The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersRussian Reaction Blog
Open Thread 14
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

Currently traveling, posting this from my cell phone so discuss the UK general elections, the ROG inspired spat between Saudi Arabia and Qatar, or whatever.

So Jeremy Corbyn has soared to a point where he’s neck and neck with Theresa May after being 20 points behind. Reminder the Conservatives called this election to expand their dominance in Parliament. Instead, they’ve put themselves in a position where they can lose power outright. Same story with Brexit. Talk of hubris.

I do like Corbyn as a person, more so than May who evokes only the most dreary sensations. To be sure Corbyn is a sandal-wearing open borders socialist who will drive the economy into the ground, but his foreign policy stances at least are solid, and as a perennial sandal wearer myself, I can only approve of his sartorial choices (minus his heresy of pairing them with socks). Anyhow, it’s clear May’s ideas about dealing with Islamic terrorism revolve around the same old of cracking down on Internet “extremism” (read: porn, islamophobia, etc). Whereas at least with Corbyn we have some chance of him unleashing his inner tankie against the jihadists.

Saudi Arabia has presented a list of ten basically unfulfillable demands to Qatar or else a full blockade commences. Well that escalated quickly, LOL. If it goes ahead, Qatar’s only lifeline in the region will become… Iran. At a stroke, the Saudis sideline a rival geopolitical competitor in Syria, and consolidate a new Arab Authoritarian International with themselves at its head. They played Trump well.

I am currently in Saint Petersburg. I was last here in 2002. Back then I liked it more than Moscow. No longer the case. Whatever advantages it might have had back then in terms of civility have now been matched or superseded, since Muscovites themselves have come much more polite and considerate in the past decade, while the technological and infrastructural gap between the two capitals has widened significantly since then in favor of Moscow (e.g. I have been sufficiently spoiled to expect WiFi in the metro). Finally, I now realize that I definitely prefer a continental climate over a maritime one.

 
• Category: Miscellaneous • Tags: Open Thread 
Hide 174 CommentsLeave a Comment
174 Comments to "Open Thread 14"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. To be sure Corbyn is a sandal-wearing open borders socialist

    Is he really open borders socialist? I’d like to see some evidence. I remember, quite recently, the establishment clowns accusing him of being secretly pro-brexit…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    Is he really open borders socialist?
     
    He seems to be a socialist of the internationalist, multiculturalist, minority-worshipping kind, rather than an old school, instinctively patriotic trades unionist type (most of whom were long ago purged from any positions of potential influence in the Labour Party). As such, he would be viscerally opposed to any British or English nationalist positions that would justify controlling immigration, except perhaps a purely pragmatic one concerning the effect of mass immigration on wages (always a tricky one for internationalist socialists, because why should they favour some workers over others merely because they share the same nationality?)

    And it doesn't appear he even pretends to recognise the negative effects of mass immigration on the bargaining power of British workers. Here's how the Labour-supporting Guardian recently described him on the issue:

    "Corbyn has long been a supporter of free movement of people from the EU, but the Labour manifesto acknowledges that this would come to an end after Brexit. He has also vigorously defended the benefits immigrants bring to the economy and declined many times to say he believes immigration should be reduced."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /akarlin/open-thread-14/#comment-1897821
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. E says:

    St. Petersburg used to be a cold northern swamp, and one can still feel it in the climate when visiting (cold, damp, windy and wet), even though it’s now almost entirely covered with stone and asphalt. I can see why the Varangians preferred Veliky Novgorod for their major trade hub between the Baltic and interior Russia – its climate is just so much nicer. St. Petersburg is a really weird example of a huge city that “shouldn’t naturally be there” and exists mostly because of one man’s strong will that it exist.

    It does have very harmonious-looking if monotonous architecture. However, the centre of Moscow has been redone recently and there are now sections of it that are as charming and pleasant to visit as any Western European historical tourist-attracting city you can think of. As for the outskirts of both cities, they look and feel pretty much the same as they were made by the same Soviet planners (personally, I’m a fan of those types of communities — high density, lots of boulevards and nearby forested areas, good groceries & shops within walking distance, public transit links. Sure beats the North American suburbs and parking lots).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Carlo
    "As for the outskirts of both cities, they look and feel pretty much the same as they were made by the same Soviet planners"
    This is central to the plot of one of the most famous and cherished Soviet movies, "Irony of Fate".
    , @melanf

    St. Petersburg is a really weird example of a huge city that “shouldn’t naturally be there” and exists mostly because of one man’s strong will that it exist.
     
    The mouth of the Neva is the most convenient (in fact the only possible) place for a seaport linking the economic center of Russia with the world's ocean trade. Before the advent of Railways, freight transport in the mainland were carried by the rivers. Tsar Peter understood this, and in 1704-1722 were built canal systems connecting the basin of the Neva and basins of the Volga. As a result, 70% of all International trade Russia went through Volga-Neva waterway in the 18th century.
    For example iron from the Urals was carried by the rivers to St. Petersburg to sell to the English merchants http://1piar.ru/folio/images/503505-4c6691f9.jpg

    This Saint Petersburg absolutely typical of the city at the mouth of the river, such as London. Rouen, Amsterdam, Antwerp, etc.
    It's amazing that it was built in the 18th, not the 12th century.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. This site does not have a feature which allows you to give negative reputation to posts.

    But if it did, I would give this post negative reputation.

    I think something is seriously fucking wrong with people who are comfortable with writing long pieces on their cell phones.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. Carlo says:

    “since Muscovites themselves have come much more polite and considerate in the past decade”
    Been to Russia (Moscow, Yasnaya Polyana, Novgorod and Saint Petersburg) exactly 6 years ago, and one of the reasons I preferred Peter’s city over Yuri Dolgoruki’s was that I found people way more polite and cosmopolitan in the Imperial capital. Moscow is extremely rich and developed, apart from huge, but then people are strangely provincial there, hardly speak English and have no patience with foreigners who are not very fluent in Russian (like myself – I can read well, but find it harder to speak, have to think which declension to use, and it takes me time to form a sentence if not a very simple one). I went to a restaurant close to Tretyakov gallery that had a sign that English was spoken, and it wasn’t true: the attendant hardly spoke English, and as all Muscovites had no patience with my Russian. The most polite people I found in Moscow were older fellows (50+, preferrably 60+), in special those who wore Soviet or communist pins or signs – these were the only ones who were willing to listen and help, one of them even walked with me in another direction he was going to ensure I would find the way.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    Off-topic, but are you Carlo Kopp the editor of Airpower Australia?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. Carlo says:
    @E
    St. Petersburg used to be a cold northern swamp, and one can still feel it in the climate when visiting (cold, damp, windy and wet), even though it's now almost entirely covered with stone and asphalt. I can see why the Varangians preferred Veliky Novgorod for their major trade hub between the Baltic and interior Russia - its climate is just so much nicer. St. Petersburg is a really weird example of a huge city that "shouldn't naturally be there" and exists mostly because of one man's strong will that it exist.

    It does have very harmonious-looking if monotonous architecture. However, the centre of Moscow has been redone recently and there are now sections of it that are as charming and pleasant to visit as any Western European historical tourist-attracting city you can think of. As for the outskirts of both cities, they look and feel pretty much the same as they were made by the same Soviet planners (personally, I'm a fan of those types of communities -- high density, lots of boulevards and nearby forested areas, good groceries & shops within walking distance, public transit links. Sure beats the North American suburbs and parking lots).

    “As for the outskirts of both cities, they look and feel pretty much the same as they were made by the same Soviet planners”
    This is central to the plot of one of the most famous and cherished Soviet movies, “Irony of Fate”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dreadnought
    An absolute shambles of a movie
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. melanf says:
    @E
    St. Petersburg used to be a cold northern swamp, and one can still feel it in the climate when visiting (cold, damp, windy and wet), even though it's now almost entirely covered with stone and asphalt. I can see why the Varangians preferred Veliky Novgorod for their major trade hub between the Baltic and interior Russia - its climate is just so much nicer. St. Petersburg is a really weird example of a huge city that "shouldn't naturally be there" and exists mostly because of one man's strong will that it exist.

    It does have very harmonious-looking if monotonous architecture. However, the centre of Moscow has been redone recently and there are now sections of it that are as charming and pleasant to visit as any Western European historical tourist-attracting city you can think of. As for the outskirts of both cities, they look and feel pretty much the same as they were made by the same Soviet planners (personally, I'm a fan of those types of communities -- high density, lots of boulevards and nearby forested areas, good groceries & shops within walking distance, public transit links. Sure beats the North American suburbs and parking lots).

    St. Petersburg is a really weird example of a huge city that “shouldn’t naturally be there” and exists mostly because of one man’s strong will that it exist.

    The mouth of the Neva is the most convenient (in fact the only possible) place for a seaport linking the economic center of Russia with the world’s ocean trade. Before the advent of Railways, freight transport in the mainland were carried by the rivers. Tsar Peter understood this, and in 1704-1722 were built canal systems connecting the basin of the Neva and basins of the Volga. As a result, 70% of all International trade Russia went through Volga-Neva waterway in the 18th century.
    For example iron from the Urals was carried by the rivers to St. Petersburg to sell to the English merchants
    This Saint Petersburg absolutely typical of the city at the mouth of the river, such as London. Rouen, Amsterdam, Antwerp, etc.
    It’s amazing that it was built in the 18th, not the 12th century.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jaakko Raipala
    Such a town *was* built in the 12th century but it was a *Swedish* town and fortress called Landskrona (not to be confused with other places called Landskrona). It was destroyed by Novgorod forces in 1301. Not much information remains about how well developed or populated that town was, though. Of course there were always Finnic tribals there ("neva" in Finnish means a type of swamp).

    The Neva mouth remained effectively no man's land for centuries after that because the Scandinavians were still superior on the sea and Novgorod could not have defended a coastal site against raids that a merchant town would have inevitably attracted but at the same time Novgorod was close and secure in the inland so it could deny the strategic site to Sweden. Sweden eventually did annex the site in 1617...

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

    ...and built a fortress called Nyenskans (swedification of Nevanlinna, fortress-of-Neva) and a mostly ethnic Finnish city with Swedes and Germans as minorities formed around it over the next century. Tsar Peter did not take empty land at the Neva, he took a city (and had its inhabitants murdered or enslaved, something that agitators from Lenin to Hitler have later found very useful here).
    , @E
    "The mouth of the Neva is the most convenient (in fact the only possible) place for a seaport linking the economic center of Russia with the world’s ocean trade"

    Are you aware of just how WIDE major Russian rivers tend to be, though? I think it's no accident that Novgorod served in St. Petersburg's role for centuries, despite being inland. It was a nicer place to live (not only does the climate feel better, but St. Petersburg has a mosquito problem to this day), and it could still accept large ships.

    Plus St. Petersburg remains comparatively hard to defend, as WW2 proved.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. Randal says:

    Anyhow, it’s clear May’s ideas about dealing with Islamic terrorism revolve around the same old of cracking down on Internet “extremism” (read: porn, islamophobia, etc).

    Read: “anti-Semitism”, “homophobia”, nationalism, “racism”. “islamophobia” and probably yes in practice porn (at least of the more way out kind).

    But the constituencies pushing suppression of “antisemitism” and “homophobia” are way more influential than the rest, so those will in practice be the most actively enforced, along with “racism”, nationalism and “islamophobia” to the extent they can be used to keep rivals to the “Conservative” Party suppressed.

    But under no circumstances will terrorism be addressed by meaningfully tackling its real causes – mass immigration and military interventionism. That would be far too inconvenient for the ruling elites of both “left” and “right”.

    Whereas at least with Corbyn we have some chance of him unleashing his inner tankie against the jihadists.

    Corbyn has an inner tankie? Seems unlikely to me. Certainly there’s no reason to suppose he’ll attack jihadists. More likely he’ll be manipulated by the “humanitarian” interventionists, as usual for the left, and we’ll end up bombing another anti-jihadist Arab government. Or murdering more muslims and/or Russian allies to make the world safe for homosexual behaviour, feminism and multiculturalism.

    What seems to have been lost amongst the domestic politics trivia and terrorism hysteria is the reality that the only issue that really matters in this election is how it will affect Brexit.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jaakko Raipala
    So, what we have is a far leftist Corbyn versus the modern Western "right-wing" with a political agenda mostly created out of appropriating radical leftism to be used against right-wing rivals in alliance with leftist strongholds like media and academia.

    It would be much better to be have an actual leftist in power rather than the traitorous pseudo-right-wing. People like Corbyn actually believe in their non-nationalist ideas so any struggle against them is a struggle of worldview while people like May have just adopted anti-nationalist views for political strategy against potential political rivals. There is no way for right-wingers to confront them on their stances because their stances are just hollow adopted strategy against right-wingers.
    , @Ramblinman_73
    Agreed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. @Carlo
    "As for the outskirts of both cities, they look and feel pretty much the same as they were made by the same Soviet planners"
    This is central to the plot of one of the most famous and cherished Soviet movies, "Irony of Fate".

    An absolute shambles of a movie

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    Be gone, blasphemer.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. Mr. Hack says:

    Muscovites themselves have come much more polite and considerate in the past decade

    Not so, their leaders who live in Moscow:

    Last week, the European Court of Human Rights—the highest judicial body for the 47 member states of the Council of Europe—handed down a cluster of decisions on various subjects, from land ownership in Poland to asylum procedures in Switzerland. One of the rulings concerned Application No. 75947/11, “Davydov and Others vs. Russia.” “The fairness of the elections…was seriously compromised by the procedure in which the votes had been recounted. In particular, the extent of recounting, unclear reasons for ordering it, lack of transparency and breaches of procedural guarantees in carrying it out, as well as the results whereby the ruling party gained votes by large margins, strongly support the suspicion of unfairness,” held the judges in Strasbourg. “None of the [domestic] avenues employed by the applicants afforded them a review which would provide sufficient guarantees against arbitrariness.” The seven-judge panel (that included a judge from Russia) unanimously ruled that there has been a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to free elections. With this paragraph came the long-awaited verdict on Russia’s 2011 parliamentary vote. Unofficial estimates published soon after the election put the number of fraudulent ballots at 14 million, one in five cast. Golos, Russia’s leading independent vote-monitoring group, concluded that the election was “not free and fair and… did not comply with Russian electoral legislation and the international electoral standards.” Observers from the OSCE concurred, noting that “the contest was… slanted in favor of the ruling party [as] evidenced by the lack of independence of the election administration, the partiality of most media, and the undue interference of state authorities at different levels.

    http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/vladimir-kara-murza/russia%E2%80%99s-election-was-rigged%E2%80%94and-time-it%E2%80%99s-official

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boris N
    Кто о чём, а украинец об одном и том же. Я всё не могу понять, тебе и таким как ты платят и заказывают бегать по разным блогам и распространять вашу в(ы)шив(атн)ую пропаганду, или у вас это само собой получается искренне и непринуждённо, то есть, как говорят, вы суть "useful idiots"?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. Randal says:

    At a stroke, the Saudis sideline a rival geopolitical competitor in Syria, and consolidate a new Arab Authoritarian International with themselves at its head. They played Trump well.

    Trump seems to have buffooned his way to unleashing a potential crisis. Did it occur to him that green-lighting the Saudis to bully Qatar, whether expressly or implicitly, would potentially create a very costly confrontation? Though most likely the Qataris will have to bow the knee, there’s still a non-zero possibility they might be too proud to do that this time, resulting in a confrontation, probably a coup or invasion, and some very unpleasant dirty laundry indeed coming out for the US and its allies in the region.

    Does Trump really believe the literally stupid stuff he just came out with about collaborating with the Saudis, of all people, being somehow a step forward in dealing with terrorism?

    Is that the same Trump who seemingly was perceptive enough, and independent-minded enough, to abandon the script written for him at the NATO summit and leave out the nonsense about Article 5?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    It is the kind of crisis we can live with.
    It is for the best SA and Qatar annoy each other, and not someone else.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. @melanf

    St. Petersburg is a really weird example of a huge city that “shouldn’t naturally be there” and exists mostly because of one man’s strong will that it exist.
     
    The mouth of the Neva is the most convenient (in fact the only possible) place for a seaport linking the economic center of Russia with the world's ocean trade. Before the advent of Railways, freight transport in the mainland were carried by the rivers. Tsar Peter understood this, and in 1704-1722 were built canal systems connecting the basin of the Neva and basins of the Volga. As a result, 70% of all International trade Russia went through Volga-Neva waterway in the 18th century.
    For example iron from the Urals was carried by the rivers to St. Petersburg to sell to the English merchants http://1piar.ru/folio/images/503505-4c6691f9.jpg

    This Saint Petersburg absolutely typical of the city at the mouth of the river, such as London. Rouen, Amsterdam, Antwerp, etc.
    It's amazing that it was built in the 18th, not the 12th century.

    Such a town *was* built in the 12th century but it was a *Swedish* town and fortress called Landskrona (not to be confused with other places called Landskrona). It was destroyed by Novgorod forces in 1301. Not much information remains about how well developed or populated that town was, though. Of course there were always Finnic tribals there (“neva” in Finnish means a type of swamp).

    The Neva mouth remained effectively no man’s land for centuries after that because the Scandinavians were still superior on the sea and Novgorod could not have defended a coastal site against raids that a merchant town would have inevitably attracted but at the same time Novgorod was close and secure in the inland so it could deny the strategic site to Sweden. Sweden eventually did annex the site in 1617…

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

    …and built a fortress called Nyenskans (swedification of Nevanlinna, fortress-of-Neva) and a mostly ethnic Finnish city with Swedes and Germans as minorities formed around it over the next century. Tsar Peter did not take empty land at the Neva, he took a city (and had its inhabitants murdered or enslaved, something that agitators from Lenin to Hitler have later found very useful here).

    Read More
    • Replies: @melanf

    Such a town *was* built in the 12th century but it was a *Swedish* town and fortress called Landskrona
     
    Fort (not tоwn) Landskrona was a failed attempt of the Swedes capture the mouth of the Neva. In 1300 the Swedes landed at the mouth of the Neva river and built a Fort, but in 1301, the Russian troops took the Fort by storm, and massacred the Swedes.

    The Neva mouth remained effectively no man’s land for centuries after that because the Scandinavians were still superior on the sea and Novgorod could not have defended a coastal site against raids
     
    Novgorod centuries owned these lands, but this lazy Republic could not build a fortress at the mouth of the Neva. Full bastards

    Sweden eventually did annex the site in 1617…
     
    and get rid of the indigenous population. In 1620, the Orthodox population (Russians, Karelians, etc.) accounted for 90% of the population. In 1650 the Orthodox population was 50% (other 50% Lutheran Finns resettled in these lands). In 1698, the Orthodox population was 15%, and 75% were the Lutherans - mostly Finns (Musayev "Political history of Ingermanland"). That is, the indigenous population fled from the Swedish yoke, and "cleansed" lands settled by Finns ( something that agitators from Lenin to Hitler have later found very useful here).

    Tsar Peter did not take empty land at the Neva, he took a city (and had its inhabitants murdered or enslaved
     
    This is an obvious exaggeration. Of course the war was fought in accordance with the "norms" of the time, but Finnish population on the future site of Petersburg was not subjected to deliberate extermination/expulsion. But due to the construction of St. Petersburg (and powerful influx of Russian population) Finns quickly became a minority in these lands.
    , @Pseudonymic Handle
    Peter did that to most cities he captured in the baltic region, including in Finland proper. There are testimonials of swedish and baltic slaves, including women and children, in Siberia, but also in the Ottoman Empire where many were sold.
    This was definitely not according to european war customs at the time.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. Pretty depressing if the choice in Britain comes down between an open borders leftie loon (and that ridiculous cap he’s wearing…is that supposed to make him look like Lenin, Ernst Thälmann and the like?) and a shameless plutocrat who wants to censor the internet and is cozy with Gulf state autocracies.
    But at least the election in Britain is somewhat entertaining. It’s pretty clear how the September elections in Germany will end…four more years of Merkel, what a dreadful prospect.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hector_St_Clare
    Unlike the election last year in the US (where the choice was between two people who really sucked), I quite respect both May and Corbyn. I think they'd probably each do a decent job.

    May is better on immigration & Brexit, but I prefer Corbyn on economics & foreign policy. Not sure how I'd choose, but maybe Corbyn. Immigration is important but it's not the only thing that matters.

    At least the Brits get a choice between two legitimately different worldviews espoused by somewhat sincere politicians.

    Out of curiosity, as a German how would you sum up the different parties on option?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. Randal says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    To be sure Corbyn is a sandal-wearing open borders socialist
     
    Is he really open borders socialist? I'd like to see some evidence. I remember, quite recently, the establishment clowns accusing him of being secretly pro-brexit...

    Is he really open borders socialist?

    He seems to be a socialist of the internationalist, multiculturalist, minority-worshipping kind, rather than an old school, instinctively patriotic trades unionist type (most of whom were long ago purged from any positions of potential influence in the Labour Party). As such, he would be viscerally opposed to any British or English nationalist positions that would justify controlling immigration, except perhaps a purely pragmatic one concerning the effect of mass immigration on wages (always a tricky one for internationalist socialists, because why should they favour some workers over others merely because they share the same nationality?)

    And it doesn’t appear he even pretends to recognise the negative effects of mass immigration on the bargaining power of British workers. Here’s how the Labour-supporting Guardian recently described him on the issue:

    Corbyn has long been a supporter of free movement of people from the EU, but the Labour manifesto acknowledges that this would come to an end after Brexit. He has also vigorously defended the benefits immigrants bring to the economy and declined many times to say he believes immigration should be reduced.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji
    Well, the piece you linked is titled: "Corbyn denies wanting 'uncontrolled migration'".

    It also quotes something called "The Labour manifesto" as promising to “develop and implement fair immigration rules” and create “a new system which is based on our economic needs, balancing controls and existing entitlements”

    Of course "based on our economic needs" could mean anything, but it doesn't sound like an advocacy of 'open borders'. Advocacy of 'open borders' is purely ideological, not pragmatic, 'based on economic needs'...

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. @Randal

    Anyhow, it’s clear May’s ideas about dealing with Islamic terrorism revolve around the same old of cracking down on Internet “extremism” (read: porn, islamophobia, etc).
     
    Read: "anti-Semitism", "homophobia", nationalism, "racism". "islamophobia" and probably yes in practice porn (at least of the more way out kind).

    But the constituencies pushing suppression of "antisemitism" and "homophobia" are way more influential than the rest, so those will in practice be the most actively enforced, along with "racism", nationalism and "islamophobia" to the extent they can be used to keep rivals to the "Conservative" Party suppressed.

    But under no circumstances will terrorism be addressed by meaningfully tackling its real causes - mass immigration and military interventionism. That would be far too inconvenient for the ruling elites of both "left" and "right".

    Whereas at least with Corbyn we have some chance of him unleashing his inner tankie against the jihadists.
     
    Corbyn has an inner tankie? Seems unlikely to me. Certainly there's no reason to suppose he'll attack jihadists. More likely he'll be manipulated by the "humanitarian" interventionists, as usual for the left, and we'll end up bombing another anti-jihadist Arab government. Or murdering more muslims and/or Russian allies to make the world safe for homosexual behaviour, feminism and multiculturalism.

    What seems to have been lost amongst the domestic politics trivia and terrorism hysteria is the reality that the only issue that really matters in this election is how it will affect Brexit.

    So, what we have is a far leftist Corbyn versus the modern Western “right-wing” with a political agenda mostly created out of appropriating radical leftism to be used against right-wing rivals in alliance with leftist strongholds like media and academia.

    It would be much better to be have an actual leftist in power rather than the traitorous pseudo-right-wing. People like Corbyn actually believe in their non-nationalist ideas so any struggle against them is a struggle of worldview while people like May have just adopted anti-nationalist views for political strategy against potential political rivals. There is no way for right-wingers to confront them on their stances because their stances are just hollow adopted strategy against right-wingers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    I've spent plenty of time defending Corbyn against the mendacious attacks of the establishment elites, whether "left" or "right" - Blairites or "Conservative" Party establishment types. He's certainly. as you suggest, a more honest opponent in some ways.

    On the other hand, I have no illusions about him and his Labour Party - it's just more of the depressingly familiar political correctness-worshipping, anti-nation anti-race pro-state, prioritising minority interests crap that has done so much harm over the past few decades. But at least it isn't so openly corporatist and so openly in hock to foreign interests as the Blairites and the "Conservatives".

    That said, a Corbyn government will be stabbed in the back by the Blairite faction as soon as it tries to do anything useful anyway.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. Everything would be better if Boris Johnson didn’t get backstabbed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    Boris Johnson? You mean the clown who gratuitously travelled to the Ukraine and absurdly "demanded" that Russia return that province to the Ukraine (against the evident will of its people), loudly praised the Saudis' war on Yemen, and all but fell over himself in his haste to applaud the disgraceful US attack on Syrian government forces?

    How would anything be significantly different, let alone substantively better, with him in charge? Marginally more entertaining, at most.
    , @German_reader
    Boris Johnson is a plutocratic piece of shit who's doing the dirty work of Saudi-Arabia and other Gulf states. He's also in favour of mass immigration (he's in the habit of emphasizing his Turkish heritage and at least a few years ago openly lobbied for an amnesty for illegal immigrants), and was only pro-Brexit due to opportunism. He stands for everything that's wrong with modern Britain.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. @Randal

    Is he really open borders socialist?
     
    He seems to be a socialist of the internationalist, multiculturalist, minority-worshipping kind, rather than an old school, instinctively patriotic trades unionist type (most of whom were long ago purged from any positions of potential influence in the Labour Party). As such, he would be viscerally opposed to any British or English nationalist positions that would justify controlling immigration, except perhaps a purely pragmatic one concerning the effect of mass immigration on wages (always a tricky one for internationalist socialists, because why should they favour some workers over others merely because they share the same nationality?)

    And it doesn't appear he even pretends to recognise the negative effects of mass immigration on the bargaining power of British workers. Here's how the Labour-supporting Guardian recently described him on the issue:

    "Corbyn has long been a supporter of free movement of people from the EU, but the Labour manifesto acknowledges that this would come to an end after Brexit. He has also vigorously defended the benefits immigrants bring to the economy and declined many times to say he believes immigration should be reduced."

    Well, the piece you linked is titled: “Corbyn denies wanting ‘uncontrolled migration’”.

    It also quotes something called “The Labour manifesto” as promising to “develop and implement fair immigration rules” and create “a new system which is based on our economic needs, balancing controls and existing entitlements”

    Of course “based on our economic needs” could mean anything, but it doesn’t sound like an advocacy of ‘open borders’. Advocacy of ‘open borders’ is purely ideological, not pragmatic, ‘based on economic needs’…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    Well, the piece you linked is titled: “Corbyn denies wanting ‘uncontrolled migration’”. It also quotes something called “The Labour manifesto” as promising to “develop and implement fair immigration rules” and create “a new system which is based on our economic needs, balancing controls and existing entitlements”
     
    All that stuff, like the silly accusations made by the Daily Mail that triggered it, is just electioneering - lies and spin by professional liars (on both sides). No mainstream politician ever formally admits to believing in "uncontrolled immigration" or "open borders" as official policy, because such things are extreme positions that would be easy to knock down and politically suicidal.

    But "open borders" in practice means allowing mass immigration, in the sense that we have actually experienced it since 1997 (under the rule of those self-same politicians that all insist they don't believe in "uncontrolled immigration" and "open borders"), during which period around 10 million people (officially) have come into the country, to the gross detriment of our societal unity and cultural cohesion.

    In that sense - the only politically meaningful one - there's no reason whatsoever to believe that Corbyn won't continue to allow mass immigration and indeed it's hard to see any basis in his own ideology that would allow him to oppose it.
    , @Boris N

    Well, the piece you linked is titled: “Corbyn denies wanting ‘uncontrolled migration’”.

    It also quotes something called “The Labour manifesto” as promising to “develop and implement fair immigration rules” and create “a new system which is based on our economic needs, balancing controls and existing entitlements”
     
    Sorry, if I ask you, because I want to address all the British, American and EU citizens here. I've been reading about "open borders" and "uncontrolled migration" thousands of times for months on end. But have you, when you are speaking about the alleged open borders in your countries, even ever read your migration laws? Because I think you all haven't. Actually, I think fe, who complains about open borders have ever read any migration laws.

    Because as an absolute outsider who happens to face such laws I must tell you that both the UK and the US, and as well the EU in general, are the countries with very strict migration laws and in reality with closed borders. Yes, and the UK seems to be the most closed of them all. Have you ever thought how a person from a non-EU country can immigrate into the UK? I think you have no idea. Because the overwhelming absolute majority of the people on the planet actually cannot. There is no such a thing as to buy a ticket Karachi-London and immigrate to the UK. The only few obvious ways are: 1) to marry a British citizen; 2) to have relatives in the UK (not simply a relative, but the closed ones like parents or children); and 3) to be so a highly skilled specialist that a UK company wants you and is ready to fight bureaucracy to prove you need to work in the UK and to sponsor you. Other than that you have no practical ways to immigrate. You may travel as a tourist and then happily return to your home country, but not to immigrate. Also, as I remember (I didn't check it for several years) there has been "skilled migration" programs in the UK (like in Canada and Australia), but as you may understand, even if they do not ask you to have a sponsor, you still have to be quite a skilled specialist, very young, with excellent English, and what is most crucial to have a trade in demand in the UK. So in practice even those programs that directly aim at bringing in migrants are only for few lucky ones (like doctors or engineers).

    To sum up, in practice there is no such a problem as bad migration laws in your countries. You simply cannot make more strict the laws that are already very strict and exclusive. Those who exploit the idea of "to make migration stricter" are demagogues. To say mathematically: 99% of the feared Muslims simply have no options to immigrate to the UK, or the US, or the EU. No, zero. Yes, some may do it as tourists, but not everybody wants to live their whole lives as illegals, hiding and always fearing a deportation. Moreover, the US citizens cannot simply immigrate and settle in the UK or the EU, or vice versa, either! For they have no agreements of free movement of workforce. Even the US and Canada have no such a freedom! 90 days and bye-bye, "Yankee, go home".

    So what do all you people expect from Corbyn, or May, or Brexit, or UKIP, or whomever? What do you want them to do? Do you want to make the UK as closed as North Korea? Because it is the only option left.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Randal

    At a stroke, the Saudis sideline a rival geopolitical competitor in Syria, and consolidate a new Arab Authoritarian International with themselves at its head. They played Trump well.
     
    Trump seems to have buffooned his way to unleashing a potential crisis. Did it occur to him that green-lighting the Saudis to bully Qatar, whether expressly or implicitly, would potentially create a very costly confrontation? Though most likely the Qataris will have to bow the knee, there's still a non-zero possibility they might be too proud to do that this time, resulting in a confrontation, probably a coup or invasion, and some very unpleasant dirty laundry indeed coming out for the US and its allies in the region.

    Does Trump really believe the literally stupid stuff he just came out with about collaborating with the Saudis, of all people, being somehow a step forward in dealing with terrorism?

    Is that the same Trump who seemingly was perceptive enough, and independent-minded enough, to abandon the script written for him at the NATO summit and leave out the nonsense about Article 5?

    It is the kind of crisis we can live with.
    It is for the best SA and Qatar annoy each other, and not someone else.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    It is the kind of crisis we can live with.
    It is for the best SA and Qatar annoy each other, and not someone else.
     
    Like all crises, so long as it doesn't get out of hand.

    Easy to say that it's just Saudi and Qatar annoying each other, but if it all really kicks off (unlikely, to be sure - most likely the Qataris will bend the knee and all that will have been achieved will be to have further emboldened and empowered the Saudis) it will likely create bloody havoc that will dwarf even what we have seen so far in the region. At the least, it will provide the pretext for a US attack on Iran that Israel, Saudi and their agents and Quislings in the US sphere have been seeking for decades.
    , @Daniel Chieh
    You can stumble your way to world war if Iran gets invaded.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Randal says:
    @Jaakko Raipala
    So, what we have is a far leftist Corbyn versus the modern Western "right-wing" with a political agenda mostly created out of appropriating radical leftism to be used against right-wing rivals in alliance with leftist strongholds like media and academia.

    It would be much better to be have an actual leftist in power rather than the traitorous pseudo-right-wing. People like Corbyn actually believe in their non-nationalist ideas so any struggle against them is a struggle of worldview while people like May have just adopted anti-nationalist views for political strategy against potential political rivals. There is no way for right-wingers to confront them on their stances because their stances are just hollow adopted strategy against right-wingers.

    I’ve spent plenty of time defending Corbyn against the mendacious attacks of the establishment elites, whether “left” or “right” – Blairites or “Conservative” Party establishment types. He’s certainly. as you suggest, a more honest opponent in some ways.

    On the other hand, I have no illusions about him and his Labour Party – it’s just more of the depressingly familiar political correctness-worshipping, anti-nation anti-race pro-state, prioritising minority interests crap that has done so much harm over the past few decades. But at least it isn’t so openly corporatist and so openly in hock to foreign interests as the Blairites and the “Conservatives”.

    That said, a Corbyn government will be stabbed in the back by the Blairite faction as soon as it tries to do anything useful anyway.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. Randal says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    Everything would be better if Boris Johnson didn't get backstabbed.

    Boris Johnson? You mean the clown who gratuitously travelled to the Ukraine and absurdly “demanded” that Russia return that province to the Ukraine (against the evident will of its people), loudly praised the Saudis’ war on Yemen, and all but fell over himself in his haste to applaud the disgraceful US attack on Syrian government forces?

    How would anything be significantly different, let alone substantively better, with him in charge? Marginally more entertaining, at most.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boris N

    Boris Johnson? You mean the clown who gratuitously travelled to the Ukraine and absurdly “demanded” that Russia return that province to the Ukraine
     
    When I was first reading it I misread it as he had meant to return the separatist province of the Ukraine to Russia, ha-ha! It always happens when you are a Russian imperialist: you are never sure, when they say two words "separatists" and "Ukraine" in one sentence, whether by that they may mean the separatists in Kiev.
    , @Daniil Adamov
    How could it be more entertaining than this?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. @Daniel Chieh
    Everything would be better if Boris Johnson didn't get backstabbed.

    Boris Johnson is a plutocratic piece of shit who’s doing the dirty work of Saudi-Arabia and other Gulf states. He’s also in favour of mass immigration (he’s in the habit of emphasizing his Turkish heritage and at least a few years ago openly lobbied for an amnesty for illegal immigrants), and was only pro-Brexit due to opportunism. He stands for everything that’s wrong with modern Britain.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. Randal says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji
    Well, the piece you linked is titled: "Corbyn denies wanting 'uncontrolled migration'".

    It also quotes something called "The Labour manifesto" as promising to “develop and implement fair immigration rules” and create “a new system which is based on our economic needs, balancing controls and existing entitlements”

    Of course "based on our economic needs" could mean anything, but it doesn't sound like an advocacy of 'open borders'. Advocacy of 'open borders' is purely ideological, not pragmatic, 'based on economic needs'...

    Well, the piece you linked is titled: “Corbyn denies wanting ‘uncontrolled migration’”. It also quotes something called “The Labour manifesto” as promising to “develop and implement fair immigration rules” and create “a new system which is based on our economic needs, balancing controls and existing entitlements”

    All that stuff, like the silly accusations made by the Daily Mail that triggered it, is just electioneering – lies and spin by professional liars (on both sides). No mainstream politician ever formally admits to believing in “uncontrolled immigration” or “open borders” as official policy, because such things are extreme positions that would be easy to knock down and politically suicidal.

    But “open borders” in practice means allowing mass immigration, in the sense that we have actually experienced it since 1997 (under the rule of those self-same politicians that all insist they don’t believe in “uncontrolled immigration” and “open borders”), during which period around 10 million people (officially) have come into the country, to the gross detriment of our societal unity and cultural cohesion.

    In that sense – the only politically meaningful one – there’s no reason whatsoever to believe that Corbyn won’t continue to allow mass immigration and indeed it’s hard to see any basis in his own ideology that would allow him to oppose it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji
    I agree with the essence of your comment, but still... With Corbyn this party promises to be as close to the old, pre-Blair Labour as it's realistically possible these days... Even if it goes against his personal ideology, he'd be hard-pressed to do something to satisfy his constituency, I suppose.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. Randal says:
    @Anon
    It is the kind of crisis we can live with.
    It is for the best SA and Qatar annoy each other, and not someone else.

    It is the kind of crisis we can live with.
    It is for the best SA and Qatar annoy each other, and not someone else.

    Like all crises, so long as it doesn’t get out of hand.

    Easy to say that it’s just Saudi and Qatar annoying each other, but if it all really kicks off (unlikely, to be sure – most likely the Qataris will bend the knee and all that will have been achieved will be to have further emboldened and empowered the Saudis) it will likely create bloody havoc that will dwarf even what we have seen so far in the region. At the least, it will provide the pretext for a US attack on Iran that Israel, Saudi and their agents and Quislings in the US sphere have been seeking for decades.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    most likely the Qataris will bend the knee
     
    Perhaps, but as Anatoly wrote, the demands look pretty much impossible to fulfill. For example the Qataris need to have at least slightly amicable relations with Iran, because they share their most important gas field with them. And cutting ties to Iran is the first demand. Gulf Arab culture (Arab culture in general) is an honor-based culture. The Saudis didn't just demand that Qatar changes its policies. They demand total and immediate submission and humiliation, including public apologies and an immediate pilgrimage to Jeddah. I'm not sure how that kind of humiliation and loss of face could be accepted even in our culture, much less in an Arab honor-based culture, it's as if the ultimatum was designed to be rejected.

    It's interesting that Turkey is now quickly dispatching troops to Qatar. Since Qatar has at least one such militarily powerful backer (with at least some influence in Washington, DC), they might decide that they don't need to give in to the demands, especially since some of them involve their vital interests. They might go over to the Iranians and Russians, too.

    On one hand I sometimes have the inclination to only wish the Arabs the best of luck killing each other. On the other hand, I think it will be extremely difficult for the Americans (and hence, the rest of the West) to stay out of this mess, once it starts, which will cancel any possible benefits from the Arabs' killing each other. Trump's business deal selling so many weapons now seems like a bad deal, if he's getting involvement in yet another Middle Eastern mess in exchange. So once again Muslims' misery will only be bad news for us, too.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. 5371 says:
    @Dreadnought
    An absolute shambles of a movie

    Be gone, blasphemer.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. @Randal

    Well, the piece you linked is titled: “Corbyn denies wanting ‘uncontrolled migration’”. It also quotes something called “The Labour manifesto” as promising to “develop and implement fair immigration rules” and create “a new system which is based on our economic needs, balancing controls and existing entitlements”
     
    All that stuff, like the silly accusations made by the Daily Mail that triggered it, is just electioneering - lies and spin by professional liars (on both sides). No mainstream politician ever formally admits to believing in "uncontrolled immigration" or "open borders" as official policy, because such things are extreme positions that would be easy to knock down and politically suicidal.

    But "open borders" in practice means allowing mass immigration, in the sense that we have actually experienced it since 1997 (under the rule of those self-same politicians that all insist they don't believe in "uncontrolled immigration" and "open borders"), during which period around 10 million people (officially) have come into the country, to the gross detriment of our societal unity and cultural cohesion.

    In that sense - the only politically meaningful one - there's no reason whatsoever to believe that Corbyn won't continue to allow mass immigration and indeed it's hard to see any basis in his own ideology that would allow him to oppose it.

    I agree with the essence of your comment, but still… With Corbyn this party promises to be as close to the old, pre-Blair Labour as it’s realistically possible these days… Even if it goes against his personal ideology, he’d be hard-pressed to do something to satisfy his constituency, I suppose.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. @Anon
    It is the kind of crisis we can live with.
    It is for the best SA and Qatar annoy each other, and not someone else.

    You can stumble your way to world war if Iran gets invaded.

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

    Seems pretty clear to me that this Qatar affair is about trying to get Iran sucked into a war. The neocons have been openly agitating for war with Iran for years now, which really means that this is all about Israel.

    Read More
    • Agree: Seamus Padraig
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  27. melanf says:
    @Jaakko Raipala
    Such a town *was* built in the 12th century but it was a *Swedish* town and fortress called Landskrona (not to be confused with other places called Landskrona). It was destroyed by Novgorod forces in 1301. Not much information remains about how well developed or populated that town was, though. Of course there were always Finnic tribals there ("neva" in Finnish means a type of swamp).

    The Neva mouth remained effectively no man's land for centuries after that because the Scandinavians were still superior on the sea and Novgorod could not have defended a coastal site against raids that a merchant town would have inevitably attracted but at the same time Novgorod was close and secure in the inland so it could deny the strategic site to Sweden. Sweden eventually did annex the site in 1617...

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

    ...and built a fortress called Nyenskans (swedification of Nevanlinna, fortress-of-Neva) and a mostly ethnic Finnish city with Swedes and Germans as minorities formed around it over the next century. Tsar Peter did not take empty land at the Neva, he took a city (and had its inhabitants murdered or enslaved, something that agitators from Lenin to Hitler have later found very useful here).

    Such a town *was* built in the 12th century but it was a *Swedish* town and fortress called Landskrona

    Fort (not tоwn) Landskrona was a failed attempt of the Swedes capture the mouth of the Neva. In 1300 the Swedes landed at the mouth of the Neva river and built a Fort, but in 1301, the Russian troops took the Fort by storm, and massacred the Swedes.

    The Neva mouth remained effectively no man’s land for centuries after that because the Scandinavians were still superior on the sea and Novgorod could not have defended a coastal site against raids

    Novgorod centuries owned these lands, but this lazy Republic could not build a fortress at the mouth of the Neva. Full bastards

    Sweden eventually did annex the site in 1617…

    and get rid of the indigenous population. In 1620, the Orthodox population (Russians, Karelians, etc.) accounted for 90% of the population. In 1650 the Orthodox population was 50% (other 50% Lutheran Finns resettled in these lands). In 1698, the Orthodox population was 15%, and 75% were the Lutherans – mostly Finns (Musayev “Political history of Ingermanland”). That is, the indigenous population fled from the Swedish yoke, and “cleansed” lands settled by Finns ( something that agitators from Lenin to Hitler have later found very useful here).

    Tsar Peter did not take empty land at the Neva, he took a city (and had its inhabitants murdered or enslaved

    This is an obvious exaggeration. Of course the war was fought in accordance with the “norms” of the time, but Finnish population on the future site of Petersburg was not subjected to deliberate extermination/expulsion. But due to the construction of St. Petersburg (and powerful influx of Russian population) Finns quickly became a minority in these lands.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jaakko Raipala
    Some Orthodoxes fled after 1617, some converted, some remained. This is nothing unusual: all Finns are to some extent converted Orthodoxes; even in the west the first archaeological signs of Christianity are Orthodox and Finnish Christian vocabulary is Greek/Slavic, though Orthodoxy was likely very superficial and didn't cover much of the population in the westernmost parts.

    It's true that Swedes pressured Orthodoxes but Finns had a much simpler way available - thanks to Protestantism church services were in Finnish and there were Bibles and other religious writings in Finnish. People could go to the Russian church, listen to Church Slavic and never understand what their supposed religion was about or they could go listen to Finnish, learn more and pick up basic literacy. That's why the natural direction of conversion was always from Orthodoxy to Protestantism.

    The Finnish migrants were drawn from the east so it was mostly Protestant Karelians (whose ancestors had been Orthodox once). The ethnic make up of the region did not change much even if religion did.

    I don't know if Lenin ever used Swedish persecution of Orthodoxy in propaganda but if he did he was a pretty big hypocrite. I cannot imagine Hitler commenting on it (who the hell would he be speaking to?) and the Germans during Operation Barbarossa moved the remaining Finnic Orthodoxes on the south side of St Petersburg to a concentration camp in Estonia. The Finnish government made a deal to move them to Finland and some fought on our side, some refused. The USSR demanded them back at the end of the war and mostly deported them to far away locations so they barely exist these days.

    Tsar Peter did not destroy the Finnic nature of the rural areas (which actually largely remained Finnic up to the revolution) but he did wipe out the urban population that was in the way of his plans. He was generally less genocidal in southeast Finn rural areas as he wanted to annex them as productive land but he waged a campaign of extermination in western Finland which was to become a depopulated buffer against Sweden. In fact, the only person who ever brought west-Finn "colonists" to the Neva was Tsar Peter who had his forces capture a good fraction of the western population as slaves to build the city.
    , @Boris N

    and get rid of the indigenous population. In 1620, the Orthodox population (Russians, Karelians, etc.) accounted for 90% of the population.
     
    I believe all them in toto fled to central Russia where they created a very strangely placed and unique diaspora of Orthodox Karelians near Tver (now mostly assimilated).

    This is an obvious exaggeration.
     
    You know how this works: THEY always murder and massacre US; WE always just peacefully annex and peacefully assimilate THEM. Many would point a finger at Russians for such a way of thinking when actually this is rather a Western way of thinking PARTICULARLY when it is directed towards Russia. You know, those Asiatic Scythian-Mongolian barbarous beasts always have wanted to conquer the world, and others did nothing but defended themselves.

    I think this is pointless to argue with them as you lost from the start for they had put you in a position of the accused and themselves to the accusers; you cannot win there.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. reiner Tor says: • Website
    @Randal

    It is the kind of crisis we can live with.
    It is for the best SA and Qatar annoy each other, and not someone else.
     
    Like all crises, so long as it doesn't get out of hand.

    Easy to say that it's just Saudi and Qatar annoying each other, but if it all really kicks off (unlikely, to be sure - most likely the Qataris will bend the knee and all that will have been achieved will be to have further emboldened and empowered the Saudis) it will likely create bloody havoc that will dwarf even what we have seen so far in the region. At the least, it will provide the pretext for a US attack on Iran that Israel, Saudi and their agents and Quislings in the US sphere have been seeking for decades.

    most likely the Qataris will bend the knee

    Perhaps, but as Anatoly wrote, the demands look pretty much impossible to fulfill. For example the Qataris need to have at least slightly amicable relations with Iran, because they share their most important gas field with them. And cutting ties to Iran is the first demand. Gulf Arab culture (Arab culture in general) is an honor-based culture. The Saudis didn’t just demand that Qatar changes its policies. They demand total and immediate submission and humiliation, including public apologies and an immediate pilgrimage to Jeddah. I’m not sure how that kind of humiliation and loss of face could be accepted even in our culture, much less in an Arab honor-based culture, it’s as if the ultimatum was designed to be rejected.

