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

 Remember My Information



=>
Topics/Categories Filter?
Blogging China Convergence Core Article Corruption Crime Democracy Demography Economics Economy Elections Foreign Policy Futurism Geopolitics Georgia History Human Biodiversity Human Rights Humor Ideology International Comparisons International Relations IQ Liberal Opposition Military Miscellaneous Moscow Open Thread Opinion Poll Politics Psychometrics Putin Race/Ethnicity Russia Russian Media Russophobes Society Sociology Soviet Union Translations UK Ukraine United States USA Western Hypocrisy Western Media 2008-south-ossetia-war 2010 Census 2012 US Elections 9/11 Abortion Academia Admin Administration Aesthetics Affirmative Action Afghanistan Africa Age Of Malthusian Industrialism Aging Agriculture AGW Denial Ahmadinejad AIDS Airborne Laser Aircraft Carriers Al Jazeera Alcohol Alcoholism Alexander Mercouris Alexei Kudrin Alexei Navalny Alt Right American Media Anarchism Anatoly Karlin Ancestral Health Andrei Korotayev Anthropology Anti-Semitism Antifa Apocalypse Apollo's Ascent Arab Spring Arabs ARCS Of Progress Arctic Civilization Arctic Methane Release Arctic Resources Arctic Sea Ice Melting Argentina Armenia Art Arthur H. Smith Arthur Jensen Artificial Intelligence Asian Americans Assad Assange Assassinations Aubrey De Grey Australia Austria authoritarianism Automation Azerbaijan Bahrain Baltics Bangladeshis Barbarians Bashar Al-Assad Beer Belarus Berezovsky Berkeley Big History BigPost Billionaires Blacks Bolivarian Revolution Bolshevik Revolution Books Boris Berezovsky Brahmans Brazil Brexit Brezhnev BRICs Brighter Brains Business California Calisthenics Canada Capitalism Cars Cartoon Catalonia Caucasus CEC Censorship Central Asia Charles Murray Charlie Hebdo Charlottesville Chechens Chechnya china-russia-relations Chinese Communist Party Chinese Economy Chinese History Chinese IQ Chinese Language Chinese People Christianity Chuck Schumer CIA Class Climate Climate Change Cliodynamics CNN CO2 Emissions Coal Cognitive Elitism Cold War collapse Collapse Party Colmar Von Der Goltz Colombia Color Revolution Communism Confucianism Marriage Conservatism Conspiracy Theories Copenhagen Summit Corruption Perceptions Index Cousin Marriage Crimea Crimean Tatars Crisis Crispr Cuba Cuckoldry Cultural Marxism Culture Cyprus Czech Republic Dark Lord Of The Kremlin David Moser Death Penalty Demographic Transition Demographics Demoscope Development Digital Philosophy discussion Dmitry Medvedev Donald Trump Dostoevsky Drones Drought Drugs Dubai Dysgenic Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Earth Day East Asian Exception East Asians Eastern Europe Economic History Economist Democracy Index Ecuador Education Edward Snowden Effective Altruism Egor Kholmogorov Egypt Elites Emigration Emmanuel Macron EMP Weapons Enemy Belligerent Act Of 2010 Energy Environment EROEI Espionage Ester Boserup Estonia Eugenics Eurabia Eurasia Europe European History European Right European Union Evolution Existential Risks Facebook falsifiable-predictions Family Fantasy Far Abroad Fascism fat-diets FEL Weapons FEMEN Feminism Fertility fertility-rate Fertility Rates Film Finance Financial Times Finland Fluctuarius Argenteus Flynn Effect Food Football Forecasts Foreign Policy Fossil Fuels France Free Speech Freedom Of Speech Freedom Friedrich List Gail The Actuary Game Of Thrones Gaza Flotilla Raid Gender Relations Genetic Engineering Genetic Load Genetics Genocide Geography George Friedman George Soros Gérard Depardieu Germany Glenn Greenwald Global Warming Globalization GMD Goldman Sachs Google Graham Turner grains Great Powers Greece Greeks Green Green Party USA Gregory Clark Guantanamo Guardian Guardian Censorship Guest Guns Half Sigma Hank Pellissier Hanzi Hashemi Rafsanjani Hate Speech HBDchick Health Healthcare Hezbollah Hillary Clinton Himachal Pradesh Hindu Caste System Hispanics Hist kai Hitler homicides Homosexuality Hong Kong HplusNRx Hubbert's Peak Human Achievement human-capital Hungary Ibn Khaldun ICBMs Iceland Ideologies Idiocracy Illegal Immigration IMF immigrants Immigration Imperialism incarceration-rate India Indian Economy Indian IQ Indians industrialization Inequality Inequality Inflation Infrastructure inosmi Intelligence Internet interview