip on bars. Why this works so well probably goes back to our time in the trees. Of course few bathrooms are set up for these kind of calisthenics.
  56. @songbird
    Well, that definitely would be worse. I'm frankly surprised such a thing exists. It seems to be at such variance with what seems to be a German obsession with cleanliness. Plus it seems almost medieval, or at least a relic, when so much of Germany was destroyed by war.

    I think it’s cleaner (but stinkier) than the one you are used to. Your ass doesn’t get from the splash, because it doesn’t drop into water.

  57. @Dan Hayes
    utu:

    More important than the question of how much the "cronies" stole was what was built. And any Tammany Hall transgressions were small potatoes in comparison to such contemporary lootings as Boston's "Big Dig".

    I have responded to you only because of this part you wrote:

    carried out under a supposedly corrupt Tammany Hall

    That they built the aqueduct is not a proof they were not corrupt as that Pharaohs built pyramids which are still standing is not a proof there was no slavery there. That they were effective on top of the corruption may speak more about America than the Irish who were involved.

    • Disagree: Dan Hayes
    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    utu:

    supposedly -

    "according to what is generally assumed or believed (often used to indicate that the speaker doubts the truth of the statement)"

    Oxford living Dictionary
  58. @utu
    Sure. No question about that people in Eastern Europe began to notice things and begin to wonder about the role of Soros and his 'cultural initiatives' in the region. That he was Jewish was just a cherry on top and they did not need two Jews to tell them it. This was not the reason I posted it.

    The important part of the article is that the two guys were Netanyahu's men, that Netanyahu was supporting and behind Orban from the very beginning. The question is whether would we have Orban and similar minded politicians in Europe and the US if it was not for the shenanigans of deep right wing Israel politics in combination with the shenanigans of deep right wing American politics to weaken the EU and Germany in particular? My pessimistic answer is no: whatever goes on the left or on the right is not likely to happen w/o an approval of one of the two Jewish factions.

    One theory explaining Orban's success is that the post-communist nomenclature in Hungary unlike in the Czechoslovakia or Poland did not get sufficiently incorporated in the new elite depended on the West, that the West outplayed them so they decided to back Orban as he could promulgate the reshuffling of the elite to their liking. Likudniks and CIA extended helping hand in the process. In Poland or Czechoslovakia nothing that radical as Orban could happen as the security apparatus new and old were in synch with the EU. In Poland an attempt at breaking this synch began in 2015 but it is half-assed compared to Hungary.

    The nomenclature was banned from holding office in Czechoslovakia, but not in Hungary. They got integrated into the consensus. Orbán needed to make amends with some of them, but the entrenched interests were mostly in other parties, even on the right his party was too young. (Fidesz was originally an acronym of “Young Democrats’ Alliance,” party members were on average below 30 around 1990, when it was still a liberal party.)

    His relations with Jews are very simple. He understands that he needs to be on good terms with some Jews. So he makes sure to pay those Jews who are willing to work for him.

    • Replies: @silviosilver

    The nomenclature was banned from holding office in Czechoslovakia, but not in Hungary.
     
    Tip: when it refers to the ruling class in communist countries, it's customary to render that term nomenklatura in English.
  59. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    A sodomite can be redeemed.

    An aborted fetus cannot.

    An aborted fetus cannot.

    So what? It was a never a human being, so it doesn’t matter.

    Since blacks abort at significantly higher rates than whites, abortion has been good for America.

    I wish there was much more abortion, particularly among the lower classes.

    Conservatives are simply too stupid and besotted with christcuckery to adopt such attitudes.

    • Replies: @Hyperborean

    So what? It was a never a human being, so it doesn’t matter.

    Since blacks abort at significantly higher rates than whites, abortion has been good for America.

    I wish there was much more abortion, particularly among the lower classes.

    Conservatives are simply too stupid and besotted with christcuckery to adopt such attitudes.
     

    I think we can still perceive abortion as murder even while considering it a lesser sin done for a greater good.

    But the easier solution would just be to mass sterilise undesirables in the first place.

    As regards to 'christcuckery', American eugenics held a significant influence upon 19th century and early 20th century New England Progressives.

  60. @reiner Tor
    The nomenclature was banned from holding office in Czechoslovakia, but not in Hungary. They got integrated into the consensus. Orbán needed to make amends with some of them, but the entrenched interests were mostly in other parties, even on the right his party was too young. (Fidesz was originally an acronym of “Young Democrats’ Alliance,” party members were on average below 30 around 1990, when it was still a liberal party.)

    His relations with Jews are very simple. He understands that he needs to be on good terms with some Jews. So he makes sure to pay those Jews who are willing to work for him.

    The nomenclature was banned from holding office in Czechoslovakia, but not in Hungary.

    Tip: when it refers to the ruling class in communist countries, it’s customary to render that term nomenklatura in English.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Okay, thanks, I just picked up utu’s usage.
  61. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @German_reader

    And yes, probably squatting toilets would be the best.
     
    Why, because your bowels aren't constricted when squatting?
    Sounds difficult though to find the right balance, when you're not used to it or just clumsy.

    Hemorrhoids. Sit down toilets, along with modern sedentary lifestyles, seem to be the major cause of them. There’s a popular product called the Squatty Potty, which is basically just a foot stool, that reproduces the squatting position. Although I don’t think it reproduces it completely, since in a real squat, the weight is on your lower legs and feet, whereas with the Squatty Potty, the weight is still on your backside.

  62. @DFH


    Matt Forney is perhaps one of the most naturally physically repulsive people I have ever seen

    https://everipedia-storage.s3-accelerate.amazonaws.com/ProfilePics/6666610873689505596-1495592793.png

    [MORE]

  63. @DFH
    The ugly American in every possible sense. I feel the Phillipines would be more his speed, but I guess he already tried that once.

    https://i2.wp.com/thisistrouble.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Do-the-Philippines.jpg?resize=683%2C1024&ssl=1

    If you want to read a very funny account (by the man himself) of Matt Forney's attempts to seduce a literal coke whore more than a decade older than him, I would recommend this however.

    https://archive.fo/2q628

    Neil Strauss is still probably the bottom of the barrel when it came to unintentional ‘PUA’ comedy, but this piece is pretty close. Still doesn’t quite beat Strauss jacking off his flaccid member in his friend’s bathtub in an attempt to seduce two teenage twins when he was invited over to their place for a party.

  64. @silviosilver

    An aborted fetus cannot.
     
    So what? It was a never a human being, so it doesn't matter.

    Since blacks abort at significantly higher rates than whites, abortion has been good for America.

    I wish there was much more abortion, particularly among the lower classes.

    Conservatives are simply too stupid and besotted with christcuckery to adopt such attitudes.

    So what? It was a never a human being, so it doesn’t matter.

    Since blacks abort at significantly higher rates than whites, abortion has been good for America.

    I wish there was much more abortion, particularly among the lower classes.

    Conservatives are simply too stupid and besotted with christcuckery to adopt such attitudes.

    I think we can still perceive abortion as murder even while considering it a lesser sin done for a greater good.

    But the easier solution would just be to mass sterilise undesirables in the first place.

    As regards to ‘christcuckery’, American eugenics held a significant influence upon 19th century and early 20th century New England Progressives.

    • Replies: @silviosilver

    I think we can still perceive abortion as murder even while considering it a lesser sin done for a greater good.
     
    Well, look, prepare to be shocked: if I were boss, I'd even permit infanticide up to, say, the age of 12 months or somewhere there. Now, that, even I would be prepared to describe as "murder." I wouldn't punish any parent for it, and I wouldn't care a whit for that baby's passing, but I'd agree that's a human and that killing it is murder.

    But a fetus? There's no way I can view that as a human, and its destruction doesn't it even begin to register as "murder" to me.

    To me, it's not even a "sin," much less a "lesser sin."

    As regards to ‘christcuckery’, American eugenics held a significant influence upon 19th century and early 20th century New England Progressives.
     
    What's your point?

    Look, I don't like to gratuitously insult Christianity. I still have something of an emotional attachment to it, even though I don't take any of its teachings seriously at all. I could live without it completely, but it's a part of my heritage I enjoy maintaining a distant link to. Most people seem to require religion to play a greater role in their lives than that, and I'm mostly happy for it do so. For the average European, Christianity is pretty much the only viable religious option, so I try to go easy on it. But fuck man, that's not easy to do when true-believer Christian assholes inject their religious opinions into political discussions. It's then that the excruciating idiocies of the Christian faith rise to the forefront in my mind, and I feel the urge to lash out.
  65. [MORE]

    Matt Forney is a hexagon shaped goblin. He is fake and inauthentic. Why would I care about the musings of a beta Male?

    He acts like he is a ladies man, but the only girls who will fuck him are Phillipina hookers.

  66. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    As an aside, I wonder how the anglosphere is as a potential "last refuge" for whites.

    I know this is surprising, but in Ontario, Canada, whites seem to actually have a higher fertility rate than non-whites (based on my own calculations). The immigrants come to horrendously expensive Toronto, and don't really procreate. White rural areas have higher fertility.

    From my own TFR calculations for 2016:

    Health Regions above 85% White -TFR of 1.59 - 33,000 total births
    Health Regions between 85% and 51% White - TFR of 1.42 - 45,000 total births
    Health Regions below 51% white - TFR of 1.32 - 55,000 total births

    A few words: 9% of the 85%+ white areas were from University towns - skewing the TFR far lower than it really is. So we can conservatively estimate a TFR of 1.62 for white, rural Ontario. We have a shit tonne of land, and non-whites are scared of leaving Toronto (due to weather and people). It is essentially a containment zone.

    They are still flooding in far faster than a measly TFR of 1.6 can handle (we are being swamped by Hindoos and Chinese and Muslims) - BUT it's still nice to see. The 2nd generation urban kids feel like they're in a foreign country when they step out of the Greater Toronto Area. This is actually a GOOD thing.

    As an aside, I wonder how the anglosphere is as a potential “last refuge” for whites.
    I know this is surprising, but in Ontario, Canada, whites seem to actually have a higher fertility rate than non-whites (based on my own calculations).

    This is a universal phenomenon. Here is the fertility rate for some >90% Russian rural areas:

    Irkutsk region, Ust-UDI district-2,96
    TRANS-Baikal territory, gazimuro-Zavodsky district-2,88
    Irkutsk region, Kachugsky district-2,67
    Perm Krai, ‘shesosnovskoe district – 2,60
    Kostroma oblast, Pyschyug district to – 2.51
    Permskiy Kray, chastinskiy rayon – 2,46
    Vologda region, Babushkinsky district-2,44

    etc., etc.

    (for comparison, Algeria’s fertility rate 2.6 Kenya’s fertility rate 3.8)

    In Siberia there is Der Deutsche Nationalrayon Asowo (German national district Asowo) where the coefficient of natural growth in 2016 is + 2.6 (in Germany, coef. negative = – 2.44). Although I do not know what gains from ethnic Germans

    In the Altai Nationalkreis Halbstadt (German national district Halbstadt In the Altai )- natural increase in 2011 around +5 and the coefficient of birth rate of about 2.6


    Probably a similar phenomenon (high rural white fertility) can be found almost everywhere in “white” countries

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @Epigon
    Can we please make Greater Russia (Ukraine, Belarus, south Siberia of Kazakhstan) some sort of Europoid sanctuary?

    With some kind of anti-assimilation laws, duty to learn and preserve the language, customs and culture of your ancestors?

    I mean literally giving sanctuary to ethnic Europeans, giving them land, farms, villages and even ethnic towns and districts over time?

  67. @Turgot
    Poland is realistically the most conservative state in Eastern Europe because it has the lowest amount of abortions and divorces. There are no other criteria as to measure conservatism. If your country has a liberal abortion law, then it's not conservative. Simple

    Cuckservative nonsense.

    In that case, our escapist traditionalist would be well served going to Brazil or most Central American countries – twice lower divorce rate than Poland, even stricter ban on abortions.

    Or, until very recently (before it decriminalized abortion), to Ireland. Again, a much lower divorce rate (15%) relative to Poland (33%). Even if ruled by a gay Indian who wants to invite in 1 million migrants by 2040.

    Of course, Ireland is also one of the most rapidly liberalizing countries in Europe. Trendlines matter, too.

    • Replies: @Turgot
    Yep.

    Ireland and South America are more conservative than Eastern Europe because they have fewer abortions and divorces. And they're more religious.

    And this isn't some cuckservatism but realism and honesty. LGBT is a symbolic issue.
  68. @utu
    Matt Forney's concerns:

    " I didn’t expect Europe to be full of 24-hour Walmarts where I could wander in at three in the morning in my boxers to do my grocery shopping. However, Europe is missing a lot of the comforts that Americans take for granted. For example, Sunday shopping is severely restricted in Hungary, with most stores closed. If you’re out of food or anything else and the 24/7 convenience stores don’t carry it, you’re shit out of luck until Monday morning."

    "Similarly, Tinder, once one of the easiest ways to meet women in Eastern Europe, has significantly dropped off in quality over the past year. In Budapest, women on Tinder have become increasingly flaky, refusing to answer messages and using the app to gain unearned attention from men. Smartphone addiction and online attention whoring have also been on the increase in Eastern Europe, meaning that meeting girls is only going to get more difficult as time wears on (though the further east you go, the slower these trends are occurring)."

    Does Budapest or for that matter any other country need American losers like Matt Forney?

    Those are all extremely legitimate considerations.

    And one, going by the description of Budapest, in which Moscow compares very favorably on both counts.

    • Replies: @Hyperborean
    I think it is hypocritical for manosphere sleep-arounds to complain that women are promiscuous and degenerate.

    They want to keep their cake and yet eat it.
    , @reiner Tor
    As I wrote, the Sunday shopping restrictions were relatively short-lived (lasted a couple years), because Orbán had to reverse course due to widespread protests in the middle class.
  69. @Anatoly Karlin
    Those are all extremely legitimate considerations.

    And one, going by the description of Budapest, in which Moscow compares very favorably on both counts.

    I think it is hypocritical for manosphere sleep-arounds to complain that women are promiscuous and degenerate.

    They want to keep their cake and yet eat it.

  70. @reiner Tor
    I’m not used to it either, but obviously it’s the natural position, so it’d be better if we all used it since childhood.

    Many people cannot even properly squat at all, much less for several minutes, so the infrastructure cannot really be moved there.

    You still come across them in provincial Russia, though they are rapidly disappearing under the onslaught of Westernization.

    I think the libs/SWPLs associate them with Asiaticness.

    • Replies: @The Big Red Scary

    You still come across them in provincial Russia
     
    I've come across squatting holes in provincial universities in both Russia and Japan. I'd be fine with squatting holes everywhere in Russia if they'd just use dissolvable toilet paper, at least in supposedly civilized places like Moscow, so that people can put it into the hole instead of into the can, stinking up the whole room.
  71. @Anatoly Karlin
    Those are all extremely legitimate considerations.

    And one, going by the description of Budapest, in which Moscow compares very favorably on both counts.

    As I wrote, the Sunday shopping restrictions were relatively short-lived (lasted a couple years), because Orbán had to reverse course due to widespread protests in the middle class.

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
  72. @silviosilver

    The nomenclature was banned from holding office in Czechoslovakia, but not in Hungary.
     
    Tip: when it refers to the ruling class in communist countries, it's customary to render that term nomenklatura in English.