    It’s interesting that Turkey is now quickly dispatching troops to Qatar. Since Qatar has at least one such militarily powerful backer (with at least some influence in Washington, DC), they might decide that they don’t need to give in to the demands, especially since some of them involve their vital interests. They might go over to the Iranians and Russians, too.

    On one hand I sometimes have the inclination to only wish the Arabs the best of luck killing each other. On the other hand, I think it will be extremely difficult for the Americans (and hence, the rest of the West) to stay out of this mess, once it starts, which will cancel any possible benefits from the Arabs’ killing each other. Trump’s business deal selling so many weapons now seems like a bad deal, if he’s getting involvement in yet another Middle Eastern mess in exchange. So once again Muslims’ misery will only be bad news for us, too.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    Trump’s business deal selling so many weapons now seems like a bad deal
     
    It's not just the weapons deal, it's that Trump and his administration seem totally determined to back Saudi-Arabia and fully accept the Saudi view of things...just look at the US reaction to the IS attacks in Tehran. One doesn't have to be a fan of the Iranian regime to regard this as pretty crass and inflammatory.
    , @Greasy William
    There was 65% support for the US invading Iraq. That is what made the war possible. Public sentiment is entirely different today.

    Any US war in the region would be opposed by the intelligence community, the military, the entirety of the Left and the majority of the non Left. Saudi Arabia and Iran could go in to outright war with eachother (will never happen, by the way) and the US would *still* stay out.

    The days of the US launching large scale military operations in the Middle East are over. Libya will end up being the last major US military operation in the region.
    , @Randal

    the demands look pretty much impossible to fulfill
     
    Presumably the point is to allow for negotiation to achieve a solution that makes clear enough where the power lies to satisfy the Saudi regime, whilst reducing the public humiliation of the Qatari regime to (just) bearable levels - bearing in mind the implied alternative is destruction by coup or even outright invasion (if the confrontation were to be taken all the way to the bitter end).

    Qatar's choice is to cave in on whatever terms are ultimately available, or to make a complete strategic switch. The latter is going to be hugely difficult and complicated given Qatar's massive financial and other links to the wider US sphere.

    I have assumed (and I think I'm with the majority of observers here, for whatever that might be worth) that the Qatari' royalty will look hard at that path and the risks and costs it will involve, and ultimately decide not to go too far along that route - though they might well seek to go some way along it as a bluff and/or negotiation stance. The alternative view you suggest here is certainly not unimaginable, though. Iran can provide economic backing (fresh food shipments, flight routes etc), while Turkey could provide the military muscle that would prevent an outright Saudi invasion, and perhaps a coup. On the other hand, such a change in backers will create unrest-inducing domestic changes, and require significant changes to Qatar's wider policy positions.

    Popcorn is the only requirement here, for now. The only real concern is to watch out for the neocon US types, who undoubtedly will see such a crisis as potentially creating pretexts for attacking Iran.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. reiner Tor says: • Website

    Oh, and those bad, bad Russian hackers are at it again. All of this feels totally surreal: the Trump tweets and now Trump’s reversal after the phone call to the Qatari emir, the Trump investigation, the Russian hacker allegations, etc. It’s like a bad operetta libretto. And yet it’s happening.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  30. @melanf

    Such a town *was* built in the 12th century but it was a *Swedish* town and fortress called Landskrona
     
    Fort (not tоwn) Landskrona was a failed attempt of the Swedes capture the mouth of the Neva. In 1300 the Swedes landed at the mouth of the Neva river and built a Fort, but in 1301, the Russian troops took the Fort by storm, and massacred the Swedes.

    The Neva mouth remained effectively no man’s land for centuries after that because the Scandinavians were still superior on the sea and Novgorod could not have defended a coastal site against raids
     
    Novgorod centuries owned these lands, but this lazy Republic could not build a fortress at the mouth of the Neva. Full bastards

    Sweden eventually did annex the site in 1617…
     
    and get rid of the indigenous population. In 1620, the Orthodox population (Russians, Karelians, etc.) accounted for 90% of the population. In 1650 the Orthodox population was 50% (other 50% Lutheran Finns resettled in these lands). In 1698, the Orthodox population was 15%, and 75% were the Lutherans - mostly Finns (Musayev "Political history of Ingermanland"). That is, the indigenous population fled from the Swedish yoke, and "cleansed" lands settled by Finns ( something that agitators from Lenin to Hitler have later found very useful here).

    Tsar Peter did not take empty land at the Neva, he took a city (and had its inhabitants murdered or enslaved
     
    This is an obvious exaggeration. Of course the war was fought in accordance with the "norms" of the time, but Finnish population on the future site of Petersburg was not subjected to deliberate extermination/expulsion. But due to the construction of St. Petersburg (and powerful influx of Russian population) Finns quickly became a minority in these lands.

    Some Orthodoxes fled after 1617, some converted, some remained. This is nothing unusual: all Finns are to some extent converted Orthodoxes; even in the west the first archaeological signs of Christianity are Orthodox and Finnish Christian vocabulary is Greek/Slavic, though Orthodoxy was likely very superficial and didn’t cover much of the population in the westernmost parts.

    It’s true that Swedes pressured Orthodoxes but Finns had a much simpler way available – thanks to Protestantism church services were in Finnish and there were Bibles and other religious writings in Finnish. People could go to the Russian church, listen to Church Slavic and never understand what their supposed religion was about or they could go listen to Finnish, learn more and pick up basic literacy. That’s why the natural direction of conversion was always from Orthodoxy to Protestantism.

    The Finnish migrants were drawn from the east so it was mostly Protestant Karelians (whose ancestors had been Orthodox once). The ethnic make up of the region did not change much even if religion did.

    I don’t know if Lenin ever used Swedish persecution of Orthodoxy in propaganda but if he did he was a pretty big hypocrite. I cannot imagine Hitler commenting on it (who the hell would he be speaking to?) and the Germans during Operation Barbarossa moved the remaining Finnic Orthodoxes on the south side of St Petersburg to a concentration camp in Estonia. The Finnish government made a deal to move them to Finland and some fought on our side, some refused. The USSR demanded them back at the end of the war and mostly deported them to far away locations so they barely exist these days.

    Tsar Peter did not destroy the Finnic nature of the rural areas (which actually largely remained Finnic up to the revolution) but he did wipe out the urban population that was in the way of his plans. He was generally less genocidal in southeast Finn rural areas as he wanted to annex them as productive land but he waged a campaign of extermination in western Finland which was to become a depopulated buffer against Sweden. In fact, the only person who ever brought west-Finn “colonists” to the Neva was Tsar Peter who had his forces capture a good fraction of the western population as slaves to build the city.

    Read More
    • Replies: @melanf

    Some Orthodoxes fled after 1617, some converted, some remained. This is nothing unusual:
     
    The majority of the Orthodox population fled from Swedish reign.
    "The Swedish policy of religious conversion, harsh taxation and competition for labour and taxpayers were the key issues in the political and social history of Ingria and Kexholm Province during the seventeenth century. .... The religious policy of the Swedish Government towards the Orthodox failed almost completely...Orthodox peasants simply preferred to desert to Russia rather than oppose these policies." (Kujala, Antti Sweden's Russian Lands, Ingria and Kexholm Province, 1617 – ca. 1670: The Interaction of the Crown with Its New Subjects )

    Here is a map of the settlement of "Russian" Karel http://savepic.ru/14302278.gif (blue circled where Karelians moved from the territories occupied by the Swedes). Likely from these Karel, was the famous Alexander Suvorov.
    But in occupied by the Swedes lands lived not only Karelian - the land of the future of Petersburg before 1617, was dominated by the Russian population (which was also "purged" by the Swedes).


    Tsar Peter did not destroy the Finnic nature of the rural areas (which actually largely remained Finnic up to the revolution) but he did wipe out the urban population that was in the way of his plans.
     
    Оf course nonsense. For Peter, the Finns (who lived on the lands of St. Petersburg) was not an "obstacle", but of ordinary citizens, a source of taxes and recruits. But because of a powerful influx of Russian colonists , the small "urban" Finns and Swedes quickly become a minority.
    In 1725 in St. Petersburg was approximately 40 thousand inhabitants, and in 1750 - 100 thousand people (pre-war population of Nien - 2 000 people)

    In fact, the only person who ever brought west-Finn “colonists” to the Neva was Tsar Peter
     
    This is an obvious false statement

    "The crop failures related to the Little Ice Age as well as the tax increases and conscriptions ordered by King Gustav II Adolf and the ensuing regency regime, together with the attraction of the swidden lands in the east, on the other hand, drove thousands of Lutheran Finns in Viborg Karelia and Savo to migrate to Ingria and Kexholm Province. The Crown was neither able to prevent the Finnish peasants, farm hands and deserters from moving to the newly conquered eastern territories, freed from conscription, nor could it contain the migration of the Orthodox population from those same territories. After the war of 1656–1658, the population there consisted of Lutheran Finns everywhere, except in the Western parts of Ingria and the North-eastern fringe of Kexholm Province." ( Kujala, Antti Sweden's Russian Lands, Ingria and Kexholm Province, 1617 – ca. 1670: The Interaction of the Crown with Its New Subjects)
    http://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/fsv/jgo/2016/00000064/00000004/art00002

    "The Finns appeared on the territory of Ingria mainly after 1617, when these lands according to a result of the Stolbova peace Treaty was ceded to Sweden. A number of fin. settlers existed here before, since the 14th century, after the conclusion of Shlisselburg (Orehovica) peace Treaty. The main tributary of the fin. colonists on the conquered lands falls in the middle of 17th century, when the Swedish government began to carry out forced conversion to Lutheranism of local residents . This caused a mass Exodus of the Orthodox (Izhora, Voda, Rus. and Karel.) population to the Russian land. The empty lands were quickly settled by Finns-immigrants"
    http://www.etnosy.ru/node/354

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. @reiner Tor

    most likely the Qataris will bend the knee
     
    Perhaps, but as Anatoly wrote, the demands look pretty much impossible to fulfill. For example the Qataris need to have at least slightly amicable relations with Iran, because they share their most important gas field with them. And cutting ties to Iran is the first demand. Gulf Arab culture (Arab culture in general) is an honor-based culture. The Saudis didn't just demand that Qatar changes its policies. They demand total and immediate submission and humiliation, including public apologies and an immediate pilgrimage to Jeddah. I'm not sure how that kind of humiliation and loss of face could be accepted even in our culture, much less in an Arab honor-based culture, it's as if the ultimatum was designed to be rejected.

    It's interesting that Turkey is now quickly dispatching troops to Qatar. Since Qatar has at least one such militarily powerful backer (with at least some influence in Washington, DC), they might decide that they don't need to give in to the demands, especially since some of them involve their vital interests. They might go over to the Iranians and Russians, too.

    On one hand I sometimes have the inclination to only wish the Arabs the best of luck killing each other. On the other hand, I think it will be extremely difficult for the Americans (and hence, the rest of the West) to stay out of this mess, once it starts, which will cancel any possible benefits from the Arabs' killing each other. Trump's business deal selling so many weapons now seems like a bad deal, if he's getting involvement in yet another Middle Eastern mess in exchange. So once again Muslims' misery will only be bad news for us, too.

    Trump’s business deal selling so many weapons now seems like a bad deal

    It’s not just the weapons deal, it’s that Trump and his administration seem totally determined to back Saudi-Arabia and fully accept the Saudi view of things…just look at the US reaction to the IS attacks in Tehran. One doesn’t have to be a fan of the Iranian regime to regard this as pretty crass and inflammatory.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Not Raul
    To be fair, accepting the Saudi view of things has been unofficial policy for decades now.

    It used to be common knowledge that the Kobar Towers terrorist attack was perpetrated by Al Qaeda. There was even a movie about it -- the Kingdom. Since then, the incident has been retconned by Saudi shills in to being the work of Iran.
    , @reiner Tor
    I just meant that the weapons deal was supposed to be the beneficial part of it. ("Jobs, jobs, jobs!")
    , @LondonBob
    Not even a proper deal, many had already been agreed and most are just letters of intent. Given oil prices very little will be fulfilled. Trump got rolled by Mattis, McMaster from the Arab side and Kushner from Israel's side. Dumb stuff.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. @Carlo
    "since Muscovites themselves have come much more polite and considerate in the past decade"
    Been to Russia (Moscow, Yasnaya Polyana, Novgorod and Saint Petersburg) exactly 6 years ago, and one of the reasons I preferred Peter's city over Yuri Dolgoruki's was that I found people way more polite and cosmopolitan in the Imperial capital. Moscow is extremely rich and developed, apart from huge, but then people are strangely provincial there, hardly speak English and have no patience with foreigners who are not very fluent in Russian (like myself - I can read well, but find it harder to speak, have to think which declension to use, and it takes me time to form a sentence if not a very simple one). I went to a restaurant close to Tretyakov gallery that had a sign that English was spoken, and it wasn't true: the attendant hardly spoke English, and as all Muscovites had no patience with my Russian. The most polite people I found in Moscow were older fellows (50+, preferrably 60+), in special those who wore Soviet or communist pins or signs - these were the only ones who were willing to listen and help, one of them even walked with me in another direction he was going to ensure I would find the way.

    Off-topic, but are you Carlo Kopp the editor of Airpower Australia?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Carlo
    No, I am not. This is my real first name, but there must be dozens of million of other people also with it, mostly in Italy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Paleocons out in full force in this thread fantasizing about a US attack on Iran.

    The best time in the history of the irrelevant and pathetic Paleoconservative/Ron Paul movement was the mid 00′s. The mid 00′s was the only time that Paleocons have been able to convince themselves that they had even a modicum of political relevance. There was massive anti war fervor amongst the public of real people at the time. The difference between the mid-00′s and now, however, is that in the aughts there was real concern, and reason to be concerned, that the US would launch more regime change operations in the region.

    Now, all real people know that the US will never attack Iran leaving only the delusional paleocons to concern troll over this.

    The US is going to continue to support Iran’s enemies in the region, and the US is right to do so, but the US simply is not going to attack Iran; no matter how badly some of you want it.

    P.S.: I have 3 problems with ISIS: 1. They torture 2. They rape and 3. They attack innocent Westerners. I have always, however, supported their attacks against Arab Christians, Alawites, Shi’ites and secular Sunnis. What they did in Iran was a beautiful thing and I wish them luck in their continued operations against the Iranians and I am confident they will have such success.

    Read More
    • Disagree: Dan Hayes
    • Replies: @German_reader

    The US is going to continue to support Iran’s enemies in the region, and the US is right to do so,
     
    Why? What's so dangerous about Iran that makes it necessary to support a country like Saudi-Arabia that is clearly a main source of Islamism in the world? I have little sympathy for the Iranian regime, and obviously I don't want to see them acquire nuclear weapons, but I've never seen a convincing explanation why Iran is supposed to be such a grave threat that US foreign policy in the Mideast should be centred solely around countering Iran (instead of trying to play off the Sunni states and Iran against each other, or even seeking cooperation with Iran in areas of mutual interest).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. @reiner Tor

    most likely the Qataris will bend the knee
     
    Perhaps, but as Anatoly wrote, the demands look pretty much impossible to fulfill. For example the Qataris need to have at least slightly amicable relations with Iran, because they share their most important gas field with them. And cutting ties to Iran is the first demand. Gulf Arab culture (Arab culture in general) is an honor-based culture. The Saudis didn't just demand that Qatar changes its policies. They demand total and immediate submission and humiliation, including public apologies and an immediate pilgrimage to Jeddah. I'm not sure how that kind of humiliation and loss of face could be accepted even in our culture, much less in an Arab honor-based culture, it's as if the ultimatum was designed to be rejected.

    It's interesting that Turkey is now quickly dispatching troops to Qatar. Since Qatar has at least one such militarily powerful backer (with at least some influence in Washington, DC), they might decide that they don't need to give in to the demands, especially since some of them involve their vital interests. They might go over to the Iranians and Russians, too.

    On one hand I sometimes have the inclination to only wish the Arabs the best of luck killing each other. On the other hand, I think it will be extremely difficult for the Americans (and hence, the rest of the West) to stay out of this mess, once it starts, which will cancel any possible benefits from the Arabs' killing each other. Trump's business deal selling so many weapons now seems like a bad deal, if he's getting involvement in yet another Middle Eastern mess in exchange. So once again Muslims' misery will only be bad news for us, too.

    There was 65% support for the US invading Iraq. That is what made the war possible. Public sentiment is entirely different today.

    Any US war in the region would be opposed by the intelligence community, the military, the entirety of the Left and the majority of the non Left. Saudi Arabia and Iran could go in to outright war with eachother (will never happen, by the way) and the US would *still* stay out.

    The days of the US launching large scale military operations in the Middle East are over. Libya will end up being the last major US military operation in the region.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boris N

    There was 65% support for the US invading Iraq. That is what made the war possible. Public sentiment is entirely different today.
     
    I think this is irrelevant. I mean all this public opinion stuff. People tend to think and approve what they have been told. Americans had been told that Saddam was evil hence they approved the war. Now, the MSM have been waging a full-scale propaganda campaign against Iran for nearly 40 years, and I bet most Americans sincerely believe Iran is the ultimate evil, and at least 50% believe a war with Iran would be good. And the opposition of the other half does not mean they do think that Iran is not evil but a normal country who must be respected, not vilified. They are simply isolationists who still hate Iran if asked.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. Mr. XYZ says:

    What exactly do you mean by “tankie” here? :

    “Whereas at least with Corbyn we have some chance of him unleashing his inner tankie against the jihadists.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon

    What exactly do you mean by “tankie” here? :
     
    "tankie" is a slang term for old style communists which derived from their support for the soviet invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia (with lots of tanks - hence tankie)

    Corbyn isn't a tankie though, he's more of a 1960s Trot and fully on board with the eradication of the native population through diversity

    as a Trot he's more pro-Muslim / anti-Israel than the average SJW which is why the media have been trying to destroy his chances - unfortunately for them the "conservatives" are traitors too so they and the media are having trouble using the patriotic argument against him becuase all it does it does is remind people what lying whores they are
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. @Greasy William
    Paleocons out in full force in this thread fantasizing about a US attack on Iran.

    The best time in the history of the irrelevant and pathetic Paleoconservative/Ron Paul movement was the mid 00's. The mid 00's was the only time that Paleocons have been able to convince themselves that they had even a modicum of political relevance. There was massive anti war fervor amongst the public of real people at the time. The difference between the mid-00's and now, however, is that in the aughts there was real concern, and reason to be concerned, that the US would launch more regime change operations in the region.

    Now, all real people know that the US will never attack Iran leaving only the delusional paleocons to concern troll over this.

    The US is going to continue to support Iran's enemies in the region, and the US is right to do so, but the US simply is not going to attack Iran; no matter how badly some of you want it.

    P.S.: I have 3 problems with ISIS: 1. They torture 2. They rape and 3. They attack innocent Westerners. I have always, however, supported their attacks against Arab Christians, Alawites, Shi'ites and secular Sunnis. What they did in Iran was a beautiful thing and I wish them luck in their continued operations against the Iranians and I am confident they will have such success.

    The US is going to continue to support Iran’s enemies in the region, and the US is right to do so,

    Why? What’s so dangerous about Iran that makes it necessary to support a country like Saudi-Arabia that is clearly a main source of Islamism in the world? I have little sympathy for the Iranian regime, and obviously I don’t want to see them acquire nuclear weapons, but I’ve never seen a convincing explanation why Iran is supposed to be such a grave threat that US foreign policy in the Mideast should be centred solely around countering Iran (instead of trying to play off the Sunni states and Iran against each other, or even seeking cooperation with Iran in areas of mutual interest).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greasy William
    I just meant that the US was morally right to do so because the Iranians are blood enemies of the Jews. From a purely American perspective I don't think it's that big a deal either way.

    I supported the nuclear deal with Iran and I oppose a US attack on Iran. You should be happy that all indications show that Trump intends to continue to honor the nuclear agreement and will not attack Iran.

    Saudi Arabia is the US's most important ally in the region. That was the case even when the US was allied with Iran. There is nothing wrong with the US supporting the security of it's closest ally. Nobody had a problem with Saudi Arabia until the Saudis turned into a thorn in Iran's eye.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. Matra says:

    If Corbyn tried to implement his anti-NATO foreign policy he would get the same treatment Trump is getting from the American Deep State. In the UK though the PM has more power than the US President does.

    The Saudi arms deal. It’s odd how some MSM reports are of a $100 billion plus agreement whilst others are of a $300 billion or even more agreement. That’s quite a difference. What do we actually know about the specifics of this alleged agreement? I don’t see any real reporting on it from our useless media.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    $110 billion seems to be most commonly mentioned.
    http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/how-the-united-states-turning-saudi-arabia-military-20772

    "While missile defenses are perhaps the most visible part of the deal, the package includes a wide array of “full spectrum” conventional weapons—but the White House has not released the exact details of what it is selling to Riyadh. "
    , @for-the-record
    The Saudi arms deal. It’s odd how some MSM reports are of a $100 billion plus agreement whilst others are of a $300 billion or even more agreement. That’s quite a difference.

    The answer is really quite simple:

    US-Saudi Arabia seal weapons deal worth nearly $110 billion immediately, $350 billion over 10 years

    http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/20/us-saudi-arabia-seal-weapons-deal-worth-nearly-110-billion-as-trump-begins-visit.html
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. @Matra
    If Corbyn tried to implement his anti-NATO foreign policy he would get the same treatment Trump is getting from the American Deep State. In the UK though the PM has more power than the US President does.

    The Saudi arms deal. It's odd how some MSM reports are of a $100 billion plus agreement whilst others are of a $300 billion or even more agreement. That's quite a difference. What do we actually know about the specifics of this alleged agreement? I don't see any real reporting on it from our useless media.

    $110 billion seems to be most commonly mentioned.

    http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/how-the-united-states-turning-saudi-arabia-military-20772

    “While missile defenses are perhaps the most visible part of the deal, the package includes a wide array of “full spectrum” conventional weapons—but the White House has not released the exact details of what it is selling to Riyadh.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. Not Raul says:
    @German_reader

    Trump’s business deal selling so many weapons now seems like a bad deal
     
    It's not just the weapons deal, it's that Trump and his administration seem totally determined to back Saudi-Arabia and fully accept the Saudi view of things...just look at the US reaction to the IS attacks in Tehran. One doesn't have to be a fan of the Iranian regime to regard this as pretty crass and inflammatory.

    To be fair, accepting the Saudi view of things has been unofficial policy for decades now.

    It used to be common knowledge that the Kobar Towers terrorist attack was perpetrated by Al Qaeda. There was even a movie about it — the Kingdom. Since then, the incident has been retconned by Saudi shills in to being the work of Iran.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. @German_reader

    The US is going to continue to support Iran’s enemies in the region, and the US is right to do so,
     
    Why? What's so dangerous about Iran that makes it necessary to support a country like Saudi-Arabia that is clearly a main source of Islamism in the world? I have little sympathy for the Iranian regime, and obviously I don't want to see them acquire nuclear weapons, but I've never seen a convincing explanation why Iran is supposed to be such a grave threat that US foreign policy in the Mideast should be centred solely around countering Iran (instead of trying to play off the Sunni states and Iran against each other, or even seeking cooperation with Iran in areas of mutual interest).

    I just meant that the US was morally right to do so because the Iranians are blood enemies of the Jews. From a purely American perspective I don’t think it’s that big a deal either way.

    I supported the nuclear deal with Iran and I oppose a US attack on Iran. You should be happy that all indications show that Trump intends to continue to honor the nuclear agreement and will not attack Iran.

    Saudi Arabia is the US’s most important ally in the region. That was the case even when the US was allied with Iran. There is nothing wrong with the US supporting the security of it’s closest ally. Nobody had a problem with Saudi Arabia until the Saudis turned into a thorn in Iran’s eye.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    Nobody had a problem with Saudi Arabia until the Saudis turned into a thorn in Iran’s eye.
     
    It's strange that you think Saudi terrorism and sponsorship of terrorism and extremist mosques and preachers should not matter.
    , @German_reader

    I just meant that the US was morally right to do so because the Iranians are blood enemies of the Jews.
     
    Why should US foreign policy be determined by whether someone is a "blood enemy of the Jews" or not? And anyway, it's not like Saudi-Arabia or movements like IS are really pro-Jewish, even if for tactical considerations they may not act on their views about Jews right now.

    Nobody had a problem with Saudi Arabia until the Saudis turned into a thorn in Iran’s eye.
     
    That's a weird statement given Saudi-Arabia's extremely prominent and active role in spreading Islamism.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. reiner Tor says: • Website
    @Greasy William
    I just meant that the US was morally right to do so because the Iranians are blood enemies of the Jews. From a purely American perspective I don't think it's that big a deal either way.

    I supported the nuclear deal with Iran and I oppose a US attack on Iran. You should be happy that all indications show that Trump intends to continue to honor the nuclear agreement and will not attack Iran.

    Saudi Arabia is the US's most important ally in the region. That was the case even when the US was allied with Iran. There is nothing wrong with the US supporting the security of it's closest ally. Nobody had a problem with Saudi Arabia until the Saudis turned into a thorn in Iran's eye.

    Nobody had a problem with Saudi Arabia until the Saudis turned into a thorn in Iran’s eye.

    It’s strange that you think Saudi terrorism and sponsorship of terrorism and extremist mosques and preachers should not matter.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. reiner Tor says: • Website

    By the way nobody mentioned how the US once more attacked a Syrian military convoy for moving inside their own country, the third time they attacked Syrian troops since the supposed chemical attacks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor, @Greasy William
    And yet the Syrian army is still hanging in.

    If the US intended on toppling Assad, the Syrian army/Hezbollah would be vaporized in under 24 hours. These tiny attacks are little pinpricks that aren't effecting the Syrian military position at all.


    As for Saudi funding of terrorism and spreading radical Islam, the Saudis have always done so. It's not something they just started doing in the last few years. But nobody in the alt-right complained about it until it became clear how effective of a counterweight to Iranian influence Saudi Arabia really is.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. reiner Tor says: • Website
    @reiner Tor
    By the way nobody mentioned how the US once more attacked a Syrian military convoy for moving inside their own country, the third time they attacked Syrian troops since the supposed chemical attacks.
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. reiner Tor says: • Website
    @German_reader

    Trump’s business deal selling so many weapons now seems like a bad deal
     
    It's not just the weapons deal, it's that Trump and his administration seem totally determined to back Saudi-Arabia and fully accept the Saudi view of things...just look at the US reaction to the IS attacks in Tehran. One doesn't have to be a fan of the Iranian regime to regard this as pretty crass and inflammatory.

    I just meant that the weapons deal was supposed to be the beneficial part of it. (“Jobs, jobs, jobs!”)

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    Yes, sorry, my post wasn't meant as criticism of you, I should have phrased it differently. But anyway, I agree with you, I find it hard to put a positive spin on this...I would have hoped Trump would extricate the US from the Mideast morass, instead he actually emboldens the Saudis.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. melanf says:
    @Jaakko Raipala
    Some Orthodoxes fled after 1617, some converted, some remained. This is nothing unusual: all Finns are to some extent converted Orthodoxes; even in the west the first archaeological signs of Christianity are Orthodox and Finnish Christian vocabulary is Greek/Slavic, though Orthodoxy was likely very superficial and didn't cover much of the population in the westernmost parts.

    It's true that Swedes pressured Orthodoxes but Finns had a much simpler way available - thanks to Protestantism church services were in Finnish and there were Bibles and other religious writings in Finnish. People could go to the Russian church, listen to Church Slavic and never understand what their supposed religion was about or they could go listen to Finnish, learn more and pick up basic literacy. That's why the natural direction of conversion was always from Orthodoxy to Protestantism.

    The Finnish migrants were drawn from the east so it was mostly Protestant Karelians (whose ancestors had been Orthodox once). The ethnic make up of the region did not change much even if religion did.

    I don't know if Lenin ever used Swedish persecution of Orthodoxy in propaganda but if he did he was a pretty big hypocrite. I cannot imagine Hitler commenting on it (who the hell would he be speaking to?) and the Germans during Operation Barbarossa moved the remaining Finnic Orthodoxes on the south side of St Petersburg to a concentration camp in Estonia. The Finnish government made a deal to move them to Finland and some fought on our side, some refused. The USSR demanded them back at the end of the war and mostly deported them to far away locations so they barely exist these days.

    Tsar Peter did not destroy the Finnic nature of the rural areas (which actually largely remained Finnic up to the revolution) but he did wipe out the urban population that was in the way of his plans. He was generally less genocidal in southeast Finn rural areas as he wanted to annex them as productive land but he waged a campaign of extermination in western Finland which was to become a depopulated buffer against Sweden. In fact, the only person who ever brought west-Finn "colonists" to the Neva was Tsar Peter who had his forces capture a good fraction of the western population as slaves to build the city.

    Some Orthodoxes fled after 1617, some converted, some remained. This is nothing unusual:

    The majority of the Orthodox population fled from Swedish reign.
    The Swedish policy of religious conversion, harsh taxation and competition for labour and taxpayers were the key issues in the political and social history of Ingria and Kexholm Province during the seventeenth century. …. The religious policy of the Swedish Government towards the Orthodox failed almost completely…Orthodox peasants simply preferred to desert to Russia rather than oppose these policies.” (Kujala, Antti Sweden’s Russian Lands, Ingria and Kexholm Province, 1617 – ca. 1670: The Interaction of the Crown with Its New Subjects )

    Here is a map of the settlement of “Russian” Karel(blue circled where Karelians moved from the territories occupied by the Swedes). Likely from these Karel, was the famous Alexander Suvorov.
    But in occupied by the Swedes lands lived not only Karelian – the land of the future of Petersburg before 1617, was dominated by the Russian population (which was also “purged” by the Swedes).

    Tsar Peter did not destroy the Finnic nature of the rural areas (which actually largely remained Finnic up to the revolution) but he did wipe out the urban population that was in the way of his plans.

    Оf course nonsense. For Peter, the Finns (who lived on the lands of St. Petersburg) was not an “obstacle”, but of ordinary citizens, a source of taxes and recruits. But because of a powerful influx of Russian colonists , the small “urban” Finns and Swedes quickly become a minority.
    In 1725 in St. Petersburg was approximately 40 thousand inhabitants, and in 1750 – 100 thousand people (pre-war population of Nien – 2 000 people)

    In fact, the only person who ever brought west-Finn “colonists” to the Neva was Tsar Peter

    This is an obvious false statement

    The crop failures related to the Little Ice Age as well as the tax increases and conscriptions ordered by King Gustav II Adolf and the ensuing regency regime, together with the attraction of the swidden lands in the east, on the other hand, drove thousands of Lutheran Finns in Viborg Karelia and Savo to migrate to Ingria and Kexholm Province. The Crown was neither able to prevent the Finnish peasants, farm hands and deserters from moving to the newly conquered eastern territories, freed from conscription, nor could it contain the migration of the Orthodox population from those same territories. After the war of 1656–1658, the population there consisted of Lutheran Finns everywhere, except in the Western parts of Ingria and the North-eastern fringe of Kexholm Province.” ( Kujala, Antti Sweden’s Russian Lands, Ingria and Kexholm Province, 1617 – ca. 1670: The Interaction of the Crown with Its New Subjects)

    http://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/fsv/jgo/2016/00000064/00000004/art00002

    The Finns appeared on the territory of Ingria mainly after 1617, when these lands according to a result of the Stolbova peace Treaty was ceded to Sweden. A number of fin. settlers existed here before, since the 14th century, after the conclusion of Shlisselburg (Orehovica) peace Treaty. The main tributary of the fin. colonists on the conquered lands falls in the middle of 17th century, when the Swedish government began to carry out forced conversion to Lutheranism of local residents . This caused a mass Exodus of the Orthodox (Izhora, Voda, Rus. and Karel.) population to the Russian land. The empty lands were quickly settled by Finns-immigrants

    http://www.etnosy.ru/node/354

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jaakko Raipala
    I said: "In fact, the only person who ever brought west-Finn “colonists” to the Neva was Tsar Peter"

    You said: "Lutheran Finns in Viborg Karelia and Savo to migrate to "

    Exactly. These are not west-Finns. Those Protestant Karelians were ethnically the same as the Orthodox Karelians in the region and ethnically very different from us from western tribes. They both would have had a bigger genetic gap to a west-Finn like me than any other neighboring ethnic groups in Europe but they would have had next to no gap to each other. They understood each other, I would not have understood either of them very well. And so on. There was no difference except religion.

    Those Orthodox Karelians didn't move away their new Karelian neighbors, they moved because of Swedish policy towards non-Lutherans. If you read about historical atrocities against Finnic Orthodoxes, the culprits are generally Swedes or west-Finns. East-Finns don't have a legacy of tribal feud with Karelians because they are Karelians or close tribes.

    "Оf course nonsense. For Peter, the Finns (who lived on the lands of St. Petersburg) was not an “obstacle”, but of ordinary citizens, "

    An ordinary Russian citizen was a serf. A Tsar had no way of calming occupied land with a Finnish population except either extreme brutality (like Peter I) or a plausible promise that Finns would have an exception from serfdom (like Alexander I).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. @reiner Tor
    By the way nobody mentioned how the US once more attacked a Syrian military convoy for moving inside their own country, the third time they attacked Syrian troops since the supposed chemical attacks.

    And yet the Syrian army is still hanging in.

    If the US intended on toppling Assad, the Syrian army/Hezbollah would be vaporized in under 24 hours. These tiny attacks are little pinpricks that aren’t effecting the Syrian military position at all.

    As for Saudi funding of terrorism and spreading radical Islam, the Saudis have always done so. It’s not something they just started doing in the last few years. But nobody in the alt-right complained about it until it became clear how effective of a counterweight to Iranian influence Saudi Arabia really is.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    This:

    These tiny attacks are little pinpricks that aren’t effecting the Syrian military position at all.
     
    doesn't follow from this:

    If the US intended on toppling Assad, the Syrian army/Hezbollah would be vaporized in under 24 hours.
     
    In fact, after the April attacks, both the Syrians and the American supporters of the action said that the number of Syrian sorties flown from that one base dropped significantly. The Syrian air force has at most a hundred operational warplanes, so destroying "just a few" of them reduces their air strength several percentage points.

    You also conveniently left out that if the US "vaporized" both the Syrian army and Hezbollah, this would mean a shooting war with the Russian forces stationed there.

    While obviously the US did not go all in to destroy Assad, the US actions since April (which includes continued arms deliveries to Assad's enemies) are in fact consistent with a continuation (and escalation) of the Obama policy of regime change without engaging in an all-out war.

    nobody in the alt-right complained about it
     
    Who cares what the alt-right complained or not complained about? It's a red herring, and has nothing to do with the issue at hand - you said the US was "morally right" to support Saudi Arabia against Iran. If the alt-right supported this policy ten years ago (I very much doubt it - the alt-right hardly even existed back then; I consider myself alt-right only since perhaps early 2011, and I didn't start using the word until perhaps 2014 or 2015), but opposes it now, then the alt-right was wrong then, and they are correct now. But regardless of the alt-right positions or their changes over time, it's obvious that Saudi Arabia supports the murder of innocent Western Europeans through its funding of terrorist organizations and mosques (and propagandizing its own citizens to fund and even organize the same), while Iran does nothing comparably harmful to us.

    In any event, just out of curiosity, could you provide Richard B. Spencer quotes from before 2008 where he was supportive of the American leadership's cozying up to Saudi Arabia?
    , @anon

    As for Saudi funding of terrorism and spreading radical Islam, the Saudis have always done so. It’s not something they just started doing in the last few years. But nobody in the alt-right complained about it...snip
     
    you're correct the Saudis have been promoting jihadist ideology all over the world for 30+ years (by funding jihadist preachers and mosques) but only the security services and the political-media class knew about it - and the political-media class are bought - and the security services get their orders from bought politicians

    however it's only recently started to become *public* knowledge

    #

    the reason Iran, Iraq, Syria etc make a particular point of being anti-Israel is their elites are precarious so they defect attention onto Israel - Syria Alawite minority, Iraq Sunni minority, Iran religious minority (although i assume there's an ethnic element in Iran as well?)

    (it's basically the same reason the US minority elite use the media to attack white people all the time - deflection from themselves)

    instead of bribing US politicians to wreck these countries and flood Europe with hostiles a better strategy would be to promote the Swiss canton model for all the excessively diverse middle east countries
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. E says:
    @melanf

    St. Petersburg is a really weird example of a huge city that “shouldn’t naturally be there” and exists mostly because of one man’s strong will that it exist.
     
    The mouth of the Neva is the most convenient (in fact the only possible) place for a seaport linking the economic center of Russia with the world's ocean trade. Before the advent of Railways, freight transport in the mainland were carried by the rivers. Tsar Peter understood this, and in 1704-1722 were built canal systems connecting the basin of the Neva and basins of the Volga. As a result, 70% of all International trade Russia went through Volga-Neva waterway in the 18th century.
    For example iron from the Urals was carried by the rivers to St. Petersburg to sell to the English merchants http://1piar.ru/folio/images/503505-4c6691f9.jpg

    This Saint Petersburg absolutely typical of the city at the mouth of the river, such as London. Rouen, Amsterdam, Antwerp, etc.
    It's amazing that it was built in the 18th, not the 12th century.

    “The mouth of the Neva is the most convenient (in fact the only possible) place for a seaport linking the economic center of Russia with the world’s ocean trade”

    Are you aware of just how WIDE major Russian rivers tend to be, though? I think it’s no accident that Novgorod served in St. Petersburg’s role for centuries, despite being inland. It was a nicer place to live (not only does the climate feel better, but St. Petersburg has a mosquito problem to this day), and it could still accept large ships.

    Plus St. Petersburg remains comparatively hard to defend, as WW2 proved.

    Read More
    • Replies: @melanf

    Are you aware of just how WIDE major Russian rivers tend to be, though? I think it’s no accident that Novgorod served in St. Petersburg’s role for centuries, despite being inland.
     
    I know how wide major Russian rivers because I live in St. Petersburg. To Novgorod (trough shallow Volkhov http://s4.fotokto.ru/photo/full/245/2452078.jpg) could sails freely Viking drakars, but not ships of the 18th century. Even on the Neva sailing ships can to climb up the stream only to tow by rowing boats

    It was a nicer place to live (not only does the climate feel better
     
    ???? Why? To Novgorod from St. Petersburg - two hours by the local train. The climate almost identical

    but St. Petersburg has a mosquito problem to this day
     
    There is no such problem
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. melanf says:
    @E
    "The mouth of the Neva is the most convenient (in fact the only possible) place for a seaport linking the economic center of Russia with the world’s ocean trade"

    Are you aware of just how WIDE major Russian rivers tend to be, though? I think it's no accident that Novgorod served in St. Petersburg's role for centuries, despite being inland. It was a nicer place to live (not only does the climate feel better, but St. Petersburg has a mosquito problem to this day), and it could still accept large ships.

    Plus St. Petersburg remains comparatively hard to defend, as WW2 proved.

    Are you aware of just how WIDE major Russian rivers tend to be, though? I think it’s no accident that Novgorod served in St. Petersburg’s role for centuries, despite being inland.

    I know how wide major Russian rivers because I live in St. Petersburg. To Novgorod (trough shallow Volkhov http://s4.fotokto.ru/photo/full/245/2452078.jpg) could sails freely Viking drakars, but not ships of the 18th century. Even on the Neva sailing ships can to climb up the stream only to tow by rowing boats

    It was a nicer place to live (not only does the climate feel better

    ???? Why? To Novgorod from St. Petersburg – two hours by the local train. The climate almost identical

    but St. Petersburg has a mosquito problem to this day

    There is no such problem

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. @Greasy William
    I just meant that the US was morally right to do so because the Iranians are blood enemies of the Jews. From a purely American perspective I don't think it's that big a deal either way.

    I supported the nuclear deal with Iran and I oppose a US attack on Iran. You should be happy that all indications show that Trump intends to continue to honor the nuclear agreement and will not attack Iran.

    Saudi Arabia is the US's most important ally in the region. That was the case even when the US was allied with Iran. There is nothing wrong with the US supporting the security of it's closest ally. Nobody had a problem with Saudi Arabia until the Saudis turned into a thorn in Iran's eye.

    I just meant that the US was morally right to do so because the Iranians are blood enemies of the Jews.

    Why should US foreign policy be determined by whether someone is a “blood enemy of the Jews” or not? And anyway, it’s not like Saudi-Arabia or movements like IS are really pro-Jewish, even if for tactical considerations they may not act on their views about Jews right now.

    Nobody had a problem with Saudi Arabia until the Saudis turned into a thorn in Iran’s eye.

    That’s a weird statement given Saudi-Arabia’s extremely prominent and active role in spreading Islamism.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. @reiner Tor
    I just meant that the weapons deal was supposed to be the beneficial part of it. ("Jobs, jobs, jobs!")

    Yes, sorry, my post wasn’t meant as criticism of you, I should have phrased it differently. But anyway, I agree with you, I find it hard to put a positive spin on this…I would have hoped Trump would extricate the US from the Mideast morass, instead he actually emboldens the Saudis.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. reiner Tor says: • Website
    @Greasy William
    And yet the Syrian army is still hanging in.

    If the US intended on toppling Assad, the Syrian army/Hezbollah would be vaporized in under 24 hours. These tiny attacks are little pinpricks that aren't effecting the Syrian military position at all.


    As for Saudi funding of terrorism and spreading radical Islam, the Saudis have always done so. It's not something they just started doing in the last few years. But nobody in the alt-right complained about it until it became clear how effective of a counterweight to Iranian influence Saudi Arabia really is.

    This:

    These tiny attacks are little pinpricks that aren’t effecting the Syrian military position at all.

    doesn’t follow from this:

    If the US intended on toppling Assad, the Syrian army/Hezbollah would be vaporized in under 24 hours.

    In fact, after the April attacks, both the Syrians and the American supporters of the action said that the number of Syrian sorties flown from that one base dropped significantly. The Syrian air force has at most a hundred operational warplanes, so destroying “just a few” of them reduces their air strength several percentage points.

    You also conveniently left out that if the US “vaporized” both the Syrian army and Hezbollah, this would mean a shooting war with the Russian forces stationed there.

    While obviously the US did not go all in to destroy Assad, the US actions since April (which includes continued arms deliveries to Assad’s enemies) are in fact consistent with a continuation (and escalation) of the Obama policy of regime change without engaging in an all-out war.

    nobody in the alt-right complained about it

    Who cares what the alt-right complained or not complained about? It’s a red herring, and has nothing to do with the issue at hand – you said the US was “morally right” to support Saudi Arabia against Iran. If the alt-right supported this policy ten years ago (I very much doubt it – the alt-right hardly even existed back then; I consider myself alt-right only since perhaps early 2011, and I didn’t start using the word until perhaps 2014 or 2015), but opposes it now, then the alt-right was wrong then, and they are correct now. But regardless of the alt-right positions or their changes over time, it’s obvious that Saudi Arabia supports the murder of innocent Western Europeans through its funding of terrorist organizations and mosques (and propagandizing its own citizens to fund and even organize the same), while Iran does nothing comparably harmful to us.

    In any event, just out of curiosity, could you provide Richard B. Spencer quotes from before 2008 where he was supportive of the American leadership’s cozying up to Saudi Arabia?

    Read More
    • Agree: German_reader
    • Replies: @Randal

    you said the US was “morally right” to support Saudi Arabia against Iran
     
    Yes, but he subsequently clarified that position by writing: "I just meant that the US was morally right to do so because the Iranians are blood enemies of the Jews".

    That pretty much straightforwardly discredits his position, for anyone who does not share his evident personal external/identity group loyalty.
    , @Greasy William
    Randal summed up my problem with Iran: I'm Jewish. From a purely American perspective I have no preference between Iran and Saudi Arabia. I wouldn't expect any non Jew to hate Iran and would probably question their sanity if they did.

    Re Syria: US has been engaging in proxy wars forever. They aren't a big deal. The US backed the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, the right wing death squads in Latin America and now are backing various rebel factions in Syria. So what?

    Basically you guys want an Iran dominated middle east and are pissed that the US is getting in your way. Too bad. The US has been allied with Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt since the end of the second world war and that will never change. The US is done with direct military involvement but they will continue to support the security of their allies. That's just how it goes.

    One last thing: the combined Syrian, Hezbollah and Iranian forces are so weak and so incompetent that even if the US offered no support to the rebels whatsoever, the Saudis and the Turks would be more than enough to keep the rebels afloat. You should actually be grateful for US involvement because it gives you something to blame the impotence of your Iranian/Syrian heroes on.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. Randal says:
    @reiner Tor

    most likely the Qataris will bend the knee
     
    Perhaps, but as Anatoly wrote, the demands look pretty much impossible to fulfill. For example the Qataris need to have at least slightly amicable relations with Iran, because they share their most important gas field with them. And cutting ties to Iran is the first demand. Gulf Arab culture (Arab culture in general) is an honor-based culture. The Saudis didn't just demand that Qatar changes its policies. They demand total and immediate submission and humiliation, including public apologies and an immediate pilgrimage to Jeddah. I'm not sure how that kind of humiliation and loss of face could be accepted even in our culture, much less in an Arab honor-based culture, it's as if the ultimatum was designed to be rejected.

    It's interesting that Turkey is now quickly dispatching troops to Qatar. Since Qatar has at least one such militarily powerful backer (with at least some influence in Washington, DC), they might decide that they don't need to give in to the demands, especially since some of them involve their vital interests. They might go over to the Iranians and Russians, too.

    On one hand I sometimes have the inclination to only wish the Arabs the best of luck killing each other. On the other hand, I think it will be extremely difficult for the Americans (and hence, the rest of the West) to stay out of this mess, once it starts, which will cancel any possible benefits from the Arabs' killing each other. Trump's business deal selling so many weapons now seems like a bad deal, if he's getting involvement in yet another Middle Eastern mess in exchange. So once again Muslims' misery will only be bad news for us, too.

    the demands look pretty much impossible to fulfill

    Presumably the point is to allow for negotiation to achieve a solution that makes clear enough where the power lies to satisfy the Saudi regime, whilst reducing the public humiliation of the Qatari regime to (just) bearable levels – bearing in mind the implied alternative is destruction by coup or even outright invasion (if the confrontation were to be taken all the way to the bitter end).