Interviews Iosef Stalin IPCC Iran Iranian Nuclear Weapons Program Iraq Ireland Islam Islam Islamic State Islamism Islamist-liberal Alliance Islamophobia Israel IT Italy Ivan Bloch James Kunstler James Lovelock Japan Jared Diamond Jennifer Rubin Jews Jezebel Jim O'neill John McCain John Michael Greer John Yoo Jorge Luis Borges Joseph Tainter Journalism Julian Assange Junta Kant Karlinism Kenneth Pomeranz Khamenei khodorkovsky Kompromat konstantin-von-eggert Korean Cuisine Kremlin Clans kremlinology la-russophobe Laissez-faire Languages Latin America Latvia Law Law Lazy Glossophiliac Learning Lenin levada Levada Center LGBT Liberalism Libertarianism Libya Life life-expectancy Limits To Growth limp-wristed-liberals Linguistics Literacy Literature Living Standards LNG london luke-harding Malnutrition Malthus Malthusian Loop Malthusianism Manufacturing Maoism Map maps Marine Le Pen mark-adomanis Marxism Masculinity Massive Ordnance Penetrator Matt Forney Max Weber me Media Medvedev Meme Mexico Middle Ages Middle East Migration Milan Kundera Militarization Military History Military Technology Minorities Mitt Romney Moltke The Elder Monarchy Money Mortality Moscow Mayoral Election 2013 Muammar Gaddafi Muslims NAMs Nationalism NATO Natural Gas navalny Navalny Affair Nazism NCVS Near Abroad Neocons Neoreaction Netherlands New York Times news-2008 ngos Niall Ferguson Nick Bostrom Nick Eberstadt Nobel Prize Norman Finkelstein North Korea Norway Novorossiya Novorossiya Sitrep Nuclear Power Nuclear Weapons Nutrition NYT Obama Obesity Obituary Occupy Oil oligarchs open-discussion Opposition orientalism Orinoco Belt Orissa Orthodoxy Pakistan Diet Palestine Paper Review Paris Attacks Patriot Missiles Patriotism Paul Chefurka Pavel Grudinin Pax Americana PDVSA Peak Oil Pedophilia People's Liberation Army Peter Turchin Philosophy Philosophy Pigs PIRLS PISA PLAN Podcast Poland Polar Regions Police Political Correctness Political Economy Poll Population Growth Poverty Prediction Productivity Projects Propaganda Protestantism protests Psychology Public Health pussy-riot Putin Derangement Syndrome Race/IQ race-realism Racism Rape Rationality Ray Kurzweil Razib Khan R&D Reading Real Estate RealWorld Religion Republicans Review RFERL RIA Novosti Richard Lynn rise-of-the-rest Robert Ayres Romanticism Ron Unz RossPress RTS Stock Market Russia Debate Russia-Germany Relations Russiagate russian-cuisine Russian Demography Russian Economy Russian Elections 2018 Russian Far East Russian History Russian Military Russian Nationalism Russian Occupation Government Russian Orthodox Church Russian Politics Russian Reaction Russian Society RussPol Saint-Petersburg San Francisco Saudi Arabia Scandinavia Schlieffen Plan schools Schopenhauer Sci-Fi Science Science Fiction Scotland Secession Serbia sergey-magnitsky Sergey Nefedov sergey-zhuravlev Sex Sex Ratio Shanghai Singapore Singularity Sisyphean Loop SJWs Slavoj Zizek SLBMs SM-3 sobornost Social Evolution Social Media Socialism Sociobiology Songun South Korea Debt Soviet History Space space-based-solar-power Space Exploration Spain Sport stalin Statistics Steve Bannon Steve Sailer Steven Pinker Strait Of Hormuz String Of Pearls Sublime Oblivion Suicide Supercomputers Superintelligence Survivalism Svidomy Sweden Switzerland Syria Syrian Civil War systems-modeling Taiwan Tamerlan Tsarnaev Tamil Nadu Taxes Technology Terrorism THAAD The AK The Bell Curve The Bible The Economist The Guardian The Lancet The Matrix The Oil Drum The Russian Spectrum The Sublime Thermoeconomics Tim Ferriss TIMSS War Trade Transhumanism Translation transparency-international Travel Trolling Trump Derangement Syndrome Tsarist Russia Turkey Twitter UAE UAVs UC Berkeley Ugo Bardi UKIP Ukrainian Crisis UN Unemployment United Kingdom Universal Basic Income Universities Urbanization US Blacks US Elections 2016 US Navy US-Russia.org Expert Discussion Panel us-russia-relations vegetarianism Vekhi Velayat-e Faqih Venezuela Video Video Games Vietnam Viktor Yushchenko Vladimir Putin Wall Street War War In Donbass wealth-creation Welfare Whites Wikileaks Willem Buiter william-burns William Catton Women Womyn's Studies World Health Organization World Values Survey World War I World War II Writing WSJ Yemen yulia-latynina Zombies Zoology
Nothing found
 TeasersRussian Reaction Blog