    Okay, thanks, I just picked up utu’s usage.

  73. @Hyperborean

    So what? It was a never a human being, so it doesn’t matter.

    Since blacks abort at significantly higher rates than whites, abortion has been good for America.

    I wish there was much more abortion, particularly among the lower classes.

    Conservatives are simply too stupid and besotted with christcuckery to adopt such attitudes.
     

    I think we can still perceive abortion as murder even while considering it a lesser sin done for a greater good.

    But the easier solution would just be to mass sterilise undesirables in the first place.

    As regards to 'christcuckery', American eugenics held a significant influence upon 19th century and early 20th century New England Progressives.

    I think we can still perceive abortion as murder even while considering it a lesser sin done for a greater good.

    Well, look, prepare to be shocked: if I were boss, I’d even permit infanticide up to, say, the age of 12 months or somewhere there. Now, that, even I would be prepared to describe as “murder.” I wouldn’t punish any parent for it, and I wouldn’t care a whit for that baby’s passing, but I’d agree that’s a human and that killing it is murder.

    But a fetus? There’s no way I can view that as a human, and its destruction doesn’t it even begin to register as “murder” to me.

    To me, it’s not even a “sin,” much less a “lesser sin.”

    As regards to ‘christcuckery’, American eugenics held a significant influence upon 19th century and early 20th century New England Progressives.

    What’s your point?

    Look, I don’t like to gratuitously insult Christianity. I still have something of an emotional attachment to it, even though I don’t take any of its teachings seriously at all. I could live without it completely, but it’s a part of my heritage I enjoy maintaining a distant link to. Most people seem to require religion to play a greater role in their lives than that, and I’m mostly happy for it do so. For the average European, Christianity is pretty much the only viable religious option, so I try to go easy on it. But fuck man, that’s not easy to do when true-believer Christian assholes inject their religious opinions into political discussions. It’s then that the excruciating idiocies of the Christian faith rise to the forefront in my mind, and I feel the urge to lash out.

    • Replies: @Hyperborean

    What’s your point?
     
    That eugenics and (Protestant) Christianity is compatible.

    Not that I have any great love for the currently existing doctrine.
  74. @Anatoly Karlin
    Cuckservative nonsense.

    In that case, our escapist traditionalist would be well served going to Brazil or most Central American countries - twice lower divorce rate than Poland, even stricter ban on abortions.

    Or, until very recently (before it decriminalized abortion), to Ireland. Again, a much lower divorce rate (15%) relative to Poland (33%). Even if ruled by a gay Indian who wants to invite in 1 million migrants by 2040.

    Of course, Ireland is also one of the most rapidly liberalizing countries in Europe. Trendlines matter, too.

    Yep.

    Ireland and South America are more conservative than Eastern Europe because they have fewer abortions and divorces. And they’re more religious.

    And this isn’t some cuckservatism but realism and honesty. LGBT is a symbolic issue.

    • Replies: @DNC
    I grew up in Ireland (in the rural, backward, 'based' connaught of all places). The millennials are not religious: in the catholic secondary school which I attended, the 2-3 priests that were still there all had comical sobriquets among the students. The (rare) mass was welcomed only insofar as it was a way to skip classes. Religion classes ( very infrequent ) were more about studying other religions, mostly Islam. Most interesting were the status of the non-whites: there were 2 brazilians, a few myanmarese, and 3 africans in the school when I was there. 2 of the 3 africans were elevated to high-status among the irish, because having blacks in your group was seen as 'cool'. The brazilians would have probably got in as well if they didn't keep to themselves all the time.

    Things were even worse in primary school. It was in a different town that was as 'vibrant' and 'diverse' as you could get: approx. 50% of the population were foreign and half of those were not white. In my class (20 or so people) there were 4 pakistanis, 1 african, 1 lithuanian and 1 croat. Things looked grim for the younger classes, some were about 50% pakistani. Eastern food shops dotted the terraced streets. The old convent was converted to an asylum for refugees. A mosque and a small estate of semis were erected not far from the town centre to accommodate the muslims. The older irish generations in those areas were very xenophobic, yet muslims integrated and formed their own parallel society in the town without any resistance from the locals.

    As for divorce rates, irish courts demand that both parties live separately for 4 of the preceding 5 years before an application can be made. The process itself is onerous. It may be that separation agreements are used as a substitute for divorces.

  75. @silviosilver

    I think we can still perceive abortion as murder even while considering it a lesser sin done for a greater good.
     
    Well, look, prepare to be shocked: if I were boss, I'd even permit infanticide up to, say, the age of 12 months or somewhere there. Now, that, even I would be prepared to describe as "murder." I wouldn't punish any parent for it, and I wouldn't care a whit for that baby's passing, but I'd agree that's a human and that killing it is murder.

    But a fetus? There's no way I can view that as a human, and its destruction doesn't it even begin to register as "murder" to me.

    To me, it's not even a "sin," much less a "lesser sin."

    As regards to ‘christcuckery’, American eugenics held a significant influence upon 19th century and early 20th century New England Progressives.
     
    What's your point?

    Look, I don't like to gratuitously insult Christianity. I still have something of an emotional attachment to it, even though I don't take any of its teachings seriously at all. I could live without it completely, but it's a part of my heritage I enjoy maintaining a distant link to. Most people seem to require religion to play a greater role in their lives than that, and I'm mostly happy for it do so. For the average European, Christianity is pretty much the only viable religious option, so I try to go easy on it. But fuck man, that's not easy to do when true-believer Christian assholes inject their religious opinions into political discussions. It's then that the excruciating idiocies of the Christian faith rise to the forefront in my mind, and I feel the urge to lash out.

    What’s your point?

    That eugenics and (Protestant) Christianity is compatible.

    Not that I have any great love for the currently existing doctrine.

    • Replies: @Hyperborean

    Not that I have any great love for the currently existing doctrine.
     
    Yes, the leadership might bad but ordinary Christians are generally speaking not less loyal.

    http://www.pewforum.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2018/05/PF_05.29.18_religion.western.europe-00-08-.png

    http://www.pewforum.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2018/05/PF_05.29.18_religion.western.europe-00-09-.png

    http://www.pewforum.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2018/05/PF_05.29.18_religion.western.europe-00-12-.png

    http://www.pewforum.org/2018/05/29/being-christian-in-western-europe/

  76. @melanf

    As an aside, I wonder how the anglosphere is as a potential “last refuge” for whites.
    I know this is surprising, but in Ontario, Canada, whites seem to actually have a higher fertility rate than non-whites (based on my own calculations).
     
    This is a universal phenomenon. Here is the fertility rate for some >90% Russian rural areas:

    Irkutsk region, Ust-UDI district-2,96
    TRANS-Baikal territory, gazimuro-Zavodsky district-2,88
    Irkutsk region, Kachugsky district-2,67
    Perm Krai, 'shesosnovskoe district - 2,60
    Kostroma oblast, Pyschyug district to - 2.51
    Permskiy Kray, chastinskiy rayon - 2,46
    Vologda region, Babushkinsky district-2,44

    etc., etc.

    (for comparison, Algeria's fertility rate 2.6 Kenya's fertility rate 3.8)

    In Siberia there is Der Deutsche Nationalrayon Asowo (German national district Asowo) where the coefficient of natural growth in 2016 is + 2.6 (in Germany, coef. negative = - 2.44). Although I do not know what gains from ethnic Germans

    http://mgpr.omskportal.ru/ru/government/News/2018/06/08/1528424748852/PageContent/0/image/%D1%84%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C.jpg

    In the Altai Nationalkreis Halbstadt (German national district Halbstadt In the Altai )- natural increase in 2011 around +5 and the coefficient of birth rate of about 2.6

    https://a.radikal.ru/a16/1901/71/3ba876a4cbda.jpg

    Probably a similar phenomenon (high rural white fertility) can be found almost everywhere in "white" countries

    Can we please make Greater Russia (Ukraine, Belarus, south Siberia of Kazakhstan) some sort of Europoid sanctuary?

    With some kind of anti-assimilation laws, duty to learn and preserve the language, customs and culture of your ancestors?

    I mean literally giving sanctuary to ethnic Europeans, giving them land, farms, villages and even ethnic towns and districts over time?

    • Replies: @melanf

    Can we please make Greater Russia (Ukraine, Belarus, south Siberia of Kazakhstan) some sort of Europoid sanctuary?
     
    Russia (except those parts where historically non-European population lives), Ukraine and Belarus in the foreseeable future will have almost entirely Europoid population (this is determined by fundamental factors, not the will of politicians). Making long - term forecasts is IMHO a waste of time.

    With some kind of anti-assimilation laws
     
    Clearly impossible and pointless idea (in particular in Russia, the Russian nationalists will strongly opposed to such measures).
    What is really we (all of us-from Iceland to Sakhalin) needed is a strict and reasonable migration policy aimed at improving human capital.
    , @melanf

    I mean literally giving sanctuary to ethnic Europeans, giving them land, farms, villages and even ethnic towns and districts over time?
     
    This is clearly impossible, as for the mass migration of Europeans to Russia (Ukraine/ Belarus) the standard of living in Russia should be much higher than the standard of living in Western Europe. Even with the same standard of living in Europe and Russia, Europe for the average citizen will have an advantage, due to a much better climate, much greater density of settlements, etc.


    For example , Sakhalin
    https://i.redd.it/giy9lqc9dl221.png
    has an income level (by purchasing power not nominal) approximately equal to Western Europe, but Sakhalin had a negative migration balance until 2018, since people do not want to live on an isolated deserted island with a relatively harsh climate.

    Theoretically, Sakhalin has available land to all the inhabitants of a medium size European countries (the Sakhalin area more Beneluxe, and almost deserted). But now not the 19th century, and throw a comfortable life to be a pioneer in such places - this is only rare fanatics capable.
    https://must-see.top/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/vodopad-ptichij.jpg

    , @AP
    Actually the purest European space would be the former territory of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, plus Baltics, plus the Austrian part of Austria-Hungary (minus Austria itself, unfortunately):

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/10/Islam_in_Europe.png/1200px-Islam_in_Europe.png

    Russia would have to jettison many of its ethnic republics and "clean up" Moscow to match the others.
    , @Dmitry
    For a country with already sufficient population, the purpose of immigration should be only to raise the human capital level (quality of human capital, not quantity of human capital).

    Otherwise, immigration simply dilutes per capital income, and resource share by population, lowering it for the native nationalities.

    If we apply this policy to Russia and to concept of "transplanting communities", then criteria is community to be transplanted should have higher human capital than already existing populations.

    Equally, we are talking about transplanting communities, who would ideally be settled in less popular areas, and would need relevant skills and mental robustness to develop the unpopular areas.

    There are not many such communities today.

    1. The Boers of South Africa.
    2. Perhaps the Mormons of Salt Lake City.

    -

    In relation to general immigration, then it should just be made more and more selective (as the country increases economically), so that only high quality immigrants can arrive.

    , @German_reader

    Can we please make Greater Russia (Ukraine, Belarus, south Siberia of Kazakhstan) some sort of Europoid sanctuary?
     
    Why would Russians be interested in that? Their past experiences with troublesome ethnic minorities were rather negative (played a big part in bringing about Soviet communism after all). And interactions with the West also haven't always been exactly positive.
    There's no reason why Russians should accept millions of Westerners who weren't even competent enough to prevent the decline of their own societies due to something as stupid as the current "diversity" ideology.
  77. Honestly I wonder how many people were are basically neckbeards.

  78. @Hyperborean

    What’s your point?
     
    That eugenics and (Protestant) Christianity is compatible.

    Not that I have any great love for the currently existing doctrine.

    Not that I have any great love for the currently existing doctrine.

    Yes, the leadership might bad but ordinary Christians are generally speaking not less loyal.

    http://www.pewforum.org/2018/05/29/being-christian-in-western-europe/

  79. @Epigon
    Boiling does nothing to fluorinated, chlorinated water, nor helps with heavy metal contamination.

    Chlorine evaporates, fluorine and heavy metals do not.

    • Replies: @Epigon
    My chemistry knowledge has rusted to a significant degree, but how does the chlorine evaporate while fluorine doesn’t?

    Besides, I believe fluoride is present in the water, not fluorine. The same for Chlorium - hypochlorite is used, or chlorium is dissolved in the water to give a mix of HCl and HOCl that then hydrolise with water. Any chemist here to clear things up?

  80. @Anatoly Karlin
    You still come across them in provincial Russia, though they are rapidly disappearing under the onslaught of Westernization.

    I think the libs/SWPLs associate them with Asiaticness.

    You still come across them in provincial Russia

    I’ve come across squatting holes in provincial universities in both Russia and Japan. I’d be fine with squatting holes everywhere in Russia if they’d just use dissolvable toilet paper, at least in supposedly civilized places like Moscow, so that people can put it into the hole instead of into the can, stinking up the whole room.

  81. @Epigon
    Can we please make Greater Russia (Ukraine, Belarus, south Siberia of Kazakhstan) some sort of Europoid sanctuary?

    With some kind of anti-assimilation laws, duty to learn and preserve the language, customs and culture of your ancestors?

    I mean literally giving sanctuary to ethnic Europeans, giving them land, farms, villages and even ethnic towns and districts over time?

    Can we please make Greater Russia (Ukraine, Belarus, south Siberia of Kazakhstan) some sort of Europoid sanctuary?

    Russia (except those parts where historically non-European population lives), Ukraine and Belarus in the foreseeable future will have almost entirely Europoid population (this is determined by fundamental factors, not the will of politicians). Making long – term forecasts is IMHO a waste of time.

    With some kind of anti-assimilation laws

    Clearly impossible and pointless idea (in particular in Russia, the Russian nationalists will strongly opposed to such measures).
    What is really we (all of us-from Iceland to Sakhalin) needed is a strict and reasonable migration policy aimed at improving human capital.

    • Agree: Dmitry
    • Replies: @Epigon
    Why would Russian nationalists protest against people speaking Russian, living in Russia, producing added value and paying taxes in Russia? Do the communities you posted pictures of generate negative feelings?

    It is obvious they didn’t assimilate, have German language lessons, German culture and customs preserved. Would you call the German immigrants and residents of Imperial period a detrimental concept?
  82. @DFH


    Matt Forney is perhaps one of the most naturally physically repulsive people I have ever seen

    https://everipedia-storage.s3-accelerate.amazonaws.com/ProfilePics/6666610873689505596-1495592793.png

    [MORE]

    LA CREATURA!

  83. @Epigon
    Can we please make Greater Russia (Ukraine, Belarus, south Siberia of Kazakhstan) some sort of Europoid sanctuary?

    With some kind of anti-assimilation laws, duty to learn and preserve the language, customs and culture of your ancestors?

    I mean literally giving sanctuary to ethnic Europeans, giving them land, farms, villages and even ethnic towns and districts over time?

    I mean literally giving sanctuary to ethnic Europeans, giving them land, farms, villages and even ethnic towns and districts over time?

    This is clearly impossible, as for the mass migration of Europeans to Russia (Ukraine/ Belarus) the standard of living in Russia should be much higher than the standard of living in Western Europe. Even with the same standard of living in Europe and Russia, Europe for the average citizen will have an advantage, due to a much better climate, much greater density of settlements, etc.

    For example , Sakhalin has an income level (by purchasing power not nominal) approximately equal to Western Europe, but Sakhalin had a negative migration balance until 2018, since people do not want to live on an isolated deserted island with a relatively harsh climate.