    Qatar’s choice is to cave in on whatever terms are ultimately available, or to make a complete strategic switch. The latter is going to be hugely difficult and complicated given Qatar’s massive financial and other links to the wider US sphere.

    I have assumed (and I think I’m with the majority of observers here, for whatever that might be worth) that the Qatari’ royalty will look hard at that path and the risks and costs it will involve, and ultimately decide not to go too far along that route – though they might well seek to go some way along it as a bluff and/or negotiation stance. The alternative view you suggest here is certainly not unimaginable, though. Iran can provide economic backing (fresh food shipments, flight routes etc), while Turkey could provide the military muscle that would prevent an outright Saudi invasion, and perhaps a coup. On the other hand, such a change in backers will create unrest-inducing domestic changes, and require significant changes to Qatar’s wider policy positions.

    Popcorn is the only requirement here, for now. The only real concern is to watch out for the neocon US types, who undoubtedly will see such a crisis as potentially creating pretexts for attacking Iran.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    such a change in backers
     
    Saudi Arabia never really backed them, while Trump changed his tone yesterday when he had a telephone conversation with the Qatari emir. (And both Tillerson and the generals in Trump's entourage were way more cautious than their boss, in fact, they mentioned how important ally Qatar was to the US.) After reading this, it became unclear to me whether the Americans were really backing the Saudi actions, and whether they really were prepared to let go of their Qatari ally. If not, then certainly the Qatari royals could survive, because with some support from the US and a strong support from Turkey (and a lot of ambiguity or even support on the parts of Oman and Kuwait) the Qatari regime won't really have to realign much. As I wrote, their relations with Iran have always been more complex, excellent in some areas and hostile only in areas like Syria. While they never really liked the Saudis much. So how much realignment would be needed?

    But on second thoughts, you might be correct: perhaps Trump's change of tone was already a result of the Qataris bending their knees.

    (By the way, Iran cannot really provide the airspace, because for some reason unknown to me Bahrain has a huge airspace over the Gulf, and so Qatar is totally encircled by Bahraini, UAE and Saudi airspace on all sides. Though it's unclear if at least Bahrain and UAE, which are signatories to some international agreement on the matter, have the right to totally close their respective airspaces to Qatar, who is also a signatory to the same agreement.)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Mr. XYZ
    What exactly do you mean by "tankie" here? :

    "Whereas at least with Corbyn we have some chance of him unleashing his inner tankie against the jihadists."

    What exactly do you mean by “tankie” here? :

    “tankie” is a slang term for old style communists which derived from their support for the soviet invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia (with lots of tanks – hence tankie)

    Corbyn isn’t a tankie though, he’s more of a 1960s Trot and fully on board with the eradication of the native population through diversity

    as a Trot he’s more pro-Muslim / anti-Israel than the average SJW which is why the media have been trying to destroy his chances – unfortunately for them the “conservatives” are traitors too so they and the media are having trouble using the patriotic argument against him becuase all it does it does is remind people what lying whores they are

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hector_St_Clare
    Ugh, Trotsky.

    I think Bukharin would have been a great leader of the Soviet Union (and to the extent I'm pro-communist of sorts I would want some role for the market, at least for the foreseeable future), but Trotsky would probably have been even worse than Stalin ended up being.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. Read More
    • LOL: Randal, reiner Tor
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  55. Randal says:
    @reiner Tor
    This:

    These tiny attacks are little pinpricks that aren’t effecting the Syrian military position at all.
     
    doesn't follow from this:

    If the US intended on toppling Assad, the Syrian army/Hezbollah would be vaporized in under 24 hours.
     
    In fact, after the April attacks, both the Syrians and the American supporters of the action said that the number of Syrian sorties flown from that one base dropped significantly. The Syrian air force has at most a hundred operational warplanes, so destroying "just a few" of them reduces their air strength several percentage points.

    You also conveniently left out that if the US "vaporized" both the Syrian army and Hezbollah, this would mean a shooting war with the Russian forces stationed there.

    While obviously the US did not go all in to destroy Assad, the US actions since April (which includes continued arms deliveries to Assad's enemies) are in fact consistent with a continuation (and escalation) of the Obama policy of regime change without engaging in an all-out war.

    nobody in the alt-right complained about it
     
    Who cares what the alt-right complained or not complained about? It's a red herring, and has nothing to do with the issue at hand - you said the US was "morally right" to support Saudi Arabia against Iran. If the alt-right supported this policy ten years ago (I very much doubt it - the alt-right hardly even existed back then; I consider myself alt-right only since perhaps early 2011, and I didn't start using the word until perhaps 2014 or 2015), but opposes it now, then the alt-right was wrong then, and they are correct now. But regardless of the alt-right positions or their changes over time, it's obvious that Saudi Arabia supports the murder of innocent Western Europeans through its funding of terrorist organizations and mosques (and propagandizing its own citizens to fund and even organize the same), while Iran does nothing comparably harmful to us.

    In any event, just out of curiosity, could you provide Richard B. Spencer quotes from before 2008 where he was supportive of the American leadership's cozying up to Saudi Arabia?

    you said the US was “morally right” to support Saudi Arabia against Iran

    Yes, but he subsequently clarified that position by writing: “I just meant that the US was morally right to do so because the Iranians are blood enemies of the Jews”.

    That pretty much straightforwardly discredits his position, for anyone who does not share his evident personal external/identity group loyalty.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. reiner Tor says: • Website
    @Randal

    the demands look pretty much impossible to fulfill
     
    Presumably the point is to allow for negotiation to achieve a solution that makes clear enough where the power lies to satisfy the Saudi regime, whilst reducing the public humiliation of the Qatari regime to (just) bearable levels - bearing in mind the implied alternative is destruction by coup or even outright invasion (if the confrontation were to be taken all the way to the bitter end).

    Qatar's choice is to cave in on whatever terms are ultimately available, or to make a complete strategic switch. The latter is going to be hugely difficult and complicated given Qatar's massive financial and other links to the wider US sphere.

    I have assumed (and I think I'm with the majority of observers here, for whatever that might be worth) that the Qatari' royalty will look hard at that path and the risks and costs it will involve, and ultimately decide not to go too far along that route - though they might well seek to go some way along it as a bluff and/or negotiation stance. The alternative view you suggest here is certainly not unimaginable, though. Iran can provide economic backing (fresh food shipments, flight routes etc), while Turkey could provide the military muscle that would prevent an outright Saudi invasion, and perhaps a coup. On the other hand, such a change in backers will create unrest-inducing domestic changes, and require significant changes to Qatar's wider policy positions.

    Popcorn is the only requirement here, for now. The only real concern is to watch out for the neocon US types, who undoubtedly will see such a crisis as potentially creating pretexts for attacking Iran.

    such a change in backers

    Saudi Arabia never really backed them, while Trump changed his tone yesterday when he had a telephone conversation with the Qatari emir. (And both Tillerson and the generals in Trump’s entourage were way more cautious than their boss, in fact, they mentioned how important ally Qatar was to the US.) After reading this, it became unclear to me whether the Americans were really backing the Saudi actions, and whether they really were prepared to let go of their Qatari ally. If not, then certainly the Qatari royals could survive, because with some support from the US and a strong support from Turkey (and a lot of ambiguity or even support on the parts of Oman and Kuwait) the Qatari regime won’t really have to realign much. As I wrote, their relations with Iran have always been more complex, excellent in some areas and hostile only in areas like Syria. While they never really liked the Saudis much. So how much realignment would be needed?

    But on second thoughts, you might be correct: perhaps Trump’s change of tone was already a result of the Qataris bending their knees.

    (By the way, Iran cannot really provide the airspace, because for some reason unknown to me Bahrain has a huge airspace over the Gulf, and so Qatar is totally encircled by Bahraini, UAE and Saudi airspace on all sides. Though it’s unclear if at least Bahrain and UAE, which are signatories to some international agreement on the matter, have the right to totally close their respective airspaces to Qatar, who is also a signatory to the same agreement.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    Change in backers in the sense of relying far more than in the past on Iran and Turkey as, respectively, economic partner and military guarantor. Clearly, the US has at least muddied the waters over the former assumption that it would protect the Qatar regime against a regime change imposed by the Saudis.

    The US, of course, has a lot to lose if the confrontation blows up (another reason to regard Trump's involvement as a sign of incompetence, either gambling with the stability of US allies in the region or bumbling around and giving misleading signals to the Saudis about what they could get away with). Even if the crisis is resolved, most likely whichever party feels aggrieved about the outcome (quite possibly both) will blame the US for the situation.

    So how much realignment would be needed?
     
    It depends how far the Saudis are prepared to go (and how far the US regime will let them go). Obviously the flipside of your comments about humiliation of the Qataris is that the Saudis face public humiliation - with potentially far-reaching consequences - if they now do not achieve a significant capitulation.

    [On the air routes, I don't know the details but it was reported as fact that Qatari airlines were using Iranian airspace following their exclusion from Saudi airspace.]
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Greasy William
    And yet the Syrian army is still hanging in.

    If the US intended on toppling Assad, the Syrian army/Hezbollah would be vaporized in under 24 hours. These tiny attacks are little pinpricks that aren't effecting the Syrian military position at all.


    As for Saudi funding of terrorism and spreading radical Islam, the Saudis have always done so. It's not something they just started doing in the last few years. But nobody in the alt-right complained about it until it became clear how effective of a counterweight to Iranian influence Saudi Arabia really is.

    As for Saudi funding of terrorism and spreading radical Islam, the Saudis have always done so. It’s not something they just started doing in the last few years. But nobody in the alt-right complained about it…snip

    you’re correct the Saudis have been promoting jihadist ideology all over the world for 30+ years (by funding jihadist preachers and mosques) but only the security services and the political-media class knew about it – and the political-media class are bought – and the security services get their orders from bought politicians

    however it’s only recently started to become *public* knowledge

    #

    the reason Iran, Iraq, Syria etc make a particular point of being anti-Israel is their elites are precarious so they defect attention onto Israel – Syria Alawite minority, Iraq Sunni minority, Iran religious minority (although i assume there’s an ethnic element in Iran as well?)

    (it’s basically the same reason the US minority elite use the media to attack white people all the time – deflection from themselves)

    instead of bribing US politicians to wreck these countries and flood Europe with hostiles a better strategy would be to promote the Swiss canton model for all the excessively diverse middle east countries

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. anon says: • Disclaimer

    UK election

    UK politics has the same dynamic as everywhere else in the West – off-shoring destroyed the industrial unions which allowed SJWs to take over the Left parties and turn the into vehicles for identity politics

    as a result they betrayed their blue collar support and that support gradually evaporated away leaving them in theory with a far-left rump of SJWs and minimum wage immigrants

    any decent and even vaguely patriotic conservative party would be having a field day with massive support – however the western “conservative” parties are bought by the banking mafia to provide cheap labor and divide and rule so they’re traitors too and can no longer convincingly use patriotic arguments to get blue collar people to vote for them

    on top of that – being bought – the conservative party has various policies which are biting them e.g. they’ve been reducing police numbers as part of a stealth privatization which is blowing up in their faces now that jihadism – a side-effect of their betrayal over the borders – is getting out of control.

    so the end result is a distinct lack of enthusiasm – SJWs are fired up by their ideology and the conservative leadership are fired up by lobbyist money but the people in the middle seem mostly numb.

    that growing numb majority have no leadership because any that try get destroyed by the corrupt media (or by the security services under orders from a corrupt political class)

    so, the UK polls haven’t been very accurate recently, partly as a result of the growing numbness, so it’s very hard to know what is going to happen (it *ought* to be a con landslide but according to the polls it doesn’t look like it will be so i think it could go either way) – my only clear guess is an unusually low turn out

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  59. Randal says:
    @reiner Tor

    such a change in backers
     
    Saudi Arabia never really backed them, while Trump changed his tone yesterday when he had a telephone conversation with the Qatari emir. (And both Tillerson and the generals in Trump's entourage were way more cautious than their boss, in fact, they mentioned how important ally Qatar was to the US.) After reading this, it became unclear to me whether the Americans were really backing the Saudi actions, and whether they really were prepared to let go of their Qatari ally. If not, then certainly the Qatari royals could survive, because with some support from the US and a strong support from Turkey (and a lot of ambiguity or even support on the parts of Oman and Kuwait) the Qatari regime won't really have to realign much. As I wrote, their relations with Iran have always been more complex, excellent in some areas and hostile only in areas like Syria. While they never really liked the Saudis much. So how much realignment would be needed?

    But on second thoughts, you might be correct: perhaps Trump's change of tone was already a result of the Qataris bending their knees.

    (By the way, Iran cannot really provide the airspace, because for some reason unknown to me Bahrain has a huge airspace over the Gulf, and so Qatar is totally encircled by Bahraini, UAE and Saudi airspace on all sides. Though it's unclear if at least Bahrain and UAE, which are signatories to some international agreement on the matter, have the right to totally close their respective airspaces to Qatar, who is also a signatory to the same agreement.)

    Change in backers in the sense of relying far more than in the past on Iran and Turkey as, respectively, economic partner and military guarantor. Clearly, the US has at least muddied the waters over the former assumption that it would protect the Qatar regime against a regime change imposed by the Saudis.

    The US, of course, has a lot to lose if the confrontation blows up (another reason to regard Trump’s involvement as a sign of incompetence, either gambling with the stability of US allies in the region or bumbling around and giving misleading signals to the Saudis about what they could get away with). Even if the crisis is resolved, most likely whichever party feels aggrieved about the outcome (quite possibly both) will blame the US for the situation.

    So how much realignment would be needed?

    It depends how far the Saudis are prepared to go (and how far the US regime will let them go). Obviously the flipside of your comments about humiliation of the Qataris is that the Saudis face public humiliation – with potentially far-reaching consequences – if they now do not achieve a significant capitulation.

    [On the air routes, I don't know the details but it was reported as fact that Qatari airlines were using Iranian airspace following their exclusion from Saudi airspace.]

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    Obviously the flipside of your comments about humiliation of the Qataris is that the Saudis face public humiliation – with potentially far-reaching consequences – if they now do not achieve a significant capitulation.
     
    Yes, they now need to get some results. This also increases the chances of confrontation, because now one (or both) of the parties will have to accept humiliation for a peaceful outcome. For Trump to encourage this seems like an incredibly stupid thing to do.

    [On the air routes, I don't know the details but it was reported as fact that Qatari airlines were using Iranian airspace following their exclusion from Saudi airspace.]
     
    Yes, the problem is that they need to get through Bahraini airspace in order to land in Doha, and the Bahrainis have restricted Qatari access to just one airway, which inevitably leads to congestion.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. anon says: • Disclaimer

    it’s possible the Saudi-Qatar thing is a consequence of Trump trading weapons in exchange for them stopping their funding of Isis

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

    I am currently in Saint Petersburg. I was last here in 2002. Back then I liked it more than Moscow. No longer the case.

    When I was in St. Peterburg for the first time, in the late 1990s, it felt like a weird mixture of Paris and Tijuana. Since then it has gotten much better.

    But Moscow is more authentically Russian.

    If there had been no Revolution, and St. Petersburg remained Russia’s cultural, economic and population capital, it would have been Russia’s New York, while Moscow would have been Russia’s Chicago, the second city but largest real Russian (vs.international) city. I’ve always preferred Moscow.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ussr andy

    Moscow would have been Russia’s Chicago
     
    and who would've been the Italians? Uzbeks? :D
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    I suspect they would have been about equal. Moscow was matching SPB's growth rate prior to the Revolution and was about the same size. Moscow is a natural center of gravity for the Russian economy due to its central position in the rail and water nexus of European Russia, and so if anything I think it's relative economic weight would have increased during the 20th century, whereas SPB would have remained politically and culturally predominant.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. reiner Tor says: • Website
    @Randal
    Change in backers in the sense of relying far more than in the past on Iran and Turkey as, respectively, economic partner and military guarantor. Clearly, the US has at least muddied the waters over the former assumption that it would protect the Qatar regime against a regime change imposed by the Saudis.

    The US, of course, has a lot to lose if the confrontation blows up (another reason to regard Trump's involvement as a sign of incompetence, either gambling with the stability of US allies in the region or bumbling around and giving misleading signals to the Saudis about what they could get away with). Even if the crisis is resolved, most likely whichever party feels aggrieved about the outcome (quite possibly both) will blame the US for the situation.

    So how much realignment would be needed?
     
    It depends how far the Saudis are prepared to go (and how far the US regime will let them go). Obviously the flipside of your comments about humiliation of the Qataris is that the Saudis face public humiliation - with potentially far-reaching consequences - if they now do not achieve a significant capitulation.

    [On the air routes, I don't know the details but it was reported as fact that Qatari airlines were using Iranian airspace following their exclusion from Saudi airspace.]

    Obviously the flipside of your comments about humiliation of the Qataris is that the Saudis face public humiliation – with potentially far-reaching consequences – if they now do not achieve a significant capitulation.

    Yes, they now need to get some results. This also increases the chances of confrontation, because now one (or both) of the parties will have to accept humiliation for a peaceful outcome. For Trump to encourage this seems like an incredibly stupid thing to do.

    [On the air routes, I don't know the details but it was reported as fact that Qatari airlines were using Iranian airspace following their exclusion from Saudi airspace.]

    Yes, the problem is that they need to get through Bahraini airspace in order to land in Doha, and the Bahrainis have restricted Qatari access to just one airway, which inevitably leads to congestion.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. @German_reader
    Pretty depressing if the choice in Britain comes down between an open borders leftie loon (and that ridiculous cap he's wearing...is that supposed to make him look like Lenin, Ernst Thälmann and the like?) and a shameless plutocrat who wants to censor the internet and is cozy with Gulf state autocracies.
    But at least the election in Britain is somewhat entertaining. It's pretty clear how the September elections in Germany will end...four more years of Merkel, what a dreadful prospect.

    Unlike the election last year in the US (where the choice was between two people who really sucked), I quite respect both May and Corbyn. I think they’d probably each do a decent job.

    May is better on immigration & Brexit, but I prefer Corbyn on economics & foreign policy. Not sure how I’d choose, but maybe Corbyn. Immigration is important but it’s not the only thing that matters.

    At least the Brits get a choice between two legitimately different worldviews espoused by somewhat sincere politicians.

    Out of curiosity, as a German how would you sum up the different parties on option?

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    Out of curiosity, as a German how would you sum up the different parties on option?
     
    You mean in Germany? Well, as I see it:

    - Greens: privileged bourgeois types; anti-German fanatics who are strongly into mass immigration, multiculturalism, Islamophilia and more "Europe". They've also made their peace with military interventionism and have become pretty Atlanticist (they still despise Bundeswehr soldiers, but expect them to die for "humanitarian" causes if necessary). Total scum imo, the part of Germany that I'd like to see forcibly removed. Will probably lose substantially in the September elections because their anti-German positions are too extreme for anybody but their hardcore supporters.
    - Die Linke: leftie extremists. Might have attractive positions on some issues, but are mostly into open borders by now (some of them are seriously agitating for "global freedom of movement" and the like), and are strongly in favour of state-supported "antifascism", therefore unelectable imo. Will probably stagnate or lose somewhat in September.
    - Social Democrats: screwed their core voters over with Schröder's "reforms", are generally incompetent and have ruined every German state they've ruled for any amount of time. Strongly in favour of mass immigration, very pro-Islam, and the driving force behind anti-hate speech legislation (i.e. censorship). Can't see any reason to vote for them. Will probably stagnate or even lose somewhat in September.
    - Christian Democrats (CDU): spineless opportunists who go with the globalist zeitgeist and have created a disgusting personality cult around Merkel. Don't really have a programme except staying in power...strongly in favour of more "Europe" though, also very pro-Islam (their politicians regularly making statements like "Islam belongs to Germany", "Islam could be the glue holding society together" etc.). Scum, I hate them only marginally less than the Greens. Will probably get around 40% in the elections (together with the CSU), because people are stupid and don't see any credible alternative...which will be celebrated as a great triumph for Merkel who can go on wrecking Germany for another four years.
    - Bavarian Christian Democrats (CSU): pretend to be "conservatives" but are worse than useless because it's basically just a "good cop, bad cop" show and they end up supporting Merkel in everything that matters anyway. Don't care about anything except staying in power in Bavaria.
    - Liberals (FDP): slimy business lobbyists who care only about their own careers and privileges for their clientele. Didn't enter the last Bundestag and looked finished as a party, but will probably gain substantially in September, because bourgeois cowards who are somewhat disturbed by Merkel's course, but want to be seen as respectable, will vote for them.
    - Alternative for Germany (AfD): the "nationalists". They have a lot of issues (in some ways too economically liberal for my tastes, also quite a few deluded people among their ranks), but they're the only party providing an alternative on many issues like "Europe" and Merkel's open borders idiocy (which is really THE crucial issue for me). I've voted for them in the past and intend to do so again in September. They'll enter the Bundestag for the first time, but unfortunately it looks like they might stay below 10%, due to their own incompetence and the extraordinary hate campaign the establishment has incited against them.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. Boris N says:
    @melanf

    Such a town *was* built in the 12th century but it was a *Swedish* town and fortress called Landskrona
     
    Fort (not tоwn) Landskrona was a failed attempt of the Swedes capture the mouth of the Neva. In 1300 the Swedes landed at the mouth of the Neva river and built a Fort, but in 1301, the Russian troops took the Fort by storm, and massacred the Swedes.

    The Neva mouth remained effectively no man’s land for centuries after that because the Scandinavians were still superior on the sea and Novgorod could not have defended a coastal site against raids
     
    Novgorod centuries owned these lands, but this lazy Republic could not build a fortress at the mouth of the Neva. Full bastards

    Sweden eventually did annex the site in 1617…
     
    and get rid of the indigenous population. In 1620, the Orthodox population (Russians, Karelians, etc.) accounted for 90% of the population. In 1650 the Orthodox population was 50% (other 50% Lutheran Finns resettled in these lands). In 1698, the Orthodox population was 15%, and 75% were the Lutherans - mostly Finns (Musayev "Political history of Ingermanland"). That is, the indigenous population fled from the Swedish yoke, and "cleansed" lands settled by Finns ( something that agitators from Lenin to Hitler have later found very useful here).

    Tsar Peter did not take empty land at the Neva, he took a city (and had its inhabitants murdered or enslaved
     
    This is an obvious exaggeration. Of course the war was fought in accordance with the "norms" of the time, but Finnish population on the future site of Petersburg was not subjected to deliberate extermination/expulsion. But due to the construction of St. Petersburg (and powerful influx of Russian population) Finns quickly became a minority in these lands.

    and get rid of the indigenous population. In 1620, the Orthodox population (Russians, Karelians, etc.) accounted for 90% of the population.

    I believe all them in toto fled to central Russia where they created a very strangely placed and unique diaspora of Orthodox Karelians near Tver (now mostly assimilated).

    This is an obvious exaggeration.

    You know how this works: THEY always murder and massacre US; WE always just peacefully annex and peacefully assimilate THEM. Many would point a finger at Russians for such a way of thinking when actually this is rather a Western way of thinking PARTICULARLY when it is directed towards Russia. You know, those Asiatic Scythian-Mongolian barbarous beasts always have wanted to conquer the world, and others did nothing but defended themselves.

    I think this is pointless to argue with them as you lost from the start for they had put you in a position of the accused and themselves to the accusers; you cannot win there.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jaakko Raipala
    Yes, that is where Tver Karelians come from. But you're putting words in my mouth now. Neither Swedes or Finns assimilated Russians. In Swedish conquests only Finnic Orthodoxes were pressured to convert, Russians were usually just kicked out. Complain to the Swedes about that.

    Anyway I actually didn't mean to air my Tsar Peter butthurt (I just can't help it coming out), I just wanted to point out that there were pushes for the mouth of the Neva before 1700 but the site was exposed to sabotage by the other side for both Sweden and Russia so it never worked. I would suggest that the reason why St Petersburg eventually became possible was the evolution of defenses like cannon batteries which let Russia defend the site despite its relative weakness on the sea.

    Eg. in the Crimean War the English sent a big fleet to the Baltic Sea that could have easily sunk the Russian Baltic fleet but the English fleet simply turned back from St Petersburg because the land cannons at the coast and at Kronstadt could out-range the ship cannons.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. Carlo says:
    @Thorfinnsson
    Off-topic, but are you Carlo Kopp the editor of Airpower Australia?

    No, I am not. This is my real first name, but there must be dozens of million of other people also with it, mostly in Italy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. @anon

    What exactly do you mean by “tankie” here? :
     
    "tankie" is a slang term for old style communists which derived from their support for the soviet invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia (with lots of tanks - hence tankie)

    Corbyn isn't a tankie though, he's more of a 1960s Trot and fully on board with the eradication of the native population through diversity

    as a Trot he's more pro-Muslim / anti-Israel than the average SJW which is why the media have been trying to destroy his chances - unfortunately for them the "conservatives" are traitors too so they and the media are having trouble using the patriotic argument against him becuase all it does it does is remind people what lying whores they are

    Ugh, Trotsky.

    I think Bukharin would have been a great leader of the Soviet Union (and to the extent I’m pro-communist of sorts I would want some role for the market, at least for the foreseeable future), but Trotsky would probably have been even worse than Stalin ended up being.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. Boris N says:
    @Mr. Hack

    Muscovites themselves have come much more polite and considerate in the past decade
     
    Not so, their leaders who live in Moscow:

    Last week, the European Court of Human Rights—the highest judicial body for the 47 member states of the Council of Europe—handed down a cluster of decisions on various subjects, from land ownership in Poland to asylum procedures in Switzerland. One of the rulings concerned Application No. 75947/11, “Davydov and Others vs. Russia.” “The fairness of the elections…was seriously compromised by the procedure in which the votes had been recounted. In particular, the extent of recounting, unclear reasons for ordering it, lack of transparency and breaches of procedural guarantees in carrying it out, as well as the results whereby the ruling party gained votes by large margins, strongly support the suspicion of unfairness,” held the judges in Strasbourg. “None of the [domestic] avenues employed by the applicants afforded them a review which would provide sufficient guarantees against arbitrariness.” The seven-judge panel (that included a judge from Russia) unanimously ruled that there has been a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to free elections. With this paragraph came the long-awaited verdict on Russia’s 2011 parliamentary vote. Unofficial estimates published soon after the election put the number of fraudulent ballots at 14 million, one in five cast. Golos, Russia’s leading independent vote-monitoring group, concluded that the election was “not free and fair and… did not comply with Russian electoral legislation and the international electoral standards.” Observers from the OSCE concurred, noting that “the contest was… slanted in favor of the ruling party [as] evidenced by the lack of independence of the election administration, the partiality of most media, and the undue interference of state authorities at different levels.
     
    http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/vladimir-kara-murza/russia%E2%80%99s-election-was-rigged%E2%80%94and-time-it%E2%80%99s-official

    Кто о чём, а украинец об одном и том же. Я всё не могу понять, тебе и таким как ты платят и заказывают бегать по разным блогам и распространять вашу в(ы)шив(атн)ую пропаганду, или у вас это само собой получается искренне и непринуждённо, то есть, как говорят, вы суть “useful idiots”?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    Що за пропаганда? Ви плутаєте цікаві новини з вашою мякою оцінкою дії в Росії.
    , @Mr. Hack
    The seven member panel of judges included one Russian judge who concurred with the verdict. Where's the 'propaganda' in sharing some current events emanating from Europe? :-)

    See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil?...

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. Boris N says:
    @Randal
    Boris Johnson? You mean the clown who gratuitously travelled to the Ukraine and absurdly "demanded" that Russia return that province to the Ukraine (against the evident will of its people), loudly praised the Saudis' war on Yemen, and all but fell over himself in his haste to applaud the disgraceful US attack on Syrian government forces?

    How would anything be significantly different, let alone substantively better, with him in charge? Marginally more entertaining, at most.

    Boris Johnson? You mean the clown who gratuitously travelled to the Ukraine and absurdly “demanded” that Russia return that province to the Ukraine

    When I was first reading it I misread it as he had meant to return the separatist province of the Ukraine to Russia, ha-ha! It always happens when you are a Russian imperialist: you are never sure, when they say two words “separatists” and “Ukraine” in one sentence, whether by that they may mean the separatists in Kiev.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    When I was first reading it I misread it as he had meant to return the separatist province of the Ukraine to Russia
     
    LOL!

    Actually, that's probably the kind of unintended guilty truth that Johnson, like Trump yesterday on states sponsoring terrorism, might even blurt out unintentionally.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. Boris N says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji
    Well, the piece you linked is titled: "Corbyn denies wanting 'uncontrolled migration'".

    It also quotes something called "The Labour manifesto" as promising to “develop and implement fair immigration rules” and create “a new system which is based on our economic needs, balancing controls and existing entitlements”

    Of course "based on our economic needs" could mean anything, but it doesn't sound like an advocacy of 'open borders'. Advocacy of 'open borders' is purely ideological, not pragmatic, 'based on economic needs'...

    Well, the piece you linked is titled: “Corbyn denies wanting ‘uncontrolled migration’”.

    It also quotes something called “The Labour manifesto” as promising to “develop and implement fair immigration rules” and create “a new system which is based on our economic needs, balancing controls and existing entitlements”

    Sorry, if I ask you, because I want to address all the British, American and EU citizens here. I’ve been reading about “open borders” and “uncontrolled migration” thousands of times for months on end. But have you, when you are speaking about the alleged open borders in your countries, even ever read your migration laws? Because I think you all haven’t. Actually, I think fe, who complains about open borders have ever read any migration laws.

    Because as an absolute outsider who happens to face such laws I must tell you that both the UK and the US, and as well the EU in general, are the countries with very strict migration laws and in reality with closed borders. Yes, and the UK seems to be the most closed of them all. Have you ever thought how a person from a non-EU country can immigrate into the UK? I think you have no idea. Because the overwhelming absolute majority of the people on the planet actually cannot. There is no such a thing as to buy a ticket Karachi-London and immigrate to the UK. The only few obvious ways are: 1) to marry a British citizen; 2) to have relatives in the UK (not simply a relative, but the closed ones like parents or children); and 3) to be so a highly skilled specialist that a UK company wants you and is ready to fight bureaucracy to prove you need to work in the UK and to sponsor you. Other than that you have no practical ways to immigrate. You may travel as a tourist and then happily return to your home country, but not to immigrate. Also, as I remember (I didn’t check it for several years) there has been “skilled migration” programs in the UK (like in Canada and Australia), but as you may understand, even if they do not ask you to have a sponsor, you still have to be quite a skilled specialist, very young, with excellent English, and what is most crucial to have a trade in demand in the UK. So in practice even those programs that directly aim at bringing in migrants are only for few lucky ones (like doctors or engineers).

    To sum up, in practice there is no such a problem as bad migration laws in your countries. You simply cannot make more strict the laws that are already very strict and exclusive. Those who exploit the idea of “to make migration stricter” are demagogues. To say mathematically: 99% of the feared Muslims simply have no options to immigrate to the UK, or the US, or the EU. No, zero. Yes, some may do it as tourists, but not everybody wants to live their whole lives as illegals, hiding and always fearing a deportation. Moreover, the US citizens cannot simply immigrate and settle in the UK or the EU, or vice versa, either! For they have no agreements of free movement of workforce. Even the US and Canada have no such a freedom! 90 days and bye-bye, “Yankee, go home”.

    So what do all you people expect from Corbyn, or May, or Brexit, or UKIP, or whomever? What do you want them to do? Do you want to make the UK as closed as North Korea? Because it is the only option left.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji
    Well, the EU allows free unlimited internal migration of labor. Anyone with, say, Bulgarian passport has the right to move to the UK and get a job, with minimal (negligible) paperwork.

    The EU has so-called "two-speed" economic model, with Eastern members being much poorer. People from the East migrate to the UK (Germany, France) en masse, competing for (mostly) manual low-wage jobs, which has the effect of suppressing wages. This creates serious dissatisfaction, leading to social tensions, among the uneducated blue-collar segment in western EU states. This is the immigration problem, in a nutshell.

    Something similar is happening in the US, only there the culprit is illegal immigration across the southern border.

    , @Randal

    Because as an absolute outsider who happens to face such laws I must tell you that both the UK and the US, and as well the EU in general, are the countries with very strict migration laws and in reality with closed borders.
     
    Well as far as the present situation is concerned, membership of the EU comes with enforced acceptance of the open borders dogma, either in extreme (Schengen) form or the limited opt-out form, which only allows border identity checks. So as far as EU member state nationals are concerned, the borders are all open in the literal sense

    But it's not just the laws that are the issue, but rather how they are applied in practice. And the proof of the pudding is in the eating of the pudding. Here are the immigration figures for the UK for the past few decades (these are official estimates - generally accepted as significant undercounts):

    https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/statistics-net-migration-statistics/#create-graph

    Note that following the post-1997 Blairite opening of the floodgates, immigration rose quickly to the present figure of around half a million per year. Even "net migration" shows the same dramatic rise, to around a quarter to a third of a million per year. Total immigration of non-EU people is at half to a third of a million per year.

    These are nation-changing numbers for a state with a population formerly stabilising at under 60 million, especially combined with birth rate differences. The census figures showed a catastrophic drop of 5% in the "white" population (from 92% to 87%) in just a decade, between 2001 and 2011. The government's estimates also show a similarly massive increase in the "foreign born" share of the population, from 8.3% to 12.7%, in the same decade. And this is not a linear process.
    , @anon
    legal immigration for white people from outside the EU is hard

    illegal immigration / refugees / work permits / family unification etc is easy

    the numbers involved plus their age and TFR guarantees the replacement of the native population - it's stealth genocide

    , @Anatoly Karlin
    One can either believe:

    * the formal texts of immigration laws

    Or...

    * official stats indicating massive population replacement in the UK and western Europe
    * your lying eyes (saw 200m queue for asylum app in London; whites half the passengers on the metro)
    * articles about depopulated villages in West Africa because most of the men left for work to Europe
    , @Sean

    So what do all you people expect from Corbyn, or May, or Brexit, or UKIP, or whomever? What do you want them to do? Do you want to make the UK as closed as North Korea? Because it is the only option left.
     
    The politicians in a Western democracy just do what the majority of people want, eh? That's a good one!

    The British masses have been broken as far as opposition to Muslims is concerned. The people have been cowed ands are helpless against nonwhite immigration, and so the EU immigrants were not expected to be a problem (the EU is basically open borders).

    However, Brexit was really a working class vote against white Christian immigrant Poles ect who suddenly arrived in huge numbers to directly compete with the indigenous working class of Britain, and there was no end in sight to the inflow. I don't think Muslim immigration can be stopped and the polish ect immigration will not be reduced very much by the final Brexit settlement either.
    , @Greasy William

    Do you want to make the UK as closed as North Korea?
     
    Do you realize that supporting the pro immigration politicians means you are supporting the world's biggest Russophobes? The only pro Russia politicians are anti immigration.

    If you are personally affronted by our immigration policies, keep in mind that all of us support easier immigration for whites. The problem is that too many non whites are immigrating.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. Boris N says:
    @Greasy William
    There was 65% support for the US invading Iraq. That is what made the war possible. Public sentiment is entirely different today.

    Any US war in the region would be opposed by the intelligence community, the military, the entirety of the Left and the majority of the non Left. Saudi Arabia and Iran could go in to outright war with eachother (will never happen, by the way) and the US would *still* stay out.

    The days of the US launching large scale military operations in the Middle East are over. Libya will end up being the last major US military operation in the region.

    There was 65% support for the US invading Iraq. That is what made the war possible. Public sentiment is entirely different today.

    I think this is irrelevant. I mean all this public opinion stuff. People tend to think and approve what they have been told. Americans had been told that Saddam was evil hence they approved the war. Now, the MSM have been waging a full-scale propaganda campaign against Iran for nearly 40 years, and I bet most Americans sincerely believe Iran is the ultimate evil, and at least 50% believe a war with Iran would be good. And the opposition of the other half does not mean they do think that Iran is not evil but a normal country who must be respected, not vilified. They are simply isolationists who still hate Iran if asked.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greasy William

    And the opposition of the other half does not mean they do think that Iran is not evil but a normal country who must be respected, not vilified. They are simply isolationists who still hate Iran if asked.
     
    Nobody in the US cares about Iran. There would be no public support for regime change in Iran and there would be absolutely massive public opposition.

    There will never, ever, ever be a US attack on Iran. If there had even been a sliver of a possibility of the US attacking Iran it ended officially with the nuclear agreement. There are three reasons we are even talking about this:

    1. Pro Iran/anti US people are the most paranoid people on earth.
    2. Pro Iran people actually *want* a US attack on Iran both because it will give them something to complain about and because they want to see the incompetent Mullahs replaced with less incompetent secular nationalists.
    3. Pro Iran people are frustrated that Iran and Syria are flailing against the rebels, ISIS and the Saudis so they want to bring attention to the current level of US involvement to explain away Iran's comical weakness and ineptitude.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. @Hector_St_Clare
    Unlike the election last year in the US (where the choice was between two people who really sucked), I quite respect both May and Corbyn. I think they'd probably each do a decent job.

    May is better on immigration & Brexit, but I prefer Corbyn on economics & foreign policy. Not sure how I'd choose, but maybe Corbyn. Immigration is important but it's not the only thing that matters.

    At least the Brits get a choice between two legitimately different worldviews espoused by somewhat sincere politicians.

    Out of curiosity, as a German how would you sum up the different parties on option?

    Out of curiosity, as a German how would you sum up the different parties on option?

    You mean in Germany? Well, as I see it:

    - Greens: privileged bourgeois types; anti-German fanatics who are strongly into mass immigration, multiculturalism, Islamophilia and more “Europe”. They’ve also made their peace with military interventionism and have become pretty Atlanticist (they still despise Bundeswehr soldiers, but expect them to die for “humanitarian” causes if necessary). Total scum imo, the part of Germany that I’d like to see forcibly removed. Will probably lose substantially in the September elections because their anti-German positions are too extreme for anybody but their hardcore supporters.
    - Die Linke: leftie extremists. Might have attractive positions on some issues, but are mostly into open borders by now (some of them are seriously agitating for “global freedom of movement” and the like), and are strongly in favour of state-supported “antifascism”, therefore unelectable imo. Will probably stagnate or lose somewhat in September.
    - Social Democrats: screwed their core voters over with Schröder’s “reforms”, are generally incompetent and have ruined every German state they’ve ruled for any amount of time. Strongly in favour of mass immigration, very pro-Islam, and the driving force behind anti-hate speech legislation (i.e. censorship). Can’t see any reason to vote for them. Will probably stagnate or even lose somewhat in September.
    - Christian Democrats (CDU): spineless opportunists who go with the globalist zeitgeist and have created a disgusting personality cult around Merkel. Don’t really have a programme except staying in power…strongly in favour of more “Europe” though, also very pro-Islam (their politicians regularly making statements like “Islam belongs to Germany”, “Islam could be the glue holding society together” etc.). Scum, I hate them only marginally less than the Greens. Will probably get around 40% in the elections (together with the CSU), because people are stupid and don’t see any credible alternative…which will be celebrated as a great triumph for Merkel who can go on wrecking Germany for another four years.
    - Bavarian Christian Democrats (CSU): pretend to be “conservatives” but are worse than useless because it’s basically just a “good cop, bad cop” show and they end up supporting Merkel in everything that matters anyway. Don’t care about anything except staying in power in Bavaria.
    - Liberals (FDP): slimy business lobbyists who care only about their own careers and privileges for their clientele. Didn’t enter the last Bundestag and looked finished as a party, but will probably gain substantially in September, because bourgeois cowards who are somewhat disturbed by Merkel’s course, but want to be seen as respectable, will vote for them.
    - Alternative for Germany (AfD): the “nationalists”. They have a lot of issues (in some ways too economically liberal for my tastes, also quite a few deluded people among their ranks), but they’re the only party providing an alternative on many issues like “Europe” and Merkel’s open borders idiocy (which is really THE crucial issue for me). I’ve voted for them in the past and intend to do so again in September. They’ll enter the Bundestag for the first time, but unfortunately it looks like they might stay below 10%, due to their own incompetence and the extraordinary hate campaign the establishment has incited against them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DN
    Thank you for posting that write up. So, unfortunately, no viable way to change the country's course in the near future?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. @Boris N

    Well, the piece you linked is titled: “Corbyn denies wanting ‘uncontrolled migration’”.

    It also quotes something called “The Labour manifesto” as promising to “develop and implement fair immigration rules” and create “a new system which is based on our economic needs, balancing controls and existing entitlements”
     
    Sorry, if I ask you, because I want to address all the British, American and EU citizens here. I've been reading about "open borders" and "uncontrolled migration" thousands of times for months on end. But have you, when you are speaking about the alleged open borders in your countries, even ever read your migration laws? Because I think you all haven't. Actually, I think fe, who complains about open borders have ever read any migration laws.

    Because as an absolute outsider who happens to face such laws I must tell you that both the UK and the US, and as well the EU in general, are the countries with very strict migration laws and in reality with closed borders. Yes, and the UK seems to be the most closed of them all. Have you ever thought how a person from a non-EU country can immigrate into the UK? I think you have no idea. Because the overwhelming absolute majority of the people on the planet actually cannot. There is no such a thing as to buy a ticket Karachi-London and immigrate to the UK. The only few obvious ways are: 1) to marry a British citizen; 2) to have relatives in the UK (not simply a relative, but the closed ones like parents or children); and 3) to be so a highly skilled specialist that a UK company wants you and is ready to fight bureaucracy to prove you need to work in the UK and to sponsor you. Other than that you have no practical ways to immigrate. You may travel as a tourist and then happily return to your home country, but not to immigrate. Also, as I remember (I didn't check it for several years) there has been "skilled migration" programs in the UK (like in Canada and Australia), but as you may understand, even if they do not ask you to have a sponsor, you still have to be quite a skilled specialist, very young, with excellent English, and what is most crucial to have a trade in demand in the UK. So in practice even those programs that directly aim at bringing in migrants are only for few lucky ones (like doctors or engineers).

    To sum up, in practice there is no such a problem as bad migration laws in your countries. You simply cannot make more strict the laws that are already very strict and exclusive. Those who exploit the idea of "to make migration stricter" are demagogues. To say mathematically: 99% of the feared Muslims simply have no options to immigrate to the UK, or the US, or the EU. No, zero. Yes, some may do it as tourists, but not everybody wants to live their whole lives as illegals, hiding and always fearing a deportation. Moreover, the US citizens cannot simply immigrate and settle in the UK or the EU, or vice versa, either! For they have no agreements of free movement of workforce. Even the US and Canada have no such a freedom! 90 days and bye-bye, "Yankee, go home".

    So what do all you people expect from Corbyn, or May, or Brexit, or UKIP, or whomever? What do you want them to do? Do you want to make the UK as closed as North Korea? Because it is the only option left.

    Well, the EU allows free unlimited internal migration of labor. Anyone with, say, Bulgarian passport has the right to move to the UK and get a job, with minimal (negligible) paperwork.

    The EU has so-called “two-speed” economic model, with Eastern members being much poorer. People from the East migrate to the UK (Germany, France) en masse, competing for (mostly) manual low-wage jobs, which has the effect of suppressing wages. This creates serious dissatisfaction, leading to social tensions, among the uneducated blue-collar segment in western EU states. This is the immigration problem, in a nutshell.

    Something similar is happening in the US, only there the culprit is illegal immigration across the southern border.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boris N
    But the entire Brexit camp has never openly and seriously complained about hordes of evil Polaks who are destroying Britain (actual many on the right would approve an influx of White Christian migrants like Polaks). All they say is about Pakis and Muslims in general who mostly cannot immigrate. Just right now without any Brexit and any reforms the borders are closed for them. What could even Farage do? To close what has already been closed? How will the closing of the borders with Polaks help the problems with Muslims and Africans? With terrorism? In general I now tend to think this all hype about "open borders" and "migration rules" is some sort of sham. Your borders are not open and your rules are the strictest! They know that, but you are being duped by both the left-wing and the right-wing demagogues!

    Something similar is happening in the US, only there the culprit is illegal immigration across the southern border.
     
    Just the same. Your problems are Mexicans who do not care about immigration laws and enter illegally. You borders are closed as they can be, but they just have holes. In fact you even cannot drive to and from Canada and avoid customs. Yet all people is speaking about is evil Muslims, whose number in the USA is negligible, and yet Trump promises to make the migration laws more strict exactly because of them! How that? What else could Trump forbid that has not been forbidden by countless legislations of his predecessors? Wake up, today is not the time of Ellis Island. Just right now 99% people on Earth cannot immigrate into the USA. Even a tourist visa is not guaranteed, the refusal rate is very high for the Third World and Muslim countries. Whining about H1B is a joke. Every country has such employer sponsored visas, and the overall negative effect of H1B is negligible. Your problems obviously are not ScDs from India and China.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. I wrote a long comment replying to Hector about German parties…but got a message it was marked as spam after changing some details. I hope it hasn’t disappeared for good…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  74. Seems like the comment I had written about German parties got eaten by the spam filter :-( I would appreciate it if it could be restored, otherwise I’ll try to write it again later.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  75. Randal says:
    @Boris N

    Well, the piece you linked is titled: “Corbyn denies wanting ‘uncontrolled migration’”.

    It also quotes something called “The Labour manifesto” as promising to “develop and implement fair immigration rules” and create “a new system which is based on our economic needs, balancing controls and existing entitlements”
     
    Sorry, if I ask you, because I want to address all the British, American and EU citizens here. I've been reading about "open borders" and "uncontrolled migration" thousands of times for months on end. But have you, when you are speaking about the alleged open borders in your countries, even ever read your migration laws? Because I think you all haven't. Actually, I think fe, who complains about open borders have ever read any migration laws.

    Because as an absolute outsider who happens to face such laws I must tell you that both the UK and the US, and as well the EU in general, are the countries with very strict migration laws and in reality with closed borders. Yes, and the UK seems to be the most closed of them all. Have you ever thought how a person from a non-EU country can immigrate into the UK? I think you have no idea. Because the overwhelming absolute majority of the people on the planet actually cannot. There is no such a thing as to buy a ticket Karachi-London and immigrate to the UK. The only few obvious ways are: 1) to marry a British citizen; 2) to have relatives in the UK (not simply a relative, but the closed ones like parents or children); and 3) to be so a highly skilled specialist that a UK company wants you and is ready to fight bureaucracy to prove you need to work in the UK and to sponsor you. Other than that you have no practical ways to immigrate. You may travel as a tourist and then happily return to your home country, but not to immigrate. Also, as I remember (I didn't check it for several years) there has been "skilled migration" programs in the UK (like in Canada and Australia), but as you may understand, even if they do not ask you to have a sponsor, you still have to be quite a skilled specialist, very young, with excellent English, and what is most crucial to have a trade in demand in the UK. So in practice even those programs that directly aim at bringing in migrants are only for few lucky ones (like doctors or engineers).