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

One hundred years ago (Jan 19, 1918) the Bolsheviks forcibly dissolved the Russian Constituent Assembly, kickstarting the Russian Civil War.

map-russia-constituent-assembly-election-1917

Source: @welections
Russian Constituent Assembly election, 1917: Brown = Social Revolutionaries; Red = Bolsheviks; Green = Regional SR’s; Yellow = Local parties.

More germane reason: The Bolsheviks had only gotten 24.5% of the vote, getting beaten out by the Social Revolutionaries with 40.4%.

This doesn’t change even if we account for the Left SR’s deserting to the Bolsheviks, since they only won 4o mandates to the Right SR’s 375 and the Bolsheviks’ 175.

Contrary to both Communist and Western Russophobe propaganda, Russians never voted in the Bolsheviks, let alone gave them license to usurp absolute power and launch a civil war.

The median point of public sentiment prior to the war was approximately between as-is (Right and nationalists) and constitutional monarchy (Octobrists). That median point shifted radically left by 1917, yet even so it remained firmly in non-Bolshevik territory, corresponding to the positions of the Social Revolutionaries, and of their main (“Right SRs”) faction – aka basically the equivalents of European social democrats – in particular. While a left turn was inevitable, especially on land redistribution, there was no plans for mass confiscations or ending a war that, despite its political turmoil, Russia was still winning (Austria-Hungary had been preparing to sue for peace immediately before the October Revolution). In essence, the Bolsheviks roundly failed the sole quantitative test of their legitimacy, namely, free elections. That is despite the demoralization of two revolutions, the Provisional Government’s persecution of right-wing parties, and incessant Bolshevik subversion of the army and the home front.

The Bolsheviks were never prepared to accept the democratic will of the people. Lenin made it very clear that giving the institution any power was effectively a betrayal of the proletariat and the Revolution. Sovnarkom fatefully undermined its authority before it even went into session (banning the bourgeois Kadets; decreeing that it needed to achieve quorum to meet, making it critically dependent on the Bolsheviks; decreeing that all power belonged to the Soviets anyway, and that anyone thinking otherwise would be treated as a counter-revolutionary).

On the first – and last – day of the Constituent Assembly’s convention at the Tauride Palace on January 18, the Bolshevik Sverdlov Yakov Sverdlov demanded they recognize the Soviets as the ultimate power in the land. The other parties refused. The Bolsheviks walked out, and the Left SRs followed them. The plan was to surround the Tauride Palace with Latvian Riflemen the following morning and bar the delegates entrance. But in the end, that plan proved superfluous; the red sailors who were tasked with keeping watch over the proceedings after the Bolsheviks departed kicked out the delegates early in the night. Most of those delegates soon left the capital for gathering centers of resistance in the provinces, or fled abroad. The Bolsheviks declared the Constituent Assembly to be a nest of counter-revolutionary forces on January 19.

map-russia-constituent-assembly-election-1917-bolsheviks

Source: @welections
Russian Constituent Assembly election, 1917: Bolshevik share of the vote.

Who did vote for the Bolsheviks? The Latvians and Estonians of the Governorate of Livonia gave them 72% of the vote, the highest of any region in the Russian Empire.