    Theoretically, Sakhalin has available land to all the inhabitants of a medium size European countries (the Sakhalin area more Beneluxe, and almost deserted). But now not the 19th century, and throw a comfortable life to be a pioneer in such places – this is only rare fanatics capable.

    • Replies: @AP
    It would easily attract the type of person who is willing to move to Alaska. There are about 500 million people in the EU. With education about the place, and making settlement legally easy to do, it would be no problem to get a couple 100,00 adventurous settlers.
  84. @Turgot
    Yep.

    Ireland and South America are more conservative than Eastern Europe because they have fewer abortions and divorces. And they're more religious.

    And this isn't some cuckservatism but realism and honesty. LGBT is a symbolic issue.

    I grew up in Ireland (in the rural, backward, ‘based’ connaught of all places). The millennials are not religious: in the catholic secondary school which I attended, the 2-3 priests that were still there all had comical sobriquets among the students. The (rare) mass was welcomed only insofar as it was a way to skip classes. Religion classes ( very infrequent ) were more about studying other religions, mostly Islam. Most interesting were the status of the non-whites: there were 2 brazilians, a few myanmarese, and 3 africans in the school when I was there. 2 of the 3 africans were elevated to high-status among the irish, because having blacks in your group was seen as ‘cool’. The brazilians would have probably got in as well if they didn’t keep to themselves all the time.

    Things were even worse in primary school. It was in a different town that was as ‘vibrant’ and ‘diverse’ as you could get: approx. 50% of the population were foreign and half of those were not white. In my class (20 or so people) there were 4 pakistanis, 1 african, 1 lithuanian and 1 croat. Things looked grim for the younger classes, some were about 50% pakistani. Eastern food shops dotted the terraced streets. The old convent was converted to an asylum for refugees. A mosque and a small estate of semis were erected not far from the town centre to accommodate the muslims. The older irish generations in those areas were very xenophobic, yet muslims integrated and formed their own parallel society in the town without any resistance from the locals.

    As for divorce rates, irish courts demand that both parties live separately for 4 of the preceding 5 years before an application can be made. The process itself is onerous. It may be that separation agreements are used as a substitute for divorces.

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
  85. @Epigon
    Can we please make Greater Russia (Ukraine, Belarus, south Siberia of Kazakhstan) some sort of Europoid sanctuary?

    With some kind of anti-assimilation laws, duty to learn and preserve the language, customs and culture of your ancestors?

    I mean literally giving sanctuary to ethnic Europeans, giving them land, farms, villages and even ethnic towns and districts over time?

    Actually the purest European space would be the former territory of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, plus Baltics, plus the Austrian part of Austria-Hungary (minus Austria itself, unfortunately):

    Russia would have to jettison many of its ethnic republics and “clean up” Moscow to match the others.

  86. @melanf

    I mean literally giving sanctuary to ethnic Europeans, giving them land, farms, villages and even ethnic towns and districts over time?
     
    This is clearly impossible, as for the mass migration of Europeans to Russia (Ukraine/ Belarus) the standard of living in Russia should be much higher than the standard of living in Western Europe. Even with the same standard of living in Europe and Russia, Europe for the average citizen will have an advantage, due to a much better climate, much greater density of settlements, etc.


    For example , Sakhalin
    https://i.redd.it/giy9lqc9dl221.png
    has an income level (by purchasing power not nominal) approximately equal to Western Europe, but Sakhalin had a negative migration balance until 2018, since people do not want to live on an isolated deserted island with a relatively harsh climate.

    Theoretically, Sakhalin has available land to all the inhabitants of a medium size European countries (the Sakhalin area more Beneluxe, and almost deserted). But now not the 19th century, and throw a comfortable life to be a pioneer in such places - this is only rare fanatics capable.
    https://must-see.top/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/vodopad-ptichij.jpg

    It would easily attract the type of person who is willing to move to Alaska. There are about 500 million people in the EU. With education about the place, and making settlement legally easy to do, it would be no problem to get a couple 100,00 adventurous settlers.

    • Agree: reiner Tor
  87. @The Big Red Scary
    Chlorine evaporates, fluorine and heavy metals do not.

    My chemistry knowledge has rusted to a significant degree, but how does the chlorine evaporate while fluorine doesn’t?

    Besides, I believe fluoride is present in the water, not fluorine. The same for Chlorium – hypochlorite is used, or chlorium is dissolved in the water to give a mix of HCl and HOCl that then hydrolise with water. Any chemist here to clear things up?

  88. @Epigon
    Can we please make Greater Russia (Ukraine, Belarus, south Siberia of Kazakhstan) some sort of Europoid sanctuary?

    With some kind of anti-assimilation laws, duty to learn and preserve the language, customs and culture of your ancestors?

    I mean literally giving sanctuary to ethnic Europeans, giving them land, farms, villages and even ethnic towns and districts over time?

    For a country with already sufficient population, the purpose of immigration should be only to raise the human capital level (quality of human capital, not quantity of human capital).

    Otherwise, immigration simply dilutes per capital income, and resource share by population, lowering it for the native nationalities.

    If we apply this policy to Russia and to concept of “transplanting communities”, then criteria is community to be transplanted should have higher human capital than already existing populations.

    Equally, we are talking about transplanting communities, who would ideally be settled in less popular areas, and would need relevant skills and mental robustness to develop the unpopular areas.

    There are not many such communities today.

    1. The Boers of South Africa.
    2. Perhaps the Mormons of Salt Lake City.

    In relation to general immigration, then it should just be made more and more selective (as the country increases economically), so that only high quality immigrants can arrive.

    • Replies: @Dmitry

    In relation to general immigration, then it should just be made more and more selective (as the country increases economically), so that only high quality immigrants can arrive.

     

    And sure in contrast to the current immigration policy - this policy would increase inflation (in relation to cost of labour), particularly in relation construction and physical jobs, as it limits the current supply of cheaper and unskilled labour provided by the gastarbaiters. This could increase costs of things like new housing supply, repairs and maintenance.

    On the other hand, it would reduce demand for housing (due to less demographic pressure), create a better ratio of teachers to students in education (although this situation is already good due to the population pyramid), increase total employment rate, and lower levels of ethnic/cultural/religious tension. In the long term, it would could have a more eugenic effect than current policy (assuming heritability for the basis of skilled workers).
    , @melanf

    For a country with already sufficient population, the purpose of immigration should be only to raise the human capital level (quality of human capital, not quantity of human capital).

    If we apply this policy to Russia...criteria is .. have higher human capital
     
    However, Russia is undoubtedly a country with insufficient population. Emigrants with the same level of " human capital" that is the average for Russia is quite desirable..
  89. Population is power.
    Russian Federation is ridiculously underpopulated, even the European part.

    I don’t see how immigration of Europeans can diminish human capital in Russia – if anything, the minorities are worse than Europeans in every way.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    In relation to economic rent industries, like natural resource extraction, or future economic rent industries like Northern Sea Route (which will be a huge future economic boost if global warming is true) - then current demographic situation of already falling immigration, is favourable to increasing the standard of living and per capita income.

    Falling immigration, also contributes to higher (by historical standards) political stability and governability.

    If per capita incomes can reach a higher level, then larger numbers of attractive and skilled Europeans (or people like Boers which produced immigrants like Elon Musk) will suddenly want to immigrate.

    And there may be more acceptable-salary jobs at home for native educated people who emigrated and are emigrating (a current controversial debate on the internet is about how emigration numbers were underreported, and higher for people with more higher education). This could be too optimistic sounding statements though.

    , @szopen

    Russian Federation is ridiculously underpopulated,
     
    Which means RF should be wary of any mass immigration, no matter how high in human capital immigrants would be and how much wealth they would bring. The example of German immigration in medieval times should be a warning.
  90. @Dmitry
    For a country with already sufficient population, the purpose of immigration should be only to raise the human capital level (quality of human capital, not quantity of human capital).

    Otherwise, immigration simply dilutes per capital income, and resource share by population, lowering it for the native nationalities.

    If we apply this policy to Russia and to concept of "transplanting communities", then criteria is community to be transplanted should have higher human capital than already existing populations.

    Equally, we are talking about transplanting communities, who would ideally be settled in less popular areas, and would need relevant skills and mental robustness to develop the unpopular areas.

    There are not many such communities today.

    1. The Boers of South Africa.
    2. Perhaps the Mormons of Salt Lake City.

    -

    In relation to general immigration, then it should just be made more and more selective (as the country increases economically), so that only high quality immigrants can arrive.

    In relation to general immigration, then it should just be made more and more selective (as the country increases economically), so that only high quality immigrants can arrive.

    And sure in contrast to the current immigration policy – this policy would increase inflation (in relation to cost of labour), particularly in relation construction and physical jobs, as it limits the current supply of cheaper and unskilled labour provided by the gastarbaiters. This could increase costs of things like new housing supply, repairs and maintenance.

    On the other hand, it would reduce demand for housing (due to less demographic pressure), create a better ratio of teachers to students in education (although this situation is already good due to the population pyramid), increase total employment rate, and lower levels of ethnic/cultural/religious tension. In the long term, it would could have a more eugenic effect than current policy (assuming heritability for the basis of skilled workers).

  91. @melanf

    Can we please make Greater Russia (Ukraine, Belarus, south Siberia of Kazakhstan) some sort of Europoid sanctuary?
     
    Russia (except those parts where historically non-European population lives), Ukraine and Belarus in the foreseeable future will have almost entirely Europoid population (this is determined by fundamental factors, not the will of politicians). Making long - term forecasts is IMHO a waste of time.

    With some kind of anti-assimilation laws
     
    Clearly impossible and pointless idea (in particular in Russia, the Russian nationalists will strongly opposed to such measures).
    What is really we (all of us-from Iceland to Sakhalin) needed is a strict and reasonable migration policy aimed at improving human capital.

    Why would Russian nationalists protest against people speaking Russian, living in Russia, producing added value and paying taxes in Russia? Do the communities you posted pictures of generate negative feelings?

    It is obvious they didn’t assimilate, have German language lessons, German culture and customs preserved. Would you call the German immigrants and residents of Imperial period a detrimental concept?

    • Replies: @Yevardian
    That's all for show. German settlers in Russia had fully assimilated by the 19th century.
    , @melanf

    Why would Russian nationalists protest against people speaking Russian...
     
    Russian nationalists would welcome a hypothetical (and clearly impossible) migration in Russia the Germans, Swedes, and white Americans, etc. But they (nationalists) would be against "anti-assimilation" law (if the law forbids mixed marriages, etc.). If the "anti-assimilation" law means the law against forced assimilation, then such a law is not needed (in Russia there is no forced assimilation)

    It is obvious they didn’t assimilate
     
    In rural areas. In remote villages, people can preserve their language and culture for centuries, but once they move to the city, they assimilate. If we keep in mind the Russian Germans, in the villages in Siberia really live the Germans. But the absolute majority of" Russian Germans " today are in reality Russian of German origin.
  92. @Dmitry
    For a country with already sufficient population, the purpose of immigration should be only to raise the human capital level (quality of human capital, not quantity of human capital).

    Otherwise, immigration simply dilutes per capital income, and resource share by population, lowering it for the native nationalities.

    If we apply this policy to Russia and to concept of "transplanting communities", then criteria is community to be transplanted should have higher human capital than already existing populations.

    Equally, we are talking about transplanting communities, who would ideally be settled in less popular areas, and would need relevant skills and mental robustness to develop the unpopular areas.

    There are not many such communities today.

    1. The Boers of South Africa.
    2. Perhaps the Mormons of Salt Lake City.

    -

    In relation to general immigration, then it should just be made more and more selective (as the country increases economically), so that only high quality immigrants can arrive.

    For a country with already sufficient population, the purpose of immigration should be only to raise the human capital level (quality of human capital, not quantity of human capital).

    If we apply this policy to Russia…criteria is .. have higher human capital

    However, Russia is undoubtedly a country with insufficient population. Emigrants with the same level of ” human capital” that is the average for Russia is quite desirable..

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    Sure, but higher human capital people (attractive and skilled European immigrants with adequate personalities) don't immigrate in significant numbers, for charitable reasons. They are a corollary to income levels and standards of living, lifestyle benefits and higher quality educational institutions of the destination they move to.

    Switzerland, for example, is today 25% foreigners (non-citizens). These foreigners are primarily higher quality, Germans/French/Austrians/Italians - who are going to Switzerland because the higher salaries and level of lifestyle associated with their jobs in Switzerland.

    Singapore is a similar example (except they have constant immigration from China, which relates to their ruling nationality). Much of the USA's immigration history was formed in this way (young people going from poor Ireland, to rich America, to improve their lifestyle).

    -

    Something which could be interesting is the idea of Boer farmers or Mormon settlement. In this case, it is a very precise, self-contained community, who need certain legal and cultural preconditions for immigration. Their immigration behaviour will not be like normal people, so it might be possible to attract them to settle in an area if the government would give them to the right conditions and package.

  93. @Epigon
    Population is power.
    Russian Federation is ridiculously underpopulated, even the European part.

    I don’t see how immigration of Europeans can diminish human capital in Russia - if anything, the minorities are worse than Europeans in every way.

    In relation to economic rent industries, like natural resource extraction, or future economic rent industries like Northern Sea Route (which will be a huge future economic boost if global warming is true) – then current demographic situation of already falling immigration, is favourable to increasing the standard of living and per capita income.

    Falling immigration, also contributes to higher (by historical standards) political stability and governability.

    If per capita incomes can reach a higher level, then larger numbers of attractive and skilled Europeans (or people like Boers which produced immigrants like Elon Musk) will suddenly want to immigrate.

    And there may be more acceptable-salary jobs at home for native educated people who emigrated and are emigrating (a current controversial debate on the internet is about how emigration numbers were underreported, and higher for people with more higher education). This could be too optimistic sounding statements though.

  94. @melanf

    For a country with already sufficient population, the purpose of immigration should be only to raise the human capital level (quality of human capital, not quantity of human capital).

    If we apply this policy to Russia...criteria is .. have higher human capital
     
    However, Russia is undoubtedly a country with insufficient population. Emigrants with the same level of " human capital" that is the average for Russia is quite desirable..

    Sure, but higher human capital people (attractive and skilled European immigrants with adequate personalities) don’t immigrate in significant numbers, for charitable reasons. They are a corollary to income levels and standards of living, lifestyle benefits and higher quality educational institutions of the destination they move to.

    Switzerland, for example, is today 25% foreigners (non-citizens). These foreigners are primarily higher quality, Germans/French/Austrians/Italians – who are going to Switzerland because the higher salaries and level of lifestyle associated with their jobs in Switzerland.

    Singapore is a similar example (except they have constant immigration from China, which relates to their ruling nationality). Much of the USA’s immigration history was formed in this way (young people going from poor Ireland, to rich America, to improve their lifestyle).

    Something which could be interesting is the idea of Boer farmers or Mormon settlement. In this case, it is a very precise, self-contained community, who need certain legal and cultural preconditions for immigration. Their immigration behaviour will not be like normal people, so it might be possible to attract them to settle in an area if the government would give them to the right conditions and package.

  95. @Epigon
    Population is power.
    Russian Federation is ridiculously underpopulated, even the European part.

    I don’t see how immigration of Europeans can diminish human capital in Russia - if anything, the minorities are worse than Europeans in every way.