    To sum up, in practice there is no such a problem as bad migration laws in your countries. You simply cannot make more strict the laws that are already very strict and exclusive. Those who exploit the idea of "to make migration stricter" are demagogues. To say mathematically: 99% of the feared Muslims simply have no options to immigrate to the UK, or the US, or the EU. No, zero. Yes, some may do it as tourists, but not everybody wants to live their whole lives as illegals, hiding and always fearing a deportation. Moreover, the US citizens cannot simply immigrate and settle in the UK or the EU, or vice versa, either! For they have no agreements of free movement of workforce. Even the US and Canada have no such a freedom! 90 days and bye-bye, "Yankee, go home".

    So what do all you people expect from Corbyn, or May, or Brexit, or UKIP, or whomever? What do you want them to do? Do you want to make the UK as closed as North Korea? Because it is the only option left.

    Because as an absolute outsider who happens to face such laws I must tell you that both the UK and the US, and as well the EU in general, are the countries with very strict migration laws and in reality with closed borders.

    Well as far as the present situation is concerned, membership of the EU comes with enforced acceptance of the open borders dogma, either in extreme (Schengen) form or the limited opt-out form, which only allows border identity checks. So as far as EU member state nationals are concerned, the borders are all open in the literal sense

    But it’s not just the laws that are the issue, but rather how they are applied in practice. And the proof of the pudding is in the eating of the pudding. Here are the immigration figures for the UK for the past few decades (these are official estimates – generally accepted as significant undercounts):

    https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/statistics-net-migration-statistics/#create-graph

    Note that following the post-1997 Blairite opening of the floodgates, immigration rose quickly to the present figure of around half a million per year. Even “net migration” shows the same dramatic rise, to around a quarter to a third of a million per year. Total immigration of non-EU people is at half to a third of a million per year.

    These are nation-changing numbers for a state with a population formerly stabilising at under 60 million, especially combined with birth rate differences. The census figures showed a catastrophic drop of 5% in the “white” population (from 92% to 87%) in just a decade, between 2001 and 2011. The government’s estimates also show a similarly massive increase in the “foreign born” share of the population, from 8.3% to 12.7%, in the same decade. And this is not a linear process.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boris N
    The people from Eastern Europe are White, White as they can be, and are Christian, more Christian then cucked Western Europeans. How could Polaks or Bulgarians threaten Britain? In all Brexit discussions never I seriously heard that the main issue are those evil White Catholic Polaks. Have ever anybody said something against Polaks during Brexit? Did anybody ever think about them during the vote?

    The census figures showed a catastrophic drop of 5% in the “white” population (from 92% to 87%) in just a decade, between 2001 and 2011.
     
    It is not because of Polaks and Bulgarians (they would rather increase the number of Whites). It is because the non-Whites have higher fertility. But have they come to the UK because of the EU? No! Ask your elite why the UK happen to have them at all, but I must tell you that to immigrate right now to the UK is not an easy task for non-EU nationals. If there is a problem it must have started long before today, when the law was actually laxer. Now you hardly can do anything other than making the UK another closed no-entry North Korea.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Boris N

    Well, the piece you linked is titled: “Corbyn denies wanting ‘uncontrolled migration’”.

    It also quotes something called “The Labour manifesto” as promising to “develop and implement fair immigration rules” and create “a new system which is based on our economic needs, balancing controls and existing entitlements”
     
    Sorry, if I ask you, because I want to address all the British, American and EU citizens here. I've been reading about "open borders" and "uncontrolled migration" thousands of times for months on end. But have you, when you are speaking about the alleged open borders in your countries, even ever read your migration laws? Because I think you all haven't. Actually, I think fe, who complains about open borders have ever read any migration laws.

    Because as an absolute outsider who happens to face such laws I must tell you that both the UK and the US, and as well the EU in general, are the countries with very strict migration laws and in reality with closed borders. Yes, and the UK seems to be the most closed of them all. Have you ever thought how a person from a non-EU country can immigrate into the UK? I think you have no idea. Because the overwhelming absolute majority of the people on the planet actually cannot. There is no such a thing as to buy a ticket Karachi-London and immigrate to the UK. The only few obvious ways are: 1) to marry a British citizen; 2) to have relatives in the UK (not simply a relative, but the closed ones like parents or children); and 3) to be so a highly skilled specialist that a UK company wants you and is ready to fight bureaucracy to prove you need to work in the UK and to sponsor you. Other than that you have no practical ways to immigrate. You may travel as a tourist and then happily return to your home country, but not to immigrate. Also, as I remember (I didn't check it for several years) there has been "skilled migration" programs in the UK (like in Canada and Australia), but as you may understand, even if they do not ask you to have a sponsor, you still have to be quite a skilled specialist, very young, with excellent English, and what is most crucial to have a trade in demand in the UK. So in practice even those programs that directly aim at bringing in migrants are only for few lucky ones (like doctors or engineers).

    To sum up, in practice there is no such a problem as bad migration laws in your countries. You simply cannot make more strict the laws that are already very strict and exclusive. Those who exploit the idea of "to make migration stricter" are demagogues. To say mathematically: 99% of the feared Muslims simply have no options to immigrate to the UK, or the US, or the EU. No, zero. Yes, some may do it as tourists, but not everybody wants to live their whole lives as illegals, hiding and always fearing a deportation. Moreover, the US citizens cannot simply immigrate and settle in the UK or the EU, or vice versa, either! For they have no agreements of free movement of workforce. Even the US and Canada have no such a freedom! 90 days and bye-bye, "Yankee, go home".

    So what do all you people expect from Corbyn, or May, or Brexit, or UKIP, or whomever? What do you want them to do? Do you want to make the UK as closed as North Korea? Because it is the only option left.

    legal immigration for white people from outside the EU is hard

    illegal immigration / refugees / work permits / family unification etc is easy

    the numbers involved plus their age and TFR guarantees the replacement of the native population – it’s stealth genocide

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boris N

    legal immigration for white people from outside the EU is hard
     
    Actually the only biggest white countries outside the EU left are Russia/Ukraine/Belarus. Plus trans-ocean faraway US/CA/AU/NZ. But do you really believe that the immigration procedure is any different (=harder) for a Russian/American than for a Pakistani/Arab?

    refugees / work permits / family unification etc is easy
     
    Actually not true.
    Refugees are constantly denied and deported.
    To get a work permit you need to get a job on the first place. How is that easy? Even in their own countries people struggle to find a job, how is it easier to find a job overseas?
    You need a family on the first place for the unification. 99% of people have no family in the UK/US.

    So the only option left is illegal immigration. Which you can do on land through the US-Mexican border, but you cannot flight illegally. You can do that as a not-returning "tourist", but has anybody said this is the problem? And you cannot fix this problem entirely anyway other than by forbidding tourism altogether. But nothing of it has to do with "open borders" or "migration rules". It's just failures of the migration/border police/service.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. Mr. Hack says:
    @Boris N
    Кто о чём, а украинец об одном и том же. Я всё не могу понять, тебе и таким как ты платят и заказывают бегать по разным блогам и распространять вашу в(ы)шив(атн)ую пропаганду, или у вас это само собой получается искренне и непринуждённо, то есть, как говорят, вы суть "useful idiots"?

    Що за пропаганда? Ви плутаєте цікаві новини з вашою мякою оцінкою дії в Росії.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boris N
    Я что-то пропустил, но какое отношение имеет твой коммент к сравнению Москвы и Питера? Я всё таки остаюсь убеждённым, что ты тут просто на задании. Тебе сказали строчить комменты и копипастить, ты строчишь, а о чём там оригинальный пост - да какая разница. Если ты это по собственной инициативе, то это скорее хуже, ты значит у нас очередной озабоченный. Тут типа АК города сравнивал, а тебе почему-то какое-то решение ЕСПЧ вспомнилось. Это надо иметь очень своеобразное ассоциативное мышление. Я бы сказал, типично украинское.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. Mr. Hack says:
    @Boris N
    Кто о чём, а украинец об одном и том же. Я всё не могу понять, тебе и таким как ты платят и заказывают бегать по разным блогам и распространять вашу в(ы)шив(атн)ую пропаганду, или у вас это само собой получается искренне и непринуждённо, то есть, как говорят, вы суть "useful idiots"?

    The seven member panel of judges included one Russian judge who concurred with the verdict. Where’s the ‘propaganda’ in sharing some current events emanating from Europe? :-)

    See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil?…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boris N
    Да даже так, а что это решает/меняет? Ты с какой целью с этой новостью носишься? Кара-Мурза попросил его пропиарить?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. Boris N says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji
    Well, the EU allows free unlimited internal migration of labor. Anyone with, say, Bulgarian passport has the right to move to the UK and get a job, with minimal (negligible) paperwork.

    The EU has so-called "two-speed" economic model, with Eastern members being much poorer. People from the East migrate to the UK (Germany, France) en masse, competing for (mostly) manual low-wage jobs, which has the effect of suppressing wages. This creates serious dissatisfaction, leading to social tensions, among the uneducated blue-collar segment in western EU states. This is the immigration problem, in a nutshell.

    Something similar is happening in the US, only there the culprit is illegal immigration across the southern border.

    But the entire Brexit camp has never openly and seriously complained about hordes of evil Polaks who are destroying Britain (actual many on the right would approve an influx of White Christian migrants like Polaks). All they say is about Pakis and Muslims in general who mostly cannot immigrate. Just right now without any Brexit and any reforms the borders are closed for them. What could even Farage do? To close what has already been closed? How will the closing of the borders with Polaks help the problems with Muslims and Africans? With terrorism? In general I now tend to think this all hype about “open borders” and “migration rules” is some sort of sham. Your borders are not open and your rules are the strictest! They know that, but you are being duped by both the left-wing and the right-wing demagogues!

    Something similar is happening in the US, only there the culprit is illegal immigration across the southern border.

    Just the same. Your problems are Mexicans who do not care about immigration laws and enter illegally. You borders are closed as they can be, but they just have holes. In fact you even cannot drive to and from Canada and avoid customs. Yet all people is speaking about is evil Muslims, whose number in the USA is negligible, and yet Trump promises to make the migration laws more strict exactly because of them! How that? What else could Trump forbid that has not been forbidden by countless legislations of his predecessors? Wake up, today is not the time of Ellis Island. Just right now 99% people on Earth cannot immigrate into the USA. Even a tourist visa is not guaranteed, the refusal rate is very high for the Third World and Muslim countries. Whining about H1B is a joke. Every country has such employer sponsored visas, and the overall negative effect of H1B is negligible. Your problems obviously are not ScDs from India and China.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    But the entire Brexit camp has never openly and seriously complained about hordes of evil Polaks who are destroying Britain
     
    I'm sure they did, but it doesn't really matter what campaigners say. Brexit was a manifestation of the British working class' discontent. Where the professional/managerial class benefited from EU neoliberalism, the working class has lost. Sure, they express their discontent in various ways, including racism, but this is the essence.

    Your problems are Mexicans who do not care about immigration laws and enter illegally.
     
    I don't think Mexicans are the problem; rather it's the corrupt government institutions, their refusal/inability to prosecute businesses for using undocumented labor. If no one is willing to hire illegals, they stay home.

    Yet all people is speaking about is evil Muslims, whose number in the USA is negligible
     
    But that's just the usual hysteria. Scaring the rubes to induce obedience. Scaring by evil Muslims, evil Russians, evil commies, evil Krauts, evil Japs, whatever. It's necessary for maintaining order.
    , @anon

    All they say is about Pakis and Muslims in general who mostly cannot immigrate. Just right now without any Brexit and any reforms the borders are closed for them.
     
    you're wrong.

    1) arranged marriages
    2) family reunification
    3) illegal immigration followed by a stealth amnesty

    the numbers are huge
    , @Anon 2
    Actually the Polish (about 900,000 of them) are regarded by many
    in Britain as a model minority. They are especially loved in Scotland,
    partly because in the 16th century Poland accepted thousands of
    religious refugees from Scotland who found refuge in Poland, and
    never went back. Thousands of people in Poland today have Scottish
    ancestry. Some people value the Polish since they belong to Western
    Christendom (High Anglican Church is not far from Catholicism), and
    can therefore reinforce Christianity in Britain against the Muslim
    onslaught. In general Poland and England have a relationship going
    back many centuries. Polish ships carrying wheat regularly visited
    England for 2-3 centuries in the 1500s-1600s. Shakespeare was kept
    well-fed by Polish wheat. There is even Poland street in London that
    goes back to the times when Polish sailors, merchants, and diplomats
    were regular visitors in England
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. @Matra
    If Corbyn tried to implement his anti-NATO foreign policy he would get the same treatment Trump is getting from the American Deep State. In the UK though the PM has more power than the US President does.

    The Saudi arms deal. It's odd how some MSM reports are of a $100 billion plus agreement whilst others are of a $300 billion or even more agreement. That's quite a difference. What do we actually know about the specifics of this alleged agreement? I don't see any real reporting on it from our useless media.

    The Saudi arms deal. It’s odd how some MSM reports are of a $100 billion plus agreement whilst others are of a $300 billion or even more agreement. That’s quite a difference.

    The answer is really quite simple:

    US-Saudi Arabia seal weapons deal worth nearly $110 billion immediately, $350 billion over 10 years

    http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/20/us-saudi-arabia-seal-weapons-deal-worth-nearly-110-billion-as-trump-begins-visit.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. LondonBob says:
    @German_reader

    Trump’s business deal selling so many weapons now seems like a bad deal
     
    It's not just the weapons deal, it's that Trump and his administration seem totally determined to back Saudi-Arabia and fully accept the Saudi view of things...just look at the US reaction to the IS attacks in Tehran. One doesn't have to be a fan of the Iranian regime to regard this as pretty crass and inflammatory.

    Not even a proper deal, many had already been agreed and most are just letters of intent. Given oil prices very little will be fulfilled. Trump got rolled by Mattis, McMaster from the Arab side and Kushner from Israel’s side. Dumb stuff.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. Boris N says:
    @Randal

    Because as an absolute outsider who happens to face such laws I must tell you that both the UK and the US, and as well the EU in general, are the countries with very strict migration laws and in reality with closed borders.
     
    Well as far as the present situation is concerned, membership of the EU comes with enforced acceptance of the open borders dogma, either in extreme (Schengen) form or the limited opt-out form, which only allows border identity checks. So as far as EU member state nationals are concerned, the borders are all open in the literal sense

    But it's not just the laws that are the issue, but rather how they are applied in practice. And the proof of the pudding is in the eating of the pudding. Here are the immigration figures for the UK for the past few decades (these are official estimates - generally accepted as significant undercounts):

    https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/statistics-net-migration-statistics/#create-graph

    Note that following the post-1997 Blairite opening of the floodgates, immigration rose quickly to the present figure of around half a million per year. Even "net migration" shows the same dramatic rise, to around a quarter to a third of a million per year. Total immigration of non-EU people is at half to a third of a million per year.

    These are nation-changing numbers for a state with a population formerly stabilising at under 60 million, especially combined with birth rate differences. The census figures showed a catastrophic drop of 5% in the "white" population (from 92% to 87%) in just a decade, between 2001 and 2011. The government's estimates also show a similarly massive increase in the "foreign born" share of the population, from 8.3% to 12.7%, in the same decade. And this is not a linear process.

    The people from Eastern Europe are White, White as they can be, and are Christian, more Christian then cucked Western Europeans. How could Polaks or Bulgarians threaten Britain? In all Brexit discussions never I seriously heard that the main issue are those evil White Catholic Polaks. Have ever anybody said something against Polaks during Brexit? Did anybody ever think about them during the vote?

    The census figures showed a catastrophic drop of 5% in the “white” population (from 92% to 87%) in just a decade, between 2001 and 2011.

    It is not because of Polaks and Bulgarians (they would rather increase the number of Whites). It is because the non-Whites have higher fertility. But have they come to the UK because of the EU? No! Ask your elite why the UK happen to have them at all, but I must tell you that to immigrate right now to the UK is not an easy task for non-EU nationals. If there is a problem it must have started long before today, when the law was actually laxer. Now you hardly can do anything other than making the UK another closed no-entry North Korea.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    Foreigners are foreign.

    Some are more foreign than others. Race is one factor that contributes disproportionately to foreign-ness. Culture, and especially religion, is another.

    My reply addressed your assertion that we do not have a problem with "open borders". Clearly, the numbers say we do.

    I must tell you that to immigrate right now to the UK is not an easy task for non-EU nationals.
     
    Yet the figures show that far too many are doing so.

    If there is a problem it must have started long before today, when the law was actually laxer.
     
    As the figures show, the problem reached its currently unsustainable levels after 1997 due to policy decisions by Blair and his successors.

    Now you hardly can do anything other than making the UK another closed no-entry North Korea.
     
    We were not North Korea in the 1980s and early 1990s.

    Part of the problem is the dominance of antiracist and multiculturalist dogma - more similar peoples are less disruptive, man for man, than less similar, and some cultures and races are better than others, for particular reasons.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. @Boris N
    But the entire Brexit camp has never openly and seriously complained about hordes of evil Polaks who are destroying Britain (actual many on the right would approve an influx of White Christian migrants like Polaks). All they say is about Pakis and Muslims in general who mostly cannot immigrate. Just right now without any Brexit and any reforms the borders are closed for them. What could even Farage do? To close what has already been closed? How will the closing of the borders with Polaks help the problems with Muslims and Africans? With terrorism? In general I now tend to think this all hype about "open borders" and "migration rules" is some sort of sham. Your borders are not open and your rules are the strictest! They know that, but you are being duped by both the left-wing and the right-wing demagogues!

    Something similar is happening in the US, only there the culprit is illegal immigration across the southern border.
     
    Just the same. Your problems are Mexicans who do not care about immigration laws and enter illegally. You borders are closed as they can be, but they just have holes. In fact you even cannot drive to and from Canada and avoid customs. Yet all people is speaking about is evil Muslims, whose number in the USA is negligible, and yet Trump promises to make the migration laws more strict exactly because of them! How that? What else could Trump forbid that has not been forbidden by countless legislations of his predecessors? Wake up, today is not the time of Ellis Island. Just right now 99% people on Earth cannot immigrate into the USA. Even a tourist visa is not guaranteed, the refusal rate is very high for the Third World and Muslim countries. Whining about H1B is a joke. Every country has such employer sponsored visas, and the overall negative effect of H1B is negligible. Your problems obviously are not ScDs from India and China.

    But the entire Brexit camp has never openly and seriously complained about hordes of evil Polaks who are destroying Britain

    I’m sure they did, but it doesn’t really matter what campaigners say. Brexit was a manifestation of the British working class’ discontent. Where the professional/managerial class benefited from EU neoliberalism, the working class has lost. Sure, they express their discontent in various ways, including racism, but this is the essence.

    Your problems are Mexicans who do not care about immigration laws and enter illegally.

    I don’t think Mexicans are the problem; rather it’s the corrupt government institutions, their refusal/inability to prosecute businesses for using undocumented labor. If no one is willing to hire illegals, they stay home.

    Yet all people is speaking about is evil Muslims, whose number in the USA is negligible

    But that’s just the usual hysteria. Scaring the rubes to induce obedience. Scaring by evil Muslims, evil Russians, evil commies, evil Krauts, evil Japs, whatever. It’s necessary for maintaining order.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. Boris N says:
    @anon
    legal immigration for white people from outside the EU is hard

    illegal immigration / refugees / work permits / family unification etc is easy

    the numbers involved plus their age and TFR guarantees the replacement of the native population - it's stealth genocide

    legal immigration for white people from outside the EU is hard

    Actually the only biggest white countries outside the EU left are Russia/Ukraine/Belarus. Plus trans-ocean faraway US/CA/AU/NZ. But do you really believe that the immigration procedure is any different (=harder) for a Russian/American than for a Pakistani/Arab?

    refugees / work permits / family unification etc is easy

    Actually not true.
    Refugees are constantly denied and deported.
    To get a work permit you need to get a job on the first place. How is that easy? Even in their own countries people struggle to find a job, how is it easier to find a job overseas?
    You need a family on the first place for the unification. 99% of people have no family in the UK/US.

    So the only option left is illegal immigration. Which you can do on land through the US-Mexican border, but you cannot flight illegally. You can do that as a not-returning “tourist”, but has anybody said this is the problem? And you cannot fix this problem entirely anyway other than by forbidding tourism altogether. But nothing of it has to do with “open borders” or “migration rules”. It’s just failures of the migration/border police/service.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon

    do you really believe that the immigration procedure is any different (=harder) for a Russian/American than for a Pakistani/Arab?
     
    i know it is. the people who have the hardest time are white Australians, New Zealanders, Canadians etc of British descent - government jobs are a PC gulag where the workers have to prove they're not racist and they do it by discriminating against white people - it's insane but that's how it is

    Refugees are constantly denied and deported.
     
    No they're not. First. there's a back log of cases going back years and regular quiet mass amnesties to deal with the numbers; the cases that do get investigated are very rarely denied and even when they are they are rarely deported. After a few years they get temporary legal status and a few years after that, citizenship. The UK political class have been running a stealth amnesty like this for decades which the media has covered up.

    To get a work permit you need to get a job on the first place.
     
    No you don't - or rather you personally might but tens of thousands of refugees from places like Kosovo have been given work permits over the years to clear the back log of asylum claims or to clear the Calais immigrant camp when it got too big.

    Even in their own countries people struggle to find a job, how is it easier to find a job overseas?
     
    Some populations are totally corrupt - hint, the cousin marrying ones - and they fill the businesses they own with illegal immigrants from back home so the illegals do have a job in advance. They come on student or tourist visas and then disappear to the pre-arranged job in the shadow economy.

    (supplying the hundreds of thousands of illegal workers with cheap prostitution is one of the main drivers of the Pakistani rape gangs)

    You need a family on the first place for the unification. 99% of people have no family in the UK/US.
     
    illegal immigrant / refugee -> temp status -> citizenship -> family reunification

    So the only option left is illegal immigration.
     
    illegal immigration is initially the key because PC prevents them being deported

    arranged marriages are also a big thing though - cousin marrying cultures arrange marriages with their home village - the family of the spouse from abroad pay the family already in the UK thousands of pounds for the chance to get a UK passport as that can then lead to the whole extended family moving over through reunification

    tl;dr

    for non-white illegal immigrants / refugees or arranged marriages it's easy and the numbers are vast

    it probably wouldn't work for you because you're not protected by PC - if you said you were a Ukie refugee from Donbass and got a SJW case officer then *maybe* - but the more SJW the case officer the more being white is a disadvantage
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. @melanf

    Some Orthodoxes fled after 1617, some converted, some remained. This is nothing unusual:
     
    The majority of the Orthodox population fled from Swedish reign.
    "The Swedish policy of religious conversion, harsh taxation and competition for labour and taxpayers were the key issues in the political and social history of Ingria and Kexholm Province during the seventeenth century. .... The religious policy of the Swedish Government towards the Orthodox failed almost completely...Orthodox peasants simply preferred to desert to Russia rather than oppose these policies." (Kujala, Antti Sweden's Russian Lands, Ingria and Kexholm Province, 1617 – ca. 1670: The Interaction of the Crown with Its New Subjects )

    Here is a map of the settlement of "Russian" Karel http://savepic.ru/14302278.gif (blue circled where Karelians moved from the territories occupied by the Swedes). Likely from these Karel, was the famous Alexander Suvorov.
    But in occupied by the Swedes lands lived not only Karelian - the land of the future of Petersburg before 1617, was dominated by the Russian population (which was also "purged" by the Swedes).


    Tsar Peter did not destroy the Finnic nature of the rural areas (which actually largely remained Finnic up to the revolution) but he did wipe out the urban population that was in the way of his plans.
     
    Оf course nonsense. For Peter, the Finns (who lived on the lands of St. Petersburg) was not an "obstacle", but of ordinary citizens, a source of taxes and recruits. But because of a powerful influx of Russian colonists , the small "urban" Finns and Swedes quickly become a minority.
    In 1725 in St. Petersburg was approximately 40 thousand inhabitants, and in 1750 - 100 thousand people (pre-war population of Nien - 2 000 people)

    In fact, the only person who ever brought west-Finn “colonists” to the Neva was Tsar Peter
     
    This is an obvious false statement

    "The crop failures related to the Little Ice Age as well as the tax increases and conscriptions ordered by King Gustav II Adolf and the ensuing regency regime, together with the attraction of the swidden lands in the east, on the other hand, drove thousands of Lutheran Finns in Viborg Karelia and Savo to migrate to Ingria and Kexholm Province. The Crown was neither able to prevent the Finnish peasants, farm hands and deserters from moving to the newly conquered eastern territories, freed from conscription, nor could it contain the migration of the Orthodox population from those same territories. After the war of 1656–1658, the population there consisted of Lutheran Finns everywhere, except in the Western parts of Ingria and the North-eastern fringe of Kexholm Province." ( Kujala, Antti Sweden's Russian Lands, Ingria and Kexholm Province, 1617 – ca. 1670: The Interaction of the Crown with Its New Subjects)
    http://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/fsv/jgo/2016/00000064/00000004/art00002

    "The Finns appeared on the territory of Ingria mainly after 1617, when these lands according to a result of the Stolbova peace Treaty was ceded to Sweden. A number of fin. settlers existed here before, since the 14th century, after the conclusion of Shlisselburg (Orehovica) peace Treaty. The main tributary of the fin. colonists on the conquered lands falls in the middle of 17th century, when the Swedish government began to carry out forced conversion to Lutheranism of local residents . This caused a mass Exodus of the Orthodox (Izhora, Voda, Rus. and Karel.) population to the Russian land. The empty lands were quickly settled by Finns-immigrants"
    http://www.etnosy.ru/node/354

    I said: “In fact, the only person who ever brought west-Finn “colonists” to the Neva was Tsar Peter”

    You said: “Lutheran Finns in Viborg Karelia and Savo to migrate to ”

    Exactly. These are not west-Finns. Those Protestant Karelians were ethnically the same as the Orthodox Karelians in the region and ethnically very different from us from western tribes. They both would have had a bigger genetic gap to a west-Finn like me than any other neighboring ethnic groups in Europe but they would have had next to no gap to each other. They understood each other, I would not have understood either of them very well. And so on. There was no difference except religion.

    Those Orthodox Karelians didn’t move away their new Karelian neighbors, they moved because of Swedish policy towards non-Lutherans. If you read about historical atrocities against Finnic Orthodoxes, the culprits are generally Swedes or west-Finns. East-Finns don’t have a legacy of tribal feud with Karelians because they are Karelians or close tribes.

    “Оf course nonsense. For Peter, the Finns (who lived on the lands of St. Petersburg) was not an “obstacle”, but of ordinary citizens, ”

    An ordinary Russian citizen was a serf. A Tsar had no way of calming occupied land with a Finnish population except either extreme brutality (like Peter I) or a plausible promise that Finns would have an exception from serfdom (like Alexander I).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boris N

    An ordinary Russian citizen was a serf. A Tsar had no way of calming occupied land with a Finnish population except either extreme brutality (like Peter I) or a plausible promise that Finns would have an exception from serfdom (like Alexander I).
     
    One important note. Serfs not of the tsar, but of the nobility. So all the tsar could do it to leave for the Swedish-German nobility there to decide whether they wanted their peasant to be serfs or tenants. In fact the tsars did exactly that in the Baltic. Few if any Russian nobility owned serfs there, it was the local Baltic German nobility who exploited the peasants. They might not be actually serfs but lived hardly better ("a poor Estonian" was a well-known meme of the time).
    , @melanf

    Exactly. These are not west-Finns. Those Protestant Karelians were ethnically the same as..... etc., etc.
     
    Summary,

    part 1: Before 1617 a lands of the Neva river basin belonged to Russia. In 1617 the Swedes came, the local Orthodox population was partially exterminated during the war, partially expelled thanks to the Swedish religious and economic policies. Instead of exterminated/expelled indigenous population settled Finns (Lutherans loyal to the Swedes).

    part 2: In 1703 the Russians came back. Finns were partially exterminated during the war, partially become a minority in the lands that were re-settled by Russians. Of course it was a manifestation of "extreme brutality" of the Russian.


    An ordinary Russian citizen was a serf.
     
    Really? Perhaps for this reason, in the 17th century, the population of the border lands fled en masse from Sweden to Russia.

    Tsar had no way of calming occupied land with a Finnish population except either extreme brutality (like Peter I)
     
    So Tsar Peter held in subjection "old Finland" (purely Finnish lands of Karelian isthmus) by using "extreme brutality "? Weird. It seemed to me that the Russian administration rules this land without any problems.

    There were actually some Swedish aristocrats who switched sides during the war against Peter I because they thought that by joining Russia they could get rid of these pesky limitations and just make peasants serfs.
     
    Who is it?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. Randal says:
    @Boris N
    The people from Eastern Europe are White, White as they can be, and are Christian, more Christian then cucked Western Europeans. How could Polaks or Bulgarians threaten Britain? In all Brexit discussions never I seriously heard that the main issue are those evil White Catholic Polaks. Have ever anybody said something against Polaks during Brexit? Did anybody ever think about them during the vote?

    The census figures showed a catastrophic drop of 5% in the “white” population (from 92% to 87%) in just a decade, between 2001 and 2011.
     
    It is not because of Polaks and Bulgarians (they would rather increase the number of Whites). It is because the non-Whites have higher fertility. But have they come to the UK because of the EU? No! Ask your elite why the UK happen to have them at all, but I must tell you that to immigrate right now to the UK is not an easy task for non-EU nationals. If there is a problem it must have started long before today, when the law was actually laxer. Now you hardly can do anything other than making the UK another closed no-entry North Korea.

    Foreigners are foreign.

    Some are more foreign than others. Race is one factor that contributes disproportionately to foreign-ness. Culture, and especially religion, is another.

    My reply addressed your assertion that we do not have a problem with “open borders”. Clearly, the numbers say we do.

    I must tell you that to immigrate right now to the UK is not an easy task for non-EU nationals.

    Yet the figures show that far too many are doing so.

    If there is a problem it must have started long before today, when the law was actually laxer.

    As the figures show, the problem reached its currently unsustainable levels after 1997 due to policy decisions by Blair and his successors.

    Now you hardly can do anything other than making the UK another closed no-entry North Korea.

    We were not North Korea in the 1980s and early 1990s.

    Part of the problem is the dominance of antiracist and multiculturalist dogma – more similar peoples are less disruptive, man for man, than less similar, and some cultures and races are better than others, for particular reasons.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. Boris N says:
    @Mr. Hack
    Що за пропаганда? Ви плутаєте цікаві новини з вашою мякою оцінкою дії в Росії.

    Я что-то пропустил, но какое отношение имеет твой коммент к сравнению Москвы и Питера? Я всё таки остаюсь убеждённым, что ты тут просто на задании. Тебе сказали строчить комменты и копипастить, ты строчишь, а о чём там оригинальный пост – да какая разница. Если ты это по собственной инициативе, то это скорее хуже, ты значит у нас очередной озабоченный. Тут типа АК города сравнивал, а тебе почему-то какое-то решение ЕСПЧ вспомнилось. Это надо иметь очень своеобразное ассоциативное мышление. Я бы сказал, типично украинское.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. Boris N says:
    @Mr. Hack
    The seven member panel of judges included one Russian judge who concurred with the verdict. Where's the 'propaganda' in sharing some current events emanating from Europe? :-)

    See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil?...

    Да даже так, а что это решает/меняет? Ты с какой целью с этой новостью носишься? Кара-Мурза попросил его пропиарить?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    In case you haven't noticed, this is an 'Open thread' meaning that just about anything is game to discuss. Karlin himself writes about three different topics in his short thread: 1) Jeremy Corbin; Saudi Arabia/Qatar,and even comparing Moscow to St. Petersburg. No need to write to me in Russian, as that isn't my native language, and this is predominantly an English language website
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. DN says:
    @German_reader

    Out of curiosity, as a German how would you sum up the different parties on option?
     
    You mean in Germany? Well, as I see it:

    - Greens: privileged bourgeois types; anti-German fanatics who are strongly into mass immigration, multiculturalism, Islamophilia and more "Europe". They've also made their peace with military interventionism and have become pretty Atlanticist (they still despise Bundeswehr soldiers, but expect them to die for "humanitarian" causes if necessary). Total scum imo, the part of Germany that I'd like to see forcibly removed. Will probably lose substantially in the September elections because their anti-German positions are too extreme for anybody but their hardcore supporters.
    - Die Linke: leftie extremists. Might have attractive positions on some issues, but are mostly into open borders by now (some of them are seriously agitating for "global freedom of movement" and the like), and are strongly in favour of state-supported "antifascism", therefore unelectable imo. Will probably stagnate or lose somewhat in September.
    - Social Democrats: screwed their core voters over with Schröder's "reforms", are generally incompetent and have ruined every German state they've ruled for any amount of time. Strongly in favour of mass immigration, very pro-Islam, and the driving force behind anti-hate speech legislation (i.e. censorship). Can't see any reason to vote for them. Will probably stagnate or even lose somewhat in September.
    - Christian Democrats (CDU): spineless opportunists who go with the globalist zeitgeist and have created a disgusting personality cult around Merkel. Don't really have a programme except staying in power...strongly in favour of more "Europe" though, also very pro-Islam (their politicians regularly making statements like "Islam belongs to Germany", "Islam could be the glue holding society together" etc.). Scum, I hate them only marginally less than the Greens. Will probably get around 40% in the elections (together with the CSU), because people are stupid and don't see any credible alternative...which will be celebrated as a great triumph for Merkel who can go on wrecking Germany for another four years.
    - Bavarian Christian Democrats (CSU): pretend to be "conservatives" but are worse than useless because it's basically just a "good cop, bad cop" show and they end up supporting Merkel in everything that matters anyway. Don't care about anything except staying in power in Bavaria.
    - Liberals (FDP): slimy business lobbyists who care only about their own careers and privileges for their clientele. Didn't enter the last Bundestag and looked finished as a party, but will probably gain substantially in September, because bourgeois cowards who are somewhat disturbed by Merkel's course, but want to be seen as respectable, will vote for them.
    - Alternative for Germany (AfD): the "nationalists". They have a lot of issues (in some ways too economically liberal for my tastes, also quite a few deluded people among their ranks), but they're the only party providing an alternative on many issues like "Europe" and Merkel's open borders idiocy (which is really THE crucial issue for me). I've voted for them in the past and intend to do so again in September. They'll enter the Bundestag for the first time, but unfortunately it looks like they might stay below 10%, due to their own incompetence and the extraordinary hate campaign the establishment has incited against them.

    Thank you for posting that write up. So, unfortunately, no viable way to change the country’s course in the near future?

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    No, unfortunately it looks pretty bleak. If the AfD got a really spectacular result - let's say 25% - I suppose Merkel would be toppled and the Christian Democrats might consider changing course. But that looks like a fantasy scenario right now. So things will continue to get worse.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. @Boris N

    Well, the piece you linked is titled: “Corbyn denies wanting ‘uncontrolled migration’”.

    It also quotes something called “The Labour manifesto” as promising to “develop and implement fair immigration rules” and create “a new system which is based on our economic needs, balancing controls and existing entitlements”
     
    Sorry, if I ask you, because I want to address all the British, American and EU citizens here. I've been reading about "open borders" and "uncontrolled migration" thousands of times for months on end. But have you, when you are speaking about the alleged open borders in your countries, even ever read your migration laws? Because I think you all haven't. Actually, I think fe, who complains about open borders have ever read any migration laws.

    Because as an absolute outsider who happens to face such laws I must tell you that both the UK and the US, and as well the EU in general, are the countries with very strict migration laws and in reality with closed borders. Yes, and the UK seems to be the most closed of them all. Have you ever thought how a person from a non-EU country can immigrate into the UK? I think you have no idea. Because the overwhelming absolute majority of the people on the planet actually cannot. There is no such a thing as to buy a ticket Karachi-London and immigrate to the UK. The only few obvious ways are: 1) to marry a British citizen; 2) to have relatives in the UK (not simply a relative, but the closed ones like parents or children); and 3) to be so a highly skilled specialist that a UK company wants you and is ready to fight bureaucracy to prove you need to work in the UK and to sponsor you. Other than that you have no practical ways to immigrate. You may travel as a tourist and then happily return to your home country, but not to immigrate. Also, as I remember (I didn't check it for several years) there has been "skilled migration" programs in the UK (like in Canada and Australia), but as you may understand, even if they do not ask you to have a sponsor, you still have to be quite a skilled specialist, very young, with excellent English, and what is most crucial to have a trade in demand in the UK. So in practice even those programs that directly aim at bringing in migrants are only for few lucky ones (like doctors or engineers).

    To sum up, in practice there is no such a problem as bad migration laws in your countries. You simply cannot make more strict the laws that are already very strict and exclusive. Those who exploit the idea of "to make migration stricter" are demagogues. To say mathematically: 99% of the feared Muslims simply have no options to immigrate to the UK, or the US, or the EU. No, zero. Yes, some may do it as tourists, but not everybody wants to live their whole lives as illegals, hiding and always fearing a deportation. Moreover, the US citizens cannot simply immigrate and settle in the UK or the EU, or vice versa, either! For they have no agreements of free movement of workforce. Even the US and Canada have no such a freedom! 90 days and bye-bye, "Yankee, go home".

    So what do all you people expect from Corbyn, or May, or Brexit, or UKIP, or whomever? What do you want them to do? Do you want to make the UK as closed as North Korea? Because it is the only option left.

    One can either believe:

    * the formal texts of immigration laws

    Or…

    * official stats indicating massive population replacement in the UK and western Europe
    * your lying eyes (saw 200m queue for asylum app in London; whites half the passengers on the metro)
    * articles about depopulated villages in West Africa because most of the men left for work to Europe

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boris N
    Then you must explain how they are getting in there. I mean from a legal point of view. And this concerns not only the UK/EU, but Russia as well if we want to limit migration to Russia foremost by fixing our migration laws.

    We know how Central Asians come to Russia. They buy a ticket Tashkent-Moscow and come as "tourists" to Russia, work for 90 days and return. Many overstay, but few have been arrested, fined, deported and blacklisted because of the corruption. Many go legal and simply buy a "patent" outright which is the most favourable pro-immigrant legal instrument the world has known (I doubt that any Western country has such a ridiculously easy way to become a legal resident). So all this because: 1) the visa free access; 2) the corrupt migration service; 3) the deliberate laws that help illegal workers become legalized. Plus the really open borders with Kazakhstan.

    So we know how to fix that: 1) change the law; 2) seal the borders; 3) purge the corrupted services.

    I really wish the Russian migration laws and services were like in the UK. Pity Russia is not surrounded by an ocean to the south.

    The migration laws in the UK are one of the most strictest, you cannot simply go there unless you are a lucky EU citizen or from a few First World countries (though in the latter case you still cannot stay indefinitely).

    So explain to me how this fails to work in the UK.

    Let's imagine a Ghanian/Nigerian/Pakistani/whomever wants to the UK. He is not a very educated and not rich. So he cannot find a white-collar job in the UK and get a working permit. He is not fit for the "skilled migration" program. No wife or close relatives there. He cannot simply buy a ticket to London, because there is no visa free access to him; he must got a visa on the first place. As he is poor he cannot pretend he is a tourist, so the British embassy will most likely deny him a visa. So overall such a scenario works for the majority, I won't even hesitate to say 99%, of the people in the Third World (either Muslim or otherwise).

    So his only option left is to cross the Sahara and hope that that boat won't sink on its way to Italy or Spain. And that he will not be stopped by police on his way to the UK, and that the custom officers by some miracle will not notice him at Calais/Dover or the Channel Tunnel. Then he must live the rest of his life illegally always fearing the deportation. Of course, no any social benefits as legally he is not in the UK. Even no such a simple thing as driver's licence, as he has no legal grounds to get it. And make his bread illegally in some sweatshop and be under the full control of his boss. A very good life, indeed. Must be better than Africa.

    Even in this last scenario you must admit that: 1) the border services in both Spain/Italy and in the UK are absolutely useless and ineffective; 2) the migration service in the UK is absolutely useless and ineffective; 3) there is no control of the population and you can happily live, work, study, be treated and so on without ever worrying about having any documents. Or even worse: the corruption is so immense that you can bribe your way out all the time.

    So next time when you go to the UK forget your British passport and try to go as a Russian citizen. And forget about getting a visa or any documents, because why should you, those Africans have not got them, haven't they? Bribe the officers if they ask. Later you may describe to us your experience, especially living in a jail/detention centre, in an improbable case you would even manage to get into the UK.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. Boris N says:
    @Jaakko Raipala
    I said: "In fact, the only person who ever brought west-Finn “colonists” to the Neva was Tsar Peter"

    You said: "Lutheran Finns in Viborg Karelia and Savo to migrate to "

    Exactly. These are not west-Finns. Those Protestant Karelians were ethnically the same as the Orthodox Karelians in the region and ethnically very different from us from western tribes. They both would have had a bigger genetic gap to a west-Finn like me than any other neighboring ethnic groups in Europe but they would have had next to no gap to each other. They understood each other, I would not have understood either of them very well. And so on. There was no difference except religion.

    Those Orthodox Karelians didn't move away their new Karelian neighbors, they moved because of Swedish policy towards non-Lutherans. If you read about historical atrocities against Finnic Orthodoxes, the culprits are generally Swedes or west-Finns. East-Finns don't have a legacy of tribal feud with Karelians because they are Karelians or close tribes.

    "Оf course nonsense. For Peter, the Finns (who lived on the lands of St. Petersburg) was not an “obstacle”, but of ordinary citizens, "

    An ordinary Russian citizen was a serf. A Tsar had no way of calming occupied land with a Finnish population except either extreme brutality (like Peter I) or a plausible promise that Finns would have an exception from serfdom (like Alexander I).

    An ordinary Russian citizen was a serf. A Tsar had no way of calming occupied land with a Finnish population except either extreme brutality (like Peter I) or a plausible promise that Finns would have an exception from serfdom (like Alexander I).

    One important note. Serfs not of the tsar, but of the nobility. So all the tsar could do it to leave for the Swedish-German nobility there to decide whether they wanted their peasant to be serfs or tenants. In fact the tsars did exactly that in the Baltic. Few if any Russian nobility owned serfs there, it was the local Baltic German nobility who exploited the peasants. They might not be actually serfs but lived hardly better (“a poor Estonian” was a well-known meme of the time).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jaakko Raipala
    Yes, actually, the way the Russians made the promise of no serfdom in Finland in 1809 was by creating the Grand Duchy of Finland as a constitutional monarchy with Swedish laws which banned serfdom (and limited the powers of the monarch so at the same time Alexander I was trying to appease "our" aristocracy).

    There were actually some Swedish aristocrats who switched sides during the war against Peter I because they thought that by joining Russia they could get rid of these pesky limitations and just make peasants serfs.

    Sweden didn't cancel serfdom when it took what's now Estonia and Latvia, either, and they were never fully integrated into the kingdom. Estonians and Latvians had some of the harshest conditions of serfdom under the German landowners. Finland was rather weird as most land was always owned by ethnic Finns but they were not aristocrats, though of course Finnish landowners were a caste of their own and the landless still felt oppressed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. @Boris N

    and get rid of the indigenous population. In 1620, the Orthodox population (Russians, Karelians, etc.) accounted for 90% of the population.
     
    I believe all them in toto fled to central Russia where they created a very strangely placed and unique diaspora of Orthodox Karelians near Tver (now mostly assimilated).

    This is an obvious exaggeration.
     
    You know how this works: THEY always murder and massacre US; WE always just peacefully annex and peacefully assimilate THEM. Many would point a finger at Russians for such a way of thinking when actually this is rather a Western way of thinking PARTICULARLY when it is directed towards Russia. You know, those Asiatic Scythian-Mongolian barbarous beasts always have wanted to conquer the world, and others did nothing but defended themselves.

    I think this is pointless to argue with them as you lost from the start for they had put you in a position of the accused and themselves to the accusers; you cannot win there.

    Yes, that is where Tver Karelians come from. But you’re putting words in my mouth now. Neither Swedes or Finns assimilated Russians. In Swedish conquests only Finnic Orthodoxes were pressured to convert, Russians were usually just kicked out. Complain to the Swedes about that.

    Anyway I actually didn’t mean to air my Tsar Peter butthurt (I just can’t help it coming out), I just wanted to point out that there were pushes for the mouth of the Neva before 1700 but the site was exposed to sabotage by the other side for both Sweden and Russia so it never worked. I would suggest that the reason why St Petersburg eventually became possible was the evolution of defenses like cannon batteries which let Russia defend the site despite its relative weakness on the sea.

    Eg. in the Crimean War the English sent a big fleet to the Baltic Sea that could have easily sunk the Russian Baltic fleet but the English fleet simply turned back from St Petersburg because the land cannons at the coast and at Kronstadt could out-range the ship cannons.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. @reiner Tor
    This:

    These tiny attacks are little pinpricks that aren’t effecting the Syrian military position at all.
     
    doesn't follow from this:

    If the US intended on toppling Assad, the Syrian army/Hezbollah would be vaporized in under 24 hours.
     
    In fact, after the April attacks, both the Syrians and the American supporters of the action said that the number of Syrian sorties flown from that one base dropped significantly. The Syrian air force has at most a hundred operational warplanes, so destroying "just a few" of them reduces their air strength several percentage points.

    You also conveniently left out that if the US "vaporized" both the Syrian army and Hezbollah, this would mean a shooting war with the Russian forces stationed there.

    While obviously the US did not go all in to destroy Assad, the US actions since April (which includes continued arms deliveries to Assad's enemies) are in fact consistent with a continuation (and escalation) of the Obama policy of regime change without engaging in an all-out war.

    nobody in the alt-right complained about it
     
    Who cares what the alt-right complained or not complained about? It's a red herring, and has nothing to do with the issue at hand - you said the US was "morally right" to support Saudi Arabia against Iran. If the alt-right supported this policy ten years ago (I very much doubt it - the alt-right hardly even existed back then; I consider myself alt-right only since perhaps early 2011, and I didn't start using the word until perhaps 2014 or 2015), but opposes it now, then the alt-right was wrong then, and they are correct now. But regardless of the alt-right positions or their changes over time, it's obvious that Saudi Arabia supports the murder of innocent Western Europeans through its funding of terrorist organizations and mosques (and propagandizing its own citizens to fund and even organize the same), while Iran does nothing comparably harmful to us.