They then proceeded to form the hard core of the Bolshevik’s armed muscle in the critical early months of the Civil War. Ethnic Latvians formed an outright majority (!) of the Cheka’s commissars in 1918, and the Red Latvian Riflemen played a central role in crushing the initial anti-Bolshevik uprisings in central Russia. Consequently, bereft of Russia’s industrial and logistical heartlands from the very start, the dice were loaded against the Whites.

Of course none of this stops Latvians from demanding Russia pay them muh reparations just for making them live with their democratic choices of 1917, come 1940.

 
• Category: History • Tags: Bolshevik Revolution, Communism, Elections, Latvia 
🔊 Listen RSS

Navalny claimed that the state-owned pollsters VCIOM were artificially inflating Putin’s figures, so his Anti-Corruption Fund will start releasing their own weekly polls, the first of which has just been released in Navalny’s latest video address.

Reminder that Putin got 66% in the last FOM poll, and 73% in the last VCIOM poll.

FBK poll:

poll-fbk-elections-2018

Oops, what a fail: Putin still gets 62%.

poll-fbk-elections-2018-prediction

And this is their prediction, which accounts for undecideds, in which Putin gets 78% – which is, incidentally, perfectly in line with my own old-standing prediction.

Meanwhile, as per my last post, this confirms that Grudinin seems to have stopped making gains relative to Zhirinovsky in the past week, having instead merely converged with him.

 
🔊 Listen RSS

Turnout might be much lower than even the record low (60%) than I posited.

Leonid Bershidsky in a recent article:

There are indications that turnout could be lower than ever. Levada Center predicted 52 to 54 percent in December, and the St. Petersburg Politics Foundation, a respected independent think tank, came out with a 52 percent forecast earlier this month, putting expected turnout in Moscow and St. Petersburg well below 40 percent. That would be a disaster for the Kremlin: Even the 2004 election, the most boring in history since not a single political heavyweight dared run against Putin, drew 64.3 percent of registered voters.

Campaigning from Putin has been lackluster to say the least.

Main development is that the campaign website has finally been launched ( http://putin2018.ru/ ). At the time Bershidsky wrote his post, it didn’t even have a program.

That has since been remedied, though the “program” as such consists of a dozen random sound bites (fully open the Crimea bridge at the end of the year; regulate cryptocurrencies; create a network of educational centers for gifted children).

A couple of new polls since my last update.

poll-fom-russia-elections-2018-grudinin

1. First FOM poll to include Pavel Grudinin (KPRF) gives him 6.2%, translating to around 7.6% adjusting for undecideds, spoiled ballots, etc.

Other candidates: Putin – 65.9%, Zhirinovsky – 6.0%, Sobchak – 1.5%. (The others probably won’t be registered).

fom-poll-russia-elections-2018

FOM is also great in that it usually gives considerably demographic detail [xls].

Some takeaways:

a) Reinforces a point I have often made that Communists are dying out, while nationalists are gaining, as is the pattern in much of the rest of the world. Zhirinovsky gets 2% amongst boomers, but 9% amongst the 18-45 year olds; Grudinin gets 7% amongst the boomers, but only 2% amongst the 18-30 year olds.

b) Women are 73% for Putin, vs. 57% of men, while Grudinin and Zhirinovsky are both about twice as popular amongst men as women. As I said: Female political conformism.

c) US-based pro-Western elections analyst Alexander Kireev notes that Grudinin is performing really well relative to the elections in 2004, the only other election in the age of Putin when the KPRF fielded someone who was not Zyuganov. In the first FOM poll in 2004, Kharitonov got a mere 1.5%, but went on to get 13.7% of the vote (15% adjusting for fraud).

Considering that 69% of Russians still haven’t heard of Grudinin – a pretty lame affair, considering he is now the second place candidate in the polling for an election that is a mere two months away – there is room of him to grow further.

However, I would caution against projecting some sort of exponential trendline:

i) The Communist electorate has been inexorably reduced by the demographic grindstone – it is smaller today than in 2004.

ii) Whereas 69% of Russians were hearing about Grudinin for the first time in this poll, it was only 36% amongst Communist voters.

It was LDPR (72%) and United Russia (78%) voters who were most ignorant about him.

According to this poll, some 53% of Communist voters and 38% of Fair Russia voters say they will consider voting for Grudinin, versus only 15% of LDPR voters and 9% of United Russia voters.