    Russian Federation is ridiculously underpopulated,

    Which means RF should be wary of any mass immigration, no matter how high in human capital immigrants would be and how much wealth they would bring. The example of German immigration in medieval times should be a warning.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    Also there is no objective "underpopulated" or "overpopulated". It's relative to economic needs, infrastructure, cultural configuration and climate.

    Typically, people make this judgement ("underpopulated" or "overpopulated") from how successful the country is. For example Netherlands has one of the highest population densities in the world. But is it overpopulated? Few says this, because it is a successful country.

    On the other hand, is Bangladesh overpopulated? Everyone says that it is, because it is unsuccessful country.

    On the other extreme, is Australia underpopulated? (Australia's population density is lower than Russia's despite much better climate). Does Australia need more immigrants? (I could almost imagine Australia would be even better with less immigration).

    -

    In Russia, the current situation is some cities depopulating and declining, because of internal migration. Other cities are growing in population and do not have adequate infrastructure

  96. @Epigon
    Can we please make Greater Russia (Ukraine, Belarus, south Siberia of Kazakhstan) some sort of Europoid sanctuary?

    With some kind of anti-assimilation laws, duty to learn and preserve the language, customs and culture of your ancestors?

    I mean literally giving sanctuary to ethnic Europeans, giving them land, farms, villages and even ethnic towns and districts over time?

    Can we please make Greater Russia (Ukraine, Belarus, south Siberia of Kazakhstan) some sort of Europoid sanctuary?

    Why would Russians be interested in that? Their past experiences with troublesome ethnic minorities were rather negative (played a big part in bringing about Soviet communism after all). And interactions with the West also haven’t always been exactly positive.
    There’s no reason why Russians should accept millions of Westerners who weren’t even competent enough to prevent the decline of their own societies due to something as stupid as the current “diversity” ideology.

    • Replies: @melanf

    Why would Russians be interested in that? ...And interactions with the West also haven’t always been exactly positive.
     
    According to the historian Gumilev, Russians are a part of the Orthodox civilization, they are "complimentary" to the nomads of the Asian steppes, and absolutely not complimentary to the peoples of Western Christianity. (that is simply incompatible with them). This idea is clearly contradicted the empirical observations. I tried to check Gumilev's ideas statistically - with which ethnic groups living in Russia (in the form of scattered diasporas - without their own republics) Russians are easier to marry. The result was unexpected:
    https://a.radikal.ru/a26/1901/b5/90cbc63d318f.png

    That is, Russian is easier intermarried with Protestants (4 upper position), then Catholics (5th and 6th position in the list), only then with the Orthodox (!!!), then with Jews and Muslims. Based on this, "Western Europeans" are the most suitable migrants for Russia (except for the Russians themselves of course)
  97. @Turgot
    Poland is realistically the most conservative state in Eastern Europe because it has the lowest amount of abortions and divorces. There are no other criteria as to measure conservatism. If your country has a liberal abortion law, then it's not conservative. Simple

    This works for homogeneous countries, but breaks down in multiracial ones. Here in America blacks use abortion as contraception, and if we banned abortion their birthrate would run away from ours.

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/01/21/womens-march-teen-boasts-about-her-multiple-abortions-i-dont-give-a-fk/

    That thing aborting twice is a much better outcome than it giving birth twice. I’m very grateful it had a choice.

    There’s really no explaining this to the idiots like Glen Beck.

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
  98. @German_reader

    Can we please make Greater Russia (Ukraine, Belarus, south Siberia of Kazakhstan) some sort of Europoid sanctuary?
     
    Why would Russians be interested in that? Their past experiences with troublesome ethnic minorities were rather negative (played a big part in bringing about Soviet communism after all). And interactions with the West also haven't always been exactly positive.
    There's no reason why Russians should accept millions of Westerners who weren't even competent enough to prevent the decline of their own societies due to something as stupid as the current "diversity" ideology.

    Why would Russians be interested in that? …And interactions with the West also haven’t always been exactly positive.

    According to the historian Gumilev, Russians are a part of the Orthodox civilization, they are “complimentary” to the nomads of the Asian steppes, and absolutely not complimentary to the peoples of Western Christianity. (that is simply incompatible with them). This idea is clearly contradicted the empirical observations. I tried to check Gumilev’s ideas statistically – with which ethnic groups living in Russia (in the form of scattered diasporas – without their own republics) Russians are easier to marry. The result was unexpected:

    That is, Russian is easier intermarried with Protestants (4 upper position), then Catholics (5th and 6th position in the list), only then with the Orthodox (!!!), then with Jews and Muslims. Based on this, “Western Europeans” are the most suitable migrants for Russia (except for the Russians themselves of course)

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @German_reader
    I know, and personally I'd regard Russia as part of European civilization anyway. But my impression is that many Russian nationalists are at least ambivalent about relations to Europe (e.g. our host AK has in the past written about the history of Western "crusades" against Russia, and of course there's the memory of the war with Nazi Germany which wanted to destroy Russia).
    In any case, I don't think it would be a good idea for Russia to allow mass immigration into separate ethnic areas of any foreigners, no matter their origin.
    , @Dmitry
    But the intermarriage rate (to Russian men) will be far higher than stated in this table for many of these nationalities. The reason is this table, is identifying nationality by the census.

    However, in the census nowadays, you choose your own nationality as you want. People who are assimilated, choosing Russian as their nationality, from some of these groups (perhaps not Koreans and Armenians, but certainly Greeks, Jews, Germans, Poles, etc). While more nationalistic people (less likely to intermarry) are identifying by those nationalities.

    So you can probably add a higher figure of real intermarriage for much of the nationalities listed.

    , @Anatoly Karlin
    Generally you are correct, the Caucasians are ofc famously clannish (even the Christians).
    Very high rates of Poles, Balts, Germans must also have something partially to do with their very low numbers in Russia, not just cultural compatibility with Russians.

    Complete list here: https://oleg-lisowski.livejournal.com/18803.html

    (I mentioned Oleg Lisovsky's post here.
  99. @melanf

    Why would Russians be interested in that? ...And interactions with the West also haven’t always been exactly positive.
     
    According to the historian Gumilev, Russians are a part of the Orthodox civilization, they are "complimentary" to the nomads of the Asian steppes, and absolutely not complimentary to the peoples of Western Christianity. (that is simply incompatible with them). This idea is clearly contradicted the empirical observations. I tried to check Gumilev's ideas statistically - with which ethnic groups living in Russia (in the form of scattered diasporas - without their own republics) Russians are easier to marry. The result was unexpected:
    https://a.radikal.ru/a26/1901/b5/90cbc63d318f.png

    That is, Russian is easier intermarried with Protestants (4 upper position), then Catholics (5th and 6th position in the list), only then with the Orthodox (!!!), then with Jews and Muslims. Based on this, "Western Europeans" are the most suitable migrants for Russia (except for the Russians themselves of course)

    I know, and personally I’d regard Russia as part of European civilization anyway. But my impression is that many Russian nationalists are at least ambivalent about relations to Europe (e.g. our host AK has in the past written about the history of Western “crusades” against Russia, and of course there’s the memory of the war with Nazi Germany which wanted to destroy Russia).
    In any case, I don’t think it would be a good idea for Russia to allow mass immigration into separate ethnic areas of any foreigners, no matter their origin.

    • Replies: @Beckow
    To keep the European civilisation going will require an accommodation with Russia, the precise boundaries and what-is-called-what are less important. That is given the reality on the ground in most of the West and the fact that Central-Eastern Europe (without Russia) is too small and exposed to EU manipulation.

    This is a demographic struggle (or a war), and the Europeans are losing. To have continuing intra-European fights is idiotic - all it will do is accelerate the demise. One of the main reasons the globalists are pushing the confrontation with Russia is to buy time and to distract with a 'traditional' enemy. The endless allusion to 'Nazis' are meant to do the same thing. They say in effect: 'don't pay attention to what is happening to Europe, forget what you see on the ground, instead how about them evil 'fascists' and 'Russia'?'

    They would like to antagonize Russia by any means - there is a conscious attempt to create strong, visceral anti-Western sentiments in Russia. That is not a by-product or stupidity, it is intentional. The globalists want Russia as an enemy - they need the regular Russians to collaborate, and they eventually might.

    This is all about the infamous 'there is no alternative' ideological strategy: if all alternatives are eliminated it will indeed be a single, globalist, multi-cultural world. A key element of all assertive ideologies, from early Christianity to Marxism, is to believe that what they do is inevitable, that it will happen anyway. Russia by its very existence and size is a huge obstacle - as long as it is there, it is hard to argue that multi-globo-homo future is inevitable. It is not what the Russians do, it is that they are simply there, their continuing European-like existence that undermines globalist goals. Where individual groups within the European civilization live, or where they move, is less important - what we should avoid is the revival of hostilities with each other. Then we will all lose.

    , @songbird
    These local ethnic conflicts will feed into international ones. I believe we are already seeing that in the US - perhaps in Europe.

    When Romney was the Republican candidate in 2012, leftists laughed at him for trying to turn Russia into a hobgoblin to justify military spending. Since then, of course, they have gone utterly crazy over Russia, and there is an undeniable racial element to it. For instance, I have seen trolls post pictures of Russian kids playing near crummy, falling apart communist era buildings, saying that is what whites build. They do this along with posting a bucktoothed American hillbilly wearing a shirt with the word "cuck" on it.

    What we are seeing is the result of migration. But it is not just a primary or secondary effect. It has given birth to something - an ideology. And ideologies are global. Lenin always asked the radicals that had been deported to Russia from America, "When do you think the revolution will happen in America?"
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    Most Russian nationalists (inc. myself) view Russia as a part of Europe. Most of us are not Eurasianists, after all.

    Of course it's also the case that intra-civilizational quarrels tend to be the bloodiest and most endemic ones. Little common history, culture, etc. = less room for animosity. A comparison can be made with warring Irish clans before the English came and subjugated them all, or the Native American tribes during the age of European settlement. Much more engaged in their parochial squabbles and blind to the foreign strategic threat.

    Well, I am self-consciously in the same boat, and I accept that. I support the burgeoning Sino-Russian relationship. Perhaps I am delusional, but I am pretty sure that the more overtly racialist and pro-European (they are correlated, funnily enough - which actually helps prove the point I am just going to make) Russian nationalists are extremely deluded with their high hopes for a strategic partnerships with Germany and/or Visegrad against the darkies, against the Anglo-Saxons, or whatever.
  100. @German_reader
    I know, and personally I'd regard Russia as part of European civilization anyway. But my impression is that many Russian nationalists are at least ambivalent about relations to Europe (e.g. our host AK has in the past written about the history of Western "crusades" against Russia, and of course there's the memory of the war with Nazi Germany which wanted to destroy Russia).
    In any case, I don't think it would be a good idea for Russia to allow mass immigration into separate ethnic areas of any foreigners, no matter their origin.

    To keep the European civilisation going will require an accommodation with Russia, the precise boundaries and what-is-called-what are less important. That is given the reality on the ground in most of the West and the fact that Central-Eastern Europe (without Russia) is too small and exposed to EU manipulation.

    This is a demographic struggle (or a war), and the Europeans are losing. To have continuing intra-European fights is idiotic – all it will do is accelerate the demise. One of the main reasons the globalists are pushing the confrontation with Russia is to buy time and to distract with a ‘traditional‘ enemy. The endless allusion to ‘Nazis‘ are meant to do the same thing. They say in effect: ‘don’t pay attention to what is happening to Europe, forget what you see on the ground, instead how about them evil ‘fascists‘ and ‘Russia‘?’

    They would like to antagonize Russia by any means – there is a conscious attempt to create strong, visceral anti-Western sentiments in Russia. That is not a by-product or stupidity, it is intentional. The globalists want Russia as an enemy – they need the regular Russians to collaborate, and they eventually might.

    This is all about the infamous ‘there is no alternative‘ ideological strategy: if all alternatives are eliminated it will indeed be a single, globalist, multi-cultural world. A key element of all assertive ideologies, from early Christianity to Marxism, is to believe that what they do is inevitable, that it will happen anyway. Russia by its very existence and size is a huge obstacle – as long as it is there, it is hard to argue that multi-globo-homo future is inevitable. It is not what the Russians do, it is that they are simply there, their continuing European-like existence that undermines globalist goals. Where individual groups within the European civilization live, or where they move, is less important – what we should avoid is the revival of hostilities with each other. Then we will all lose.

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin, WHAT
  101. @melanf

    Why would Russians be interested in that? ...And interactions with the West also haven’t always been exactly positive.
     
    According to the historian Gumilev, Russians are a part of the Orthodox civilization, they are "complimentary" to the nomads of the Asian steppes, and absolutely not complimentary to the peoples of Western Christianity. (that is simply incompatible with them). This idea is clearly contradicted the empirical observations. I tried to check Gumilev's ideas statistically - with which ethnic groups living in Russia (in the form of scattered diasporas - without their own republics) Russians are easier to marry. The result was unexpected:
    https://a.radikal.ru/a26/1901/b5/90cbc63d318f.png

    That is, Russian is easier intermarried with Protestants (4 upper position), then Catholics (5th and 6th position in the list), only then with the Orthodox (!!!), then with Jews and Muslims. Based on this, "Western Europeans" are the most suitable migrants for Russia (except for the Russians themselves of course)

    But the intermarriage rate (to Russian men) will be far higher than stated in this table for many of these nationalities. The reason is this table, is identifying nationality by the census.

    However, in the census nowadays, you choose your own nationality as you want. People who are assimilated, choosing Russian as their nationality, from some of these groups (perhaps not Koreans and Armenians, but certainly Greeks, Jews, Germans, Poles, etc). While more nationalistic people (less likely to intermarry) are identifying by those nationalities.

    So you can probably add a higher figure of real intermarriage for much of the nationalities listed.

    • Agree: melanf, Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @melanf

    But the intermarriage rate (to Russian men) will be far higher than stated in this table for many of these nationalities.
     
    This is a fair point, but such a correction will not change the order of ethnic groups in the list. After the correction also happens that Russian is easier intermarried with the Protestant ethnic groups than with the Orthodox.
  102. @szopen

    Russian Federation is ridiculously underpopulated,
     
    Which means RF should be wary of any mass immigration, no matter how high in human capital immigrants would be and how much wealth they would bring. The example of German immigration in medieval times should be a warning.

    Also there is no objective “underpopulated” or “overpopulated”. It’s relative to economic needs, infrastructure, cultural configuration and climate.

    Typically, people make this judgement (“underpopulated” or “overpopulated”) from how successful the country is. For example Netherlands has one of the highest population densities in the world. But is it overpopulated? Few says this, because it is a successful country.

    On the other hand, is Bangladesh overpopulated? Everyone says that it is, because it is unsuccessful country.

    On the other extreme, is Australia underpopulated? (Australia’s population density is lower than Russia’s despite much better climate). Does Australia need more immigrants? (I could almost imagine Australia would be even better with less immigration).

    In Russia, the current situation is some cities depopulating and declining, because of internal migration. Other cities are growing in population and do not have adequate infrastructure

    • Replies: @Beckow
    Netherlands is definitely overpopulated, just not in a dysfunctional way. Yet. (But there is no parking left in the whole country, I have been there.) Australia is potentially not very habitable - too dry. Bangladesh is an evolutionary error, no amount of thinking can fix it - so let's not think about it.