    In any event, just out of curiosity, could you provide Richard B. Spencer quotes from before 2008 where he was supportive of the American leadership's cozying up to Saudi Arabia?

    Randal summed up my problem with Iran: I’m Jewish. From a purely American perspective I have no preference between Iran and Saudi Arabia. I wouldn’t expect any non Jew to hate Iran and would probably question their sanity if they did.

    Re Syria: US has been engaging in proxy wars forever. They aren’t a big deal. The US backed the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, the right wing death squads in Latin America and now are backing various rebel factions in Syria. So what?

    Basically you guys want an Iran dominated middle east and are pissed that the US is getting in your way. Too bad. The US has been allied with Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt since the end of the second world war and that will never change. The US is done with direct military involvement but they will continue to support the security of their allies. That’s just how it goes.

    One last thing: the combined Syrian, Hezbollah and Iranian forces are so weak and so incompetent that even if the US offered no support to the rebels whatsoever, the Saudis and the Turks would be more than enough to keep the rebels afloat. You should actually be grateful for US involvement because it gives you something to blame the impotence of your Iranian/Syrian heroes on.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    Basically you guys want an Iran dominated middle east and are pissed that the US is getting in your way.
     
    I don't think anybody here wants an "Iran dominated middle east". So far you haven't demonstrated however that this is even a realistic threat...Iran has influence among Shia populations in Iraq and Lebanon, plus an alliance with the Syrian regime...but how would they go about "dominating" the entire region? The Iranian regime certainly is unpleasant in many ways, but why is it supposedly so uniquely dangerous that it would make sense to turn a blind eye to what Saudi-Arabia and other Gulf states are doing?
    And you can't seriously believe that the Saudis and adherents of the ideology they are promoting are genuinely pro-Jewish or even just indifferent to Jews. In recent years Sunni jihadis have deliberately attacked Jewish targets in Europe, with fatalities in France, Belgium and Denmark.

    One last thing: the combined Syrian, Hezbollah and Iranian forces are so weak and so incompetent
     
    Maybe, but if they are that incompetent, that makes claims that Iran is some super-threat about to dominate the Mideast look even more ridiculous.
    , @for-the-record
    Randal summed up my problem with Iran: I’m Jewish.

    So Jews are treated better in Saudi Arabia than Iran?
    , @Randal

    Randal summed up my problem with Iran: I’m Jewish
     
    It isn't quite as simple as that, though. Your issues with Iran do not stem from being jewish, per se. Iran has no problem with jews and by all accounts (except dishonest Israeli ones) the treatment of jews in Iran is no worse and probably better than in most ME countries. Your issues with Iran stem from jewish nationalism, manifested as loyalty to the state of Israel.

    Re Syria: US has been engaging in proxy wars forever. They aren’t a big deal. The US backed the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, the right wing death squads in Latin America and now are backing various rebel factions in Syria. So what?
     
    Again, that kind of cynical posturing would be fine (or at least consistent) if it were universally applied. But when those who engage in it suddenly get all outraged at deaths, and all the other crimes that follow in war's train, inflicted on their own side, it is revealed as simple, dishonest hypocrisy.


    Basically you guys want an Iran dominated middle east and are pissed that the US is getting in your way.
     
    In reality of course the idea of an "Iran dominated middle east" is pure fantasy.

    What you and other Israeli partisans actually object to is not "Iranian domination", but Iranian regional rivalry with Israel.

    In order to "dominate the Middle East", Iran has to dominate Iraq, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Israel, all of them backed to the hilts against Iran by the world's only superpower.

    Turkey's GDP outmatches Iran's, as does Saudi Arabia's, and Turkey matches it for population. Turkey outspends Iran on its military, as does the UAE, and Israel, and the latter has favoured access to the sole superpower's tech and support. Saudi Arabia outspends Iran on its military by several multiples. Israel, of course, has nuclear weapons.

    Iran is split from reliable sources of potential alliance in the region by sectarian division (note how profoundly ungrateful even the Palestinians proved to Iran for years of steadfast support, when push came to sectarian shove recently).

    Iran is currently fighting to save its major regional ally Syria from a US-backed push for regime change, and only the gross incompetence and sheer nastiness of its opponents (together with Russia's rather surprising steadfastness and commitment) has prevented the originally seemingly inevitable collapse of that country's government. Where Iran has had successes they have largely been handed to them by gross US incompetence, such as destroying the minority sunni-based government of Iraq and handing that country over to the shia majority, many of whom had cut their political and military teeth fighting for Iran against the Saddam government.

    The idea of Iran exercising any kind of regional hegemony is frankly stupid, and the fact that such scaremongering nonsense can pass largely unnoticed in the US media says all we need to know about the US's foreign policy problems.

    The US has been allied with Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt since the end of the second world war and that will never change.
     
    Never is clearly wrong. All things change, most especially national alliances.

    In fact, your post-WW2 history is incorrect as well. The US was not allied with Israel in its early days. Many of the pre-WW2 zionists and of Israel's early adopters were on the left, the kibbutzim and other socialists, and it was to military supplies from communist sympathisers in Czechoslovakia that Israel owed its initial military survival. In 1956 the US tried to introduce a UN resolution calling for Israeli withdrawal from Suez, which Britain and France vetoed. And Egypt under Nasser from 1956 to 1970 was "non-aligned", but identified much more closely with the Soviet side, certainly not allied with the US.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. @DN
    Thank you for posting that write up. So, unfortunately, no viable way to change the country's course in the near future?

    No, unfortunately it looks pretty bleak. If the AfD got a really spectacular result – let’s say 25% – I suppose Merkel would be toppled and the Christian Democrats might consider changing course. But that looks like a fantasy scenario right now. So things will continue to get worse.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greasy William
    Strong leaders like Merkel tend to collapse out of nowhere. They don't gradually lose support, just one day it evaporates and everything suddenly falls apart.

    The coming massive failures of Macron and Trudeau, however, will further isolate Merkel.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. @Boris N

    There was 65% support for the US invading Iraq. That is what made the war possible. Public sentiment is entirely different today.
     
    I think this is irrelevant. I mean all this public opinion stuff. People tend to think and approve what they have been told. Americans had been told that Saddam was evil hence they approved the war. Now, the MSM have been waging a full-scale propaganda campaign against Iran for nearly 40 years, and I bet most Americans sincerely believe Iran is the ultimate evil, and at least 50% believe a war with Iran would be good. And the opposition of the other half does not mean they do think that Iran is not evil but a normal country who must be respected, not vilified. They are simply isolationists who still hate Iran if asked.

    And the opposition of the other half does not mean they do think that Iran is not evil but a normal country who must be respected, not vilified. They are simply isolationists who still hate Iran if asked.

    Nobody in the US cares about Iran. There would be no public support for regime change in Iran and there would be absolutely massive public opposition.

    There will never, ever, ever be a US attack on Iran. If there had even been a sliver of a possibility of the US attacking Iran it ended officially with the nuclear agreement. There are three reasons we are even talking about this:

    1. Pro Iran/anti US people are the most paranoid people on earth.
    2. Pro Iran people actually *want* a US attack on Iran both because it will give them something to complain about and because they want to see the incompetent Mullahs replaced with less incompetent secular nationalists.
    3. Pro Iran people are frustrated that Iran and Syria are flailing against the rebels, ISIS and the Saudis so they want to bring attention to the current level of US involvement to explain away Iran’s comical weakness and ineptitude.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. @German_reader
    No, unfortunately it looks pretty bleak. If the AfD got a really spectacular result - let's say 25% - I suppose Merkel would be toppled and the Christian Democrats might consider changing course. But that looks like a fantasy scenario right now. So things will continue to get worse.

    Strong leaders like Merkel tend to collapse out of nowhere. They don’t gradually lose support, just one day it evaporates and everything suddenly falls apart.

    The coming massive failures of Macron and Trudeau, however, will further isolate Merkel.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. @Greasy William
    Randal summed up my problem with Iran: I'm Jewish. From a purely American perspective I have no preference between Iran and Saudi Arabia. I wouldn't expect any non Jew to hate Iran and would probably question their sanity if they did.

    Re Syria: US has been engaging in proxy wars forever. They aren't a big deal. The US backed the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, the right wing death squads in Latin America and now are backing various rebel factions in Syria. So what?

    Basically you guys want an Iran dominated middle east and are pissed that the US is getting in your way. Too bad. The US has been allied with Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt since the end of the second world war and that will never change. The US is done with direct military involvement but they will continue to support the security of their allies. That's just how it goes.

    One last thing: the combined Syrian, Hezbollah and Iranian forces are so weak and so incompetent that even if the US offered no support to the rebels whatsoever, the Saudis and the Turks would be more than enough to keep the rebels afloat. You should actually be grateful for US involvement because it gives you something to blame the impotence of your Iranian/Syrian heroes on.

    Basically you guys want an Iran dominated middle east and are pissed that the US is getting in your way.

    I don’t think anybody here wants an “Iran dominated middle east”. So far you haven’t demonstrated however that this is even a realistic threat…Iran has influence among Shia populations in Iraq and Lebanon, plus an alliance with the Syrian regime…but how would they go about “dominating” the entire region? The Iranian regime certainly is unpleasant in many ways, but why is it supposedly so uniquely dangerous that it would make sense to turn a blind eye to what Saudi-Arabia and other Gulf states are doing?
    And you can’t seriously believe that the Saudis and adherents of the ideology they are promoting are genuinely pro-Jewish or even just indifferent to Jews. In recent years Sunni jihadis have deliberately attacked Jewish targets in Europe, with fatalities in France, Belgium and Denmark.

    One last thing: the combined Syrian, Hezbollah and Iranian forces are so weak and so incompetent

    Maybe, but if they are that incompetent, that makes claims that Iran is some super-threat about to dominate the Mideast look even more ridiculous.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greasy William

    I don’t think anybody here wants an “Iran dominated middle east”.
     
    You don't, but Randal and Reiner do.

    So far you haven’t demonstrated however that this is even a realistic threat…
     
    It isn't. The US could completely withdrawal from the region (and it probably should do just that) and Iran and Syria would continue to struggle. What I am saying is that the Iran fanboys are making US involvement out to be a bigger deal than it really is because they need to explain away Iran's incompetence.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. @Boris N

    An ordinary Russian citizen was a serf. A Tsar had no way of calming occupied land with a Finnish population except either extreme brutality (like Peter I) or a plausible promise that Finns would have an exception from serfdom (like Alexander I).
     
    One important note. Serfs not of the tsar, but of the nobility. So all the tsar could do it to leave for the Swedish-German nobility there to decide whether they wanted their peasant to be serfs or tenants. In fact the tsars did exactly that in the Baltic. Few if any Russian nobility owned serfs there, it was the local Baltic German nobility who exploited the peasants. They might not be actually serfs but lived hardly better ("a poor Estonian" was a well-known meme of the time).

    Yes, actually, the way the Russians made the promise of no serfdom in Finland in 1809 was by creating the Grand Duchy of Finland as a constitutional monarchy with Swedish laws which banned serfdom (and limited the powers of the monarch so at the same time Alexander I was trying to appease “our” aristocracy).

    There were actually some Swedish aristocrats who switched sides during the war against Peter I because they thought that by joining Russia they could get rid of these pesky limitations and just make peasants serfs.

    Sweden didn’t cancel serfdom when it took what’s now Estonia and Latvia, either, and they were never fully integrated into the kingdom. Estonians and Latvians had some of the harshest conditions of serfdom under the German landowners. Finland was rather weird as most land was always owned by ethnic Finns but they were not aristocrats, though of course Finnish landowners were a caste of their own and the landless still felt oppressed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. @German_reader

    Basically you guys want an Iran dominated middle east and are pissed that the US is getting in your way.
     
    I don't think anybody here wants an "Iran dominated middle east". So far you haven't demonstrated however that this is even a realistic threat...Iran has influence among Shia populations in Iraq and Lebanon, plus an alliance with the Syrian regime...but how would they go about "dominating" the entire region? The Iranian regime certainly is unpleasant in many ways, but why is it supposedly so uniquely dangerous that it would make sense to turn a blind eye to what Saudi-Arabia and other Gulf states are doing?
    And you can't seriously believe that the Saudis and adherents of the ideology they are promoting are genuinely pro-Jewish or even just indifferent to Jews. In recent years Sunni jihadis have deliberately attacked Jewish targets in Europe, with fatalities in France, Belgium and Denmark.

    One last thing: the combined Syrian, Hezbollah and Iranian forces are so weak and so incompetent
     
    Maybe, but if they are that incompetent, that makes claims that Iran is some super-threat about to dominate the Mideast look even more ridiculous.

    I don’t think anybody here wants an “Iran dominated middle east”.

    You don’t, but Randal and Reiner do.

    So far you haven’t demonstrated however that this is even a realistic threat…

    It isn’t. The US could completely withdrawal from the region (and it probably should do just that) and Iran and Syria would continue to struggle. What I am saying is that the Iran fanboys are making US involvement out to be a bigger deal than it really is because they need to explain away Iran’s incompetence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    You don’t, but Randal and Reiner do.
     
    I'll leave it to them to explain their position, but I think you're wrong in your interpretation of what motivates them.
    But anyway, ok, I kind of get why you dislike Iran. It's just that I don't understand why you think a country like Saudi-Arabia should be uncritically supported. Even if you don't care about what Sunni Islamists are doing to non-Jews throughout the world, it seems pretty short-sighted from a perspective of your own self-interest. I mean it's pretty clear that the kind of ideology Saudi-Arabia promotes has Jews as an enemy (iirc they have textbooks in Saudi educational institutions which feature Jews as monkeys etc.). And Sunni jihadis have shown a willingness to act on those beliefs under favorable conditions; e.g. Mohammed Merah in France a few years ago obviously hated Jews so much he was willing to kill even Jewish schoolchildren.
    So I don't quite get the exclusive focus on Iran.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. @Greasy William
    Randal summed up my problem with Iran: I'm Jewish. From a purely American perspective I have no preference between Iran and Saudi Arabia. I wouldn't expect any non Jew to hate Iran and would probably question their sanity if they did.

    Re Syria: US has been engaging in proxy wars forever. They aren't a big deal. The US backed the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, the right wing death squads in Latin America and now are backing various rebel factions in Syria. So what?

    Basically you guys want an Iran dominated middle east and are pissed that the US is getting in your way. Too bad. The US has been allied with Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt since the end of the second world war and that will never change. The US is done with direct military involvement but they will continue to support the security of their allies. That's just how it goes.

    One last thing: the combined Syrian, Hezbollah and Iranian forces are so weak and so incompetent that even if the US offered no support to the rebels whatsoever, the Saudis and the Turks would be more than enough to keep the rebels afloat. You should actually be grateful for US involvement because it gives you something to blame the impotence of your Iranian/Syrian heroes on.

    Randal summed up my problem with Iran: I’m Jewish.

    So Jews are treated better in Saudi Arabia than Iran?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. By the way, did anyone else notice that Trump uttered a great truth yesterday (albeit not exactly as he intended)?

    “We underscore that states that sponsor terrorism risk falling victim to the evil they promote.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    Yes, I thought that was a great example of the guilty mind blurting out unacknowledged truth.

    On the other hand, it's just possible with Trump that he actually is so profoundly ignorant about world affairs and even his own country's activities that he actually doesn't understand the irony in his statement.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. Randal says:
    @Greasy William
    Randal summed up my problem with Iran: I'm Jewish. From a purely American perspective I have no preference between Iran and Saudi Arabia. I wouldn't expect any non Jew to hate Iran and would probably question their sanity if they did.

    Re Syria: US has been engaging in proxy wars forever. They aren't a big deal. The US backed the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, the right wing death squads in Latin America and now are backing various rebel factions in Syria. So what?

    Basically you guys want an Iran dominated middle east and are pissed that the US is getting in your way. Too bad. The US has been allied with Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt since the end of the second world war and that will never change. The US is done with direct military involvement but they will continue to support the security of their allies. That's just how it goes.

    One last thing: the combined Syrian, Hezbollah and Iranian forces are so weak and so incompetent that even if the US offered no support to the rebels whatsoever, the Saudis and the Turks would be more than enough to keep the rebels afloat. You should actually be grateful for US involvement because it gives you something to blame the impotence of your Iranian/Syrian heroes on.

    Randal summed up my problem with Iran: I’m Jewish

    It isn’t quite as simple as that, though. Your issues with Iran do not stem from being jewish, per se. Iran has no problem with jews and by all accounts (except dishonest Israeli ones) the treatment of jews in Iran is no worse and probably better than in most ME countries. Your issues with Iran stem from jewish nationalism, manifested as loyalty to the state of Israel.

    Re Syria: US has been engaging in proxy wars forever. They aren’t a big deal. The US backed the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, the right wing death squads in Latin America and now are backing various rebel factions in Syria. So what?

    Again, that kind of cynical posturing would be fine (or at least consistent) if it were universally applied. But when those who engage in it suddenly get all outraged at deaths, and all the other crimes that follow in war’s train, inflicted on their own side, it is revealed as simple, dishonest hypocrisy.

    Basically you guys want an Iran dominated middle east and are pissed that the US is getting in your way.

    In reality of course the idea of an “Iran dominated middle east” is pure fantasy.

    What you and other Israeli partisans actually object to is not “Iranian domination”, but Iranian regional rivalry with Israel.

    In order to “dominate the Middle East”, Iran has to dominate Iraq, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Israel, all of them backed to the hilts against Iran by the world’s only superpower.

    Turkey’s GDP outmatches Iran’s, as does Saudi Arabia’s, and Turkey matches it for population. Turkey outspends Iran on its military, as does the UAE, and Israel, and the latter has favoured access to the sole superpower’s tech and support. Saudi Arabia outspends Iran on its military by several multiples. Israel, of course, has nuclear weapons.

    Iran is split from reliable sources of potential alliance in the region by sectarian division (note how profoundly ungrateful even the Palestinians proved to Iran for years of steadfast support, when push came to sectarian shove recently).

    Iran is currently fighting to save its major regional ally Syria from a US-backed push for regime change, and only the gross incompetence and sheer nastiness of its opponents (together with Russia’s rather surprising steadfastness and commitment) has prevented the originally seemingly inevitable collapse of that country’s government. Where Iran has had successes they have largely been handed to them by gross US incompetence, such as destroying the minority sunni-based government of Iraq and handing that country over to the shia majority, many of whom had cut their political and military teeth fighting for Iran against the Saddam government.

    The idea of Iran exercising any kind of regional hegemony is frankly stupid, and the fact that such scaremongering nonsense can pass largely unnoticed in the US media says all we need to know about the US’s foreign policy problems.

    The US has been allied with Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt since the end of the second world war and that will never change.

    Never is clearly wrong. All things change, most especially national alliances.

    In fact, your post-WW2 history is incorrect as well. The US was not allied with Israel in its early days. Many of the pre-WW2 zionists and of Israel’s early adopters were on the left, the kibbutzim and other socialists, and it was to military supplies from communist sympathisers in Czechoslovakia that Israel owed its initial military survival. In 1956 the US tried to introduce a UN resolution calling for Israeli withdrawal from Suez, which Britain and France vetoed. And Egypt under Nasser from 1956 to 1970 was “non-aligned”, but identified much more closely with the Soviet side, certainly not allied with the US.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greasy William

    Your issues with Iran do not stem from being jewish, per se. Iran has no problem with jews and by all accounts (except dishonest Israeli ones) the treatment of jews in Iran is no worse and probably better than in most ME countries. Your issues with Iran stem from jewish nationalism, manifested as loyalty to the state of Israel.
     
    1. There is no Judaism without the Land of Israel. The Jews having sovereignty over the Land of Israel is the bedrock of Judaism. Saying "we think Jews should be allowed to practice their religion but they shouldn't rule the Land of Israel" is completely nonsensical. Us ruling the Land of Israel is the whole frickin' point. That Jews aren't treated poorly in Iran is probably the most irrelevant thing ever because Iranian Jews are in fact *not* free to practice their religion which mandates the dispossession of the Palestinians and Jewish sovereignty over the totality of the Land.

    2. Iranians have always been enemies of the Jews. One of our major holidays is a celebration of us massacring a large number of them. Sunni Arabs are political enemies: we are enemies with them because of the conflict over the Land. Shi'ites and Arab Christians are blood enemies: we were enemies with them long before Zionism existed.

    Never is clearly wrong. All things change, most especially national alliances.
     
    If you think there is a chance in any of our lifetimes of the US allying with Iran you are even more delusional than I realized.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. @Greasy William

    I don’t think anybody here wants an “Iran dominated middle east”.
     
    You don't, but Randal and Reiner do.

    So far you haven’t demonstrated however that this is even a realistic threat…
     
    It isn't. The US could completely withdrawal from the region (and it probably should do just that) and Iran and Syria would continue to struggle. What I am saying is that the Iran fanboys are making US involvement out to be a bigger deal than it really is because they need to explain away Iran's incompetence.

    You don’t, but Randal and Reiner do.

    I’ll leave it to them to explain their position, but I think you’re wrong in your interpretation of what motivates them.
    But anyway, ok, I kind of get why you dislike Iran. It’s just that I don’t understand why you think a country like Saudi-Arabia should be uncritically supported. Even if you don’t care about what Sunni Islamists are doing to non-Jews throughout the world, it seems pretty short-sighted from a perspective of your own self-interest. I mean it’s pretty clear that the kind of ideology Saudi-Arabia promotes has Jews as an enemy (iirc they have textbooks in Saudi educational institutions which feature Jews as monkeys etc.). And Sunni jihadis have shown a willingness to act on those beliefs under favorable conditions; e.g. Mohammed Merah in France a few years ago obviously hated Jews so much he was willing to kill even Jewish schoolchildren.
    So I don’t quite get the exclusive focus on Iran.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greasy William

    It’s just that I don’t understand why you think a country like Saudi-Arabia should be uncritically supported.
     
    Why should the Soviets have been uncritically supported in WW2? The enemy of my enemy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. Randal says:
    @for-the-record
    By the way, did anyone else notice that Trump uttered a great truth yesterday (albeit not exactly as he intended)?

    "We underscore that states that sponsor terrorism risk falling victim to the evil they promote."
     

    Yes, I thought that was a great example of the guilty mind blurting out unacknowledged truth.

    On the other hand, it’s just possible with Trump that he actually is so profoundly ignorant about world affairs and even his own country’s activities that he actually doesn’t understand the irony in his statement.

    Read More
    • Replies: @for-the-record
    it’s just possible with Trump that he actually is so profoundly ignorant about world affairs and even his own country’s activities that he actually doesn’t understand the irony in his statement.

    I don't think there is any doubt that this is the case. He has been very consistent with regard to Iran as being a (or perhaps the) major source of terrorism and instability in the region.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. @Randal

    Randal summed up my problem with Iran: I’m Jewish
     
    It isn't quite as simple as that, though. Your issues with Iran do not stem from being jewish, per se. Iran has no problem with jews and by all accounts (except dishonest Israeli ones) the treatment of jews in Iran is no worse and probably better than in most ME countries. Your issues with Iran stem from jewish nationalism, manifested as loyalty to the state of Israel.

    Re Syria: US has been engaging in proxy wars forever. They aren’t a big deal. The US backed the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, the right wing death squads in Latin America and now are backing various rebel factions in Syria. So what?
     
    Again, that kind of cynical posturing would be fine (or at least consistent) if it were universally applied. But when those who engage in it suddenly get all outraged at deaths, and all the other crimes that follow in war's train, inflicted on their own side, it is revealed as simple, dishonest hypocrisy.


    Basically you guys want an Iran dominated middle east and are pissed that the US is getting in your way.
     
    In reality of course the idea of an "Iran dominated middle east" is pure fantasy.

    What you and other Israeli partisans actually object to is not "Iranian domination", but Iranian regional rivalry with Israel.

    In order to "dominate the Middle East", Iran has to dominate Iraq, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Israel, all of them backed to the hilts against Iran by the world's only superpower.

    Turkey's GDP outmatches Iran's, as does Saudi Arabia's, and Turkey matches it for population. Turkey outspends Iran on its military, as does the UAE, and Israel, and the latter has favoured access to the sole superpower's tech and support. Saudi Arabia outspends Iran on its military by several multiples. Israel, of course, has nuclear weapons.

    Iran is split from reliable sources of potential alliance in the region by sectarian division (note how profoundly ungrateful even the Palestinians proved to Iran for years of steadfast support, when push came to sectarian shove recently).

    Iran is currently fighting to save its major regional ally Syria from a US-backed push for regime change, and only the gross incompetence and sheer nastiness of its opponents (together with Russia's rather surprising steadfastness and commitment) has prevented the originally seemingly inevitable collapse of that country's government. Where Iran has had successes they have largely been handed to them by gross US incompetence, such as destroying the minority sunni-based government of Iraq and handing that country over to the shia majority, many of whom had cut their political and military teeth fighting for Iran against the Saddam government.

    The idea of Iran exercising any kind of regional hegemony is frankly stupid, and the fact that such scaremongering nonsense can pass largely unnoticed in the US media says all we need to know about the US's foreign policy problems.

    The US has been allied with Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt since the end of the second world war and that will never change.
     
    Never is clearly wrong. All things change, most especially national alliances.

    In fact, your post-WW2 history is incorrect as well. The US was not allied with Israel in its early days. Many of the pre-WW2 zionists and of Israel's early adopters were on the left, the kibbutzim and other socialists, and it was to military supplies from communist sympathisers in Czechoslovakia that Israel owed its initial military survival. In 1956 the US tried to introduce a UN resolution calling for Israeli withdrawal from Suez, which Britain and France vetoed. And Egypt under Nasser from 1956 to 1970 was "non-aligned", but identified much more closely with the Soviet side, certainly not allied with the US.

    Your issues with Iran do not stem from being jewish, per se. Iran has no problem with jews and by all accounts (except dishonest Israeli ones) the treatment of jews in Iran is no worse and probably better than in most ME countries. Your issues with Iran stem from jewish nationalism, manifested as loyalty to the state of Israel.

    1. There is no Judaism without the Land of Israel. The Jews having sovereignty over the Land of Israel is the bedrock of Judaism. Saying “we think Jews should be allowed to practice their religion but they shouldn’t rule the Land of Israel” is completely nonsensical. Us ruling the Land of Israel is the whole frickin’ point. That Jews aren’t treated poorly in Iran is probably the most irrelevant thing ever because Iranian Jews are in fact *not* free to practice their religion which mandates the dispossession of the Palestinians and Jewish sovereignty over the totality of the Land.

    2. Iranians have always been enemies of the Jews. One of our major holidays is a celebration of us massacring a large number of them. Sunni Arabs are political enemies: we are enemies with them because of the conflict over the Land. Shi’ites and Arab Christians are blood enemies: we were enemies with them long before Zionism existed.

    Never is clearly wrong. All things change, most especially national alliances.

    If you think there is a chance in any of our lifetimes of the US allying with Iran you are even more delusional than I realized.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    Iranians have always been enemies of the Jews.
     
    Iran and Israel maintained quite friendly relations before the 1979 revolution.
    And I don't think ancient Persia is really relevant to today's issues (besides, your interpretation seems a bit odd regarding that as well, it was the Persian great king Cyrus after all who ended the Jews' Babylonian exile).
    , @Randal

    There is no Judaism without the Land of Israel
     
    Funny, Judaism seemed to get along fine without it for quite a few centuries.

    Look, I of all people don't have a problem with nationalism per se. I have problems with dual loyalties, and with unacknowledged loyalties, and with disruptive nationalist loyalties that cause problems, but not with the nationalism itself.

    Saying “we think Jews should be allowed to practice their religion but they shouldn’t rule the Land of Israel” is completely nonsensical.
     
    Did somebody say that here?

    I mean, it's a legitimate point for debate, because there are a lot of arguably problematic issues about the existence of Israel, and Judaism as religion/race/nation, etc but I wasn't aware we were engaging in that topic here and now.

    Iranians have always been enemies of the Jews. One of our major holidays is a celebration of us massacring a large number of them. Sunni Arabs are political enemies: we are enemies with them because of the conflict over the Land. Shi’ites and Arab Christians are blood enemies: we were enemies with them long before Zionism existed.
     
    Meh. My own nation has been a longstanding blood enemy of other nations for centuries, with repeated wars and massacres on both sides, and yet joined those same former enemies as allies a few years later. It happens.

    If you think there is a chance in any of our lifetimes of the US allying with Iran you are even more delusional than I realized.
     
    It's amusing to think how many of the current alliances people would have been similarly dismissive of within living memory, which goes back to pre-WW2 days.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. @German_reader

    You don’t, but Randal and Reiner do.
     
    I'll leave it to them to explain their position, but I think you're wrong in your interpretation of what motivates them.
    But anyway, ok, I kind of get why you dislike Iran. It's just that I don't understand why you think a country like Saudi-Arabia should be uncritically supported. Even if you don't care about what Sunni Islamists are doing to non-Jews throughout the world, it seems pretty short-sighted from a perspective of your own self-interest. I mean it's pretty clear that the kind of ideology Saudi-Arabia promotes has Jews as an enemy (iirc they have textbooks in Saudi educational institutions which feature Jews as monkeys etc.). And Sunni jihadis have shown a willingness to act on those beliefs under favorable conditions; e.g. Mohammed Merah in France a few years ago obviously hated Jews so much he was willing to kill even Jewish schoolchildren.
    So I don't quite get the exclusive focus on Iran.

    It’s just that I don’t understand why you think a country like Saudi-Arabia should be uncritically supported.

    Why should the Soviets have been uncritically supported in WW2? The enemy of my enemy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    That would only make sense if Iran was some kind of threat comparable to Nazi Germany. You've written yourself that Iran and its allies are "incompetent" and that there's no chance of Iran dominating the Mideast.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. Randal says:
    @Boris N

    Boris Johnson? You mean the clown who gratuitously travelled to the Ukraine and absurdly “demanded” that Russia return that province to the Ukraine
     
    When I was first reading it I misread it as he had meant to return the separatist province of the Ukraine to Russia, ha-ha! It always happens when you are a Russian imperialist: you are never sure, when they say two words "separatists" and "Ukraine" in one sentence, whether by that they may mean the separatists in Kiev.

    When I was first reading it I misread it as he had meant to return the separatist province of the Ukraine to Russia

    LOL!

    Actually, that’s probably the kind of unintended guilty truth that Johnson, like Trump yesterday on states sponsoring terrorism, might even blurt out unintentionally.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. @Greasy William

    It’s just that I don’t understand why you think a country like Saudi-Arabia should be uncritically supported.
     
    Why should the Soviets have been uncritically supported in WW2? The enemy of my enemy.

    That would only make sense if Iran was some kind of threat comparable to Nazi Germany. You’ve written yourself that Iran and its allies are “incompetent” and that there’s no chance of Iran dominating the Mideast.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. melanf says:
    @Jaakko Raipala
    I said: "In fact, the only person who ever brought west-Finn “colonists” to the Neva was Tsar Peter"

    You said: "Lutheran Finns in Viborg Karelia and Savo to migrate to "

    Exactly. These are not west-Finns. Those Protestant Karelians were ethnically the same as the Orthodox Karelians in the region and ethnically very different from us from western tribes. They both would have had a bigger genetic gap to a west-Finn like me than any other neighboring ethnic groups in Europe but they would have had next to no gap to each other. They understood each other, I would not have understood either of them very well. And so on. There was no difference except religion.

    Those Orthodox Karelians didn't move away their new Karelian neighbors, they moved because of Swedish policy towards non-Lutherans. If you read about historical atrocities against Finnic Orthodoxes, the culprits are generally Swedes or west-Finns. East-Finns don't have a legacy of tribal feud with Karelians because they are Karelians or close tribes.

    "Оf course nonsense. For Peter, the Finns (who lived on the lands of St. Petersburg) was not an “obstacle”, but of ordinary citizens, "

    An ordinary Russian citizen was a serf. A Tsar had no way of calming occupied land with a Finnish population except either extreme brutality (like Peter I) or a plausible promise that Finns would have an exception from serfdom (like Alexander I).

    Exactly. These are not west-Finns. Those Protestant Karelians were ethnically the same as….. etc., etc.

    Summary,

    part 1: Before 1617 a lands of the Neva river basin belonged to Russia. In 1617 the Swedes came, the local Orthodox population was partially exterminated during the war, partially expelled thanks to the Swedish religious and economic policies. Instead of exterminated/expelled indigenous population settled Finns (Lutherans loyal to the Swedes).

    part 2: In 1703 the Russians came back. Finns were partially exterminated during the war, partially become a minority in the lands that were re-settled by Russians. Of course it was a manifestation of “extreme brutality” of the Russian.

    An ordinary Russian citizen was a serf.

    Really? Perhaps for this reason, in the 17th century, the population of the border lands fled en masse from Sweden to Russia.

    Tsar had no way of calming occupied land with a Finnish population except either extreme brutality (like Peter I)

    So Tsar Peter held in subjection “old Finland” (purely Finnish lands of Karelian isthmus) by using “extreme brutality “? Weird. It seemed to me that the Russian administration rules this land without any problems.

    There were actually some Swedish aristocrats who switched sides during the war against Peter I because they thought that by joining Russia they could get rid of these pesky limitations and just make peasants serfs.

    Who is it?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jaakko Raipala
    The peace of 1617 ended a war in which Sweden was meddling in the Russian succession crisis. There was no unified Russia to send an army to meet an invader and defense was stuff like improvisation by cities so Sweden marched straight past all that territory inhabited by Finnic Orthodoxes to the Russian cities. Eventually Sweden was handed a lot of territory in exchange for withdrawing from Novgorod and for dropping claims to the throne and almost none of this new territory had been occupied by Sweden.

    You could look at other wars where Sweden did run a brutal anti-Orthodox campaign, like the one that started during Ivan IV's reign and west-Finn tribes were recruited to run around Karelian lands killing Orthodox monks and burning down churches and monasteries, but this one? You are trying to paint Swedish war or occupation atrocities in areas that didn't even have war or occupation and that were handed to Sweden in a deal.

    Pretty soon Sweden reneged on its promise to let Orthodoxes continue to practice their faith and the migration to Russia started. That may be a nasty thing to do (and you could argue that Russia had a good casus belli there given that allowing Orthodoxy was a part of the peace treaty) but not being allowed a church is hardly comparable to real atrocities where people die or get enslaved.

    Similar things of course happened to the other direction but Russia didn't try to force convert Protestants. The most common reason to flee was getting away from slavery and in those cases Russia would try to stop you from fleeing. Still, several thousand of the Finns taken as slaves to St Petersburg did manage to escape and get back to our side, though that was still a fraction of the victims.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. @Greasy William

    Your issues with Iran do not stem from being jewish, per se. Iran has no problem with jews and by all accounts (except dishonest Israeli ones) the treatment of jews in Iran is no worse and probably better than in most ME countries. Your issues with Iran stem from jewish nationalism, manifested as loyalty to the state of Israel.
     
    1. There is no Judaism without the Land of Israel. The Jews having sovereignty over the Land of Israel is the bedrock of Judaism. Saying "we think Jews should be allowed to practice their religion but they shouldn't rule the Land of Israel" is completely nonsensical. Us ruling the Land of Israel is the whole frickin' point. That Jews aren't treated poorly in Iran is probably the most irrelevant thing ever because Iranian Jews are in fact *not* free to practice their religion which mandates the dispossession of the Palestinians and Jewish sovereignty over the totality of the Land.

    2. Iranians have always been enemies of the Jews. One of our major holidays is a celebration of us massacring a large number of them. Sunni Arabs are political enemies: we are enemies with them because of the conflict over the Land. Shi'ites and Arab Christians are blood enemies: we were enemies with them long before Zionism existed.

    Never is clearly wrong. All things change, most especially national alliances.
     
    If you think there is a chance in any of our lifetimes of the US allying with Iran you are even more delusional than I realized.

    Iranians have always been enemies of the Jews.

    Iran and Israel maintained quite friendly relations before the 1979 revolution.
    And I don’t think ancient Persia is really relevant to today’s issues (besides, your interpretation seems a bit odd regarding that as well, it was the Persian great king Cyrus after all who ended the Jews’ Babylonian exile).

    Read More
    • Replies: @for-the-record
    Iran and Israel maintained quite friendly relations before the 1979 revolution.

    And post-1979 during the Iran-Iraq War:

    According to a study conducted by the Tel Aviv Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), Israel supplied Iran with arms totaling $500 million (365 million euros) in the first three years of the war.

    Political scandal

    According to Fürtig, "Things were not looking good for Iran in the war with Iraq, partly because 90 percent of Iran's armaments had been acquired in the US during the Shah era." Those supplies were running out: "Iran was desperate for new suppliers prepared to provide US weaponry." Israel's offer was just what Iran needed.

    Ayatollah Khomeini returned the favor when rumors started that Iraq was working on a nuclear bomb - a threat neither Jerusalem nor Tehran could accept. Iran's intelligence agency passed on valuable information to the Israeli air force, which bombed Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981, setting back the suspected Iraqi nuclear program by years.

    Such secret cooperation was highly sensitive, says Fürtig, "and both sides tried to keep it under wraps. Neither Iran nor Israel wanted this to become public knowledge."

    In November 1986, the Iran-Contra affair hit the United States: senior administration officials had secretly sold thousands of anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles to Tehran and used proceeds from the weapons sales to fund rightwing Contra rebels in Nicaragua. Israel was significantly involved in the transactions.
     
    http://www.dw.com/en/iran-und-israel-the-best-of-enemies/a-17437981
    , @Greasy William

    Iran and Israel maintained quite friendly relations before the 1979 revolution.
     
    Because the Shah was a sellout. The Iranian people have always been ferociously hostile to the Jews.

    Funny, Judaism seemed to get along fine without it for quite a few centuries.
     
    Are you referring to the centuries where every major Jewish scholar said that the Messiah would restore the Land of Israel to the Jewish people and where Maimonides, considered by many to be the most important Jewish scholar ever (not by me though), explicitly said that not only did the Land need to be conquered but that the Palestinians needed to be dispossessed from it?

    Of course, if your point is just that the Torah is so strong and holy that it is able to maintain the Jewish people even when they are dispersed and powerless, I totally agree with you. Are you planning on becoming a Noahide?

    German Reader: You are kinda losing me. Are you saying that the US should not maintain it's alliance with Saudi Arabia? The Saudis have been good allies to the US for 70 years now. I really don't care about Saudi Arabia but I don't see why strengthening the US's closest ally in the region is bad for the US. Bad for Iran, sure, but I just don't see how it is bad for America.

    I get why people don't want the US mucking around in the region. I don't really think it's a big deal but I understand people who do. What I don't get is why people don't think the US shouldn't support and good and loyal ally like Saudi Arabia... other than that doing so is bad for Iran.

    One other thing that frustrates me is that the US is not getting credit for scaling back it's involvement in the ME. The US is way less involved today than it was in the early 00s and even an operation like was done in Libya is unthinkable now. The trend is clearly towards US disengagement from the region but instead of getting credit all I hear is a bunch of complaining that the US isn't disengaging rapidly enough.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. Randal says:
    @Greasy William

    Your issues with Iran do not stem from being jewish, per se. Iran has no problem with jews and by all accounts (except dishonest Israeli ones) the treatment of jews in Iran is no worse and probably better than in most ME countries. Your issues with Iran stem from jewish nationalism, manifested as loyalty to the state of Israel.
     
    1. There is no Judaism without the Land of Israel. The Jews having sovereignty over the Land of Israel is the bedrock of Judaism. Saying "we think Jews should be allowed to practice their religion but they shouldn't rule the Land of Israel" is completely nonsensical. Us ruling the Land of Israel is the whole frickin' point. That Jews aren't treated poorly in Iran is probably the most irrelevant thing ever because Iranian Jews are in fact *not* free to practice their religion which mandates the dispossession of the Palestinians and Jewish sovereignty over the totality of the Land.

    2. Iranians have always been enemies of the Jews. One of our major holidays is a celebration of us massacring a large number of them. Sunni Arabs are political enemies: we are enemies with them because of the conflict over the Land. Shi'ites and Arab Christians are blood enemies: we were enemies with them long before Zionism existed.

    Never is clearly wrong. All things change, most especially national alliances.
     
    If you think there is a chance in any of our lifetimes of the US allying with Iran you are even more delusional than I realized.

    There is no Judaism without the Land of Israel

    Funny, Judaism seemed to get along fine without it for quite a few centuries.

    Look, I of all people don’t have a problem with nationalism per se. I have problems with dual loyalties, and with unacknowledged loyalties, and with disruptive nationalist loyalties that cause problems, but not with the nationalism itself.

    Saying “we think Jews should be allowed to practice their religion but they shouldn’t rule the Land of Israel” is completely nonsensical.

    Did somebody say that here?

    I mean, it’s a legitimate point for debate, because there are a lot of arguably problematic issues about the existence of Israel, and Judaism as religion/race/nation, etc but I wasn’t aware we were engaging in that topic here and now.

    Iranians have always been enemies of the Jews. One of our major holidays is a celebration of us massacring a large number of them. Sunni Arabs are political enemies: we are enemies with them because of the conflict over the Land. Shi’ites and Arab Christians are blood enemies: we were enemies with them long before Zionism existed.

    Meh. My own nation has been a longstanding blood enemy of other nations for centuries, with repeated wars and massacres on both sides, and yet joined those same former enemies as allies a few years later. It happens.

    If you think there is a chance in any of our lifetimes of the US allying with Iran you are even more delusional than I realized.

    It’s amusing to think how many of the current alliances people would have been similarly dismissive of within living memory, which goes back to pre-WW2 days.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. @Randal
    Yes, I thought that was a great example of the guilty mind blurting out unacknowledged truth.

    On the other hand, it's just possible with Trump that he actually is so profoundly ignorant about world affairs and even his own country's activities that he actually doesn't understand the irony in his statement.

    it’s just possible with Trump that he actually is so profoundly ignorant about world affairs and even his own country’s activities that he actually doesn’t understand the irony in his statement.

    I don’t think there is any doubt that this is the case. He has been very consistent with regard to Iran as being a (or perhaps the) major source of terrorism and instability in the region.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    It's difficult for me to really grasp that kind of depth of ignorance about world affairs, particularly in someone as evidently intelligent and able (in his own sphere) as Trump, but I suppose the distinction between ignorance and intelligence should always be born in mind. When, as Trump probably has, you have gotten all your information about world affairs from the news organisations and from conversations with fellow members of the elite and the tools they use to manipulate opinion, I suppose it's not that hard to understand.

    I doubt Trump has ever read a history book in his life.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. @German_reader

    Iranians have always been enemies of the Jews.
     
    Iran and Israel maintained quite friendly relations before the 1979 revolution.
    And I don't think ancient Persia is really relevant to today's issues (besides, your interpretation seems a bit odd regarding that as well, it was the Persian great king Cyrus after all who ended the Jews' Babylonian exile).

    Iran and Israel maintained quite friendly relations before the 1979 revolution.

    And post-1979 during the Iran-Iraq War:

    According to a study conducted by the Tel Aviv Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), Israel supplied Iran with arms totaling $500 million (365 million euros) in the first three years of the war.

    Political scandal

    According to Fürtig, “Things were not looking good for Iran in the war with Iraq, partly because 90 percent of Iran’s armaments had been acquired in the US during the Shah era.” Those supplies were running out: “Iran was desperate for new suppliers prepared to provide US weaponry.” Israel’s offer was just what Iran needed.

    Ayatollah Khomeini returned the favor when rumors started that Iraq was working on a nuclear bomb – a threat neither Jerusalem nor Tehran could accept. Iran’s intelligence agency passed on valuable information to the Israeli air force, which bombed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981, setting back the suspected Iraqi nuclear program by years.

    Such secret cooperation was highly sensitive, says Fürtig, “and both sides tried to keep it under wraps. Neither Iran nor Israel wanted this to become public knowledge.”

    In November 1986, the Iran-Contra affair hit the United States: senior administration officials had secretly sold thousands of anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles to Tehran and used proceeds from the weapons sales to fund rightwing Contra rebels in Nicaragua. Israel was significantly involved in the transactions.

    http://www.dw.com/en/iran-und-israel-the-best-of-enemies/a-17437981

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    Thanks, interesting, I hadn't known all of that.
    Admittedly I don't have personal experience of the region, but I find the idea that Iran and Israel have to be mortal enemies forever pretty strange. From what I've read, Iranians are actually one of the less anti-Jewish peoples in the Mideast, and despite the regime's propaganda I'd suppose the Palestine issue is less important for Iranians than for Sunni Arabs.
    , @Malla
    The Iranian revolution was as fake as the Russian Revolution or any of the orange revolutions around the world.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN8NGTpNtFQ

    https://blindlight.org/index.php/item/980-iran-and-the-shah-what-really-happened
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. @German_reader

    Iranians have always been enemies of the Jews.
     
    Iran and Israel maintained quite friendly relations before the 1979 revolution.
    And I don't think ancient Persia is really relevant to today's issues (besides, your interpretation seems a bit odd regarding that as well, it was the Persian great king Cyrus after all who ended the Jews' Babylonian exile).

    Iran and Israel maintained quite friendly relations before the 1979 revolution.

    Because the Shah was a sellout. The Iranian people have always been ferociously hostile to the Jews.

    Funny, Judaism seemed to get along fine without it for quite a few centuries.

    Are you referring to the centuries where every major Jewish scholar said that the Messiah would restore the Land of Israel to the Jewish people and where Maimonides, considered by many to be the most important Jewish scholar ever (not by me though), explicitly said that not only did the Land need to be conquered but that the Palestinians needed to be dispossessed from it?

    Of course, if your point is just that the Torah is so strong and holy that it is able to maintain the Jewish people even when they are dispersed and powerless, I totally agree with you. Are you planning on becoming a Noahide?

    German Reader: You are kinda losing me. Are you saying that the US should not maintain it’s alliance with Saudi Arabia? The Saudis have been good allies to the US for 70 years now. I really don’t care about Saudi Arabia but I don’t see why strengthening the US’s closest ally in the region is bad for the US. Bad for Iran, sure, but I just don’t see how it is bad for America.

    I get why people don’t want the US mucking around in the region. I don’t really think it’s a big deal but I understand people who do. What I don’t get is why people don’t think the US shouldn’t support and good and loyal ally like Saudi Arabia… other than that doing so is bad for Iran.

    One other thing that frustrates me is that the US is not getting credit for scaling back it’s involvement in the ME. The US is way less involved today than it was in the early 00s and even an operation like was done in Libya is unthinkable now. The trend is clearly towards US disengagement from the region but instead of getting credit all I hear is a bunch of complaining that the US isn’t disengaging rapidly enough.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    German Reader: You are kinda losing me. Are you saying that the US should not maintain it’s alliance with Saudi Arabia? The Saudis have been good allies to the US for 70 years now.
     
    Good allies??? Those primitive assholes are the major force behind the ideology of the 9/11 perpetrators, and countless other jihadis who have killed Westerners. Yes, they gave support for fighting the "evil" Soviet union, but they did so for their own reasons, not out of love for the US or for Europe. Their entire world view which they're spreading with their ill-deserved wealth is a threat to the civilized world and it's unfortunate that due to pragmatic considerations Saudi-Arabia can't be dealt with in a brutal and decisive way.
    And the only rational reason for continuing the "alliance" with that country imo is the fear that freed from the constraints of that alliance (if there are any) Saudi-Arabia might become even more dangerous and anti-Western, or that the royal family might be overthrown and be replaced by an even worse, IS-like regime.
    Sorry, I really don't get your positive views of that country...we'll just have to agree to disagree about this.
    , @Randal

    Of course, if your point is just that the Torah is so strong and holy that it is able to maintain the Jewish people even when they are dispersed and powerless, I totally agree with you.
     
    Well, allowing for the slightly different spin, yes.

    Religions don't need dedicated nation states to survive, or even to prosper.

    One other thing that frustrates me is that the US is not getting credit for scaling back it’s involvement in the ME. The US is way less involved today than it was in the early 00s and even an operation like was done in Libya is unthinkable now. The trend is clearly towards US disengagement from the region but instead of getting credit all I hear is a bunch of complaining that the US isn’t disengaging rapidly enough.
     
    LOL! So your argument is that because the US regime was much more heavily involved in the region, in military terms, when it was actively engaged in the military invasion and occupation of a major country in the region than it is today, that we should now pretend the US's behaviour is somehow getting better? Even as it pumps weapons to the major global state sponsor of terrorism (Saudi Arabia) and assists with its war on Yemen, continues to massively subsidise its other client state in the region (Israel), engages in an ongoing effort to use terrorists to regime change a rival state (Syria) of the aforementioned clients, and seemingly encourages the Saudis to engage in a powerplay against an uppity rival (Qatar).

    The idea that the US is "scaling back its involvement in the ME" is, frankly, laughable.

    And it's painfully obvious, for all your protestations, that the only reason there is no stomach for an attack on Iran in Washington is that it's too soon after the strategic defeat in Iraq for it to be safe to try to manufacture popular consent for that war. It's obvious that many of the same people and organisations who wanted Tehran to be next after Baghdad, still pursue that objective.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. @for-the-record
    Iran and Israel maintained quite friendly relations before the 1979 revolution.

    And post-1979 during the Iran-Iraq War:

    According to a study conducted by the Tel Aviv Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), Israel supplied Iran with arms totaling $500 million (365 million euros) in the first three years of the war.

    Political scandal

    According to Fürtig, "Things were not looking good for Iran in the war with Iraq, partly because 90 percent of Iran's armaments had been acquired in the US during the Shah era." Those supplies were running out: "Iran was desperate for new suppliers prepared to provide US weaponry." Israel's offer was just what Iran needed.

    Ayatollah Khomeini returned the favor when rumors started that Iraq was working on a nuclear bomb - a threat neither Jerusalem nor Tehran could accept. Iran's intelligence agency passed on valuable information to the Israeli air force, which bombed Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981, setting back the suspected Iraqi nuclear program by years.

    Such secret cooperation was highly sensitive, says Fürtig, "and both sides tried to keep it under wraps. Neither Iran nor Israel wanted this to become public knowledge."

    In November 1986, the Iran-Contra affair hit the United States: senior administration officials had secretly sold thousands of anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles to Tehran and used proceeds from the weapons sales to fund rightwing Contra rebels in Nicaragua. Israel was significantly involved in the transactions.
     
    http://www.dw.com/en/iran-und-israel-the-best-of-enemies/a-17437981

    Thanks, interesting, I hadn’t known all of that.
    Admittedly I don’t have personal experience of the region, but I find the idea that Iran and Israel have to be mortal enemies forever pretty strange. From what I’ve read, Iranians are actually one of the less anti-Jewish peoples in the Mideast, and despite the regime’s propaganda I’d suppose the Palestine issue is less important for Iranians than for Sunni Arabs.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    despite the regime’s propaganda I’d suppose the Palestine issue is less important for Iranians than for Sunni Arabs
     
    There's popular sympathy throughout the region for the fellow muslim victims of Israel, but the Arab countries have largely had it beaten out of their leaders, in particular, and to a lesser extent their people, by repeated defeats and by US pressure and bribery.

    The issue for Iran is complicated by their defence of the Lebanese shia against Israeli aggression and interference in Lebanon since the 1980s. That's a much closer relationship than with the Palestinians.

    And that's the real reason why Israel (and those loyal to Israel) want to see Iran destroyed.
    , @anon
    the Iran thing isn't about the Palestinians it's about the shia groups north of Israel
    , @for-the-record
    From what I’ve read, Iranians are actually one of the less anti-Jewish peoples in the Mideast ...

    Jewish life in Iran was 'always better than in Europe'

    DW: How is life as a Jew in the Islamic Republic?

    Siamak Morsadegh: It's a lot better than many people think. Jews are a recognized minority here, so we can practice our religion freely. We have more than 20 working synagogues in Tehran and at least five kosher butcheries. In some European countries that is not allowed because of animal rights. In Iran, it is.

    Generally speaking, the Jews' condition in Iran has always been better than in Europe. In our country's history, there was never a time when all Iranians had the same religion, race or language, so there is a high degree of tolerance. Jews and Muslims respect each other, but at the same time, we know there are differences. So the rate of intermarriage between Jews and other groups in Iran is the lowest one in the world, it's less than 0.1 percent.

     

    http://www.dw.com/en/jewish-life-in-iran-was-always-better-than-in-europe/a-38847143
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. Randal says:
    @for-the-record
    it’s just possible with Trump that he actually is so profoundly ignorant about world affairs and even his own country’s activities that he actually doesn’t understand the irony in his statement.

    I don't think there is any doubt that this is the case. He has been very consistent with regard to Iran as being a (or perhaps the) major source of terrorism and instability in the region.

    It’s difficult for me to really grasp that kind of depth of ignorance about world affairs, particularly in someone as evidently intelligent and able (in his own sphere) as Trump, but I suppose the distinction between ignorance and intelligence should always be born in mind. When, as Trump probably has, you have gotten all your information about world affairs from the news organisations and from conversations with fellow members of the elite and the tools they use to manipulate opinion, I suppose it’s not that hard to understand.

    I doubt Trump has ever read a history book in his life.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. @Greasy William

    Iran and Israel maintained quite friendly relations before the 1979 revolution.
     
    Because the Shah was a sellout. The Iranian people have always been ferociously hostile to the Jews.

    Funny, Judaism seemed to get along fine without it for quite a few centuries.
     
    Are you referring to the centuries where every major Jewish scholar said that the Messiah would restore the Land of Israel to the Jewish people and where Maimonides, considered by many to be the most important Jewish scholar ever (not by me though), explicitly said that not only did the Land need to be conquered but that the Palestinians needed to be dispossessed from it?

    Of course, if your point is just that the Torah is so strong and holy that it is able to maintain the Jewish people even when they are dispersed and powerless, I totally agree with you. Are you planning on becoming a Noahide?

    German Reader: You are kinda losing me. Are you saying that the US should not maintain it's alliance with Saudi Arabia? The Saudis have been good allies to the US for 70 years now. I really don't care about Saudi Arabia but I don't see why strengthening the US's closest ally in the region is bad for the US. Bad for Iran, sure, but I just don't see how it is bad for America.

    I get why people don't want the US mucking around in the region. I don't really think it's a big deal but I understand people who do. What I don't get is why people don't think the US shouldn't support and good and loyal ally like Saudi Arabia... other than that doing so is bad for Iran.

    One other thing that frustrates me is that the US is not getting credit for scaling back it's involvement in the ME. The US is way less involved today than it was in the early 00s and even an operation like was done in Libya is unthinkable now. The trend is clearly towards US disengagement from the region but instead of getting credit all I hear is a bunch of complaining that the US isn't disengaging rapidly enough.

    German Reader: You are kinda losing me. Are you saying that the US should not maintain it’s alliance with Saudi Arabia? The Saudis have been good allies to the US for 70 years now.

    Good allies??? Those primitive assholes are the major force behind the ideology of the 9/11 perpetrators, and countless other jihadis who have killed Westerners. Yes, they gave support for fighting the “evil” Soviet union, but they did so for their own reasons, not out of love for the US or for Europe. Their entire world view which they’re spreading with their ill-deserved wealth is a threat to the civilized world and it’s unfortunate that due to pragmatic considerations Saudi-Arabia can’t be dealt with in a brutal and decisive way.
    And the only rational reason for continuing the “alliance” with that country imo is the fear that freed from the constraints of that alliance (if there are any) Saudi-Arabia might become even more dangerous and anti-Western, or that the royal family might be overthrown and be replaced by an even worse, IS-like regime.
    Sorry, I really don’t get your positive views of that country…we’ll just have to agree to disagree about this.

    Read More
    • Replies: @E
    The real reason for the close American alliance with the Saudis is that they're the main reason your dollar remains the world's reserve currency. When the US dollar went off the gold standard in the 1970s, Nixon sent a then-secret (now declassified) mission to the Saudis to save the US economy and superpower status. Since then, the Saudis ensure that oil can only be bought with US dollars on the world markets (countries that try to do otherwise, like Iraq and Libya did by trying to sell in euros and gold respectively, get brutally destroyed). In return, the US defends the Saudis and either supports or turns a blind eye toward all of their political and ideological projects. You get the occasional blow-back like 9/11, but it can't compare to the enormous advantages the alliance gives the US, by allowing you all to vastly improve your purchasing power, since your country can continue running up endless debt while controlling the interest rate at which it's paid back (which you constantly lower, making it more like "tribute" than "debt").

    That the vital importance of this alliance is not understood by American voters, who are generally, like yourself, ignorant of the reasons behind it, suggests to me that your Deep State elites believe that it's not necessary to explain it to the public because ordinary voters have zero influence on what the US does in foreign policy anyway.

    EDIT: Sorry, just noticed that you're German. Well, your country's under US occupation, so you have even less say...

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. Randal says:
    @German_reader
    Thanks, interesting, I hadn't known all of that.
    Admittedly I don't have personal experience of the region, but I find the idea that Iran and Israel have to be mortal enemies forever pretty strange. From what I've read, Iranians are actually one of the less anti-Jewish peoples in the Mideast, and despite the regime's propaganda I'd suppose the Palestine issue is less important for Iranians than for Sunni Arabs.

    despite the regime’s propaganda I’d suppose the Palestine issue is less important for Iranians than for Sunni Arabs

    There’s popular sympathy throughout the region for the fellow muslim victims of Israel, but the Arab countries have largely had it beaten out of their leaders, in particular, and to a lesser extent their people, by repeated defeats and by US pressure and bribery.

    The issue for Iran is complicated by their defence of the Lebanese shia against Israeli aggression and interference in Lebanon since the 1980s. That’s a much closer relationship than with the Palestinians.

    And that’s the real reason why Israel (and those loyal to Israel) want to see Iran destroyed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. Mr. Hack says:
    @Boris N
    Да даже так, а что это решает/меняет? Ты с какой целью с этой новостью носишься? Кара-Мурза попросил его пропиарить?

    In case you haven’t noticed, this is an ‘Open thread’ meaning that just about anything is game to discuss. Karlin himself writes about three different topics in his short thread: 1) Jeremy Corbin; Saudi Arabia/Qatar,and even comparing Moscow to St. Petersburg. No need to write to me in Russian, as that isn’t my native language, and this is predominantly an English language website

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. Randal says:
    @Greasy William

    Iran and Israel maintained quite friendly relations before the 1979 revolution.
     
    Because the Shah was a sellout. The Iranian people have always been ferociously hostile to the Jews.

    Funny, Judaism seemed to get along fine without it for quite a few centuries.
     
    Are you referring to the centuries where every major Jewish scholar said that the Messiah would restore the Land of Israel to the Jewish people and where Maimonides, considered by many to be the most important Jewish scholar ever (not by me though), explicitly said that not only did the Land need to be conquered but that the Palestinians needed to be dispossessed from it?

    Of course, if your point is just that the Torah is so strong and holy that it is able to maintain the Jewish people even when they are dispersed and powerless, I totally agree with you. Are you planning on becoming a Noahide?

    German Reader: You are kinda losing me. Are you saying that the US should not maintain it's alliance with Saudi Arabia? The Saudis have been good allies to the US for 70 years now. I really don't care about Saudi Arabia but I don't see why strengthening the US's closest ally in the region is bad for the US. Bad for Iran, sure, but I just don't see how it is bad for America.

    I get why people don't want the US mucking around in the region. I don't really think it's a big deal but I understand people who do. What I don't get is why people don't think the US shouldn't support and good and loyal ally like Saudi Arabia... other than that doing so is bad for Iran.

    One other thing that frustrates me is that the US is not getting credit for scaling back it's involvement in the ME. The US is way less involved today than it was in the early 00s and even an operation like was done in Libya is unthinkable now. The trend is clearly towards US disengagement from the region but instead of getting credit all I hear is a bunch of complaining that the US isn't disengaging rapidly enough.

    Of course, if your point is just that the Torah is so strong and holy that it is able to maintain the Jewish people even when they are dispersed and powerless, I totally agree with you.

    Well, allowing for the slightly different spin, yes.

    Religions don’t need dedicated nation states to survive, or even to prosper.

    One other thing that frustrates me is that the US is not getting credit for scaling back it’s involvement in the ME. The US is way less involved today than it was in the early 00s and even an operation like was done in Libya is unthinkable now. The trend is clearly towards US disengagement from the region but instead of getting credit all I hear is a bunch of complaining that the US isn’t disengaging rapidly enough.

    LOL! So your argument is that because the US regime was much more heavily involved in the region, in military terms, when it was actively engaged in the military invasion and occupation of a major country in the region than it is today, that we should now pretend the US’s behaviour is somehow getting better? Even as it pumps weapons to the major global state sponsor of terrorism (Saudi Arabia) and assists with its war on Yemen, continues to massively subsidise its other client state in the region (Israel), engages in an ongoing effort to use terrorists to regime change a rival state (Syria) of the aforementioned clients, and seemingly encourages the Saudis to engage in a powerplay against an uppity rival (Qatar).

    The idea that the US is “scaling back its involvement in the ME” is, frankly, laughable.

    And it’s painfully obvious, for all your protestations, that the only reason there is no stomach for an attack on Iran in Washington is that it’s too soon after the strategic defeat in Iraq for it to be safe to try to manufacture popular consent for that war. It’s obvious that many of the same people and organisations who wanted Tehran to be next after Baghdad, still pursue that objective.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greasy William

    It’s obvious that many of the same people and organisations who wanted Tehran to be next after Baghdad, still pursue that objective.
     
    It's also obvious that the US isn't going to do what those people want. Your side keeps bringing it up but there isn't going to be a US attack against Iran. It wasn't going to happen anyway but the Iranian nuclear agreement makes that totally impossible.

    The US made the Iran agreement even though Israel and the Gulf Arabs screamed bloody murder. The US is leaving the region and everybody can see that but you. But it is going to take decades, not days. Sorry if that isn't fast enough for you.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. @Randal

    Of course, if your point is just that the Torah is so strong and holy that it is able to maintain the Jewish people even when they are dispersed and powerless, I totally agree with you.
     
    Well, allowing for the slightly different spin, yes.

    Religions don't need dedicated nation states to survive, or even to prosper.

    One other thing that frustrates me is that the US is not getting credit for scaling back it’s involvement in the ME. The US is way less involved today than it was in the early 00s and even an operation like was done in Libya is unthinkable now. The trend is clearly towards US disengagement from the region but instead of getting credit all I hear is a bunch of complaining that the US isn’t disengaging rapidly enough.
     
    LOL! So your argument is that because the US regime was much more heavily involved in the region, in military terms, when it was actively engaged in the military invasion and occupation of a major country in the region than it is today, that we should now pretend the US's behaviour is somehow getting better? Even as it pumps weapons to the major global state sponsor of terrorism (Saudi Arabia) and assists with its war on Yemen, continues to massively subsidise its other client state in the region (Israel), engages in an ongoing effort to use terrorists to regime change a rival state (Syria) of the aforementioned clients, and seemingly encourages the Saudis to engage in a powerplay against an uppity rival (Qatar).

    The idea that the US is "scaling back its involvement in the ME" is, frankly, laughable.

    And it's painfully obvious, for all your protestations, that the only reason there is no stomach for an attack on Iran in Washington is that it's too soon after the strategic defeat in Iraq for it to be safe to try to manufacture popular consent for that war. It's obvious that many of the same people and organisations who wanted Tehran to be next after Baghdad, still pursue that objective.

    It’s obvious that many of the same people and organisations who wanted Tehran to be next after Baghdad, still pursue that objective.

    It’s also obvious that the US isn’t going to do what those people want. Your side keeps bringing it up but there isn’t going to be a US attack against Iran. It wasn’t going to happen anyway but the Iranian nuclear agreement makes that totally impossible.

    The US made the Iran agreement even though Israel and the Gulf Arabs screamed bloody murder. The US is leaving the region and everybody can see that but you. But it is going to take decades, not days. Sorry if that isn’t fast enough for you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    It’s also obvious that the US isn’t going to do what those people want.
     
    For the moment, they are discredited. But the deep pocketed backers who put them where they are haven't gone anywhere, and their discredited mouthpieces will be replaced in due course by others with the same objectives but without the embarrassing track record. And people will forget, as they always do, the costs of war, and will again be tempted and herded by the lies of the advocates of interventionist war.

    Your side keeps bringing it up but there isn’t going to be a US attack against Iran. It wasn’t going to happen anyway but the Iranian nuclear agreement makes that totally impossible.
     
    The nuclear agreement has no relevance to the prospects for a US war on Iran, except to remove (for the moment) one pretext amongst many.

    The US made the Iran agreement even though Israel and the Gulf Arabs screamed bloody murder.
     
    Because the US leadership could see clearly what everyone else in the world, except for those blinded by their own partisan interests, could see - that the attempt to bully Iran over its non-existent nuclear weapons process was discredited and counterproductive, and pointless to continue with since its primary purpose -to provide a pretext for war - was not likely to be useful for the time being.

    The US is leaving the region and everybody can see that but you. But it is going to take decades, not days. Sorry if that isn’t fast enough for you.
     
    You make an unduly pessimistic (from your perspective) extrapolation from some temporary setbacks for your side. I can understand that, since I do it myself often enough, but it's not surprising if others find it unconvincing.

    As I pointed out above, there is no reason based upon observation of current events to suppose that the US is in fact withdrawing from the ME in any meaningful sense. In fact, you should be encouraged that the worst case scenario for your side, the election of a president supposedly dedicated to "America First", has come and gone, and proven to be no great problem for the interventionists to deal with.

    Take heart. Your side still holds most of the high cards.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Boris N
    But the entire Brexit camp has never openly and seriously complained about hordes of evil Polaks who are destroying Britain (actual many on the right would approve an influx of White Christian migrants like Polaks). All they say is about Pakis and Muslims in general who mostly cannot immigrate. Just right now without any Brexit and any reforms the borders are closed for them. What could even Farage do? To close what has already been closed? How will the closing of the borders with Polaks help the problems with Muslims and Africans? With terrorism? In general I now tend to think this all hype about "open borders" and "migration rules" is some sort of sham. Your borders are not open and your rules are the strictest! They know that, but you are being duped by both the left-wing and the right-wing demagogues!

    Something similar is happening in the US, only there the culprit is illegal immigration across the southern border.
     
    Just the same. Your problems are Mexicans who do not care about immigration laws and enter illegally. You borders are closed as they can be, but they just have holes. In fact you even cannot drive to and from Canada and avoid customs. Yet all people is speaking about is evil Muslims, whose number in the USA is negligible, and yet Trump promises to make the migration laws more strict exactly because of them! How that? What else could Trump forbid that has not been forbidden by countless legislations of his predecessors? Wake up, today is not the time of Ellis Island. Just right now 99% people on Earth cannot immigrate into the USA. Even a tourist visa is not guaranteed, the refusal rate is very high for the Third World and Muslim countries. Whining about H1B is a joke. Every country has such employer sponsored visas, and the overall negative effect of H1B is negligible. Your problems obviously are not ScDs from India and China.

    All they say is about Pakis and Muslims in general who mostly cannot immigrate. Just right now without any Brexit and any reforms the borders are closed for them.

    you’re wrong.

    1) arranged marriages
    2) family reunification
    3) illegal immigration followed by a stealth amnesty

    the numbers are huge

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Boris N

    legal immigration for white people from outside the EU is hard
     
    Actually the only biggest white countries outside the EU left are Russia/Ukraine/Belarus. Plus trans-ocean faraway US/CA/AU/NZ. But do you really believe that the immigration procedure is any different (=harder) for a Russian/American than for a Pakistani/Arab?

    refugees / work permits / family unification etc is easy
     
    Actually not true.
    Refugees are constantly denied and deported.
    To get a work permit you need to get a job on the first place. How is that easy? Even in their own countries people struggle to find a job, how is it easier to find a job overseas?
    You need a family on the first place for the unification. 99% of people have no family in the UK/US.

    So the only option left is illegal immigration. Which you can do on land through the US-Mexican border, but you cannot flight illegally. You can do that as a not-returning "tourist", but has anybody said this is the problem? And you cannot fix this problem entirely anyway other than by forbidding tourism altogether. But nothing of it has to do with "open borders" or "migration rules". It's just failures of the migration/border police/service.

    do you really believe that the immigration procedure is any different (=harder) for a Russian/American than for a Pakistani/Arab?

    i know it is. the people who have the hardest time are white Australians, New Zealanders, Canadians etc of British descent – government jobs are a PC gulag where the workers have to prove they’re not racist and they do it by discriminating against white people – it’s insane but that’s how it is

    Refugees are constantly denied and deported.

    No they’re not. First. there’s a back log of cases going back years and regular quiet mass amnesties to deal with the numbers; the cases that do get investigated are very rarely denied and even when they are they are rarely deported. After a few years they get temporary legal status and a few years after that, citizenship. The UK political class have been running a stealth amnesty like this for decades which the media has covered up.

    To get a work permit you need to get a job on the first place.

    No you don’t – or rather you personally might but tens of thousands of refugees from places like Kosovo have been given work permits over the years to clear the back log of asylum claims or to clear the Calais immigrant camp when it got too big.

    Even in their own countries people struggle to find a job, how is it easier to find a job overseas?

    Some populations are totally corrupt – hint, the cousin marrying ones – and they fill the businesses they own with illegal immigrants from back home so the illegals do have a job in advance. They come on student or tourist visas and then disappear to the pre-arranged job in the shadow economy.

    (supplying the hundreds of thousands of illegal workers with cheap prostitution is one of the main drivers of the Pakistani rape gangs)

    You need a family on the first place for the unification. 99% of people have no family in the UK/US.

    illegal immigrant / refugee -> temp status -> citizenship -> family reunification

    So the only option left is illegal immigration.

    illegal immigration is initially the key because PC prevents them being deported

    arranged marriages are also a big thing though – cousin marrying cultures arrange marriages with their home village – the family of the spouse from abroad pay the family already in the UK thousands of pounds for the chance to get a UK passport as that can then lead to the whole extended family moving over through reunification

    tl;dr

    for non-white illegal immigrants / refugees or arranged marriages it’s easy and the numbers are vast

    it probably wouldn’t work for you because you’re not protected by PC – if you said you were a Ukie refugee from Donbass and got a SJW case officer then *maybe* – but the more SJW the case officer the more being white is a disadvantage

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boris N
    You've made a bunch of false assertions which are not backed by any evidence.

    Between 1994 and 2003, asylum seekers’ share of annual net migration ranged from 20% to 54% in annual data.
     

    Between 2004 and 2014, asylum ranged from 3% to 10% of net migration, and was estimated at about 7% for 2014.
     

    In 2015, 64% of initial asylum applications were refused
     
    http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migration-to-the-uk-asylum/

    Overall levels of settlement in 2016 were down more than 75% from the 2010 peak
     
    http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/settlement-in-the-uk/

    Etc.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @German_reader
    Thanks, interesting, I hadn't known all of that.
    Admittedly I don't have personal experience of the region, but I find the idea that Iran and Israel have to be mortal enemies forever pretty strange. From what I've read, Iranians are actually one of the less anti-Jewish peoples in the Mideast, and despite the regime's propaganda I'd suppose the Palestine issue is less important for Iranians than for Sunni Arabs.

    the Iran thing isn’t about the Palestinians it’s about the shia groups north of Israel

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. @German_reader
    Thanks, interesting, I hadn't known all of that.
    Admittedly I don't have personal experience of the region, but I find the idea that Iran and Israel have to be mortal enemies forever pretty strange. From what I've read, Iranians are actually one of the less anti-Jewish peoples in the Mideast, and despite the regime's propaganda I'd suppose the Palestine issue is less important for Iranians than for Sunni Arabs.

    From what I’ve read, Iranians are actually one of the less anti-Jewish peoples in the Mideast

    Jewish life in Iran was ‘always better than in Europe’

    DW: How is life as a Jew in the Islamic Republic?

    Siamak Morsadegh: It’s a lot better than many people think. Jews are a recognized minority here, so we can practice our religion freely. We have more than 20 working synagogues in Tehran and at least five kosher butcheries. In some European countries that is not allowed because of animal rights. In Iran, it is.

    Generally speaking, the Jews’ condition in Iran has always been better than in Europe. In our country’s history, there was never a time when all Iranians had the same religion, race or language, so there is a high degree of tolerance. Jews and Muslims respect each other, but at the same time, we know there are differences. So the rate of intermarriage between Jews and other groups in Iran is the lowest one in the world, it’s less than 0.1 percent.

    http://www.dw.com/en/jewish-life-in-iran-was-always-better-than-in-europe/a-38847143

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. A bit confused on my Biblical History … If the Persians and Jews really were such blood enemies, why did Cyrus the Great free them from their Babylonian Captivity?

    And is the Old Testament really so hostile to Persians?

    Though we are slaves, our God has not forsaken us in our bondage. He has shown us kindness in the sight of the kings of Persia: He has granted us new life to rebuild the house of our God and repair its ruins, and he has given us a wall of protection in Judah and Jerusalem.

    Ezra 9:9

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  127. Anon 2 says:
    @Boris N
    But the entire Brexit camp has never openly and seriously complained about hordes of evil Polaks who are destroying Britain (actual many on the right would approve an influx of White Christian migrants like Polaks). All they say is about Pakis and Muslims in general who mostly cannot immigrate. Just right now without any Brexit and any reforms the borders are closed for them. What could even Farage do? To close what has already been closed? How will the closing of the borders with Polaks help the problems with Muslims and Africans? With terrorism? In general I now tend to think this all hype about "open borders" and "migration rules" is some sort of sham. Your borders are not open and your rules are the strictest! They know that, but you are being duped by both the left-wing and the right-wing demagogues!

    Something similar is happening in the US, only there the culprit is illegal immigration across the southern border.
     
    Just the same. Your problems are Mexicans who do not care about immigration laws and enter illegally. You borders are closed as they can be, but they just have holes. In fact you even cannot drive to and from Canada and avoid customs. Yet all people is speaking about is evil Muslims, whose number in the USA is negligible, and yet Trump promises to make the migration laws more strict exactly because of them! How that? What else could Trump forbid that has not been forbidden by countless legislations of his predecessors? Wake up, today is not the time of Ellis Island. Just right now 99% people on Earth cannot immigrate into the USA. Even a tourist visa is not guaranteed, the refusal rate is very high for the Third World and Muslim countries. Whining about H1B is a joke. Every country has such employer sponsored visas, and the overall negative effect of H1B is negligible. Your problems obviously are not ScDs from India and China.

    Actually the Polish (about 900,000 of them) are regarded by many
    in Britain as a model minority. They are especially loved in Scotland,
    partly because in the 16th century Poland accepted thousands of
    religious refugees from Scotland who found refuge in Poland, and
    never went back. Thousands of people in Poland today have Scottish
    ancestry. Some people value the Polish since they belong to Western
    Christendom (High Anglican Church is not far from Catholicism), and
    can therefore reinforce Christianity in Britain against the Muslim
    onslaught. In general Poland and England have a relationship going
    back many centuries. Polish ships carrying wheat regularly visited
    England for 2-3 centuries in the 1500s-1600s. Shakespeare was kept
    well-fed by Polish wheat. There is even Poland street in London that
    goes back to the times when Polish sailors, merchants, and diplomats
    were regular visitors in England

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    Actually the Polish (about 900,000 of them) are regarded by many
    in Britain as a model minority.
     
    This is generally true, I think, and certainly it's my subjective feeling about them, both for historical reasons and because I have Polish immigrant friends here who are all good people.

    But in Resistance circles you do quite often encounter vitriolic anti-Polish feelings, from some areas that were subjected to very heavy Polish immigration.

    You can have too much even of a good thing. Immigration is always a matter of the numbers.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. So anyway, how do we feel about what happened in the UK? Is Brexit off now?

    I think best case scenario is the Tories win but do poorly enough that May has to step down. This can work to our advantage.

    This is probably the only time on any subject ever that Randal likely has a better understanding of then I do. I will defer to his judgement for the analysis of this election but don’t get used to it.

    A bit confused on my Biblical History … If the Persians and Jews really were such blood enemies, why did Cyrus the Great free them from their Babylonian Captivity?

    Because Cyrus was a sellout. There are tons of examples in history of rulers who liked the Jews even while their people hated them. Medieval Poland heaped privilege upon privilege on the Jews and you will be hard pressed to find people more hostile to the Jews than Poles are.

    Before Zionism, Jews had excellent relations with Sunni Muslims. Our relations with Shi’ite Muslims, however, were always terrible even way before Zionism was even on anybodies radar screen.

    The Torah teaches us that the Jews have 2 kinds of enemies: enemies like the Canaanites who go to war with us not out of anti semitism but rather to advance/protect their own interests and enemies like the Amalekites who attack us because they are hardwired to hate Jews. The Sunni Arabs are like the Canaanites but Iranians and Arab Christians are Amalekites.

    And I repeat, Jews categorically do not have the right to practice their religion in Iran despite what any Iranian Jew Uncle Shlomo says. They are not permitted to openly proclaim that the Land of Israel belongs to the Jewish people exclusively and that any Palestinians who do not accept Jewish sovereignty must be forcibly dispossessed. Iranian Jews are not permitted to travel to Israel or to be buried there.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    So anyway, how do we feel about what happened in the UK? Is Brexit off now?

    I think best case scenario is the Tories win but do poorly enough that May has to step down. This can work to our advantage.
     
    Hung parliament, though May seems to be clinging on this morning.

    No obviously plausible coalitions or alliances at the moment, so someone has to try a desperate rainbow coalition or a minority government. Neither seems likely to last long.

    Best money would be on another election pretty soon. Who knows where that will lead. Does seem likely May will have to go, but I don't see any remotely acceptable prospects for leadership close behind her in the "Conservative" Party.

    This is probably the only time on any subject ever that Randal likely has a better understanding of then I do. I will defer to his judgement for the analysis of this election but don’t get used to it.
     
    Generous of you, but don't count on it - I've pretty much written this election off as being between two unsupportable parties and paid it little heed. Brexit was the only important issue, and that wasn't an issue between the parties but rather one of what kind of MPs get elected to both parties' seats. We won't know until we get a vote on the topic.

    The result is potentially disastrous for Brexit, though.

    Good things, at first glance: should further discredit the Blairite wing of the Labour Party given how hysterically disloyal they've been towards Corbyn, the SNP losses in Scotland put paid to any notion that yet another referendum is needed on Scottish independence, and dual loyalty types like Finkelstein will hopefully be choking on their cornflakes.

    All in, though, it's not a ideal time for weak government.


    Jews categorically do not have the right to practice their religion in Iran despite what any Iranian Jew Uncle Shlomo says. They are not permitted to openly proclaim that the Land of Israel belongs to the Jewish people exclusively and that any Palestinians who do not accept Jewish sovereignty must be forcibly dispossessed.
     
    This kind of misplaced mis-application of religious belief to real life issues puts you in the same category as other religious nutters, such as Christians who believe they are going to be raptured in their lifetimes, muslims who believe that they can literally get to paradise by killing people, or in the imminent arrival of some hidden Mahdi, and all kinds of cultist freaks.

    No doubt it makes for easy justifications of comfortingly extreme positions, but it's literally irrational.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. ussr andy says:
    @AP

    I am currently in Saint Petersburg. I was last here in 2002. Back then I liked it more than Moscow. No longer the case.
     
    When I was in St. Peterburg for the first time, in the late 1990s, it felt like a weird mixture of Paris and Tijuana. Since then it has gotten much better.

    But Moscow is more authentically Russian.

    If there had been no Revolution, and St. Petersburg remained Russia's cultural, economic and population capital, it would have been Russia's New York, while Moscow would have been Russia's Chicago, the second city but largest real Russian (vs.international) city. I've always preferred Moscow.

    Moscow would have been Russia’s Chicago

    and who would’ve been the Italians? Uzbeks? :D

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

    I am currently in Saint Petersburg. I was last here in 2002. Back then I liked it more than Moscow. No longer the case.
     
    When I was in St. Peterburg for the first time, in the late 1990s, it felt like a weird mixture of Paris and Tijuana. Since then it has gotten much better.

    But Moscow is more authentically Russian.

    If there had been no Revolution, and St. Petersburg remained Russia's cultural, economic and population capital, it would have been Russia's New York, while Moscow would have been Russia's Chicago, the second city but largest real Russian (vs.international) city. I've always preferred Moscow.

    I suspect they would have been about equal. Moscow was matching SPB’s growth rate prior to the Revolution and was about the same size. Moscow is a natural center of gravity for the Russian economy due to its central position in the rail and water nexus of European Russia, and so if anything I think it’s relative economic weight would have increased during the 20th century, whereas SPB would have remained politically and culturally predominant.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Moscow was matching SPB’s growth rate prior to the Revolution and was about the same size.
     
    In 1914 Moscow's population was 1.7 million and St. Petersburg's population was 2.2 million. This was much closer than 1920 Chicago's 2.7 million to New York's 5.6 million though Chicago's growth rate had been much greater between 1870 and 1920 than was New York's (in 60 years, from 1860 to 1910 Chicago exploded from 112,00 people to 2.7 million).

    In the late 19th and early 20th century it was often assumed that Chicago, with a surging population and at the center of America's railroad networks, would overtake New York and become America's largest city. But it never happened, for various reasons (slower recovery from the depression, failure to get the auto industry to develop there rather than in Detroit, etc.). So America's international port city on the edge of the country kept its number 1 position.

    Who really knows what would have happened in Russia, but given that St. Petersburg was not only the center of finance but also of politics the odds of it keeping its position were probably not bad.

    Anyways, what struck me about Russia was that it seemed to be very Russian, in a way that St. Petersburg is not. A lot of visitors say the same thing about American Chicago vs. International New York.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. @Randal
    Boris Johnson? You mean the clown who gratuitously travelled to the Ukraine and absurdly "demanded" that Russia return that province to the Ukraine (against the evident will of its people), loudly praised the Saudis' war on Yemen, and all but fell over himself in his haste to applaud the disgraceful US attack on Syrian government forces?

    How would anything be significantly different, let alone substantively better, with him in charge? Marginally more entertaining, at most.

    How could it be more entertaining than this?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    How about if a Prime Minister Johnson went to Kiev and accidentally blurted out that "Ukraine should be returned to Russia"? (Or perhaps, given his family background, to Turkey).

    Having Johnson in charge would be like having Trump in charge in the US - endlessly entertaining but no substantive changes to anything that matters.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. E says:
    @German_reader

    German Reader: You are kinda losing me. Are you saying that the US should not maintain it’s alliance with Saudi Arabia? The Saudis have been good allies to the US for 70 years now.
     
    Good allies??? Those primitive assholes are the major force behind the ideology of the 9/11 perpetrators, and countless other jihadis who have killed Westerners. Yes, they gave support for fighting the "evil" Soviet union, but they did so for their own reasons, not out of love for the US or for Europe. Their entire world view which they're spreading with their ill-deserved wealth is a threat to the civilized world and it's unfortunate that due to pragmatic considerations Saudi-Arabia can't be dealt with in a brutal and decisive way.
    And the only rational reason for continuing the "alliance" with that country imo is the fear that freed from the constraints of that alliance (if there are any) Saudi-Arabia might become even more dangerous and anti-Western, or that the royal family might be overthrown and be replaced by an even worse, IS-like regime.
    Sorry, I really don't get your positive views of that country...we'll just have to agree to disagree about this.

    The real reason for the close American alliance with the Saudis is that they’re the main reason your dollar remains the world’s reserve currency. When the US dollar went off the gold standard in the 1970s, Nixon sent a then-secret (now declassified) mission to the Saudis to save the US economy and superpower status. Since then, the Saudis ensure that oil can only be bought with US dollars on the world markets (countries that try to do otherwise, like Iraq and Libya did by trying to sell in euros and gold respectively, get brutally destroyed). In return, the US defends the Saudis and either supports or turns a blind eye toward all of their political and ideological projects. You get the occasional blow-back like 9/11, but it can’t compare to the enormous advantages the alliance gives the US, by allowing you all to vastly improve your purchasing power, since your country can continue running up endless debt while controlling the interest rate at which it’s paid back (which you constantly lower, making it more like “tribute” than “debt”).

    That the vital importance of this alliance is not understood by American voters, who are generally, like yourself, ignorant of the reasons behind it, suggests to me that your Deep State elites believe that it’s not necessary to explain it to the public because ordinary voters have zero influence on what the US does in foreign policy anyway.

    EDIT: Sorry, just noticed that you’re German. Well, your country’s under US occupation, so you have even less say…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. Randal says:
    @Greasy William
    So anyway, how do we feel about what happened in the UK? Is Brexit off now?

    I think best case scenario is the Tories win but do poorly enough that May has to step down. This can work to our advantage.

    This is probably the only time on any subject ever that Randal likely has a better understanding of then I do. I will defer to his judgement for the analysis of this election but don't get used to it.

    A bit confused on my Biblical History … If the Persians and Jews really were such blood enemies, why did Cyrus the Great free them from their Babylonian Captivity?
     
    Because Cyrus was a sellout. There are tons of examples in history of rulers who liked the Jews even while their people hated them. Medieval Poland heaped privilege upon privilege on the Jews and you will be hard pressed to find people more hostile to the Jews than Poles are.

    Before Zionism, Jews had excellent relations with Sunni Muslims. Our relations with Shi'ite Muslims, however, were always terrible even way before Zionism was even on anybodies radar screen.

    The Torah teaches us that the Jews have 2 kinds of enemies: enemies like the Canaanites who go to war with us not out of anti semitism but rather to advance/protect their own interests and enemies like the Amalekites who attack us because they are hardwired to hate Jews. The Sunni Arabs are like the Canaanites but Iranians and Arab Christians are Amalekites.

    And I repeat, Jews categorically do not have the right to practice their religion in Iran despite what any Iranian Jew Uncle Shlomo says. They are not permitted to openly proclaim that the Land of Israel belongs to the Jewish people exclusively and that any Palestinians who do not accept Jewish sovereignty must be forcibly dispossessed. Iranian Jews are not permitted to travel to Israel or to be buried there.

    So anyway, how do we feel about what happened in the UK? Is Brexit off now?

    I think best case scenario is the Tories win but do poorly enough that May has to step down. This can work to our advantage.

    Hung parliament, though May seems to be clinging on this morning.

    No obviously plausible coalitions or alliances at the moment, so someone has to try a desperate rainbow coalition or a minority government. Neither seems likely to last long.

    Best money would be on another election pretty soon. Who knows where that will lead. Does seem likely May will have to go, but I don’t see any remotely acceptable prospects for leadership close behind her in the “Conservative” Party.

    This is probably the only time on any subject ever that Randal likely has a better understanding of then I do. I will defer to his judgement for the analysis of this election but don’t get used to it.

    Generous of you, but don’t count on it – I’ve pretty much written this election off as being between two unsupportable parties and paid it little heed. Brexit was the only important issue, and that wasn’t an issue between the parties but rather one of what kind of MPs get elected to both parties’ seats. We won’t know until we get a vote on the topic.

    The result is potentially disastrous for Brexit, though.

    Good things, at first glance: should further discredit the Blairite wing of the Labour Party given how hysterically disloyal they’ve been towards Corbyn, the SNP losses in Scotland put paid to any notion that yet another referendum is needed on Scottish independence, and dual loyalty types like Finkelstein will hopefully be choking on their cornflakes.

    All in, though, it’s not a ideal time for weak government.

    Jews categorically do not have the right to practice their religion in Iran despite what any Iranian Jew Uncle Shlomo says. They are not permitted to openly proclaim that the Land of Israel belongs to the Jewish people exclusively and that any Palestinians who do not accept Jewish sovereignty must be forcibly dispossessed.

    This kind of misplaced mis-application of religious belief to real life issues puts you in the same category as other religious nutters, such as Christians who believe they are going to be raptured in their lifetimes, muslims who believe that they can literally get to paradise by killing people, or in the imminent arrival of some hidden Mahdi, and all kinds of cultist freaks.

    No doubt it makes for easy justifications of comfortingly extreme positions, but it’s literally irrational.

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

    On the topic of immigration to Britain, I see The American Conservative has for some reason reposted to its website front page what is surely amongst the best essays ever published in a mainstream outlet on the topic:

    Unmaking England

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  135. Randal says:
    @Greasy William

    It’s obvious that many of the same people and organisations who wanted Tehran to be next after Baghdad, still pursue that objective.
     
    It's also obvious that the US isn't going to do what those people want. Your side keeps bringing it up but there isn't going to be a US attack against Iran. It wasn't going to happen anyway but the Iranian nuclear agreement makes that totally impossible.

    The US made the Iran agreement even though Israel and the Gulf Arabs screamed bloody murder. The US is leaving the region and everybody can see that but you. But it is going to take decades, not days. Sorry if that isn't fast enough for you.

    It’s also obvious that the US isn’t going to do what those people want.

    For the moment, they are discredited. But the deep pocketed backers who put them where they are haven’t gone anywhere, and their discredited mouthpieces will be replaced in due course by others with the same objectives but without the embarrassing track record. And people will forget, as they always do, the costs of war, and will again be tempted and herded by the lies of the advocates of interventionist war.

    Your side keeps bringing it up but there isn’t going to be a US attack against Iran. It wasn’t going to happen anyway but the Iranian nuclear agreement makes that totally impossible.

    The nuclear agreement has no relevance to the prospects for a US war on Iran, except to remove (for the moment) one pretext amongst many.

    The US made the Iran agreement even though Israel and the Gulf Arabs screamed bloody murder.

    Because the US leadership could see clearly what everyone else in the world, except for those blinded by their own partisan interests, could see – that the attempt to bully Iran over its non-existent nuclear weapons process was discredited and counterproductive, and pointless to continue with since its primary purpose -to provide a pretext for war – was not likely to be useful for the time being.

    The US is leaving the region and everybody can see that but you. But it is going to take decades, not days. Sorry if that isn’t fast enough for you.

    You make an unduly pessimistic (from your perspective) extrapolation from some temporary setbacks for your side. I can understand that, since I do it myself often enough, but it’s not surprising if others find it unconvincing.

    As I pointed out above, there is no reason based upon observation of current events to suppose that the US is in fact withdrawing from the ME in any meaningful sense. In fact, you should be encouraged that the worst case scenario for your side, the election of a president supposedly dedicated to “America First”, has come and gone, and proven to be no great problem for the interventionists to deal with.

    Take heart. Your side still holds most of the high cards.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greasy William

    You make an unduly pessimistic (from your perspective) extrapolation from some temporary setbacks for your side.
     
    Lol wut? I want the US out of the region. It's the Israeli Left that is the most upset about the decline of US influence. And the absolute last thing I want to see is the idiot mullahs replaced with more competent (and even more anti semitic) secular nationalists.

    Like any righteous person, I take joy in the misfortune of Syrians, Iranians and Paleocons, but at the end of the day I want the US out. The difference is that when the US does leave, I will be happy but you will be complaining that the US isn't doing enough to save Israel's enemies.

    Even if there was a coup in the US where neocons gained absolute power, the US's global influence is waining. This is without even taking into account that internal tensions are likely to ultimately end the very existence of the United States as a single country. The US will ultimately leave the region not by choice but because they have to.

    This kind of misplaced mis-application of religious belief to real life issues puts you in the same category as other religious nutters
     
    So Judaism as it has just been "mis applied" for the last 3000 years? All of those rabbis who from all over the world in all of the generations who said that the Jews must have sovereignty over the Land of Israel and that the Palestinians needed to be expelled were just doing it wrong? Please tell me more about proper Judaism.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. Randal says:
    @Daniil Adamov
    How could it be more entertaining than this?

    How about if a Prime Minister Johnson went to Kiev and accidentally blurted out that “Ukraine should be returned to Russia”? (Or perhaps, given his family background, to Turkey).

    Having Johnson in charge would be like having Trump in charge in the US – endlessly entertaining but no substantive changes to anything that matters.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. Randal says:
    @Anon 2
    Actually the Polish (about 900,000 of them) are regarded by many
    in Britain as a model minority. They are especially loved in Scotland,
    partly because in the 16th century Poland accepted thousands of
    religious refugees from Scotland who found refuge in Poland, and
    never went back. Thousands of people in Poland today have Scottish
    ancestry. Some people value the Polish since they belong to Western
    Christendom (High Anglican Church is not far from Catholicism), and
    can therefore reinforce Christianity in Britain against the Muslim
    onslaught. In general Poland and England have a relationship going
    back many centuries. Polish ships carrying wheat regularly visited
    England for 2-3 centuries in the 1500s-1600s. Shakespeare was kept
    well-fed by Polish wheat. There is even Poland street in London that
    goes back to the times when Polish sailors, merchants, and diplomats
    were regular visitors in England

    Actually the Polish (about 900,000 of them) are regarded by many
    in Britain as a model minority.