    The obsession with increasing populations and with big metropolitan areas is very unhealthy. More of the same - even if is good - is not that desirable. Having a 1.5-1.6 fertility in effect keeps populations stable. There is always some individual in-migration and if population drops by 5-10% over 2-3 generations it might be a good thing. I don't quite get the need for growing populations. They grow, they shrink, life goes on.

    Russia has close to optimal population of 140-150 million. Lots of resources, not too many people, and society can focus on quality of life. What is destroying the West is not the low birthrates among the natives, it is the huge influx of millions of new migrants. West could be a literal paradise today if these intentional mistaken policies were not started after WWII. Maybe the people who thought that cheap labor, over-crowded cities, crime and malaise would be great should be held accountable.
    , @Yevardian
    Australia's inner-city Melbourne and Sydney are approaching Los Angeles in regard to Demographics, swapping Indians/Chinese for Hispanics. It can't really be emphasised enough that most of the country is uninhabitable, there are no non-coastal cities, with the exception of the artificial capital, Canberra, akin to Brasilia.
  103. @German_reader
    I know, and personally I'd regard Russia as part of European civilization anyway. But my impression is that many Russian nationalists are at least ambivalent about relations to Europe (e.g. our host AK has in the past written about the history of Western "crusades" against Russia, and of course there's the memory of the war with Nazi Germany which wanted to destroy Russia).
    In any case, I don't think it would be a good idea for Russia to allow mass immigration into separate ethnic areas of any foreigners, no matter their origin.

    These local ethnic conflicts will feed into international ones. I believe we are already seeing that in the US – perhaps in Europe.

    When Romney was the Republican candidate in 2012, leftists laughed at him for trying to turn Russia into a hobgoblin to justify military spending. Since then, of course, they have gone utterly crazy over Russia, and there is an undeniable racial element to it. For instance, I have seen trolls post pictures of Russian kids playing near crummy, falling apart communist era buildings, saying that is what whites build. They do this along with posting a bucktoothed American hillbilly wearing a shirt with the word “cuck” on it.

    What we are seeing is the result of migration. But it is not just a primary or secondary effect. It has given birth to something – an ideology. And ideologies are global. Lenin always asked the radicals that had been deported to Russia from America, “When do you think the revolution will happen in America?”

    • Replies: @Beckow

    leftists have gone utterly crazy over Russia, and there is an undeniable racial element to it.... What we are seeing is the result of migration. But it is not just a primary or secondary effect. It has given birth to something – an ideology...
     
    Very good point - we are seeing a birth of a liberal-Third-word ideology that has as its fuel the emotional hatred of Russians (other Slavs, Europeans and white people in general are not far behind). It is the core of current leftism.

    Maybe it was the weird combination of circumstances in 2015-16: Trump, migrants, Syria and Ukraine, Clintons' entitlement. Or it is just such a natural thing for 'people of color' to do that it was inevitable. I recall that the anti-Serb hysteria of the late 90's was also particularly virulent among the people-of-color/migrants/Middle Easterners. They need an enemy and the globalists have nicely lined up the assorted Eastern Europeans - who are so offensively still white - and the eventual focus on the Russians was probably inevitable.

    It also helps the aspiring migrant groups to pretend to be a 'part of the West'. They get to march around spouting nonsense about Russia feeling that they are then accepted. It is a very stupid posture and it will hurt the migrating Third Worlders and their offspring - Russia has been (rather unfortunately) a counter-weight to the more crazy Western imperial adventures. Russia is also huge and is not going away. Maybe having these Paki-Nigerian-Indian enthusiasts show their true colours so blatantly is a good thing. We know where we stand.

  104. @songbird
    These local ethnic conflicts will feed into international ones. I believe we are already seeing that in the US - perhaps in Europe.

    When Romney was the Republican candidate in 2012, leftists laughed at him for trying to turn Russia into a hobgoblin to justify military spending. Since then, of course, they have gone utterly crazy over Russia, and there is an undeniable racial element to it. For instance, I have seen trolls post pictures of Russian kids playing near crummy, falling apart communist era buildings, saying that is what whites build. They do this along with posting a bucktoothed American hillbilly wearing a shirt with the word "cuck" on it.

    What we are seeing is the result of migration. But it is not just a primary or secondary effect. It has given birth to something - an ideology. And ideologies are global. Lenin always asked the radicals that had been deported to Russia from America, "When do you think the revolution will happen in America?"

    leftists have gone utterly crazy over Russia, and there is an undeniable racial element to it…. What we are seeing is the result of migration. But it is not just a primary or secondary effect. It has given birth to something – an ideology…

    Very good point – we are seeing a birth of a liberal-Third-word ideology that has as its fuel the emotional hatred of Russians (other Slavs, Europeans and white people in general are not far behind). It is the core of current leftism.

    Maybe it was the weird combination of circumstances in 2015-16: Trump, migrants, Syria and Ukraine, Clintons’ entitlement. Or it is just such a natural thing for ‘people of color‘ to do that it was inevitable. I recall that the anti-Serb hysteria of the late 90’s was also particularly virulent among the people-of-color/migrants/Middle Easterners. They need an enemy and the globalists have nicely lined up the assorted Eastern Europeans – who are so offensively still white – and the eventual focus on the Russians was probably inevitable.

    It also helps the aspiring migrant groups to pretend to be a ‘part of the West’. They get to march around spouting nonsense about Russia feeling that they are then accepted. It is a very stupid posture and it will hurt the migrating Third Worlders and their offspring – Russia has been (rather unfortunately) a counter-weight to the more crazy Western imperial adventures. Russia is also huge and is not going away. Maybe having these Paki-Nigerian-Indian enthusiasts show their true colours so blatantly is a good thing. We know where we stand.

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @Annatar
    I agree, hatred of Russians on a racial level is becoming the new norm for the left, one only needs to read the comments of leftists on sites such as reddit, a new ideology which prizes the people of the third world and global capital has emerged and is quickly becoming the dominant ideology of the western elites, it is an utterly absurd ideology yet when has rationality ever determined what ideologies become dominant, this is why Russians that hope for cooperation with the west are delusional in my opinion, Russia would be better off focusing on China. It is an irony one could say that the entire western world is more or less united against Russia and only non-white nations are willing to work with Russia and the opposition to Russia by the west is based off western elites hatred for white people. It is a sad reflection on European civilisation that Erdogan is more willing to work with Russia then the leaders of France or Germany.
  105. @Dmitry
    But the intermarriage rate (to Russian men) will be far higher than stated in this table for many of these nationalities. The reason is this table, is identifying nationality by the census.

    However, in the census nowadays, you choose your own nationality as you want. People who are assimilated, choosing Russian as their nationality, from some of these groups (perhaps not Koreans and Armenians, but certainly Greeks, Jews, Germans, Poles, etc). While more nationalistic people (less likely to intermarry) are identifying by those nationalities.

    So you can probably add a higher figure of real intermarriage for much of the nationalities listed.

    But the intermarriage rate (to Russian men) will be far higher than stated in this table for many of these nationalities.

    This is a fair point, but such a correction will not change the order of ethnic groups in the list. After the correction also happens that Russian is easier intermarried with the Protestant ethnic groups than with the Orthodox.

  106. @Dmitry
    Also there is no objective "underpopulated" or "overpopulated". It's relative to economic needs, infrastructure, cultural configuration and climate.

    Typically, people make this judgement ("underpopulated" or "overpopulated") from how successful the country is. For example Netherlands has one of the highest population densities in the world. But is it overpopulated? Few says this, because it is a successful country.

    On the other hand, is Bangladesh overpopulated? Everyone says that it is, because it is unsuccessful country.

    On the other extreme, is Australia underpopulated? (Australia's population density is lower than Russia's despite much better climate). Does Australia need more immigrants? (I could almost imagine Australia would be even better with less immigration).

    -

    In Russia, the current situation is some cities depopulating and declining, because of internal migration. Other cities are growing in population and do not have adequate infrastructure

    Netherlands is definitely overpopulated, just not in a dysfunctional way. Yet. (But there is no parking left in the whole country, I have been there.) Australia is potentially not very habitable – too dry. Bangladesh is an evolutionary error, no amount of thinking can fix it – so let’s not think about it.

    The obsession with increasing populations and with big metropolitan areas is very unhealthy. More of the same – even if is good – is not that desirable. Having a 1.5-1.6 fertility in effect keeps populations stable. There is always some individual in-migration and if population drops by 5-10% over 2-3 generations it might be a good thing. I don’t quite get the need for growing populations. They grow, they shrink, life goes on.

    Russia has close to optimal population of 140-150 million. Lots of resources, not too many people, and society can focus on quality of life. What is destroying the West is not the low birthrates among the natives, it is the huge influx of millions of new migrants. West could be a literal paradise today if these intentional mistaken policies were not started after WWII. Maybe the people who thought that cheap labor, over-crowded cities, crime and malaise would be great should be held accountable.

    • Replies: @Dmitry

    What is destroying the West is not the low birthrates among the natives, it is the huge influx of millions of new migrants. West could be a literal paradise today if these intentional mistaken policies were not started after WWII
     
    I agree. A problem is the reaction of politicians to the low fertility - who think they need population replacement to finance their expensive programs.

    In this scenario, "cure" can be worse than "disease". All said, most of Western Europe is still quite nice at least for now (places like Paris are far too much though).

    , @silviosilver

    Australia is potentially not very habitable – too dry.
     
    The "habitable zone" (almost all of it's "habitable," actually) of Australia, about 1 million square km, could quite easily accommodate a population of 100 million.

    Having a 1.5-1.6 fertility in effect keeps populations stable. There is always some individual in-migration and if population drops by 5-10% over 2-3 generations it might be a good thing.
     
    From memory, from simulations I've performed, a sustained fertility of 1.5-1.6 will generate an annual population loss of something like 0.5%. (Might have been closer to 1%.) You'd need western-like immigration rates to keep that population stable - but if every country is at 1.5-1.6 fertility, then where are those immigrants going to come from?

    So, no, you'd actually be facing a catastrophic population drop, far greater than your fanciful 5-10%, over the course of two or three generations.

    Russia has close to optimal population of 140-150 million. Lots of resources, not too many people, and society can focus on quality of life.
     
    So you'd have us believe that if Russia had fewer than 140-150 million people you'd be arguing that Russia badly needs to grow its population in order to make it "optimal"? I have my doubts.

    Population "optimality" is relative. The "optimal" population in 2000 BC is going to look very different to the optimal population in 2000 CE.
  107. @melanf

    Why would Russians be interested in that? ...And interactions with the West also haven’t always been exactly positive.
     
    According to the historian Gumilev, Russians are a part of the Orthodox civilization, they are "complimentary" to the nomads of the Asian steppes, and absolutely not complimentary to the peoples of Western Christianity. (that is simply incompatible with them). This idea is clearly contradicted the empirical observations. I tried to check Gumilev's ideas statistically - with which ethnic groups living in Russia (in the form of scattered diasporas - without their own republics) Russians are easier to marry. The result was unexpected:
    https://a.radikal.ru/a26/1901/b5/90cbc63d318f.png

    That is, Russian is easier intermarried with Protestants (4 upper position), then Catholics (5th and 6th position in the list), only then with the Orthodox (!!!), then with Jews and Muslims. Based on this, "Western Europeans" are the most suitable migrants for Russia (except for the Russians themselves of course)

    Generally you are correct, the Caucasians are ofc famously clannish (even the Christians).
    Very high rates of Poles, Balts, Germans must also have something partially to do with their very low numbers in Russia, not just cultural compatibility with Russians.

    Complete list here: https://oleg-lisowski.livejournal.com/18803.html

    (I mentioned Oleg Lisovsky’s post here.

    • Replies: @melanf

    Very high rates of Poles, Balts, Germans must also have something partially to do with their very low numbers in Russia, not just cultural compatibility with Russians.
     
    I specifically cited the number of diasporas in the last column. 20 thousands of Russian Finns (historically - Lutheran) and 30 thousands of poles (Catholics) easier intermarried with Russians than 24 thousands of Bulgarians (Orthodox). 400 thousand Germans rather intermarried with Russian than 157 thousand Orthodox Georgians, 156 thousand Orthodox Moldavians and 85 thousand Orthodox Greeks.

    Obviously this phenomenon cannot be explained by the size of the Diaspora

  108. @reiner Tor
    I’m not used to it either, but obviously it’s the natural position, so it’d be better if we all used it since childhood.

    Many people cannot even properly squat at all, much less for several minutes, so the infrastructure cannot really be moved there.

    Even more natural than squatting is supporting your weight with your arms, like you’re doing a dip on bars. Why this works so well probably goes back to our time in the trees. Of course few bathrooms are set up for these kind of calisthenics.

  109. @German_reader
    I know, and personally I'd regard Russia as part of European civilization anyway. But my impression is that many Russian nationalists are at least ambivalent about relations to Europe (e.g. our host AK has in the past written about the history of Western "crusades" against Russia, and of course there's the memory of the war with Nazi Germany which wanted to destroy Russia).
    In any case, I don't think it would be a good idea for Russia to allow mass immigration into separate ethnic areas of any foreigners, no matter their origin.

    Most Russian nationalists (inc. myself) view Russia as a part of Europe. Most of us are not Eurasianists, after all.

    Of course it’s also the case that intra-civilizational quarrels tend to be the bloodiest and most endemic ones. Little common history, culture, etc. = less room for animosity. A comparison can be made with warring Irish clans before the English came and subjugated them all, or the Native American tribes during the age of European settlement. Much more engaged in their parochial squabbles and blind to the foreign strategic threat.

    Well, I am self-consciously in the same boat, and I accept that. I support the burgeoning Sino-Russian relationship. Perhaps I am delusional, but I am pretty sure that the more overtly racialist and pro-European (they are correlated, funnily enough – which actually helps prove the point I am just going to make) Russian nationalists are extremely deluded with their high hopes for a strategic partnerships with Germany and/or Visegrad against the darkies, against the Anglo-Saxons, or whatever.

    • Replies: @German_reader

    Russian nationalists are extremely deluded with their high hopes for a strategic partnerships with Germany and/or Visegrad against the darkies, against the Anglo-Saxons
     
    Sure, that is hardly a realistic prospect, and it would be wrong to deny that perceptions of Russia in Europe are often very negative (though not uniformly so).
    But I don't think one should give up all hope for better relations between Russia and continental Europe at some point in the future, unlikely as it may seem now.
  110. @Anatoly Karlin
    Most Russian nationalists (inc. myself) view Russia as a part of Europe. Most of us are not Eurasianists, after all.

    Of course it's also the case that intra-civilizational quarrels tend to be the bloodiest and most endemic ones. Little common history, culture, etc. = less room for animosity. A comparison can be made with warring Irish clans before the English came and subjugated them all, or the Native American tribes during the age of European settlement. Much more engaged in their parochial squabbles and blind to the foreign strategic threat.

    Well, I am self-consciously in the same boat, and I accept that. I support the burgeoning Sino-Russian relationship. Perhaps I am delusional, but I am pretty sure that the more overtly racialist and pro-European (they are correlated, funnily enough - which actually helps prove the point I am just going to make) Russian nationalists are extremely deluded with their high hopes for a strategic partnerships with Germany and/or Visegrad against the darkies, against the Anglo-Saxons, or whatever.