    This is generally true, I think, and certainly it’s my subjective feeling about them, both for historical reasons and because I have Polish immigrant friends here who are all good people.

    But in Resistance circles you do quite often encounter vitriolic anti-Polish feelings, from some areas that were subjected to very heavy Polish immigration.

    You can have too much even of a good thing. Immigration is always a matter of the numbers.

    Read More
    • Agree: Anon 2
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    in Resistance circles you do quite often encounter vitriolic anti-Polish feelings, from some areas that were subjected to very heavy Polish immigration.
     
    Also from people who are too cowardly to primarily attack Muslims and Africans, or are trying (in vain) to get some anti-racist cred for primarily attacking white immigrants.

    But in general I agree with you - as history shows, even relatively similar peoples often get into violent conflict once they start settling each other's lands.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. reiner Tor says: • Website
    @Randal

    Actually the Polish (about 900,000 of them) are regarded by many
    in Britain as a model minority.
     
    This is generally true, I think, and certainly it's my subjective feeling about them, both for historical reasons and because I have Polish immigrant friends here who are all good people.

    But in Resistance circles you do quite often encounter vitriolic anti-Polish feelings, from some areas that were subjected to very heavy Polish immigration.

    You can have too much even of a good thing. Immigration is always a matter of the numbers.

    in Resistance circles you do quite often encounter vitriolic anti-Polish feelings, from some areas that were subjected to very heavy Polish immigration.

    Also from people who are too cowardly to primarily attack Muslims and Africans, or are trying (in vain) to get some anti-racist cred for primarily attacking white immigrants.

    But in general I agree with you – as history shows, even relatively similar peoples often get into violent conflict once they start settling each other’s lands.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    Also from people who are too cowardly to primarily attack Muslims and Africans, or are trying (in vain) to get some anti-racist cred for primarily attacking white immigrants.
     
    Why would anyone attack Muslims and Africans in the first place, when Muslims and Africans (per se) have no effect on their well-being? Very few exhibit your virulent racist tendencies.

    I have a friend, born and raised in London to Jamaican parents. I asked him once if he experiences any day-to-day hostility there, and he said: 'as soon as I open my mouth and start speaking, immediately they realize that I'm one of them, and there is no problem.' And that's that: people object to mass-immigration when it's detrimental to their economic interests, but normal people don't judge others based on their clothes or skin color. And even when they object to mass-immigration, the smarter ones don't channel it into hating Polaks; what they hate is their own government.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. AP says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    I suspect they would have been about equal. Moscow was matching SPB's growth rate prior to the Revolution and was about the same size. Moscow is a natural center of gravity for the Russian economy due to its central position in the rail and water nexus of European Russia, and so if anything I think it's relative economic weight would have increased during the 20th century, whereas SPB would have remained politically and culturally predominant.

    Moscow was matching SPB’s growth rate prior to the Revolution and was about the same size.

    In 1914 Moscow’s population was 1.7 million and St. Petersburg’s population was 2.2 million. This was much closer than 1920 Chicago’s 2.7 million to New York’s 5.6 million though Chicago’s growth rate had been much greater between 1870 and 1920 than was New York’s (in 60 years, from 1860 to 1910 Chicago exploded from 112,00 people to 2.7 million).

    In the late 19th and early 20th century it was often assumed that Chicago, with a surging population and at the center of America’s railroad networks, would overtake New York and become America’s largest city. But it never happened, for various reasons (slower recovery from the depression, failure to get the auto industry to develop there rather than in Detroit, etc.). So America’s international port city on the edge of the country kept its number 1 position.

    Who really knows what would have happened in Russia, but given that St. Petersburg was not only the center of finance but also of politics the odds of it keeping its position were probably not bad.

    Anyways, what struck me about Russia was that it seemed to be very Russian, in a way that St. Petersburg is not. A lot of visitors say the same thing about American Chicago vs. International New York.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. @reiner Tor

    in Resistance circles you do quite often encounter vitriolic anti-Polish feelings, from some areas that were subjected to very heavy Polish immigration.
     
    Also from people who are too cowardly to primarily attack Muslims and Africans, or are trying (in vain) to get some anti-racist cred for primarily attacking white immigrants.

    But in general I agree with you - as history shows, even relatively similar peoples often get into violent conflict once they start settling each other's lands.

    Also from people who are too cowardly to primarily attack Muslims and Africans, or are trying (in vain) to get some anti-racist cred for primarily attacking white immigrants.

    Why would anyone attack Muslims and Africans in the first place, when Muslims and Africans (per se) have no effect on their well-being? Very few exhibit your virulent racist tendencies.

    I have a friend, born and raised in London to Jamaican parents. I asked him once if he experiences any day-to-day hostility there, and he said: ‘as soon as I open my mouth and start speaking, immediately they realize that I’m one of them, and there is no problem.’ And that’s that: people object to mass-immigration when it’s detrimental to their economic interests, but normal people don’t judge others based on their clothes or skin color. And even when they object to mass-immigration, the smarter ones don’t channel it into hating Polaks; what they hate is their own government.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    I don't think reiner meant physically attack.

    And that’s that: people object to mass-immigration when it’s detrimental to their economic interests
     
    There are other important things in life besides economics.

    People object to mass immigration also when it affects their communities by importing division and strife where formerly there was cultural and racial homogeneity, or by turning them into uncomfortable minorities in the place their forefathers lived for generations.

    but normal people don’t judge others based on their clothes or skin color.
     
    That's exactly what normal people do judge others by, and rightly so.

    A sensible person in a healthy society is not dogmatic about those initial judgements and does not act precipitately or violently upon them, and is open to their being overturned by additional evidence about any particular individual, but such detailed information is by definition only available about a few.

    Prejudice is a rational application of judgement to a situation of limited knowledge.

    And even when they object to mass-immigration, the smarter ones don’t channel it into hating Polaks; what they hate is their own government.
     
    Society, of course, is not made up just of the smarter ones.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. Randal says:

    So May is carrying on with a minority government. We shall see how long this lasts.

    There are 643 MPs (650 less 7 Sinn Fein foreign loyalty abstainers).

    She has 318 MPs (perhaps 319 if the last constituency to report goes her way, which it quite likely will).

    Leaves her 3 or 4 short of a majority provided she can maintain party discipline.

    The only party that will work with her reasonably consistently (and they have formally agreed to do so) is the DUP, with 10 MPs, which gives her a slim margin. But any issue generating more than half a dozen rebels will leave her needing cross party support (from Labour, LibDems, Scottish/Welsh nationalists or 1 Green MP).

    My money would be on another election within 12 months at most. Quite possibly a lot sooner.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  142. Randal says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    Also from people who are too cowardly to primarily attack Muslims and Africans, or are trying (in vain) to get some anti-racist cred for primarily attacking white immigrants.
     
    Why would anyone attack Muslims and Africans in the first place, when Muslims and Africans (per se) have no effect on their well-being? Very few exhibit your virulent racist tendencies.

    I have a friend, born and raised in London to Jamaican parents. I asked him once if he experiences any day-to-day hostility there, and he said: 'as soon as I open my mouth and start speaking, immediately they realize that I'm one of them, and there is no problem.' And that's that: people object to mass-immigration when it's detrimental to their economic interests, but normal people don't judge others based on their clothes or skin color. And even when they object to mass-immigration, the smarter ones don't channel it into hating Polaks; what they hate is their own government.

    I don’t think reiner meant physically attack.

    And that’s that: people object to mass-immigration when it’s detrimental to their economic interests

    There are other important things in life besides economics.

    People object to mass immigration also when it affects their communities by importing division and strife where formerly there was cultural and racial homogeneity, or by turning them into uncomfortable minorities in the place their forefathers lived for generations.

    but normal people don’t judge others based on their clothes or skin color.

    That’s exactly what normal people do judge others by, and rightly so.

    A sensible person in a healthy society is not dogmatic about those initial judgements and does not act precipitately or violently upon them, and is open to their being overturned by additional evidence about any particular individual, but such detailed information is by definition only available about a few.

    Prejudice is a rational application of judgement to a situation of limited knowledge.

    And even when they object to mass-immigration, the smarter ones don’t channel it into hating Polaks; what they hate is their own government.

    Society, of course, is not made up just of the smarter ones.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    People object to mass immigration also when it affects their communities by importing division and strife where formerly there was cultural and racial homogeneity, or by turning them into uncomfortable minorities in the place their forefathers lived for generations.
     
    Most of it is just a question of assimilation, and of adjusting one's attitude. I'll note that London, the place with probably the least homogeneity of any kind, is also the least resistant. That's because, I'd argue, it's largely beneficial, and the native population of London is more cosmopolitan, less traditionalist. I attach no moral judgement to 'cosmopolitan' and 'traditionalist'; it is what it is. City people are different from village people.

    Prejudice is a rational application of judgement to a situation of limited knowledge.
     
    'Prejudice', in the sense of 'caution', sure.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. @Randal

    It’s also obvious that the US isn’t going to do what those people want.
     
    For the moment, they are discredited. But the deep pocketed backers who put them where they are haven't gone anywhere, and their discredited mouthpieces will be replaced in due course by others with the same objectives but without the embarrassing track record. And people will forget, as they always do, the costs of war, and will again be tempted and herded by the lies of the advocates of interventionist war.

    Your side keeps bringing it up but there isn’t going to be a US attack against Iran. It wasn’t going to happen anyway but the Iranian nuclear agreement makes that totally impossible.
     
    The nuclear agreement has no relevance to the prospects for a US war on Iran, except to remove (for the moment) one pretext amongst many.

    The US made the Iran agreement even though Israel and the Gulf Arabs screamed bloody murder.
     
    Because the US leadership could see clearly what everyone else in the world, except for those blinded by their own partisan interests, could see - that the attempt to bully Iran over its non-existent nuclear weapons process was discredited and counterproductive, and pointless to continue with since its primary purpose -to provide a pretext for war - was not likely to be useful for the time being.

    The US is leaving the region and everybody can see that but you. But it is going to take decades, not days. Sorry if that isn’t fast enough for you.
     
    You make an unduly pessimistic (from your perspective) extrapolation from some temporary setbacks for your side. I can understand that, since I do it myself often enough, but it's not surprising if others find it unconvincing.

    As I pointed out above, there is no reason based upon observation of current events to suppose that the US is in fact withdrawing from the ME in any meaningful sense. In fact, you should be encouraged that the worst case scenario for your side, the election of a president supposedly dedicated to "America First", has come and gone, and proven to be no great problem for the interventionists to deal with.

    Take heart. Your side still holds most of the high cards.

    You make an unduly pessimistic (from your perspective) extrapolation from some temporary setbacks for your side.

    Lol wut? I want the US out of the region. It’s the Israeli Left that is the most upset about the decline of US influence. And the absolute last thing I want to see is the idiot mullahs replaced with more competent (and even more anti semitic) secular nationalists.

    Like any righteous person, I take joy in the misfortune of Syrians, Iranians and Paleocons, but at the end of the day I want the US out. The difference is that when the US does leave, I will be happy but you will be complaining that the US isn’t doing enough to save Israel’s enemies.

    Even if there was a coup in the US where neocons gained absolute power, the US’s global influence is waining. This is without even taking into account that internal tensions are likely to ultimately end the very existence of the United States as a single country. The US will ultimately leave the region not by choice but because they have to.

    This kind of misplaced mis-application of religious belief to real life issues puts you in the same category as other religious nutters

    So Judaism as it has just been “mis applied” for the last 3000 years? All of those rabbis who from all over the world in all of the generations who said that the Jews must have sovereignty over the Land of Israel and that the Palestinians needed to be expelled were just doing it wrong? Please tell me more about proper Judaism.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. Malla says:
    @for-the-record
    Iran and Israel maintained quite friendly relations before the 1979 revolution.

    And post-1979 during the Iran-Iraq War:

    According to a study conducted by the Tel Aviv Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), Israel supplied Iran with arms totaling $500 million (365 million euros) in the first three years of the war.

    Political scandal

    According to Fürtig, "Things were not looking good for Iran in the war with Iraq, partly because 90 percent of Iran's armaments had been acquired in the US during the Shah era." Those supplies were running out: "Iran was desperate for new suppliers prepared to provide US weaponry." Israel's offer was just what Iran needed.

    Ayatollah Khomeini returned the favor when rumors started that Iraq was working on a nuclear bomb - a threat neither Jerusalem nor Tehran could accept. Iran's intelligence agency passed on valuable information to the Israeli air force, which bombed Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981, setting back the suspected Iraqi nuclear program by years.

    Such secret cooperation was highly sensitive, says Fürtig, "and both sides tried to keep it under wraps. Neither Iran nor Israel wanted this to become public knowledge."

    In November 1986, the Iran-Contra affair hit the United States: senior administration officials had secretly sold thousands of anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles to Tehran and used proceeds from the weapons sales to fund rightwing Contra rebels in Nicaragua. Israel was significantly involved in the transactions.
     
    http://www.dw.com/en/iran-und-israel-the-best-of-enemies/a-17437981

    The Iranian revolution was as fake as the Russian Revolution or any of the orange revolutions around the world.

    https://blindlight.org/index.php/item/980-iran-and-the-shah-what-really-happened

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. @Randal
    I don't think reiner meant physically attack.

    And that’s that: people object to mass-immigration when it’s detrimental to their economic interests
     
    There are other important things in life besides economics.

    People object to mass immigration also when it affects their communities by importing division and strife where formerly there was cultural and racial homogeneity, or by turning them into uncomfortable minorities in the place their forefathers lived for generations.

    but normal people don’t judge others based on their clothes or skin color.
     
    That's exactly what normal people do judge others by, and rightly so.

    A sensible person in a healthy society is not dogmatic about those initial judgements and does not act precipitately or violently upon them, and is open to their being overturned by additional evidence about any particular individual, but such detailed information is by definition only available about a few.

    Prejudice is a rational application of judgement to a situation of limited knowledge.

    And even when they object to mass-immigration, the smarter ones don’t channel it into hating Polaks; what they hate is their own government.
     
    Society, of course, is not made up just of the smarter ones.

    People object to mass immigration also when it affects their communities by importing division and strife where formerly there was cultural and racial homogeneity, or by turning them into uncomfortable minorities in the place their forefathers lived for generations.

    Most of it is just a question of assimilation, and of adjusting one’s attitude. I’ll note that London, the place with probably the least homogeneity of any kind, is also the least resistant. That’s because, I’d argue, it’s largely beneficial, and the native population of London is more cosmopolitan, less traditionalist. I attach no moral judgement to ‘cosmopolitan’ and ‘traditionalist’; it is what it is. City people are different from village people.

    Prejudice is a rational application of judgement to a situation of limited knowledge.

    ‘Prejudice’, in the sense of ‘caution’, sure.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    I’ll note that London, the place with probably the least homogeneity of any kind, is also the least resistant.
     
    People who don't like what has become of London just move out. There has been massive "white flight" in the last 20 years. And the same is happening all over Western Europe in "vibrant" areas.
    , @g2k
    There's a great deal of self selection in London. Certainly the homeowners there, who have acquired almost minigarchic wealth sitting on their arses benefit. The rest I'm not so sure about, having to rent rooms in stinking kommunalkas/hmos, but it's their choice. Provincial England really is quite grim.
    , @anon

    I’ll note that London, the place with probably the least homogeneity of any kind, is also the least resistant. That’s because, I’d argue, it’s largely beneficial, and the native population of London is more cosmopolitan, less traditionalist.
     
    the native blue collar population of London were violently ethically cleansed over the last 50 years while the media covered it up - just like the US cities were violently ethnically cleansed in the 1960s and just like every other western city is now

    mass immigration for cheap labor generally involves disproportionate numbers of young men which leads to violent competition over females with mostly teenage native victims. as a result people with young children move away leaving the older population behind and as that elderly remainder die off the original population is fully cleansed.

    Barking - the area the latest jihadist attackers were based was only cleansed in the last 20 years - other parts were earlier

    your "beneficial" is stealth genocide

    the prosperous areas were mostly untouched while this was happening which is why it could be covered up, although it's spreading to those areas now

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. @Mao Cheng Ji

    People object to mass immigration also when it affects their communities by importing division and strife where formerly there was cultural and racial homogeneity, or by turning them into uncomfortable minorities in the place their forefathers lived for generations.
     
    Most of it is just a question of assimilation, and of adjusting one's attitude. I'll note that London, the place with probably the least homogeneity of any kind, is also the least resistant. That's because, I'd argue, it's largely beneficial, and the native population of London is more cosmopolitan, less traditionalist. I attach no moral judgement to 'cosmopolitan' and 'traditionalist'; it is what it is. City people are different from village people.

    Prejudice is a rational application of judgement to a situation of limited knowledge.
     
    'Prejudice', in the sense of 'caution', sure.

    I’ll note that London, the place with probably the least homogeneity of any kind, is also the least resistant.

    People who don’t like what has become of London just move out. There has been massive “white flight” in the last 20 years. And the same is happening all over Western Europe in “vibrant” areas.

    Read More
    • Replies: @g2k
    The white flight happened decades ago. If anything, the process is going into reverse. Though it's still happening to some extent in the outer suburbs. Most white middle class types I know who moved out did so due to the local authority being rabidly anti car.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. g2k says:
    @German_reader

    I’ll note that London, the place with probably the least homogeneity of any kind, is also the least resistant.
     
    People who don't like what has become of London just move out. There has been massive "white flight" in the last 20 years. And the same is happening all over Western Europe in "vibrant" areas.

    The white flight happened decades ago. If anything, the process is going into reverse. Though it’s still happening to some extent in the outer suburbs. Most white middle class types I know who moved out did so due to the local authority being rabidly anti car.

    Read More
    • Replies: @for-the-record
    Most white middle class types I know who moved out did so due to the local authority being rabidly anti car.

    Well your friends obvious aren't from the East End, which in the not-too-distant past was Cockney, and they certainly didn't all leave because of their great attachment to motor vehicles.

    Have a look at last year's BBC documentary -- how it ever got past the censors is a mystery -- entitled "Last Whites of the East End". Naturally it was widely denounced as "racist" and for some strange reason is no longer available on BBC iPlayer.

    , @anon

    The white flight happened decades ago.
     
    the ethnic cleansing of Cockney London has been ongoing for 50 years - Barking was still mostly native working class until the last few years of the Blair government. that's why the BNP guy stood there - they were in the process of being cleansed at the time.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. g2k says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    People object to mass immigration also when it affects their communities by importing division and strife where formerly there was cultural and racial homogeneity, or by turning them into uncomfortable minorities in the place their forefathers lived for generations.
     
    Most of it is just a question of assimilation, and of adjusting one's attitude. I'll note that London, the place with probably the least homogeneity of any kind, is also the least resistant. That's because, I'd argue, it's largely beneficial, and the native population of London is more cosmopolitan, less traditionalist. I attach no moral judgement to 'cosmopolitan' and 'traditionalist'; it is what it is. City people are different from village people.

    Prejudice is a rational application of judgement to a situation of limited knowledge.
     
    'Prejudice', in the sense of 'caution', sure.

    There’s a great deal of self selection in London. Certainly the homeowners there, who have acquired almost minigarchic wealth sitting on their arses benefit. The rest I’m not so sure about, having to rent rooms in stinking kommunalkas/hmos, but it’s their choice. Provincial England really is quite grim.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. @g2k
    The white flight happened decades ago. If anything, the process is going into reverse. Though it's still happening to some extent in the outer suburbs. Most white middle class types I know who moved out did so due to the local authority being rabidly anti car.

    Most white middle class types I know who moved out did so due to the local authority being rabidly anti car.

    Well your friends obvious aren’t from the East End, which in the not-too-distant past was Cockney, and they certainly didn’t all leave because of their great attachment to motor vehicles.

    Have a look at last year’s BBC documentary — how it ever got past the censors is a mystery — entitled “Last Whites of the East End”. Naturally it was widely denounced as “racist” and for some strange reason is no longer available on BBC iPlayer.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji
    Surely people migrate in and out of London for various reasons/combinations of reasons; job opportunities, commute times, and real-estate prices being probably the most obvious. I'd be extremely surprised if any significant number of them was motivated by displeasure of seeing non-European-looking faces around in the neighborhood.
    , @g2k
    Case in point; they're the last few holdouts. Cockneys started leaving that area en masse decades ago as soon as they had the money. If they're homeowners, then they're certainly not working class anymore, at least economically. If they're renters then they're f***ed. Newham is in the position of being too much of an inner city location to be considered suburban, but too far from the centre, sprawling and grim to be gentrified. Property prices are still eye watering though. Tower hamlets, in between the city and docklands, is in the process of gentrification and a lot of the Bangladeshis who moved in during the 70s and who aren't homeowners are being displaced by yuppies and hipsters.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVmmYMwFj1I

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. @for-the-record
    Most white middle class types I know who moved out did so due to the local authority being rabidly anti car.

    Well your friends obvious aren't from the East End, which in the not-too-distant past was Cockney, and they certainly didn't all leave because of their great attachment to motor vehicles.

    Have a look at last year's BBC documentary -- how it ever got past the censors is a mystery -- entitled "Last Whites of the East End". Naturally it was widely denounced as "racist" and for some strange reason is no longer available on BBC iPlayer.

    Surely people migrate in and out of London for various reasons/combinations of reasons; job opportunities, commute times, and real-estate prices being probably the most obvious. I’d be extremely surprised if any significant number of them was motivated by displeasure of seeing non-European-looking faces around in the neighborhood.

    Read More
    • Replies: @for-the-record
    I’d be extremely surprised if any significant number of them was motivated by displeasure of seeing non-European-looking faces around in the neighborhood.

    That's why it would be a very educational experience for you to watch the BBC programme, if you can find it, that is. Clearly there were a number of factors at work, but over time the basic problem became that their way of life was disappearing, and people no longer felt comfortable effectively living in a foreign country.

    What struck me particularly about the film was the lack of bigotry and bitterness expressed by the "Last Whites", it was more of a sadness that a way of life had disappeared. One of the most interesting "characters" was a long-term Asian resident who had grown up there essentially as a "Cockney" himself, completely integrated into the "English" community, who also regretted the disappearance of a way of life that he had taken on as his own.
    , @anon

    I’d be extremely surprised if any significant number of them was motivated by displeasure of seeing non-European-looking faces around in the neighborhood.
     
    they're motivated by the rapes and the stabbings
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. g2k says:
    @for-the-record
    Most white middle class types I know who moved out did so due to the local authority being rabidly anti car.

    Well your friends obvious aren't from the East End, which in the not-too-distant past was Cockney, and they certainly didn't all leave because of their great attachment to motor vehicles.

    Have a look at last year's BBC documentary -- how it ever got past the censors is a mystery -- entitled "Last Whites of the East End". Naturally it was widely denounced as "racist" and for some strange reason is no longer available on BBC iPlayer.

    Case in point; they’re the last few holdouts. Cockneys started leaving that area en masse decades ago as soon as they had the money. If they’re homeowners, then they’re certainly not working class anymore, at least economically. If they’re renters then they’re f***ed. Newham is in the position of being too much of an inner city location to be considered suburban, but too far from the centre, sprawling and grim to be gentrified. Property prices are still eye watering though. Tower hamlets, in between the city and docklands, is in the process of gentrification and a lot of the Bangladeshis who moved in during the 70s and who aren’t homeowners are being displaced by yuppies and hipsters.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. Sean says:
    @Boris N

    Well, the piece you linked is titled: “Corbyn denies wanting ‘uncontrolled migration’”.

    It also quotes something called “The Labour manifesto” as promising to “develop and implement fair immigration rules” and create “a new system which is based on our economic needs, balancing controls and existing entitlements”
     
    Sorry, if I ask you, because I want to address all the British, American and EU citizens here. I've been reading about "open borders" and "uncontrolled migration" thousands of times for months on end. But have you, when you are speaking about the alleged open borders in your countries, even ever read your migration laws? Because I think you all haven't. Actually, I think fe, who complains about open borders have ever read any migration laws.

    Because as an absolute outsider who happens to face such laws I must tell you that both the UK and the US, and as well the EU in general, are the countries with very strict migration laws and in reality with closed borders. Yes, and the UK seems to be the most closed of them all. Have you ever thought how a person from a non-EU country can immigrate into the UK? I think you have no idea. Because the overwhelming absolute majority of the people on the planet actually cannot. There is no such a thing as to buy a ticket Karachi-London and immigrate to the UK. The only few obvious ways are: 1) to marry a British citizen; 2) to have relatives in the UK (not simply a relative, but the closed ones like parents or children); and 3) to be so a highly skilled specialist that a UK company wants you and is ready to fight bureaucracy to prove you need to work in the UK and to sponsor you. Other than that you have no practical ways to immigrate. You may travel as a tourist and then happily return to your home country, but not to immigrate. Also, as I remember (I didn't check it for several years) there has been "skilled migration" programs in the UK (like in Canada and Australia), but as you may understand, even if they do not ask you to have a sponsor, you still have to be quite a skilled specialist, very young, with excellent English, and what is most crucial to have a trade in demand in the UK. So in practice even those programs that directly aim at bringing in migrants are only for few lucky ones (like doctors or engineers).

    To sum up, in practice there is no such a problem as bad migration laws in your countries. You simply cannot make more strict the laws that are already very strict and exclusive. Those who exploit the idea of "to make migration stricter" are demagogues. To say mathematically: 99% of the feared Muslims simply have no options to immigrate to the UK, or the US, or the EU. No, zero. Yes, some may do it as tourists, but not everybody wants to live their whole lives as illegals, hiding and always fearing a deportation. Moreover, the US citizens cannot simply immigrate and settle in the UK or the EU, or vice versa, either! For they have no agreements of free movement of workforce. Even the US and Canada have no such a freedom! 90 days and bye-bye, "Yankee, go home".

    So what do all you people expect from Corbyn, or May, or Brexit, or UKIP, or whomever? What do you want them to do? Do you want to make the UK as closed as North Korea? Because it is the only option left.

    So what do all you people expect from Corbyn, or May, or Brexit, or UKIP, or whomever? What do you want them to do? Do you want to make the UK as closed as North Korea? Because it is the only option left.

    The politicians in a Western democracy just do what the majority of people want, eh? That’s a good one!

    The British masses have been broken as far as opposition to Muslims is concerned. The people have been cowed ands are helpless against nonwhite immigration, and so the EU immigrants were not expected to be a problem (the EU is basically open borders).

    However, Brexit was really a working class vote against white Christian immigrant Poles ect who suddenly arrived in huge numbers to directly compete with the indigenous working class of Britain, and there was no end in sight to the inflow. I don’t think Muslim immigration can be stopped and the polish ect immigration will not be reduced very much by the final Brexit settlement either.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. @Mao Cheng Ji
    Surely people migrate in and out of London for various reasons/combinations of reasons; job opportunities, commute times, and real-estate prices being probably the most obvious. I'd be extremely surprised if any significant number of them was motivated by displeasure of seeing non-European-looking faces around in the neighborhood.

    I’d be extremely surprised if any significant number of them was motivated by displeasure of seeing non-European-looking faces around in the neighborhood.

    That’s why it would be a very educational experience for you to watch the BBC programme, if you can find it, that is. Clearly there were a number of factors at work, but over time the basic problem became that their way of life was disappearing, and people no longer felt comfortable effectively living in a foreign country.

    What struck me particularly about the film was the lack of bigotry and bitterness expressed by the “Last Whites”, it was more of a sadness that a way of life had disappeared. One of the most interesting “characters” was a long-term Asian resident who had grown up there essentially as a “Cockney” himself, completely integrated into the “English” community, who also regretted the disappearance of a way of life that he had taken on as his own.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    Clearly there were a number of factors at work, but over time the basic problem became that their way of life was disappearing, and people no longer felt comfortable effectively living in a foreign country.
     
    The traditional way of life is disappearing, giving way to new forms of social relations. Always. This is a continuous process, having to do with what marxists call "modes of production". From feudalism to the industrial revolution to the post-industrial model, the service economy, financialization, all that.

    Again, to see things clearly you need to look at the economy, political economy; that's the driving force of all these changes.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. truthman says:

    Don’t know how to think about the election in UK. May to her credit is at least on record as saying she wants less immigration, a lot less actually. But of course in government hasn’t done much about it. Her speech while still home secretary to the Conservative Party Conference in which she basically said Merkel was a naïve foolish idiot for accepting so many migrants was a great one.
    Corbyn on the other hand, like Sanders in the US would probably have been better on war/foreign policy issues, much less of a lap-dog to a neo-con President and whatever boneheaded ideas such a president might have.
    The Labour vote is expanding in London. Wonder why that is? I think we know the answer, but haven’t read much commentary that Blair’s vision of importing a left-leaning electorate is proceeding apace, in addition to turning London into, as John Cleese said “no longer an English city”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon

    Don’t know how to think about the election in UK
     
    the backdrop is the same as the US but it played out differently - the Left opened the borders to change the electorate and because big business wanted the cheap labor and bribed the conservatives not to oppose it the Left have now succeeded to the point where a far left labour party is close to electable.

    (not just immigrants - UK teacher education was taken over by cultural marxists around the same time as the US and has had enough time since then to indoctrinate most currently working teachers and hence the kids - so the UK has the same situation with SJW yoof as the US does.)

    (which makes me wonder if France didn't have the same teacher ed. takeover?)

    anyway the SJW yoof are a big part of Corbyn's surprising success

    Corbyn is a UK version of Bernie Sanders and like the DNC the Labour party tried to rig their leadership election against him but they messed up and Corbyn managed to win the leadership.

    that's one half - the Left is now far Left made up of ideological Leftists, government workers voting their pay check, immigrants and SJW yoof

    the UK conservatives are like GOPe - whores for big business who sold out the native working class for lobbyist silver not thinking it would effect them

    (so a bit like a partial mirror of the US if it had been Sanders vs Jub (or some other GOPe) )

    in many ways the election itself was pretty meaningless as it ignored various elephants but the important part is the stage is now set for the showdown - conservative voters who mostly have no idea how much the UK has been transformed by immigration in the last 20 years because it was hidden in working class areas have had a wake up call - a few more million immigrants and it will be all over - permanently out of govt and used as tax cows for far left policies.

    similarly big business has had a wake up call - no more soft Left alternative govts they don't need to worry about but serious commies who will take their wealth.

    TL;DR

    the election itself is a nothing burger but it sets the stage for the real fight to come
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. @Boris N

    Well, the piece you linked is titled: “Corbyn denies wanting ‘uncontrolled migration’”.

    It also quotes something called “The Labour manifesto” as promising to “develop and implement fair immigration rules” and create “a new system which is based on our economic needs, balancing controls and existing entitlements”
     
    Sorry, if I ask you, because I want to address all the British, American and EU citizens here. I've been reading about "open borders" and "uncontrolled migration" thousands of times for months on end. But have you, when you are speaking about the alleged open borders in your countries, even ever read your migration laws? Because I think you all haven't. Actually, I think fe, who complains about open borders have ever read any migration laws.

    Because as an absolute outsider who happens to face such laws I must tell you that both the UK and the US, and as well the EU in general, are the countries with very strict migration laws and in reality with closed borders. Yes, and the UK seems to be the most closed of them all. Have you ever thought how a person from a non-EU country can immigrate into the UK? I think you have no idea. Because the overwhelming absolute majority of the people on the planet actually cannot. There is no such a thing as to buy a ticket Karachi-London and immigrate to the UK. The only few obvious ways are: 1) to marry a British citizen; 2) to have relatives in the UK (not simply a relative, but the closed ones like parents or children); and 3) to be so a highly skilled specialist that a UK company wants you and is ready to fight bureaucracy to prove you need to work in the UK and to sponsor you. Other than that you have no practical ways to immigrate. You may travel as a tourist and then happily return to your home country, but not to immigrate. Also, as I remember (I didn't check it for several years) there has been "skilled migration" programs in the UK (like in Canada and Australia), but as you may understand, even if they do not ask you to have a sponsor, you still have to be quite a skilled specialist, very young, with excellent English, and what is most crucial to have a trade in demand in the UK. So in practice even those programs that directly aim at bringing in migrants are only for few lucky ones (like doctors or engineers).

    To sum up, in practice there is no such a problem as bad migration laws in your countries. You simply cannot make more strict the laws that are already very strict and exclusive. Those who exploit the idea of "to make migration stricter" are demagogues. To say mathematically: 99% of the feared Muslims simply have no options to immigrate to the UK, or the US, or the EU. No, zero. Yes, some may do it as tourists, but not everybody wants to live their whole lives as illegals, hiding and always fearing a deportation. Moreover, the US citizens cannot simply immigrate and settle in the UK or the EU, or vice versa, either! For they have no agreements of free movement of workforce. Even the US and Canada have no such a freedom! 90 days and bye-bye, "Yankee, go home".

    So what do all you people expect from Corbyn, or May, or Brexit, or UKIP, or whomever? What do you want them to do? Do you want to make the UK as closed as North Korea? Because it is the only option left.

    Do you want to make the UK as closed as North Korea?

    Do you realize that supporting the pro immigration politicians means you are supporting the world’s biggest Russophobes? The only pro Russia politicians are anti immigration.

    If you are personally affronted by our immigration policies, keep in mind that all of us support easier immigration for whites. The problem is that too many non whites are immigrating.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boris N

    Do you realize that supporting the pro immigration politicians means you are supporting the world’s biggest Russophobes? The only pro Russia politicians are anti immigration.
     
    My main point that the entire "open border" and "migration rules" rhetoric is a sham. From both the sides. Neither the left are going to abolish the current migration laws (if they say so they lie), nor the right are going to make it stricter than it is (they cannot make the strictest laws any stricter, if not by making it totalitarian).

    If you are personally affronted by our immigration policies, keep in mind that all of us support easier immigration for whites.
     
    I'm not that affronted as it may look, and I do not see the UK as the best place to live (though, it's definitely neater and tidier than Russia and the climate is better - for now at least); and I'm less concerned about visas then by the difficulty to find a normal job or worse by the high probability to become jobless and homeless in a foreign country (this is why I entirely do not understand illegal immigrants).

    The problem is that too many non whites are immigrating.
     
    Simply consider the numbers. The Third World is around 6 billion, even if 0.5% migrate they will overwhelm Britain. 5% will overwhelm entire Europe. Basic maths. You cannot treat that other than ban any entry from any country (see North Korea) or from a certain list (but this will be certainly racial discrimination). But you are already late, they are already many and they will simply overbreed you (but this will be a long process). Though, I'm not that pessimistic about Europe. Most European countries are still 85%-95% white, which is equal or higher than in Russia which many Western white nationalists wrongly consider as a safe haven for whites. Simply consider this: Russia has the real open borders and visa free regime with Muslim Asia.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    People object to mass immigration also when it affects their communities by importing division and strife where formerly there was cultural and racial homogeneity, or by turning them into uncomfortable minorities in the place their forefathers lived for generations.
     
    Most of it is just a question of assimilation, and of adjusting one's attitude. I'll note that London, the place with probably the least homogeneity of any kind, is also the least resistant. That's because, I'd argue, it's largely beneficial, and the native population of London is more cosmopolitan, less traditionalist. I attach no moral judgement to 'cosmopolitan' and 'traditionalist'; it is what it is. City people are different from village people.

    Prejudice is a rational application of judgement to a situation of limited knowledge.
     
    'Prejudice', in the sense of 'caution', sure.

    I’ll note that London, the place with probably the least homogeneity of any kind, is also the least resistant. That’s because, I’d argue, it’s largely beneficial, and the native population of London is more cosmopolitan, less traditionalist.

    the native blue collar population of London were violently ethically cleansed over the last 50 years while the media covered it up – just like the US cities were violently ethnically cleansed in the 1960s and just like every other western city is now

    mass immigration for cheap labor generally involves disproportionate numbers of young men which leads to violent competition over females with mostly teenage native victims. as a result people with young children move away leaving the older population behind and as that elderly remainder die off the original population is fully cleansed.

    Barking – the area the latest jihadist attackers were based was only cleansed in the last 20 years – other parts were earlier

    your “beneficial” is stealth genocide

    the prosperous areas were mostly untouched while this was happening which is why it could be covered up, although it’s spreading to those areas now

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @g2k
    The white flight happened decades ago. If anything, the process is going into reverse. Though it's still happening to some extent in the outer suburbs. Most white middle class types I know who moved out did so due to the local authority being rabidly anti car.

    The white flight happened decades ago.

    the ethnic cleansing of Cockney London has been ongoing for 50 years – Barking was still mostly native working class until the last few years of the Blair government. that’s why the BNP guy stood there – they were in the process of being cleansed at the time.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Mao Cheng Ji
    Surely people migrate in and out of London for various reasons/combinations of reasons; job opportunities, commute times, and real-estate prices being probably the most obvious. I'd be extremely surprised if any significant number of them was motivated by displeasure of seeing non-European-looking faces around in the neighborhood.

    I’d be extremely surprised if any significant number of them was motivated by displeasure of seeing non-European-looking faces around in the neighborhood.

    they’re motivated by the rapes and the stabbings

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. @melanf

    Exactly. These are not west-Finns. Those Protestant Karelians were ethnically the same as..... etc., etc.
     
    Summary,

    part 1: Before 1617 a lands of the Neva river basin belonged to Russia. In 1617 the Swedes came, the local Orthodox population was partially exterminated during the war, partially expelled thanks to the Swedish religious and economic policies. Instead of exterminated/expelled indigenous population settled Finns (Lutherans loyal to the Swedes).

    part 2: In 1703 the Russians came back. Finns were partially exterminated during the war, partially become a minority in the lands that were re-settled by Russians. Of course it was a manifestation of "extreme brutality" of the Russian.


    An ordinary Russian citizen was a serf.
     
    Really? Perhaps for this reason, in the 17th century, the population of the border lands fled en masse from Sweden to Russia.

    Tsar had no way of calming occupied land with a Finnish population except either extreme brutality (like Peter I)
     
    So Tsar Peter held in subjection "old Finland" (purely Finnish lands of Karelian isthmus) by using "extreme brutality "? Weird. It seemed to me that the Russian administration rules this land without any problems.

    There were actually some Swedish aristocrats who switched sides during the war against Peter I because they thought that by joining Russia they could get rid of these pesky limitations and just make peasants serfs.
     
    Who is it?

    The peace of 1617 ended a war in which Sweden was meddling in the Russian succession crisis. There was no unified Russia to send an army to meet an invader and defense was stuff like improvisation by cities so Sweden marched straight past all that territory inhabited by Finnic Orthodoxes to the Russian cities. Eventually Sweden was handed a lot of territory in exchange for withdrawing from Novgorod and for dropping claims to the throne and almost none of this new territory had been occupied by Sweden.

    You could look at other wars where Sweden did run a brutal anti-Orthodox campaign, like the one that started during Ivan IV’s reign and west-Finn tribes were recruited to run around Karelian lands killing Orthodox monks and burning down churches and monasteries, but this one? You are trying to paint Swedish war or occupation atrocities in areas that didn’t even have war or occupation and that were handed to Sweden in a deal.

    Pretty soon Sweden reneged on its promise to let Orthodoxes continue to practice their faith and the migration to Russia started. That may be a nasty thing to do (and you could argue that Russia had a good casus belli there given that allowing Orthodoxy was a part of the peace treaty) but not being allowed a church is hardly comparable to real atrocities where people die or get enslaved.

    Similar things of course happened to the other direction but Russia didn’t try to force convert Protestants. The most common reason to flee was getting away from slavery and in those cases Russia would try to stop you from fleeing. Still, several thousand of the Finns taken as slaves to St Petersburg did manage to escape and get back to our side, though that was still a fraction of the victims.

    Read More
    • Replies: @melanf

    The peace of 1617 ended a war in which Sweden was meddling in the Russian succession crisis. .... You are trying to paint Swedish war or occupation atrocities in areas that didn’t even have war or occupation and that were handed to Sweden in a deal.
     
    It was (Swedish invasion 1611-1617) a full-scale war (in particular the famous Gustav-Adolf unsuccessfully besieged the city of Pskov: it was his first experience as a military chief). In this war the Orthodox Karelians fought fiercely against the Swedes. The Swedes captured Korela fortress after seven months of siege, when almost all defenders died. So areas of these lands have war and occupation

    but not being allowed a church is hardly comparable to real atrocities where people die or get enslaved
     
    During the Swedish invasion people died and became slaves

    The report of the commandant of the Sumy Fort
    «In the past, 1611, the year ... the Swedish military people came ..they burnt the villages and massacred the people , and the other seized into slavery»

    From petitions of the Saami (directed to the Russian authorities)
    «...in the past, 1611, come the Swedes and many of the best people killed and captured and in captivity they died...»

    «In the grave of Ivan Rokačču (Karelian peasant, hero of the guerrilla war against the Swedes) archaeologists have discovered the skeleton of men, and also two women's and two children's skeleton with traces of violent death»

    And so on. In the Northern war, the Russian army in the same way dealt with the Finns.. The difference however is that after 1617 (Stolbovsky peace), the Russian population fled EN masse from the Swedish rule in Russia, but after 1722 (the Nystad peace) Finnish population lived peacefully under the Russian government (although the population had full opportunity to run in the Swedish Finland).

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @truthman
    Don't know how to think about the election in UK. May to her credit is at least on record as saying she wants less immigration, a lot less actually. But of course in government hasn't done much about it. Her speech while still home secretary to the Conservative Party Conference in which she basically said Merkel was a naïve foolish idiot for accepting so many migrants was a great one.
    Corbyn on the other hand, like Sanders in the US would probably have been better on war/foreign policy issues, much less of a lap-dog to a neo-con President and whatever boneheaded ideas such a president might have.
    The Labour vote is expanding in London. Wonder why that is? I think we know the answer, but haven't read much commentary that Blair's vision of importing a left-leaning electorate is proceeding apace, in addition to turning London into, as John Cleese said "no longer an English city".

    Don’t know how to think about the election in UK

    the backdrop is the same as the US but it played out differently – the Left opened the borders to change the electorate and because big business wanted the cheap labor and bribed the conservatives not to oppose it the Left have now succeeded to the point where a far left labour party is close to electable.

    (not just immigrants – UK teacher education was taken over by cultural marxists around the same time as the US and has had enough time since then to indoctrinate most currently working teachers and hence the kids – so the UK has the same situation with SJW yoof as the US does.)

    (which makes me wonder if France didn’t have the same teacher ed. takeover?)

    anyway the SJW yoof are a big part of Corbyn’s surprising success

    Corbyn is a UK version of Bernie Sanders and like the DNC the Labour party tried to rig their leadership election against him but they messed up and Corbyn managed to win the leadership.

    that’s one half – the Left is now far Left made up of ideological Leftists, government workers voting their pay check, immigrants and SJW yoof

    the UK conservatives are like GOPe – whores for big business who sold out the native working class for lobbyist silver not thinking it would effect them

    (so a bit like a partial mirror of the US if it had been Sanders vs Jub (or some other GOPe) )

    in many ways the election itself was pretty meaningless as it ignored various elephants but the important part is the stage is now set for the showdown – conservative voters who mostly have no idea how much the UK has been transformed by immigration in the last 20 years because it was hidden in working class areas have had a wake up call – a few more million immigrants and it will be all over – permanently out of govt and used as tax cows for far left policies.

    similarly big business has had a wake up call – no more soft Left alternative govts they don’t need to worry about but serious commies who will take their wealth.

    TL;DR

    the election itself is a nothing burger but it sets the stage for the real fight to come

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. so do we believe Eichenwald’s explanation for the tentacle porn thing?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    so do we believe Eichenwald’s explanation for the tentacle porn thing?
     
    Lol, he made some flippant reference in a tweet to having a serious discussion with his kids about porn. I know Jewish guys have congenital yellow fever but Eichenwald prefers perverted Asian tentacle anime porn. When I think of that poor bugger arrested by the FBI because Eichenwald said a tweet triggered an epileptic seizure, I hope that guy's lawyers drag out this anime porn and put it into the defense.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. @for-the-record
    I’d be extremely surprised if any significant number of them was motivated by displeasure of seeing non-European-looking faces around in the neighborhood.

    That's why it would be a very educational experience for you to watch the BBC programme, if you can find it, that is. Clearly there were a number of factors at work, but over time the basic problem became that their way of life was disappearing, and people no longer felt comfortable effectively living in a foreign country.

    What struck me particularly about the film was the lack of bigotry and bitterness expressed by the "Last Whites", it was more of a sadness that a way of life had disappeared. One of the most interesting "characters" was a long-term Asian resident who had grown up there essentially as a "Cockney" himself, completely integrated into the "English" community, who also regretted the disappearance of a way of life that he had taken on as his own.

    Clearly there were a number of factors at work, but over time the basic problem became that their way of life was disappearing, and people no longer felt comfortable effectively living in a foreign country.

    The traditional way of life is disappearing, giving way to new forms of social relations. Always. This is a continuous process, having to do with what marxists call “modes of production”. From feudalism to the industrial revolution to the post-industrial model, the service economy, financialization, all that.

    Again, to see things clearly you need to look at the economy, political economy; that’s the driving force of all these changes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. @Jaakko Raipala
    Such a town *was* built in the 12th century but it was a *Swedish* town and fortress called Landskrona (not to be confused with other places called Landskrona). It was destroyed by Novgorod forces in 1301. Not much information remains about how well developed or populated that town was, though. Of course there were always Finnic tribals there ("neva" in Finnish means a type of swamp).

    The Neva mouth remained effectively no man's land for centuries after that because the Scandinavians were still superior on the sea and Novgorod could not have defended a coastal site against raids that a merchant town would have inevitably attracted but at the same time Novgorod was close and secure in the inland so it could deny the strategic site to Sweden. Sweden eventually did annex the site in 1617...

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

    ...and built a fortress called Nyenskans (swedification of Nevanlinna, fortress-of-Neva) and a mostly ethnic Finnish city with Swedes and Germans as minorities formed around it over the next century. Tsar Peter did not take empty land at the Neva, he took a city (and had its inhabitants murdered or enslaved, something that agitators from Lenin to Hitler have later found very useful here).