    Russian nationalists are extremely deluded with their high hopes for a strategic partnerships with Germany and/or Visegrad against the darkies, against the Anglo-Saxons

    Sure, that is hardly a realistic prospect, and it would be wrong to deny that perceptions of Russia in Europe are often very negative (though not uniformly so).
    But I don’t think one should give up all hope for better relations between Russia and continental Europe at some point in the future, unlikely as it may seem now.

  111. @Beckow
    Netherlands is definitely overpopulated, just not in a dysfunctional way. Yet. (But there is no parking left in the whole country, I have been there.) Australia is potentially not very habitable - too dry. Bangladesh is an evolutionary error, no amount of thinking can fix it - so let's not think about it.

    The obsession with increasing populations and with big metropolitan areas is very unhealthy. More of the same - even if is good - is not that desirable. Having a 1.5-1.6 fertility in effect keeps populations stable. There is always some individual in-migration and if population drops by 5-10% over 2-3 generations it might be a good thing. I don't quite get the need for growing populations. They grow, they shrink, life goes on.

    Russia has close to optimal population of 140-150 million. Lots of resources, not too many people, and society can focus on quality of life. What is destroying the West is not the low birthrates among the natives, it is the huge influx of millions of new migrants. West could be a literal paradise today if these intentional mistaken policies were not started after WWII. Maybe the people who thought that cheap labor, over-crowded cities, crime and malaise would be great should be held accountable.

    What is destroying the West is not the low birthrates among the natives, it is the huge influx of millions of new migrants. West could be a literal paradise today if these intentional mistaken policies were not started after WWII

    I agree. A problem is the reaction of politicians to the low fertility – who think they need population replacement to finance their expensive programs.

    In this scenario, “cure” can be worse than “disease”. All said, most of Western Europe is still quite nice at least for now (places like Paris are far too much though).

    • Replies: @Beckow

    ...reaction of politicians to the low fertility – who think they need population replacement to finance their expensive programs
     
    They cannot be that stupid, or can they? My humble opinion is that most of them understand fully well that the alluded to pyramid scheme of endless population replacement is nonsense. They repeat it because they want to bring in migrants to replace the current people and to keep labor market over-supplied with labor to keep incomes low - and that is hard to say openly.
  112. @Dmitry

    What is destroying the West is not the low birthrates among the natives, it is the huge influx of millions of new migrants. West could be a literal paradise today if these intentional mistaken policies were not started after WWII
     
    I agree. A problem is the reaction of politicians to the low fertility - who think they need population replacement to finance their expensive programs.

    In this scenario, "cure" can be worse than "disease". All said, most of Western Europe is still quite nice at least for now (places like Paris are far too much though).

    …reaction of politicians to the low fertility – who think they need population replacement to finance their expensive programs

    They cannot be that stupid, or can they? My humble opinion is that most of them understand fully well that the alluded to pyramid scheme of endless population replacement is nonsense. They repeat it because they want to bring in migrants to replace the current people and to keep labor market over-supplied with labor to keep incomes low – and that is hard to say openly.

    • Replies: @Hyperborean

    They repeat it because they want to bring in migrants to replace the current people and to keep labor market over-supplied with labor to keep incomes low – and that is hard to say openly.
     
    In Sweden some of the 'socially liberal, fiscally conservative'/libertarian people state that the minimum wage needs to be lowered and other employment benefits got rid of in order to increase employment prospects of migrants.

    And the sad thing is - it most likely is necessary but only because these selfsame politicians deliberately engineered this situation.
  113. @Epigon
    Why would Russian nationalists protest against people speaking Russian, living in Russia, producing added value and paying taxes in Russia? Do the communities you posted pictures of generate negative feelings?

    It is obvious they didn’t assimilate, have German language lessons, German culture and customs preserved. Would you call the German immigrants and residents of Imperial period a detrimental concept?

    That’s all for show. German settlers in Russia had fully assimilated by the 19th century.

    • Replies: @German_reader

    German settlers in Russia had fully assimilated by the 19th century.
     
    I don't think that's really true, as far as I know the real break for many communities was only the deportation to Kazakhstan during the Stalin era (which led to loss of German language and other cultural markers among the younger generations).
  114. @Yevardian
    That's all for show. German settlers in Russia had fully assimilated by the 19th century.

    German settlers in Russia had fully assimilated by the 19th century.

    I don’t think that’s really true, as far as I know the real break for many communities was only the deportation to Kazakhstan during the Stalin era (which led to loss of German language and other cultural markers among the younger generations).

    • Replies: @Yevardian
    They were assimilated as far as they spoke fluent Russian, intermarried, didn't form enclaves and fully identified with the Russian nation. You can see Chekhov's 'The Duel', Tolstoy's 'War and Peace' or Turgenev's 'Father's and Sons' for examples. Dostoevsky always portrays Russian-Germans with comical accents, but he had a pathological hatred of Germans (among others) so there's that.
  115. @Beckow

    ...reaction of politicians to the low fertility – who think they need population replacement to finance their expensive programs
     
    They cannot be that stupid, or can they? My humble opinion is that most of them understand fully well that the alluded to pyramid scheme of endless population replacement is nonsense. They repeat it because they want to bring in migrants to replace the current people and to keep labor market over-supplied with labor to keep incomes low - and that is hard to say openly.

    They repeat it because they want to bring in migrants to replace the current people and to keep labor market over-supplied with labor to keep incomes low – and that is hard to say openly.

    In Sweden some of the ‘socially liberal, fiscally conservative’/libertarian people state that the minimum wage needs to be lowered and other employment benefits got rid of in order to increase employment prospects of migrants.

    And the sad thing is – it most likely is necessary but only because these selfsame politicians deliberately engineered this situation.

    • Replies: @Beckow

    ...In Sweden some of the ‘socially liberal, fiscally conservative’/libertarian people state that the minimum wage needs to be lowered to increase employment prospects of migrants.
     
    Bingo, we are going full circle. I have always said that these so-called experts are basically middle school assistant principal types with too much time (and money) on their hands. They are the most dangerous people around; I can handle greed, even evil, but what can we do with process-driven morons?
  116. @German_reader

    German settlers in Russia had fully assimilated by the 19th century.
     
    I don't think that's really true, as far as I know the real break for many communities was only the deportation to Kazakhstan during the Stalin era (which led to loss of German language and other cultural markers among the younger generations).

    They were assimilated as far as they spoke fluent Russian, intermarried, didn’t form enclaves and fully identified with the Russian nation. You can see Chekhov’s ‘The Duel’, Tolstoy’s ‘War and Peace’ or Turgenev’s ‘Father’s and Sons’ for examples. Dostoevsky always portrays Russian-Germans with comical accents, but he had a pathological hatred of Germans (among others) so there’s that.

    • Replies: @melanf

    They were assimilated as far as they spoke fluent Russian, intermarried, didn’t form enclaves and fully identified with the Russian nation. You can see Chekhov’s ‘The Duel’, Tolstoy’s ‘War and Peace’ or Turgenev’s ‘Father’s and Sons’ for examples.
     
    These are different Germans. In Russia there were three groups of Germans: German nobles (mostly from Latvia and Estonia) - about them wrote Chekhov and Tolstoy. German urban population (artisans, merchants, teachers). And German peasants (partly descendants of German-speaking Swiss). The first two groups were assimilated in the 19th century. German peasants assimilated only in the 20th century (deportation played a big role in this), old peasants in Siberia still speak their own language (different from classical German)
  117. @Dmitry
    Also there is no objective "underpopulated" or "overpopulated". It's relative to economic needs, infrastructure, cultural configuration and climate.

    Typically, people make this judgement ("underpopulated" or "overpopulated") from how successful the country is. For example Netherlands has one of the highest population densities in the world. But is it overpopulated? Few says this, because it is a successful country.

    On the other hand, is Bangladesh overpopulated? Everyone says that it is, because it is unsuccessful country.

    On the other extreme, is Australia underpopulated? (Australia's population density is lower than Russia's despite much better climate). Does Australia need more immigrants? (I could almost imagine Australia would be even better with less immigration).

    -

    In Russia, the current situation is some cities depopulating and declining, because of internal migration. Other cities are growing in population and do not have adequate infrastructure

    Australia’s inner-city Melbourne and Sydney are approaching Los Angeles in regard to Demographics, swapping Indians/Chinese for Hispanics. It can’t really be emphasised enough that most of the country is uninhabitable, there are no non-coastal cities, with the exception of the artificial capital, Canberra, akin to Brasilia.

    • Replies: @silviosilver

    with the exception of the artificial capital, Canberra, akin to Brasilia.
     
    Canberra sits well within the habitable zone. It's only relation to Brasilia is that they were both planned cities.
  118. @Anatoly Karlin
    Generally you are correct, the Caucasians are ofc famously clannish (even the Christians).
    Very high rates of Poles, Balts, Germans must also have something partially to do with their very low numbers in Russia, not just cultural compatibility with Russians.

    Complete list here: https://oleg-lisowski.livejournal.com/18803.html

    (I mentioned Oleg Lisovsky's post here.

    Very high rates of Poles, Balts, Germans must also have something partially to do with their very low numbers in Russia, not just cultural compatibility with Russians.

    I specifically cited the number of diasporas in the last column. 20 thousands of Russian Finns (historically – Lutheran) and 30 thousands of poles (Catholics) easier intermarried with Russians than 24 thousands of Bulgarians (Orthodox). 400 thousand Germans rather intermarried with Russian than 157 thousand Orthodox Georgians, 156 thousand Orthodox Moldavians and 85 thousand Orthodox Greeks.

    Obviously this phenomenon cannot be explained by the size of the Diaspora

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
  119. @Epigon
    Why would Russian nationalists protest against people speaking Russian, living in Russia, producing added value and paying taxes in Russia? Do the communities you posted pictures of generate negative feelings?

    It is obvious they didn’t assimilate, have German language lessons, German culture and customs preserved. Would you call the German immigrants and residents of Imperial period a detrimental concept?

    Why would Russian nationalists protest against people speaking Russian…

    Russian nationalists would welcome a hypothetical (and clearly impossible) migration in Russia the Germans, Swedes, and white Americans, etc. But they (nationalists) would be against “anti-assimilation” law (if the law forbids mixed marriages, etc.). If the “anti-assimilation” law means the law against forced assimilation, then such a law is not needed (in Russia there is no forced assimilation)

    It is obvious they didn’t assimilate

    In rural areas. In remote villages, people can preserve their language and culture for centuries, but once they move to the city, they assimilate. If we keep in mind the Russian Germans, in the villages in Siberia really live the Germans. But the absolute majority of” Russian Germans ” today are in reality Russian of German origin.

  120. @Yevardian
    They were assimilated as far as they spoke fluent Russian, intermarried, didn't form enclaves and fully identified with the Russian nation. You can see Chekhov's 'The Duel', Tolstoy's 'War and Peace' or Turgenev's 'Father's and Sons' for examples. Dostoevsky always portrays Russian-Germans with comical accents, but he had a pathological hatred of Germans (among others) so there's that.

    They were assimilated as far as they spoke fluent Russian, intermarried, didn’t form enclaves and fully identified with the Russian nation. You can see Chekhov’s ‘The Duel’, Tolstoy’s ‘War and Peace’ or Turgenev’s ‘Father’s and Sons’ for examples.

    These are different Germans. In Russia there were three groups of Germans: German nobles (mostly from Latvia and Estonia) – about them wrote Chekhov and Tolstoy. German urban population (artisans, merchants, teachers). And German peasants (partly descendants of German-speaking Swiss). The first two groups were assimilated in the 19th century. German peasants assimilated only in the 20th century (deportation played a big role in this), old peasants in Siberia still speak their own language (different from classical German)

    • Replies: @Bao Jiankang
    How do the Volga Germans and Mennonites fit into your classification?
  121. @utu
    I have responded to you only because of this part you wrote:

    carried out under a supposedly corrupt Tammany Hall
     
    That they built the aqueduct is not a proof they were not corrupt as that Pharaohs built pyramids which are still standing is not a proof there was no slavery there. That they were effective on top of the corruption may speak more about America than the Irish who were involved.

    utu:

    supposedly

    “according to what is generally assumed or believed (often used to indicate that the speaker doubts the truth of the statement)”

    Oxford living Dictionary

  122. @Beckow
    Netherlands is definitely overpopulated, just not in a dysfunctional way. Yet. (But there is no parking left in the whole country, I have been there.) Australia is potentially not very habitable - too dry. Bangladesh is an evolutionary error, no amount of thinking can fix it - so let's not think about it.

    The obsession with increasing populations and with big metropolitan areas is very unhealthy. More of the same - even if is good - is not that desirable. Having a 1.5-1.6 fertility in effect keeps populations stable. There is always some individual in-migration and if population drops by 5-10% over 2-3 generations it might be a good thing. I don't quite get the need for growing populations. They grow, they shrink, life goes on.

    Russia has close to optimal population of 140-150 million. Lots of resources, not too many people, and society can focus on quality of life. What is destroying the West is not the low birthrates among the natives, it is the huge influx of millions of new migrants. West could be a literal paradise today if these intentional mistaken policies were not started after WWII. Maybe the people who thought that cheap labor, over-crowded cities, crime and malaise would be great should be held accountable.

    Australia is potentially not very habitable – too dry.

    The “habitable zone” (almost all of it’s “habitable,” actually) of Australia, about 1 million square km, could quite easily accommodate a population of 100 million.

    Having a 1.5-1.6 fertility in effect keeps populations stable. There is always some individual in-migration and if population drops by 5-10% over 2-3 generations it might be a good thing.

    From memory, from simulations I’ve performed, a sustained fertility of 1.5-1.6 will generate an annual population loss of something like 0.5%. (Might have been closer to 1%.) You’d need western-like immigration rates to keep that population stable – but if every country is at 1.5-1.6 fertility, then where are those immigrants going to come from?

    So, no, you’d actually be facing a catastrophic population drop, far greater than your fanciful 5-10%, over the course of two or three generations.

    Russia has close to optimal population of 140-150 million. Lots of resources, not too many people, and society can focus on quality of life.

    So you’d have us believe that if Russia had fewer than 140-150 million people you’d be arguing that Russia badly needs to grow its population in order to make it “optimal”? I have my doubts.

    Population “optimality” is relative. The “optimal” population in 2000 BC is going to look very different to the optimal population in 2000 CE.

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @Hyperborean

    The “habitable zone” (almost all of it’s “habitable,” actually) of Australia, about 1 million square km, could quite easily accommodate a population of 100 million.
     
    I thought Australia is quite dry. Can the water supply handle it?
    , @Yevardian
    100 Million. Dumbest comment of the year already?
    , @Beckow

    Australia could accommodate a population of 100 million
     
    My garage could accommodate 7 people, possibly 8. I am not doing it, and I suspect Australia with 100 million (with even 40-50 million) would be close to unliveable. Unless you think places like Jakarta or Mumbai are actually liveable. They really are not.

    Australia is dry and getting dryer - that is a constraint.

    facing a catastrophic population drop, far greater than your fanciful 5-10%, over the course of two or three generations.
     
    The experience doesn't support that projection. Quite a few countries in Europe with no in-migration have had a sustained fertility of 1.5-1.6 for at least 25 years and their populations have not dropped, or dropped very minimally (3-5%). What you overlook is that age longevity is increasing (e.g. in Central Europe by 2-3 years each decade). Countries end up with older populations over time, but no catastrophic drop. That still might come in 50 years if the longevity suddenly stalls.

    The women fertility numbers are also imprecise, based on a number of assumptions that in modern world with a lot of mobility are not as true as they were with static populations in the past. I don't dispute that lower fertility will eventually lead to lower overall population, but it is a much longer process than you imply and it is also not 'catastrophic'. In most cases countries would simply go back to populations they had around 1945. It worked quite well then, so what is the problem?

    Russia's optimal population is probably somewhere between 120 and 200 million, they are the half-point right now, seems ok. I am sure Russia could accommodate 1 billion people, but why? What would be the gain? What matters more is the quality of people (who they are, let's not replace higher achieving populations with masses of basically aborigines from the Third World) and the distribution. Russia - as many other countries - would be better off with a more evenly distributed population, the over-crowded metropolitan areas are not that great.

    Population size is just one factor, unless you are obsessed with selling ever more shoes, more is not better. Better is better.
  123. @Yevardian
    Australia's inner-city Melbourne and Sydney are approaching Los Angeles in regard to Demographics, swapping Indians/Chinese for Hispanics. It can't really be emphasised enough that most of the country is uninhabitable, there are no non-coastal cities, with the exception of the artificial capital, Canberra, akin to Brasilia.

    with the exception of the artificial capital, Canberra, akin to Brasilia.

    Canberra sits well within the habitable zone. It’s only relation to Brasilia is that they were both planned cities.

  124. @silviosilver

    Australia is potentially not very habitable – too dry.
     
    The "habitable zone" (almost all of it's "habitable," actually) of Australia, about 1 million square km, could quite easily accommodate a population of 100 million.

    Having a 1.5-1.6 fertility in effect keeps populations stable. There is always some individual in-migration and if population drops by 5-10% over 2-3 generations it might be a good thing.
     
    From memory, from simulations I've performed, a sustained fertility of 1.5-1.6 will generate an annual population loss of something like 0.5%. (Might have been closer to 1%.) You'd need western-like immigration rates to keep that population stable - but if every country is at 1.5-1.6 fertility, then where are those immigrants going to come from?

    So, no, you'd actually be facing a catastrophic population drop, far greater than your fanciful 5-10%, over the course of two or three generations.

    Russia has close to optimal population of 140-150 million. Lots of resources, not too many people, and society can focus on quality of life.
     
    So you'd have us believe that if Russia had fewer than 140-150 million people you'd be arguing that Russia badly needs to grow its population in order to make it "optimal"? I have my doubts.

    Population "optimality" is relative. The "optimal" population in 2000 BC is going to look very different to the optimal population in 2000 CE.

    The “habitable zone” (almost all of it’s “habitable,” actually) of Australia, about 1 million square km, could quite easily accommodate a population of 100 million.

    I thought Australia is quite dry. Can the water supply handle it?

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    Yes, it's dry, but that doesn't mean the water supply is already at the point of exhaustion. Moreover, the water supply is only fixed in the short-term. In the long-term, it can be increased. As I see it, although it would surely be extremely costly, there are no intrinsic obstacles to humans getting the entirety of our fresh water supply through desalination. The fact that however many thousand desalination plants would have to be built is no more of an obstacle than the fact that however many thousand power plants had to be built. The reason that desalination is not more regularly proposed as a solution to water supply is irrational leftie opposition, not because it isn't feasible.
  125. @Hyperborean

    The “habitable zone” (almost all of it’s “habitable,” actually) of Australia, about 1 million square km, could quite easily accommodate a population of 100 million.
     
    I thought Australia is quite dry. Can the water supply handle it?

    Yes, it’s dry, but that doesn’t mean the water supply is already at the point of exhaustion. Moreover, the water supply is only fixed in the short-term. In the long-term, it can be increased. As I see it, although it would surely be extremely costly, there are no intrinsic obstacles to humans getting the entirety of our fresh water supply through desalination. The fact that however many thousand desalination plants would have to be built is no more of an obstacle than the fact that however many thousand power plants had to be built. The reason that desalination is not more regularly proposed as a solution to water supply is irrational leftie opposition, not because it isn’t feasible.

  126. @Beckow

    leftists have gone utterly crazy over Russia, and there is an undeniable racial element to it.... What we are seeing is the result of migration. But it is not just a primary or secondary effect. It has given birth to something – an ideology...
     
    Very good point - we are seeing a birth of a liberal-Third-word ideology that has as its fuel the emotional hatred of Russians (other Slavs, Europeans and white people in general are not far behind). It is the core of current leftism.

    Maybe it was the weird combination of circumstances in 2015-16: Trump, migrants, Syria and Ukraine, Clintons' entitlement. Or it is just such a natural thing for 'people of color' to do that it was inevitable. I recall that the anti-Serb hysteria of the late 90's was also particularly virulent among the people-of-color/migrants/Middle Easterners. They need an enemy and the globalists have nicely lined up the assorted Eastern Europeans - who are so offensively still white - and the eventual focus on the Russians was probably inevitable.

    It also helps the aspiring migrant groups to pretend to be a 'part of the West'. They get to march around spouting nonsense about Russia feeling that they are then accepted. It is a very stupid posture and it will hurt the migrating Third Worlders and their offspring - Russia has been (rather unfortunately) a counter-weight to the more crazy Western imperial adventures. Russia is also huge and is not going away. Maybe having these Paki-Nigerian-Indian enthusiasts show their true colours so blatantly is a good thing. We know where we stand.

    I agree, hatred of Russians on a racial level is becoming the new norm for the left, one only needs to read the comments of leftists on sites such as reddit, a new ideology which prizes the people of the third world and global capital has emerged and is quickly becoming the dominant ideology of the western elites, it is an utterly absurd ideology yet when has rationality ever determined what ideologies become dominant, this is why Russians that hope for cooperation with the west are delusional in my opinion, Russia would be better off focusing on China. It is an irony one could say that the entire western world is more or less united against Russia and only non-white nations are willing to work with Russia and the opposition to Russia by the west is based off western elites hatred for white people. It is a sad reflection on European civilisation that Erdogan is more willing to work with Russia then the leaders of France or Germany.

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @Beckow

    ...new ideology which prizes the people of the third world and global capital has emerged and is quickly becoming the dominant ideology of the western elites
     
    It is basically an ideology of cheap labor and no restrictions on extreme wealth. It vaguely looks like ancient slavery. Their methods have changed, the goals are the same. One unknown is to what extent has the 'colour' been added sincerely, and to what extent are the Davos masters simply cynical.

    Any ideology needs a well-defined enemy (pagans, witches, barbarians, bourgeois,...). The current globalist innovation is that the enemy has been racialised, it reminds one of the early 20th century. The enemies are the white European Christian males with the special place in hell reserved for the Russians. I also would not underestimate the role Third World migrants in the West have played in stirring this up - they have something to prove and they hate a lot.
  127. @silviosilver

    Australia is potentially not very habitable – too dry.
     
    The "habitable zone" (almost all of it's "habitable," actually) of Australia, about 1 million square km, could quite easily accommodate a population of 100 million.

    Having a 1.5-1.6 fertility in effect keeps populations stable. There is always some individual in-migration and if population drops by 5-10% over 2-3 generations it might be a good thing.
     
    From memory, from simulations I've performed, a sustained fertility of 1.5-1.6 will generate an annual population loss of something like 0.5%. (Might have been closer to 1%.) You'd need western-like immigration rates to keep that population stable - but if every country is at 1.5-1.6 fertility, then where are those immigrants going to come from?

    So, no, you'd actually be facing a catastrophic population drop, far greater than your fanciful 5-10%, over the course of two or three generations.

    Russia has close to optimal population of 140-150 million. Lots of resources, not too many people, and society can focus on quality of life.
     
    So you'd have us believe that if Russia had fewer than 140-150 million people you'd be arguing that Russia badly needs to grow its population in order to make it "optimal"? I have my doubts.

    Population "optimality" is relative. The "optimal" population in 2000 BC is going to look very different to the optimal population in 2000 CE.

    100 Million. Dumbest comment of the year already?

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    Care to explain why I'm wrong? Or it it enough to pretend to know what you're talking about?
  128. @silviosilver

    Australia is potentially not very habitable – too dry.
     
    The "habitable zone" (almost all of it's "habitable," actually) of Australia, about 1 million square km, could quite easily accommodate a population of 100 million.

    Having a 1.5-1.6 fertility in effect keeps populations stable. There is always some individual in-migration and if population drops by 5-10% over 2-3 generations it might be a good thing.
     
    From memory, from simulations I've performed, a sustained fertility of 1.5-1.6 will generate an annual population loss of something like 0.5%. (Might have been closer to 1%.) You'd need western-like immigration rates to keep that population stable - but if every country is at 1.5-1.6 fertility, then where are those immigrants going to come from?

    So, no, you'd actually be facing a catastrophic population drop, far greater than your fanciful 5-10%, over the course of two or three generations.

    Russia has close to optimal population of 140-150 million. Lots of resources, not too many people, and society can focus on quality of life.
     
    So you'd have us believe that if Russia had fewer than 140-150 million people you'd be arguing that Russia badly needs to grow its population in order to make it "optimal"? I have my doubts.

    Population "optimality" is relative. The "optimal" population in 2000 BC is going to look very different to the optimal population in 2000 CE.

    Australia could accommodate a population of 100 million

    My garage could accommodate 7 people, possibly 8. I am not doing it, and I suspect Australia with 100 million (with even 40-50 million) would be close to unliveable. Unless you think places like Jakarta or Mumbai are actually liveable. They really are not.

    Australia is dry and getting dryer – that is a constraint.

    facing a catastrophic population drop, far greater than your fanciful 5-10%, over the course of two or three generations.

    The experience doesn’t support that projection. Quite a few countries in Europe with no in-migration have had a sustained fertility of 1.5-1.6 for at least 25 years and their populations have not dropped, or dropped very minimally (3-5%). What you overlook is that age longevity is increasing (e.g. in Central Europe by 2-3 years each decade). Countries end up with older populations over time, but no catastrophic drop. That still might come in 50 years if the longevity suddenly stalls.

    The women fertility numbers are also imprecise, based on a number of assumptions that in modern world with a lot of mobility are not as true as they were with static populations in the past. I don’t dispute that lower fertility will eventually lead to lower overall population, but it is a much longer process than you imply and it is also not ‘catastrophic‘. In most cases countries would simply go back to populations they had around 1945. It worked quite well then, so what is the problem?

    Russia’s optimal population is probably somewhere between 120 and 200 million, they are the half-point right now, seems ok. I am sure Russia could accommodate 1 billion people, but why? What would be the gain? What matters more is the quality of people (who they are, let’s not replace higher achieving populations with masses of basically aborigines from the Third World) and the distribution. Russia – as many other countries – would be better off with a more evenly distributed population, the over-crowded metropolitan areas are not that great.

    Population size is just one factor, unless you are obsessed with selling ever more shoes, more is not better. Better is better.

    • Replies: @silviosilver

    and I suspect Australia with 100 million (with even 40-50 million) would be close to unliveable.
     
    That is an exaggeration worthy of a far left environutter.

    If Australia's "habitable zone" is defined, for the sake of argument, as 1 million square km, then if the population quadrupled to 100 million people, it would still have a population density lower than Slovakia's. Is Slovakia "unlivable"?


    Australia is dry and getting dryer – that is a constraint.
     
    Not an insuperable constraint - desalination changes everything.

    Anyway, are you aware that if Australia increased per capita fresh water consumption by a factor of ten, it would still only be using 30% of its annual renewable fresh water supply?


    The experience doesn’t support that projection. Quite a few countries in Europe with no in-migration have had a sustained fertility of 1.5-1.6 for at least 25 years and their populations have not dropped, or dropped very minimally (3-5%).
     
    A population doesn't begin dropping the minute it goes under 2 children per woman. There is usually a degree of 'demographic momentum' that has been built up in past years, so it's actually possible for the population to grow for a few years after fertility has dipped under 2. (It depends on what fertility was, and for how long, before it goes under 2, though.)

    Which countries are you talking about anyway?


    What you overlook is that age longevity is increasing (e.g. in Central Europe by 2-3 years each decade).
     
    Compared to fertility, longevity is almost completely insignificant. I think AK had some early posts here which confirmed this (the topic was Russian fertility, I think).

    That still might come in 50 years if the longevity suddenly stalls.
     
    Not true. Longevity has almost nothing to do with it. (Unless it were to grow by some fantastic, never-before-seen, uncapped rate.)

    I don’t dispute that lower fertility will eventually lead to lower overall population, but it is a much longer process than you imply and it is also not ‘catastrophic‘.
     
    If there is no uptick in fertility, a population will go on reducing indefinitely. Over a couple of hundred years it could easily drop by 85%. If that isn't enough to qualify as 'catastrophic' to you, I wonder what is.
  129. @Hyperborean

    They repeat it because they want to bring in migrants to replace the current people and to keep labor market over-supplied with labor to keep incomes low – and that is hard to say openly.
     
    In Sweden some of the 'socially liberal, fiscally conservative'/libertarian people state that the minimum wage needs to be lowered and other employment benefits got rid of in order to increase employment prospects of migrants.

    And the sad thing is - it most likely is necessary but only because these selfsame politicians deliberately engineered this situation.

    …In Sweden some of the ‘socially liberal, fiscally conservative’/libertarian people state that the minimum wage needs to be lowered to increase employment prospects of migrants.

    Bingo, we are going full circle. I have always said that these so-called experts are basically middle school assistant principal types with too much time (and money) on their hands. They are the most dangerous people around; I can handle greed, even evil, but what can we do with process-driven morons?

  130. @Annatar
    I agree, hatred of Russians on a racial level is becoming the new norm for the left, one only needs to read the comments of leftists on sites such as reddit, a new ideology which prizes the people of the third world and global capital has emerged and is quickly becoming the dominant ideology of the western elites, it is an utterly absurd ideology yet when has rationality ever determined what ideologies become dominant, this is why Russians that hope for cooperation with the west are delusional in my opinion, Russia would be better off focusing on China. It is an irony one could say that the entire western world is more or less united against Russia and only non-white nations are willing to work with Russia and the opposition to Russia by the west is based off western elites hatred for white people. It is a sad reflection on European civilisation that Erdogan is more willing to work with Russia then the leaders of France or Germany.

    …new ideology which prizes the people of the third world and global capital has emerged and is quickly becoming the dominant ideology of the western elites

    It is basically an ideology of cheap labor and no restrictions on extreme wealth. It vaguely looks like ancient slavery. Their methods have changed, the goals are the same. One unknown is to what extent has the ‘colour‘ been added sincerely, and to what extent are the Davos masters simply cynical.

    Any ideology needs a well-defined enemy (pagans, witches, barbarians, bourgeois,…). The current globalist innovation is that the enemy has been racialised, it reminds one of the early 20th century. The enemies are the white European Christian males with the special place in hell reserved for the Russians. I also would not underestimate the role Third World migrants in the West have played in stirring this up – they have something to prove and they hate a lot.

  131. @Beckow

    Australia could accommodate a population of 100 million
     
    My garage could accommodate 7 people, possibly 8. I am not doing it, and I suspect Australia with 100 million (with even 40-50 million) would be close to unliveable. Unless you think places like Jakarta or Mumbai are actually liveable. They really are not.

    Australia is dry and getting dryer - that is a constraint.

    facing a catastrophic population drop, far greater than your fanciful 5-10%, over the course of two or three generations.
     