    Peter did that to most cities he captured in the baltic region, including in Finland proper. There are testimonials of swedish and baltic slaves, including women and children, in Siberia, but also in the Ottoman Empire where many were sold.
    This was definitely not according to european war customs at the time.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Greasy William
    so do we believe Eichenwald's explanation for the tentacle porn thing?

    so do we believe Eichenwald’s explanation for the tentacle porn thing?

    Lol, he made some flippant reference in a tweet to having a serious discussion with his kids about porn. I know Jewish guys have congenital yellow fever but Eichenwald prefers perverted Asian tentacle anime porn. When I think of that poor bugger arrested by the FBI because Eichenwald said a tweet triggered an epileptic seizure, I hope that guy’s lawyers drag out this anime porn and put it into the defense.

    Read More
    • Agree: Dan Hayes
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. melanf says:
    @Jaakko Raipala
    The peace of 1617 ended a war in which Sweden was meddling in the Russian succession crisis. There was no unified Russia to send an army to meet an invader and defense was stuff like improvisation by cities so Sweden marched straight past all that territory inhabited by Finnic Orthodoxes to the Russian cities. Eventually Sweden was handed a lot of territory in exchange for withdrawing from Novgorod and for dropping claims to the throne and almost none of this new territory had been occupied by Sweden.

    You could look at other wars where Sweden did run a brutal anti-Orthodox campaign, like the one that started during Ivan IV's reign and west-Finn tribes were recruited to run around Karelian lands killing Orthodox monks and burning down churches and monasteries, but this one? You are trying to paint Swedish war or occupation atrocities in areas that didn't even have war or occupation and that were handed to Sweden in a deal.

    Pretty soon Sweden reneged on its promise to let Orthodoxes continue to practice their faith and the migration to Russia started. That may be a nasty thing to do (and you could argue that Russia had a good casus belli there given that allowing Orthodoxy was a part of the peace treaty) but not being allowed a church is hardly comparable to real atrocities where people die or get enslaved.

    Similar things of course happened to the other direction but Russia didn't try to force convert Protestants. The most common reason to flee was getting away from slavery and in those cases Russia would try to stop you from fleeing. Still, several thousand of the Finns taken as slaves to St Petersburg did manage to escape and get back to our side, though that was still a fraction of the victims.

    The peace of 1617 ended a war in which Sweden was meddling in the Russian succession crisis. …. You are trying to paint Swedish war or occupation atrocities in areas that didn’t even have war or occupation and that were handed to Sweden in a deal.

    It was (Swedish invasion 1611-1617) a full-scale war (in particular the famous Gustav-Adolf unsuccessfully besieged the city of Pskov: it was his first experience as a military chief). In this war the Orthodox Karelians fought fiercely against the Swedes. The Swedes captured Korela fortress after seven months of siege, when almost all defenders died. So areas of these lands have war and occupation

    but not being allowed a church is hardly comparable to real atrocities where people die or get enslaved

    During the Swedish invasion people died and became slaves

    The report of the commandant of the Sumy Fort
    «In the past, 1611, the year … the Swedish military people came ..they burnt the villages and massacred the people , and the other seized into slavery»

    From petitions of the Saami (directed to the Russian authorities)
    «…in the past, 1611, come the Swedes and many of the best people killed and captured and in captivity they died…»

    «In the grave of Ivan Rokačču (Karelian peasant, hero of the guerrilla war against the Swedes) archaeologists have discovered the skeleton of men, and also two women’s and two children’s skeleton with traces of violent death»

    And so on. In the Northern war, the Russian army in the same way dealt with the Finns.. The difference however is that after 1617 (Stolbovsky peace), the Russian population fled EN masse from the Swedish rule in Russia, but after 1722 (the Nystad peace) Finnish population lived peacefully under the Russian government (although the population had full opportunity to run in the Swedish Finland).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jaakko Raipala
    You have a very silly idea of "full scale war" if a Swedish expedition starting with 1700 men, cavalry and infantry with no cannons, puts Russia into a "full scale war". These expeditions to capture specific forts were only possible because of Russia's period of anarchy and the forces involved were so tiny that the events were guaranteed to be localized. The vast majority of Orthodox peasants were completely unaffected and there was no mass migration - until *after* the war when Sweden set up a government in the land it gained and began conversion efforts.

    Comparing this to the Great Northern War with its hundreds of thousands of soldiers (and hundreds of thousands of casualties) and a military government reaching every rural town is just beyond silly.

    Let's remove the national source of blindness and just compare Russia to Russia. Roughly the same territory that is now Finland was occupied by Russia under Alexander I and under Peter I. There were some atrocities against civilians in 1808-1809 but it wasn't approved by Russian authorities, soldiers were punished and they remained few incidents. Hence, Alexander I is not remembered as a monster and the war doesn't have a strong folk memory of horror, though obviously no one wants to see it repeated.

    Under the military government set up by Peter I, in what's now western Finland tens of thousands were enslaved and sent to build St Petersburg or sold to Muslims (!) through Crimea, children were kidnapped never to be seen again, the Russians had a scorched earth policy to create buffer zones against Sweden and it took us generations to repopulate zones a hundred miles wide. When the peasants fled from their burned towns, Cossacks might stage bloodbaths where they murdered refugees for sport.

    The brutal tactics and letting soldiers rape, murder and loot without any restraint doesn't have any equivalent even among previous or later Russian wars against us. Even Stalin was clearly preferable to Peter I.

    Your idea that "old Finland" could have just moved to the Swedish side is completely mistaken. They were Karelians and would not have been welcome at all in large numbers, even if Protestant. You are projecting a modern "Finn" identity that didn't exist then into the past. That "Finn" identity is a result of the Russians creating the Grand Duchy of Finland in 1809 and the resulting national romanticist movement inventing common myths, designing a common language and so on.

    Assuming that Protestant Karelians back then could just move to Sweden is a bit like assuming that Macedonia would automatically accept a mass migration of Russians because it's Orthodox and Slavic. Actually even less accurate since Sweden was ruled by Swedes - ethnic Swedes refused to accept Karelian resettlement to their areas even from the territories lost in World War II and the only reason it was possible to settle Karelians 70 years ago was because Swedes were no longer in control of Finland. There were people that moved from "old Finland" to Sweden - Swedes and Germans who of course had an automatic option to be welcomed in Sweden, unlike Karelians.

    You don't seem to realize that the military government of what you call "old Finland" under Peter I was not even the same government that was holding western provinces and the treatment of westerners was brutal. The difference is probably partly because of military reasons (the west coast has an easy connection to Sweden and its hard for Russia to control) and partly because of cultural reasons (even Protestant Karelians still have a very Slavic influenced culture, not shared by the almost Germanized southwest proper-Finns and other westerners).

    Slavery has been illegal in Sweden for 700 years. An army in a siege ordering peasants to dig a ditch is not the same as capturing people as lifelong slaves and carrying them off to a different land to be sold as property.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. I suspect that your British life was spent with children of the examinocracy, people systematically denied access to their own culture by adequate (certainly not generous) maintenance grants for student living costs away from the disciplines of home.

    Sandals should always be worn with socks. Shorts and sandals crept into the British wardrobe through the colonies, especially Australia (from where else such licence) but also South Africa. In the summer these places were hot, so shorts and indeed sandals became acceptable business wear; with knee length woollen socks kept up with garters, which could have coloured tabs for the sake of fashion. Think pre 1970′s Scout uniforms. In extremely hot weather, socks could be rolled down to the ankles or short cotton socks could be worn by the lax but socks were never removed.

    Wearing sandals without socks is a vile American introduction originating from imitation of the “Hippy” movement in San Francisco, California. A sign of unemployability. Probably a smoker of “reefers”.

    The Soviet Union law allowing the arrest of a man wearing shorts had its merits.

    The DUP will restore cultural order shortly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    Sandals should always be worn with socks.
     
    I definitely agree, if your goal is to look like an East German tourist driving his Wartburg in Hungary circa 1985. In any other cases, socks should be avoided when wearing sandals. I think the only things that matter in current Western politics and culture are the immigration/multiculturalism and the socks with sandals, and both need to be opposed at all costs.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. reiner Tor says: • Website
    @Philip Owen
    I suspect that your British life was spent with children of the examinocracy, people systematically denied access to their own culture by adequate (certainly not generous) maintenance grants for student living costs away from the disciplines of home.

    Sandals should always be worn with socks. Shorts and sandals crept into the British wardrobe through the colonies, especially Australia (from where else such licence) but also South Africa. In the summer these places were hot, so shorts and indeed sandals became acceptable business wear; with knee length woollen socks kept up with garters, which could have coloured tabs for the sake of fashion. Think pre 1970's Scout uniforms. In extremely hot weather, socks could be rolled down to the ankles or short cotton socks could be worn by the lax but socks were never removed.

    Wearing sandals without socks is a vile American introduction originating from imitation of the "Hippy" movement in San Francisco, California. A sign of unemployability. Probably a smoker of "reefers".

    The Soviet Union law allowing the arrest of a man wearing shorts had its merits.

    The DUP will restore cultural order shortly.

    Sandals should always be worn with socks.

    I definitely agree, if your goal is to look like an East German tourist driving his Wartburg in Hungary circa 1985. In any other cases, socks should be avoided when wearing sandals. I think the only things that matter in current Western politics and culture are the immigration/multiculturalism and the socks with sandals, and both need to be opposed at all costs.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. @melanf

    The peace of 1617 ended a war in which Sweden was meddling in the Russian succession crisis. .... You are trying to paint Swedish war or occupation atrocities in areas that didn’t even have war or occupation and that were handed to Sweden in a deal.
     
    It was (Swedish invasion 1611-1617) a full-scale war (in particular the famous Gustav-Adolf unsuccessfully besieged the city of Pskov: it was his first experience as a military chief). In this war the Orthodox Karelians fought fiercely against the Swedes. The Swedes captured Korela fortress after seven months of siege, when almost all defenders died. So areas of these lands have war and occupation

    but not being allowed a church is hardly comparable to real atrocities where people die or get enslaved
     
    During the Swedish invasion people died and became slaves

    The report of the commandant of the Sumy Fort
    «In the past, 1611, the year ... the Swedish military people came ..they burnt the villages and massacred the people , and the other seized into slavery»

    From petitions of the Saami (directed to the Russian authorities)
    «...in the past, 1611, come the Swedes and many of the best people killed and captured and in captivity they died...»

    «In the grave of Ivan Rokačču (Karelian peasant, hero of the guerrilla war against the Swedes) archaeologists have discovered the skeleton of men, and also two women's and two children's skeleton with traces of violent death»

    And so on. In the Northern war, the Russian army in the same way dealt with the Finns.. The difference however is that after 1617 (Stolbovsky peace), the Russian population fled EN masse from the Swedish rule in Russia, but after 1722 (the Nystad peace) Finnish population lived peacefully under the Russian government (although the population had full opportunity to run in the Swedish Finland).

    You have a very silly idea of “full scale war” if a Swedish expedition starting with 1700 men, cavalry and infantry with no cannons, puts Russia into a “full scale war”. These expeditions to capture specific forts were only possible because of Russia’s period of anarchy and the forces involved were so tiny that the events were guaranteed to be localized. The vast majority of Orthodox peasants were completely unaffected and there was no mass migration – until *after* the war when Sweden set up a government in the land it gained and began conversion efforts.

    Comparing this to the Great Northern War with its hundreds of thousands of soldiers (and hundreds of thousands of casualties) and a military government reaching every rural town is just beyond silly.

    Let’s remove the national source of blindness and just compare Russia to Russia. Roughly the same territory that is now Finland was occupied by Russia under Alexander I and under Peter I. There were some atrocities against civilians in 1808-1809 but it wasn’t approved by Russian authorities, soldiers were punished and they remained few incidents. Hence, Alexander I is not remembered as a monster and the war doesn’t have a strong folk memory of horror, though obviously no one wants to see it repeated.

    Under the military government set up by Peter I, in what’s now western Finland tens of thousands were enslaved and sent to build St Petersburg or sold to Muslims (!) through Crimea, children were kidnapped never to be seen again, the Russians had a scorched earth policy to create buffer zones against Sweden and it took us generations to repopulate zones a hundred miles wide. When the peasants fled from their burned towns, Cossacks might stage bloodbaths where they murdered refugees for sport.

    The brutal tactics and letting soldiers rape, murder and loot without any restraint doesn’t have any equivalent even among previous or later Russian wars against us. Even Stalin was clearly preferable to Peter I.

    Your idea that “old Finland” could have just moved to the Swedish side is completely mistaken. They were Karelians and would not have been welcome at all in large numbers, even if Protestant. You are projecting a modern “Finn” identity that didn’t exist then into the past. That “Finn” identity is a result of the Russians creating the Grand Duchy of Finland in 1809 and the resulting national romanticist movement inventing common myths, designing a common language and so on.

    Assuming that Protestant Karelians back then could just move to Sweden is a bit like assuming that Macedonia would automatically accept a mass migration of Russians because it’s Orthodox and Slavic. Actually even less accurate since Sweden was ruled by Swedes – ethnic Swedes refused to accept Karelian resettlement to their areas even from the territories lost in World War II and the only reason it was possible to settle Karelians 70 years ago was because Swedes were no longer in control of Finland. There were people that moved from “old Finland” to Sweden – Swedes and Germans who of course had an automatic option to be welcomed in Sweden, unlike Karelians.

    You don’t seem to realize that the military government of what you call “old Finland” under Peter I was not even the same government that was holding western provinces and the treatment of westerners was brutal. The difference is probably partly because of military reasons (the west coast has an easy connection to Sweden and its hard for Russia to control) and partly because of cultural reasons (even Protestant Karelians still have a very Slavic influenced culture, not shared by the almost Germanized southwest proper-Finns and other westerners).

    Slavery has been illegal in Sweden for 700 years. An army in a siege ordering peasants to dig a ditch is not the same as capturing people as lifelong slaves and carrying them off to a different land to be sold as property.

    Read More
    • Replies: @melanf

    You have a very silly idea of “full scale war” if a Swedish expedition starting with 1700 men, cavalry and infantry with no cannons, puts Russia into a “full scale war”… Comparing this to the Great Northern War with its hundreds of thousands of soldiers (and hundreds of thousands of casualties) and a military government reaching every rural town is just beyond silly.
     
    The Swedish army (under the command of Gustavus Adolphus) besieging Pskov in 1615, consisted of 10-14 thousand soldiers and had a numerous artillery. In the battle which decided the fate of Finland - Battle of Storkyro (1714), the Russian army consisted of 10 thousand people. As you can see Swedish invasion of Russia in 1610-1617, and the Russian invasion of Finland 1703-1722 had a similar scale

    These expeditions to capture specific forts…the forces involved were so tiny that the events were guaranteed to be localized.
     
    No. It was a full-scale invasion that led to the deaths and enslavement of tens of thousands of people, and ruination of the North of Russia.
    «The occupation led to the ruin of the once majestic city. Dutch diplomat who visited Novgorod in 1616, describes the city lying half in ruins, with burnt houses, monasteries and churches, with drastically reduced populations; the citizens either died from starvation and disease or fled from the city. Startling fact: from 20 thousand inhabitants by the end of the occupation, there were only a few thousand
    X., Sundberg. Life in Novgorod during the Swedish occupation 1611-1617.

    Before the occupation of Novgorod was the second largest city of Russia.


    The vast majority of Orthodox peasants were completely unaffected
     
    "According to the census of 1616-1619. in the six major churchyards Karelia (Celaskon, Songscom, Toloykon, Kizhi, Shuya and Olonets) was destroyed 1434 farms of 2231, that is, population decline has reached about 40%."
    History of Zaonezhie in the end of XV–XVIII centuries

    Let’s remove the national source of blindness and just compare Russia to Russia. Roughly the same territory that is now Finland was occupied by Russia under Alexander I and under Peter I. There were some atrocities against civilians in 1808-1809 but it wasn’t approved by Russian authorities,

     

    Times have changed. The actions of Russian troops in Finland in Northern War were the norm of this time. Swedes for example:
    «like the locusts of steel, the Swedes eat up all the area, which passed. In a population that already lived before the war, on the brink of starvation, with threats of fire and torture they took away food... Senior commanders received orders from the higher authorities "to extort and Rob the population, and as fast as possible". The Poles killed Swedish soldiers occasionally.. and the Swedish punished the Poles for such killing with unparalleled ferocity. The instructions said..that the Poles should be executed on the slightest suspicion "so that even the baby in the cradle will be no mercy". As an example of one of the many crimes of the Swedes can be called a massacre in Nieszawa. In August 1703 the town of Nieszawa was burned, and its innocent inhabitants hanged, and all this in punishment for the fact that the Swedish squad was attaked danger on the road
    Peter Englund Poltava


    Under the military government set up by Peter I, in what’s now western Finland tens of thousands were enslaved and sent to build St Petersburg or sold to Muslims (!) through Crimea,

    About the sale in Crimea is a clear fiction. If such cases were, it was very small unauthorized actions of the Cossacks. However, the Swedes (according Russian authorities) sold Russian captives to the Turks. It's maybe a lie (but maybe not). However, without any doubts, Swedes has military Alliance with the Crimean Tatars (professional hunters for slaves)


    the Russians had a scorched earth policy to create buffer zones against Sweden and
     
    The strategy is quite usual for that era

    it took us generations to repopulate zones a hundred miles wide.
     
    Before the Northern war the population of Finland amounted to 500 000 people. In 1721, the year it was reduced to 390 000 in Swedish Finland, and 50 thousand in Russian Finland (numbers, from the article S. Talaskivi "Lappeenrannan taistelu", according to Finnish-speaking acquaintance) . Direct losses from Russian invasion are measured as follows: "At least 5,000 Finns were killed and some 10,000 taken away as slaves, of whom only a few thousand would ever return According to newer research the amount of those killed is closer to 20,000". The victims of the famine of 1696-1697 according to various estimates, 100-150 thousand Finns. The Swedes had mobilized in the army 50-70 thousand Finns (the majority died). In 1710 a plague killed a third of the urban population (and tens of thousands of people for the whole of Finland ). You can evaluate how significant was the campaign of the Russian army, for the depopulation of Finland

    The brutal tactics and letting soldiers rape, murder and loot without any restraint doesn’t have any equivalent even among previous or later Russian wars against us.
     
    Just in previous wars, the Russian army did not occupy Finland.

    Your idea that “old Finland” could have just moved to the Swedish side is completely mistaken. They were Karelians and would not have been welcome at all in large numbers, even if Protestant.
     
    In Finland there were a lot of available land, which the kings sought to settle

    Slavery has been illegal in Sweden for 700 years. An army in a siege ordering peasants to dig a ditch is not the same as capturing people as lifelong slaves and carrying them off to a different land to be sold as property.
     
    In 1613, the Swedes hired detachments of Cossacks (detachments of Baryshpolets and Sydor - these Cossacks were in the majority from Polish lands). The Swedes ordered the Cossacks pillaging the Northern Russian lands. It followed by looting, mass murder and capture slaves in the name of the Swedish king. One hundred years later, all the joys of the Cossacks invasion learns Finns.

    And if you keep in mind the Finns mobilized for the construction of St. Petersburg – it was exactly ordering peasants to dig a ditch - not the same as capturing people as lifelong slaves (prisoners of Cossacks - it is a different story)

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. @Randal

    Anyhow, it’s clear May’s ideas about dealing with Islamic terrorism revolve around the same old of cracking down on Internet “extremism” (read: porn, islamophobia, etc).
     
    Read: "anti-Semitism", "homophobia", nationalism, "racism". "islamophobia" and probably yes in practice porn (at least of the more way out kind).

    But the constituencies pushing suppression of "antisemitism" and "homophobia" are way more influential than the rest, so those will in practice be the most actively enforced, along with "racism", nationalism and "islamophobia" to the extent they can be used to keep rivals to the "Conservative" Party suppressed.

    But under no circumstances will terrorism be addressed by meaningfully tackling its real causes - mass immigration and military interventionism. That would be far too inconvenient for the ruling elites of both "left" and "right".

    Whereas at least with Corbyn we have some chance of him unleashing his inner tankie against the jihadists.
     
    Corbyn has an inner tankie? Seems unlikely to me. Certainly there's no reason to suppose he'll attack jihadists. More likely he'll be manipulated by the "humanitarian" interventionists, as usual for the left, and we'll end up bombing another anti-jihadist Arab government. Or murdering more muslims and/or Russian allies to make the world safe for homosexual behaviour, feminism and multiculturalism.

    What seems to have been lost amongst the domestic politics trivia and terrorism hysteria is the reality that the only issue that really matters in this election is how it will affect Brexit.

    Agreed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. melanf says:
    @Jaakko Raipala
    You have a very silly idea of "full scale war" if a Swedish expedition starting with 1700 men, cavalry and infantry with no cannons, puts Russia into a "full scale war". These expeditions to capture specific forts were only possible because of Russia's period of anarchy and the forces involved were so tiny that the events were guaranteed to be localized. The vast majority of Orthodox peasants were completely unaffected and there was no mass migration - until *after* the war when Sweden set up a government in the land it gained and began conversion efforts.

    Comparing this to the Great Northern War with its hundreds of thousands of soldiers (and hundreds of thousands of casualties) and a military government reaching every rural town is just beyond silly.

    Let's remove the national source of blindness and just compare Russia to Russia. Roughly the same territory that is now Finland was occupied by Russia under Alexander I and under Peter I. There were some atrocities against civilians in 1808-1809 but it wasn't approved by Russian authorities, soldiers were punished and they remained few incidents. Hence, Alexander I is not remembered as a monster and the war doesn't have a strong folk memory of horror, though obviously no one wants to see it repeated.

    Under the military government set up by Peter I, in what's now western Finland tens of thousands were enslaved and sent to build St Petersburg or sold to Muslims (!) through Crimea, children were kidnapped never to be seen again, the Russians had a scorched earth policy to create buffer zones against Sweden and it took us generations to repopulate zones a hundred miles wide. When the peasants fled from their burned towns, Cossacks might stage bloodbaths where they murdered refugees for sport.

    The brutal tactics and letting soldiers rape, murder and loot without any restraint doesn't have any equivalent even among previous or later Russian wars against us. Even Stalin was clearly preferable to Peter I.

    Your idea that "old Finland" could have just moved to the Swedish side is completely mistaken. They were Karelians and would not have been welcome at all in large numbers, even if Protestant. You are projecting a modern "Finn" identity that didn't exist then into the past. That "Finn" identity is a result of the Russians creating the Grand Duchy of Finland in 1809 and the resulting national romanticist movement inventing common myths, designing a common language and so on.

    Assuming that Protestant Karelians back then could just move to Sweden is a bit like assuming that Macedonia would automatically accept a mass migration of Russians because it's Orthodox and Slavic. Actually even less accurate since Sweden was ruled by Swedes - ethnic Swedes refused to accept Karelian resettlement to their areas even from the territories lost in World War II and the only reason it was possible to settle Karelians 70 years ago was because Swedes were no longer in control of Finland. There were people that moved from "old Finland" to Sweden - Swedes and Germans who of course had an automatic option to be welcomed in Sweden, unlike Karelians.

    You don't seem to realize that the military government of what you call "old Finland" under Peter I was not even the same government that was holding western provinces and the treatment of westerners was brutal. The difference is probably partly because of military reasons (the west coast has an easy connection to Sweden and its hard for Russia to control) and partly because of cultural reasons (even Protestant Karelians still have a very Slavic influenced culture, not shared by the almost Germanized southwest proper-Finns and other westerners).

    Slavery has been illegal in Sweden for 700 years. An army in a siege ordering peasants to dig a ditch is not the same as capturing people as lifelong slaves and carrying them off to a different land to be sold as property.

    You have a very silly idea of “full scale war” if a Swedish expedition starting with 1700 men, cavalry and infantry with no cannons, puts Russia into a “full scale war”… Comparing this to the Great Northern War with its hundreds of thousands of soldiers (and hundreds of thousands of casualties) and a military government reaching every rural town is just beyond silly.

    The Swedish army (under the command of Gustavus Adolphus) besieging Pskov in 1615, consisted of 10-14 thousand soldiers and had a numerous artillery. In the battle which decided the fate of Finland – Battle of Storkyro (1714), the Russian army consisted of 10 thousand people. As you can see Swedish invasion of Russia in 1610-1617, and the Russian invasion of Finland 1703-1722 had a similar scale

    These expeditions to capture specific forts…the forces involved were so tiny that the events were guaranteed to be localized.

    No. It was a full-scale invasion that led to the deaths and enslavement of tens of thousands of people, and ruination of the North of Russia.
    «The occupation led to the ruin of the once majestic city. Dutch diplomat who visited Novgorod in 1616, describes the city lying half in ruins, with burnt houses, monasteries and churches, with drastically reduced populations; the citizens either died from starvation and disease or fled from the city. Startling fact: from 20 thousand inhabitants by the end of the occupation, there were only a few thousand
    X., Sundberg. Life in Novgorod during the Swedish occupation 1611-1617.

    Before the occupation of Novgorod was the second largest city of Russia.

    The vast majority of Orthodox peasants were completely unaffected

    According to the census of 1616-1619. in the six major churchyards Karelia (Celaskon, Songscom, Toloykon, Kizhi, Shuya and Olonets) was destroyed 1434 farms of 2231, that is, population decline has reached about 40%.”
    History of Zaonezhie in the end of XV–XVIII centuries

    Let’s remove the national source of blindness and just compare Russia to Russia. Roughly the same territory that is now Finland was occupied by Russia under Alexander I and under Peter I. There were some atrocities against civilians in 1808-1809 but it wasn’t approved by Russian authorities,

    Times have changed. The actions of Russian troops in Finland in Northern War were the norm of this time. Swedes for example:
    «like the locusts of steel, the Swedes eat up all the area, which passed. In a population that already lived before the war, on the brink of starvation, with threats of fire and torture they took away food… Senior commanders received orders from the higher authorities “to extort and Rob the population, and as fast as possible”. The Poles killed Swedish soldiers occasionally.. and the Swedish punished the Poles for such killing with unparalleled ferocity. The instructions said..that the Poles should be executed on the slightest suspicion “so that even the baby in the cradle will be no mercy”. As an example of one of the many crimes of the Swedes can be called a massacre in Nieszawa. In August 1703 the town of Nieszawa was burned, and its innocent inhabitants hanged, and all this in punishment for the fact that the Swedish squad was attaked danger on the road
    Peter Englund Poltava

    Under the military government set up by Peter I, in what’s now western Finland tens of thousands were enslaved and sent to build St Petersburg or sold to Muslims (!) through Crimea,

    About the sale in Crimea is a clear fiction. If such cases were, it was very small unauthorized actions of the Cossacks. However, the Swedes (according Russian authorities) sold Russian captives to the Turks. It’s maybe a lie (but maybe not). However, without any doubts, Swedes has military Alliance with the Crimean Tatars (professional hunters for slaves)

    the Russians had a scorched earth policy to create buffer zones against Sweden and

    The strategy is quite usual for that era

    it took us generations to repopulate zones a hundred miles wide.

    Before the Northern war the population of Finland amounted to 500 000 people. In 1721, the year it was reduced to 390 000 in Swedish Finland, and 50 thousand in Russian Finland (numbers, from the article S. Talaskivi “Lappeenrannan taistelu”, according to Finnish-speaking acquaintance) . Direct losses from Russian invasion are measured as follows: “At least 5,000 Finns were killed and some 10,000 taken away as slaves, of whom only a few thousand would ever return According to newer research the amount of those killed is closer to 20,000“. The victims of the famine of 1696-1697 according to various estimates, 100-150 thousand Finns. The Swedes had mobilized in the army 50-70 thousand Finns (the majority died). In 1710 a plague killed a third of the urban population (and tens of thousands of people for the whole of Finland ). You can evaluate how significant was the campaign of the Russian army, for the depopulation of Finland

    The brutal tactics and letting soldiers rape, murder and loot without any restraint doesn’t have any equivalent even among previous or later Russian wars against us.

    Just in previous wars, the Russian army did not occupy Finland.

    Your idea that “old Finland” could have just moved to the Swedish side is completely mistaken. They were Karelians and would not have been welcome at all in large numbers, even if Protestant.

    In Finland there were a lot of available land, which the kings sought to settle

    Slavery has been illegal in Sweden for 700 years. An army in a siege ordering peasants to dig a ditch is not the same as capturing people as lifelong slaves and carrying them off to a different land to be sold as property.

    In 1613, the Swedes hired detachments of Cossacks (detachments of Baryshpolets and Sydor – these Cossacks were in the majority from Polish lands). The Swedes ordered the Cossacks pillaging the Northern Russian lands. It followed by looting, mass murder and capture slaves in the name of the Swedish king. One hundred years later, all the joys of the Cossacks invasion learns Finns.

    And if you keep in mind the Finns mobilized for the construction of St. Petersburg – it was exactly ordering peasants to dig a ditch – not the same as capturing people as lifelong slaves (prisoners of Cossacks – it is a different story)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jaakko Raipala
    We were talking about Karelians but Novgorod and Pskov were full of Russians. Like I said, the events of this war were very localized in Russian cities and didn't concern Finnic peasants, though I admit I must have been wrong about the scale of events like siege of Pskov. I can't argue about this subject since I slept through Swedish and Russian classes and the Finnish history books that I own are only interested in the beginning of the expedition when the first army was raised in Finland and it was heavily Finnish, by the time they reach Pskov the war is so uninteresting to Finns that it's just a footnote.

    I'm still trying to understand why you think Sweden would have ever helped Karelians resettle. To Sweden they basically were a subjugated tribe and a colonial possession. There were native American tribes that converted to Christianity; if such a tribe were to announce one day "hey, we're having trouble here so we are going to relocate our tribe to England", do you think the English would have automatically handed a bunch of land in England for this native tribe to settle just because they now shared a religion?

    Sweden may have still had a lot of territory but it also still had a lot of knights that it could have sent to intimidate Karelians attempting some mass migration westwards. There was a trickle of migrants from "old Finland" but they scattered in the remaining Finnic land and got absorbed there. These are different Finnic cultures and previously tribal enemies of Karelians, there was no love between us and the promotion of a shared "Finn" identity happened in the 19th century. I don't understand why you think Karelians would have been accepted here in large numbers.

    There were other occupations of Finland by Russia, like in 1742-1743, but this didn't have the wide-scale terror. There were still events like the Russians burning down the small town of Ilomantsi and carrying off several families; captives were taken to some tiny town called Belozersk and an open slave auction was held there. This seems to have happened without the knowledge of the Russian leaders and when Finnish activists raised international attention to it they were allowed in to fetch the slaves back. Some spontaneous slave auction would not have occurred to people on our side where slavery had been banned for centuries.

    "Standards of the time" is a futile argument when you follow tactics that would have been considered brutal at any time. Under Peter I the Russian tactic in the west coast of Finland was to order a hundred mile wide swathe of coast depopulated with every town burned down and every fisherman and farmer gone to create a buffer zone where Swedish armies can't find food, houses or roads. When fishermen and their families fled to islands, Cossacks followed them and staged massacres where these refugees with no real weapons were sitting ducks with nowhere to flee. These methodical extermination tactics were not followed under Ivan III, Ivan IV, Alexander I, Elizabeth or other Russian rulers who held the same parts during wars even if individual towns or cities were destroyed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. @melanf

    You have a very silly idea of “full scale war” if a Swedish expedition starting with 1700 men, cavalry and infantry with no cannons, puts Russia into a “full scale war”… Comparing this to the Great Northern War with its hundreds of thousands of soldiers (and hundreds of thousands of casualties) and a military government reaching every rural town is just beyond silly.
     
    The Swedish army (under the command of Gustavus Adolphus) besieging Pskov in 1615, consisted of 10-14 thousand soldiers and had a numerous artillery. In the battle which decided the fate of Finland - Battle of Storkyro (1714), the Russian army consisted of 10 thousand people. As you can see Swedish invasion of Russia in 1610-1617, and the Russian invasion of Finland 1703-1722 had a similar scale

    These expeditions to capture specific forts…the forces involved were so tiny that the events were guaranteed to be localized.
     
    No. It was a full-scale invasion that led to the deaths and enslavement of tens of thousands of people, and ruination of the North of Russia.
    «The occupation led to the ruin of the once majestic city. Dutch diplomat who visited Novgorod in 1616, describes the city lying half in ruins, with burnt houses, monasteries and churches, with drastically reduced populations; the citizens either died from starvation and disease or fled from the city. Startling fact: from 20 thousand inhabitants by the end of the occupation, there were only a few thousand
    X., Sundberg. Life in Novgorod during the Swedish occupation 1611-1617.

    Before the occupation of Novgorod was the second largest city of Russia.


    The vast majority of Orthodox peasants were completely unaffected
     
    "According to the census of 1616-1619. in the six major churchyards Karelia (Celaskon, Songscom, Toloykon, Kizhi, Shuya and Olonets) was destroyed 1434 farms of 2231, that is, population decline has reached about 40%."
    History of Zaonezhie in the end of XV–XVIII centuries

    Let’s remove the national source of blindness and just compare Russia to Russia. Roughly the same territory that is now Finland was occupied by Russia under Alexander I and under Peter I. There were some atrocities against civilians in 1808-1809 but it wasn’t approved by Russian authorities,

     

    Times have changed. The actions of Russian troops in Finland in Northern War were the norm of this time. Swedes for example:
    «like the locusts of steel, the Swedes eat up all the area, which passed. In a population that already lived before the war, on the brink of starvation, with threats of fire and torture they took away food... Senior commanders received orders from the higher authorities "to extort and Rob the population, and as fast as possible". The Poles killed Swedish soldiers occasionally.. and the Swedish punished the Poles for such killing with unparalleled ferocity. The instructions said..that the Poles should be executed on the slightest suspicion "so that even the baby in the cradle will be no mercy". As an example of one of the many crimes of the Swedes can be called a massacre in Nieszawa. In August 1703 the town of Nieszawa was burned, and its innocent inhabitants hanged, and all this in punishment for the fact that the Swedish squad was attaked danger on the road
    Peter Englund Poltava


    Under the military government set up by Peter I, in what’s now western Finland tens of thousands were enslaved and sent to build St Petersburg or sold to Muslims (!) through Crimea,

    About the sale in Crimea is a clear fiction. If such cases were, it was very small unauthorized actions of the Cossacks. However, the Swedes (according Russian authorities) sold Russian captives to the Turks. It's maybe a lie (but maybe not). However, without any doubts, Swedes has military Alliance with the Crimean Tatars (professional hunters for slaves)


    the Russians had a scorched earth policy to create buffer zones against Sweden and
     
    The strategy is quite usual for that era

    it took us generations to repopulate zones a hundred miles wide.
     
    Before the Northern war the population of Finland amounted to 500 000 people. In 1721, the year it was reduced to 390 000 in Swedish Finland, and 50 thousand in Russian Finland (numbers, from the article S. Talaskivi "Lappeenrannan taistelu", according to Finnish-speaking acquaintance) . Direct losses from Russian invasion are measured as follows: "At least 5,000 Finns were killed and some 10,000 taken away as slaves, of whom only a few thousand would ever return According to newer research the amount of those killed is closer to 20,000". The victims of the famine of 1696-1697 according to various estimates, 100-150 thousand Finns. The Swedes had mobilized in the army 50-70 thousand Finns (the majority died). In 1710 a plague killed a third of the urban population (and tens of thousands of people for the whole of Finland ). You can evaluate how significant was the campaign of the Russian army, for the depopulation of Finland

    The brutal tactics and letting soldiers rape, murder and loot without any restraint doesn’t have any equivalent even among previous or later Russian wars against us.
     
    Just in previous wars, the Russian army did not occupy Finland.

    Your idea that “old Finland” could have just moved to the Swedish side is completely mistaken. They were Karelians and would not have been welcome at all in large numbers, even if Protestant.
     
    In Finland there were a lot of available land, which the kings sought to settle

    Slavery has been illegal in Sweden for 700 years. An army in a siege ordering peasants to dig a ditch is not the same as capturing people as lifelong slaves and carrying them off to a different land to be sold as property.
     
    In 1613, the Swedes hired detachments of Cossacks (detachments of Baryshpolets and Sydor - these Cossacks were in the majority from Polish lands). The Swedes ordered the Cossacks pillaging the Northern Russian lands. It followed by looting, mass murder and capture slaves in the name of the Swedish king. One hundred years later, all the joys of the Cossacks invasion learns Finns.

    And if you keep in mind the Finns mobilized for the construction of St. Petersburg – it was exactly ordering peasants to dig a ditch - not the same as capturing people as lifelong slaves (prisoners of Cossacks - it is a different story)

    We were talking about Karelians but Novgorod and Pskov were full of Russians. Like I said, the events of this war were very localized in Russian cities and didn’t concern Finnic peasants, though I admit I must have been wrong about the scale of events like siege of Pskov. I can’t argue about this subject since I slept through Swedish and Russian classes and the Finnish history books that I own are only interested in the beginning of the expedition when the first army was raised in Finland and it was heavily Finnish, by the time they reach Pskov the war is so uninteresting to Finns that it’s just a footnote.

    I’m still trying to understand why you think Sweden would have ever helped Karelians resettle. To Sweden they basically were a subjugated tribe and a colonial possession. There were native American tribes that converted to Christianity; if such a tribe were to announce one day “hey, we’re having trouble here so we are going to relocate our tribe to England”, do you think the English would have automatically handed a bunch of land in England for this native tribe to settle just because they now shared a religion?

    Sweden may have still had a lot of territory but it also still had a lot of knights that it could have sent to intimidate Karelians attempting some mass migration westwards. There was a trickle of migrants from “old Finland” but they scattered in the remaining Finnic land and got absorbed there. These are different Finnic cultures and previously tribal enemies of Karelians, there was no love between us and the promotion of a shared “Finn” identity happened in the 19th century. I don’t understand why you think Karelians would have been accepted here in large numbers.

    There were other occupations of Finland by Russia, like in 1742-1743, but this didn’t have the wide-scale terror. There were still events like the Russians burning down the small town of Ilomantsi and carrying off several families; captives were taken to some tiny town called Belozersk and an open slave auction was held there. This seems to have happened without the knowledge of the Russian leaders and when Finnish activists raised international attention to it they were allowed in to fetch the slaves back. Some spontaneous slave auction would not have occurred to people on our side where slavery had been banned for centuries.

    “Standards of the time” is a futile argument when you follow tactics that would have been considered brutal at any time. Under Peter I the Russian tactic in the west coast of Finland was to order a hundred mile wide swathe of coast depopulated with every town burned down and every fisherman and farmer gone to create a buffer zone where Swedish armies can’t find food, houses or roads. When fishermen and their families fled to islands, Cossacks followed them and staged massacres where these refugees with no real weapons were sitting ducks with nowhere to flee. These methodical extermination tactics were not followed under Ivan III, Ivan IV, Alexander I, Elizabeth or other Russian rulers who held the same parts during wars even if individual towns or cities were destroyed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. Boris N says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    One can either believe:

    * the formal texts of immigration laws

    Or...

    * official stats indicating massive population replacement in the UK and western Europe
    * your lying eyes (saw 200m queue for asylum app in London; whites half the passengers on the metro)
    * articles about depopulated villages in West Africa because most of the men left for work to Europe

    Then you must explain how they are getting in there. I mean from a legal point of view. And this concerns not only the UK/EU, but Russia as well if we want to limit migration to Russia foremost by fixing our migration laws.

    We know how Central Asians come to Russia. They buy a ticket Tashkent-Moscow and come as “tourists” to Russia, work for 90 days and return. Many overstay, but few have been arrested, fined, deported and blacklisted because of the corruption. Many go legal and simply buy a “patent” outright which is the most favourable pro-immigrant legal instrument the world has known (I doubt that any Western country has such a ridiculously easy way to become a legal resident). So all this because: 1) the visa free access; 2) the corrupt migration service; 3) the deliberate laws that help illegal workers become legalized. Plus the really open borders with Kazakhstan.

    So we know how to fix that: 1) change the law; 2) seal the borders; 3) purge the corrupted services.

    I really wish the Russian migration laws and services were like in the UK. Pity Russia is not surrounded by an ocean to the south.

    The migration laws in the UK are one of the most strictest, you cannot simply go there unless you are a lucky EU citizen or from a few First World countries (though in the latter case you still cannot stay indefinitely).

    So explain to me how this fails to work in the UK.

    Let’s imagine a Ghanian/Nigerian/Pakistani/whomever wants to the UK. He is not a very educated and not rich. So he cannot find a white-collar job in the UK and get a working permit. He is not fit for the “skilled migration” program. No wife or close relatives there. He cannot simply buy a ticket to London, because there is no visa free access to him; he must got a visa on the first place. As he is poor he cannot pretend he is a tourist, so the British embassy will most likely deny him a visa. So overall such a scenario works for the majority, I won’t even hesitate to say 99%, of the people in the Third World (either Muslim or otherwise).

    So his only option left is to cross the Sahara and hope that that boat won’t sink on its way to Italy or Spain. And that he will not be stopped by police on his way to the UK, and that the custom officers by some miracle will not notice him at Calais/Dover or the Channel Tunnel. Then he must live the rest of his life illegally always fearing the deportation. Of course, no any social benefits as legally he is not in the UK. Even no such a simple thing as driver’s licence, as he has no legal grounds to get it. And make his bread illegally in some sweatshop and be under the full control of his boss. A very good life, indeed. Must be better than Africa.

    Even in this last scenario you must admit that: 1) the border services in both Spain/Italy and in the UK are absolutely useless and ineffective; 2) the migration service in the UK is absolutely useless and ineffective; 3) there is no control of the population and you can happily live, work, study, be treated and so on without ever worrying about having any documents. Or even worse: the corruption is so immense that you can bribe your way out all the time.

    So next time when you go to the UK forget your British passport and try to go as a Russian citizen. And forget about getting a visa or any documents, because why should you, those Africans have not got them, haven’t they? Bribe the officers if they ask. Later you may describe to us your experience, especially living in a jail/detention centre, in an improbable case you would even manage to get into the UK.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. Boris N says:
    @Greasy William

    Do you want to make the UK as closed as North Korea?
     
    Do you realize that supporting the pro immigration politicians means you are supporting the world's biggest Russophobes? The only pro Russia politicians are anti immigration.

    If you are personally affronted by our immigration policies, keep in mind that all of us support easier immigration for whites. The problem is that too many non whites are immigrating.

    Do you realize that supporting the pro immigration politicians means you are supporting the world’s biggest Russophobes? The only pro Russia politicians are anti immigration.

    My main point that the entire “open border” and “migration rules” rhetoric is a sham. From both the sides. Neither the left are going to abolish the current migration laws (if they say so they lie), nor the right are going to make it stricter than it is (they cannot make the strictest laws any stricter, if not by making it totalitarian).

    If you are personally affronted by our immigration policies, keep in mind that all of us support easier immigration for whites.

    I’m not that affronted as it may look, and I do not see the UK as the best place to live (though, it’s definitely neater and tidier than Russia and the climate is better – for now at least); and I’m less concerned about visas then by the difficulty to find a normal job or worse by the high probability to become jobless and homeless in a foreign country (this is why I entirely do not understand illegal immigrants).

    The problem is that too many non whites are immigrating.

    Simply consider the numbers. The Third World is around 6 billion, even if 0.5% migrate they will overwhelm Britain. 5% will overwhelm entire Europe. Basic maths. You cannot treat that other than ban any entry from any country (see North Korea) or from a certain list (but this will be certainly racial discrimination). But you are already late, they are already many and they will simply overbreed you (but this will be a long process). Though, I’m not that pessimistic about Europe. Most European countries are still 85%-95% white, which is equal or higher than in Russia which many Western white nationalists wrongly consider as a safe haven for whites. Simply consider this: Russia has the real open borders and visa free regime with Muslim Asia.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. Boris N says:
    @anon

    do you really believe that the immigration procedure is any different (=harder) for a Russian/American than for a Pakistani/Arab?
     
    i know it is. the people who have the hardest time are white Australians, New Zealanders, Canadians etc of British descent - government jobs are a PC gulag where the workers have to prove they're not racist and they do it by discriminating against white people - it's insane but that's how it is

    Refugees are constantly denied and deported.
     
    No they're not. First. there's a back log of cases going back years and regular quiet mass amnesties to deal with the numbers; the cases that do get investigated are very rarely denied and even when they are they are rarely deported. After a few years they get temporary legal status and a few years after that, citizenship. The UK political class have been running a stealth amnesty like this for decades which the media has covered up.

    To get a work permit you need to get a job on the first place.
     
    No you don't - or rather you personally might but tens of thousands of refugees from places like Kosovo have been given work permits over the years to clear the back log of asylum claims or to clear the Calais immigrant camp when it got too big.

    Even in their own countries people struggle to find a job, how is it easier to find a job overseas?
     
    Some populations are totally corrupt - hint, the cousin marrying ones - and they fill the businesses they own with illegal immigrants from back home so the illegals do have a job in advance. They come on student or tourist visas and then disappear to the pre-arranged job in the shadow economy.

    (supplying the hundreds of thousands of illegal workers with cheap prostitution is one of the main drivers of the Pakistani rape gangs)

    You need a family on the first place for the unification. 99% of people have no family in the UK/US.
     
    illegal immigrant / refugee -> temp status -> citizenship -> family reunification

    So the only option left is illegal immigration.
     
    illegal immigration is initially the key because PC prevents them being deported

    arranged marriages are also a big thing though - cousin marrying cultures arrange marriages with their home village - the family of the spouse from abroad pay the family already in the UK thousands of pounds for the chance to get a UK passport as that can then lead to the whole extended family moving over through reunification

    tl;dr

    for non-white illegal immigrants / refugees or arranged marriages it's easy and the numbers are vast

    it probably wouldn't work for you because you're not protected by PC - if you said you were a Ukie refugee from Donbass and got a SJW case officer then *maybe* - but the more SJW the case officer the more being white is a disadvantage

    You’ve made a bunch of false assertions which are not backed by any evidence.

    Between 1994 and 2003, asylum seekers’ share of annual net migration ranged from 20% to 54% in annual data.

    Between 2004 and 2014, asylum ranged from 3% to 10% of net migration, and was estimated at about 7% for 2014.

    In 2015, 64% of initial asylum applications were refused

    http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migration-to-the-uk-asylum/

    Overall levels of settlement in 2016 were down more than 75% from the 2010 peak

    http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/settlement-in-the-uk/

    Etc.

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

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Anatoly Karlin Comments via RSS