    The experience doesn't support that projection. Quite a few countries in Europe with no in-migration have had a sustained fertility of 1.5-1.6 for at least 25 years and their populations have not dropped, or dropped very minimally (3-5%). What you overlook is that age longevity is increasing (e.g. in Central Europe by 2-3 years each decade). Countries end up with older populations over time, but no catastrophic drop. That still might come in 50 years if the longevity suddenly stalls.

    The women fertility numbers are also imprecise, based on a number of assumptions that in modern world with a lot of mobility are not as true as they were with static populations in the past. I don't dispute that lower fertility will eventually lead to lower overall population, but it is a much longer process than you imply and it is also not 'catastrophic'. In most cases countries would simply go back to populations they had around 1945. It worked quite well then, so what is the problem?

    Russia's optimal population is probably somewhere between 120 and 200 million, they are the half-point right now, seems ok. I am sure Russia could accommodate 1 billion people, but why? What would be the gain? What matters more is the quality of people (who they are, let's not replace higher achieving populations with masses of basically aborigines from the Third World) and the distribution. Russia - as many other countries - would be better off with a more evenly distributed population, the over-crowded metropolitan areas are not that great.

    Population size is just one factor, unless you are obsessed with selling ever more shoes, more is not better. Better is better.

    and I suspect Australia with 100 million (with even 40-50 million) would be close to unliveable.

    That is an exaggeration worthy of a far left environutter.

    If Australia’s “habitable zone” is defined, for the sake of argument, as 1 million square km, then if the population quadrupled to 100 million people, it would still have a population density lower than Slovakia’s. Is Slovakia “unlivable”?

    Australia is dry and getting dryer – that is a constraint.

    Not an insuperable constraint – desalination changes everything.

    Anyway, are you aware that if Australia increased per capita fresh water consumption by a factor of ten, it would still only be using 30% of its annual renewable fresh water supply?

    The experience doesn’t support that projection. Quite a few countries in Europe with no in-migration have had a sustained fertility of 1.5-1.6 for at least 25 years and their populations have not dropped, or dropped very minimally (3-5%).

    A population doesn’t begin dropping the minute it goes under 2 children per woman. There is usually a degree of ‘demographic momentum’ that has been built up in past years, so it’s actually possible for the population to grow for a few years after fertility has dipped under 2. (It depends on what fertility was, and for how long, before it goes under 2, though.)

    Which countries are you talking about anyway?

    What you overlook is that age longevity is increasing (e.g. in Central Europe by 2-3 years each decade).

    Compared to fertility, longevity is almost completely insignificant. I think AK had some early posts here which confirmed this (the topic was Russian fertility, I think).

    That still might come in 50 years if the longevity suddenly stalls.

    Not true. Longevity has almost nothing to do with it. (Unless it were to grow by some fantastic, never-before-seen, uncapped rate.)

    I don’t dispute that lower fertility will eventually lead to lower overall population, but it is a much longer process than you imply and it is also not ‘catastrophic‘.

    If there is no uptick in fertility, a population will go on reducing indefinitely. Over a couple of hundred years it could easily drop by 85%. If that isn’t enough to qualify as ‘catastrophic’ to you, I wonder what is.

    • Replies: @Beckow

    ...if Australia's population quadrupled to 100 million people, it would still have a population density lower than Slovakia’s. Is Slovakia “unlivable”?
     
    Wrong analogy. Large parts of Australia are too dry (and too remote for 'desalization') to support same density. Nice valleys, rivers, fields and well-watered lands are not the same as Australian outback with its lack of trees, sandy land and hot weather. Yes, above certain number it would be unliveable. The effective liveable parts of Australia are around 20-30% of its landmass.

    ...population doesn’t begin dropping the minute it goes under 2 children per woman.
     
    I didn't say 'the minute', I said specifically 25 years - why do you create a straw-man to argue with?

    Compared to fertility, longevity is almost completely insignificant.
     
    The longevity has had an impact - that's why population in Central Europe has not dropped. Yes, in the long run it will matter, but I don't worry about situation in 'couple hundred of years' - I just don't care. In our lifetimes the situation even with 1.6 fertility is manageable. In 1945 Czechia had 8 million people and Slovakia 3 million, now it is 10 million and 5.5 million. If with 1.6 fertility we drop to the 1945 level in 50 years, why is that such a big issue?
  132. @Yevardian
    100 Million. Dumbest comment of the year already?

    Care to explain why I’m wrong? Or it it enough to pretend to know what you’re talking about?

  133. @melanf

    They were assimilated as far as they spoke fluent Russian, intermarried, didn’t form enclaves and fully identified with the Russian nation. You can see Chekhov’s ‘The Duel’, Tolstoy’s ‘War and Peace’ or Turgenev’s ‘Father’s and Sons’ for examples.
     
    These are different Germans. In Russia there were three groups of Germans: German nobles (mostly from Latvia and Estonia) - about them wrote Chekhov and Tolstoy. German urban population (artisans, merchants, teachers). And German peasants (partly descendants of German-speaking Swiss). The first two groups were assimilated in the 19th century. German peasants assimilated only in the 20th century (deportation played a big role in this), old peasants in Siberia still speak their own language (different from classical German)

    How do the Volga Germans and Mennonites fit into your classification?

    • Replies: @melanf
    Of course the third group, i.e. peasants. Because of this, they have maintained their ethnic identity for so long.
  134. @Bao Jiankang
    How do the Volga Germans and Mennonites fit into your classification?

    Of course the third group, i.e. peasants. Because of this, they have maintained their ethnic identity for so long.

  135. @silviosilver

    and I suspect Australia with 100 million (with even 40-50 million) would be close to unliveable.
     
    That is an exaggeration worthy of a far left environutter.

    If Australia's "habitable zone" is defined, for the sake of argument, as 1 million square km, then if the population quadrupled to 100 million people, it would still have a population density lower than Slovakia's. Is Slovakia "unlivable"?


    Australia is dry and getting dryer – that is a constraint.
     
    Not an insuperable constraint - desalination changes everything.

    Anyway, are you aware that if Australia increased per capita fresh water consumption by a factor of ten, it would still only be using 30% of its annual renewable fresh water supply?


    The experience doesn’t support that projection. Quite a few countries in Europe with no in-migration have had a sustained fertility of 1.5-1.6 for at least 25 years and their populations have not dropped, or dropped very minimally (3-5%).
     
    A population doesn't begin dropping the minute it goes under 2 children per woman. There is usually a degree of 'demographic momentum' that has been built up in past years, so it's actually possible for the population to grow for a few years after fertility has dipped under 2. (It depends on what fertility was, and for how long, before it goes under 2, though.)

    Which countries are you talking about anyway?


    What you overlook is that age longevity is increasing (e.g. in Central Europe by 2-3 years each decade).
     
    Compared to fertility, longevity is almost completely insignificant. I think AK had some early posts here which confirmed this (the topic was Russian fertility, I think).

    That still might come in 50 years if the longevity suddenly stalls.
     
    Not true. Longevity has almost nothing to do with it. (Unless it were to grow by some fantastic, never-before-seen, uncapped rate.)

    I don’t dispute that lower fertility will eventually lead to lower overall population, but it is a much longer process than you imply and it is also not ‘catastrophic‘.
     
    If there is no uptick in fertility, a population will go on reducing indefinitely. Over a couple of hundred years it could easily drop by 85%. If that isn't enough to qualify as 'catastrophic' to you, I wonder what is.

    …if Australia’s population quadrupled to 100 million people, it would still have a population density lower than Slovakia’s. Is Slovakia “unlivable”?

    Wrong analogy. Large parts of Australia are too dry (and too remote for ‘desalization’) to support same density. Nice valleys, rivers, fields and well-watered lands are not the same as Australian outback with its lack of trees, sandy land and hot weather. Yes, above certain number it would be unliveable. The effective liveable parts of Australia are around 20-30% of its landmass.

    …population doesn’t begin dropping the minute it goes under 2 children per woman.

    I didn’t say ‘the minute’, I said specifically 25 years – why do you create a straw-man to argue with?

    Compared to fertility, longevity is almost completely insignificant.

    The longevity has had an impact – that’s why population in Central Europe has not dropped. Yes, in the long run it will matter, but I don’t worry about situation in ‘couple hundred of years’ – I just don’t care. In our lifetimes the situation even with 1.6 fertility is manageable. In 1945 Czechia had 8 million people and Slovakia 3 million, now it is 10 million and 5.5 million. If with 1.6 fertility we drop to the 1945 level in 50 years, why is that such a big issue?

    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    If with 1.6 fertility we drop to the 1945 level in 50 years, why is that such a big issue?
     
    Hungary currently has a population similar in size to what it was in 1949. Actually, slightly larger. (9.2 million versus 9.8 million.) But the number of births is less than half of what it had been. Hungary has had a below replacement fertility since 1958 (except for a brief period 1975-77), and our population has been dropping since 1981. It peaked at 10.7 million in 1980.

    So natural population decrease means lots of useless pensioners, whose political power will mean that they will keep getting enormous benefits at the expense of the young, making a fertility turnaround doubly difficult.
  136. @Beckow

    ...if Australia's population quadrupled to 100 million people, it would still have a population density lower than Slovakia’s. Is Slovakia “unlivable”?
     
    Wrong analogy. Large parts of Australia are too dry (and too remote for 'desalization') to support same density. Nice valleys, rivers, fields and well-watered lands are not the same as Australian outback with its lack of trees, sandy land and hot weather. Yes, above certain number it would be unliveable. The effective liveable parts of Australia are around 20-30% of its landmass.

    ...population doesn’t begin dropping the minute it goes under 2 children per woman.
     
    I didn't say 'the minute', I said specifically 25 years - why do you create a straw-man to argue with?

    Compared to fertility, longevity is almost completely insignificant.
     
    The longevity has had an impact - that's why population in Central Europe has not dropped. Yes, in the long run it will matter, but I don't worry about situation in 'couple hundred of years' - I just don't care. In our lifetimes the situation even with 1.6 fertility is manageable. In 1945 Czechia had 8 million people and Slovakia 3 million, now it is 10 million and 5.5 million. If with 1.6 fertility we drop to the 1945 level in 50 years, why is that such a big issue?

    If with 1.6 fertility we drop to the 1945 level in 50 years, why is that such a big issue?

    Hungary currently has a population similar in size to what it was in 1949. Actually, slightly larger. (9.2 million versus 9.8 million.) But the number of births is less than half of what it had been. Hungary has had a below replacement fertility since 1958 (except for a brief period 1975-77), and our population has been dropping since 1981. It peaked at 10.7 million in 1980.

    So natural population decrease means lots of useless pensioners, whose political power will mean that they will keep getting enormous benefits at the expense of the young, making a fertility turnaround doubly difficult.

    • Replies: @Beckow
    If I am doing the numbers right, Hungary's population dropped between 1980 and now by 0.9 million or around 10%. In 40 years. It is still higher than it was in 1945 by 5%. At least 100k people left after 1956.

    It is not an ideal picture. I agree that an aging population suppresses young families by their very existence, but is it a 'catastrophe'? I don't think so. The (ethnic) composition of a population is more important for a society than its size and growth. India has 1.4 billion people and s growing fast - are there any Hungarians, Italians or Latvians wishing to move there?
  137. @reiner Tor

    If with 1.6 fertility we drop to the 1945 level in 50 years, why is that such a big issue?
     
    Hungary currently has a population similar in size to what it was in 1949. Actually, slightly larger. (9.2 million versus 9.8 million.) But the number of births is less than half of what it had been. Hungary has had a below replacement fertility since 1958 (except for a brief period 1975-77), and our population has been dropping since 1981. It peaked at 10.7 million in 1980.

    So natural population decrease means lots of useless pensioners, whose political power will mean that they will keep getting enormous benefits at the expense of the young, making a fertility turnaround doubly difficult.

    If I am doing the numbers right, Hungary’s population dropped between 1980 and now by 0.9 million or around 10%. In 40 years. It is still higher than it was in 1945 by 5%. At least 100k people left after 1956.

    It is not an ideal picture. I agree that an aging population suppresses young families by their very existence, but is it a ‘catastrophe‘? I don’t think so. The (ethnic) composition of a population is more important for a society than its size and growth. India has 1.4 billion people and s growing fast – are there any Hungarians, Italians or Latvians wishing to move there?

    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    At least 100k people left after 1956.
     
    Could be 200k. Also hundreds of thousands left in the last decade. But there’s been considerable immigration, at least half a million, mostly ethnic Hungarians from neighboring countries. Also others like Vietnamese, Chinese, Arabs, Ukrainians, etc.

    It’s not a catastrophe, but it’s still very bad.
  138. @Beckow
    If I am doing the numbers right, Hungary's population dropped between 1980 and now by 0.9 million or around 10%. In 40 years. It is still higher than it was in 1945 by 5%. At least 100k people left after 1956.

    It is not an ideal picture. I agree that an aging population suppresses young families by their very existence, but is it a 'catastrophe'? I don't think so. The (ethnic) composition of a population is more important for a society than its size and growth. India has 1.4 billion people and s growing fast - are there any Hungarians, Italians or Latvians wishing to move there?

    At least 100k people left after 1956.

    Could be 200k. Also hundreds of thousands left in the last decade. But there’s been considerable immigration, at least half a million, mostly ethnic Hungarians from neighboring countries. Also others like Vietnamese, Chinese, Arabs, Ukrainians, etc.

    It’s not a catastrophe, but it’s still very bad.

    • Replies: @Beckow
    Not very good. How many non-Hungarian have moved in? We have a few thousand Vietnamese and some Chinese, but the rest are listed in hundreds (at least officially). Lately around 20k Ukrainians came but most claim a link to the old Czecho-Slovakia and came from Subcarpathia. That has ben going on for hundreds of years, they assimilate in 1-2 generations.

    I think most Hungarians who moved to Hungary were from Romania and Ukraine, is that true?

    , @melanf

    Also others like Vietnamese, Chinese, Arabs, Ukrainians, etc.
     
    Strange to me Budapest seemed almost 100% "white" city
  139. @reiner Tor

    At least 100k people left after 1956.
     
    Could be 200k. Also hundreds of thousands left in the last decade. But there’s been considerable immigration, at least half a million, mostly ethnic Hungarians from neighboring countries. Also others like Vietnamese, Chinese, Arabs, Ukrainians, etc.

    It’s not a catastrophe, but it’s still very bad.

    Not very good. How many non-Hungarian have moved in? We have a few thousand Vietnamese and some Chinese, but the rest are listed in hundreds (at least officially). Lately around 20k Ukrainians came but most claim a link to the old Czecho-Slovakia and came from Subcarpathia. That has ben going on for hundreds of years, they assimilate in 1-2 generations.

    I think most Hungarians who moved to Hungary were from Romania and Ukraine, is that true?

  140. @reiner Tor

    At least 100k people left after 1956.
     
    Could be 200k. Also hundreds of thousands left in the last decade. But there’s been considerable immigration, at least half a million, mostly ethnic Hungarians from neighboring countries. Also others like Vietnamese, Chinese, Arabs, Ukrainians, etc.

    It’s not a catastrophe, but it’s still very bad.

    Also others like Vietnamese, Chinese, Arabs, Ukrainians, etc.

    Strange to me Budapest seemed almost 100% “white” city

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Anatoly Karlin Comments via RSS