Consequently, it is likely that the majority of his core electorate already knows about him.

poll-vciom-russia-elections-2018

2. That this is so is suggested by a new VCIOM poll.

According to them, Grudinin actually peaked on Jan 10, when 7.2% of Russians said they’d vote for Grudinin if elections were held on the nearest Sunday (or 7.6% amongst the firmly decided) versus 4.7% for Zhirinovsky (or 4.2% amongst the firmly decided).

However, as of this poll Jan 15, Grudinin and Zhirinovsky had both converged to 6.1%.

 
🔊 Listen RSS

On the eve of the 2016 US elections, I got to talking with a Jew at one of the futurist meetups who was hyperventilating about the prospect of Trump winning. He unironically thought there was a risk of actual deportations of immigrants to concentration camps and pogroms against Jews. Typical Trump Derangement Syndrome sufferer, who cares, they were and remain a dime a dozen. Curious thing is, though, he was also looking to pursue Polish citizenship, from where his family had originally emigrated, and which he now considered a safe harbor against the rising tide of anti-Semitism in America promoted by the Putlerreich.

Well, did I have news for him, even if he did insist it was “fake.”

In 2014-15, the ADL carried out a large survey of “anti-Semitic attitudes” around the world, in which 26% of the global population were found to be anti-Semites (translation: Believed in 6+/11 of popular stereotypes about Jews).

map-world-jews-antisemitism

This figure was 30% in Russia, falling to 23% in the follow-up survey in 2015 – which was slightly higher than the 24% average for Western Europe, but lower than the 34% for Eastern Europe (45% in Poland) and far lower than the 74% average for the Middle East.

map-europe-adl-jews-youth-antisemitism

This gap between Russia and the rest of Eastern Europe is even more marked with respect to 18-34 year olds.

map-europe-approval-israel

Moreover, even if Russians are slightly more likely than Western Europeans to think statements such as “Jews have too much power in the business world” are true – all things considered, it is amazing the figure is not much higher, given the ethnic composition of the oligarchs – they are certainly not the sort to engage in sanctimonious lectures. Heck, possibly the biggest Russia-based critic of Israel on account of them being mean to Palestinians is a guy called… Israel.

Approval of Israel in Russia and most of Eastern Europe is substantially higher than in Western Europe, especially its more “progressive” countries.

Of course these sentiments are very much a one-way street. One could view it as an admittedly much less extreme version of American evangelicals’ unreciprocated love for Jews and especially Israel.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Anti-Semitism, Israel, Russia 
🔊 Listen RSS

Freedom in the World 2018 is out now: “Democracy in Crisis.”

Political rights and civil liberties around the world deteriorated to their lowest point in more than a decade in 2017, extending a period characterized by emboldened autocrats, beleaguered democracies, and the United States’ withdrawal from its leadership role in the global struggle for human freedom.

This makes the deep state neocon goons who run that outfit very sad.

My prediction from 2017:

Freedom House lowers United States Freedom Rating [no longer think this will happen. But as promised, carried over as-is from last set of predictions; will know in early February]: 50%

Last minute misgivings aside, this has indeed happened.

While FH still thinks Civil Rights in the US are at 1/7 (where 1 is best and 7 is worst), while Political Rights have been downgraded to 2/7, making for a total score of 1.5/7.

Why? Well, partially thanks to the Russiagate conspiracy theory;

[Electoral Process] Score Change: The score declined from 4 to 3 due to growing evidence of Russian interference in the 2016 election campaign and a lack of action by the Trump administration to prevent a reoccurrence of such meddling.

Incidentally, I will note that – and my observations and analysis carry great weight, since I have been officially recognized as a human rights authority by Freedom House itself – that Russia now scores 6.5/7, down from 5.5/7 even just a few years earlier, a score I ridiculed in my 2013 article What I Learned From Freedom House.

Suffice to say that Freedom House now believes Russia is as unfree as the following polities: Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Burundi, Chad, China, Congo (Kinshasa), Cuba, Ethiopia, Laos, Libya, Russia, Swaziland, Tajikistan, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.

It is also apparently less free than Qatar, Iran (!), Belarus, Egypt, and a plethora of 1980s US-friendly Latin American and Asian juntas.

Crimea, which is treated as a sub territory – like Chechnya was until the late 2000s – scores 9/100 on the Aggregate Score, which puts it on a par with the Central African Republic and Libya. Apparently Freedom House believes Crimeans are as unfree as a country that is in perpetual civil war and hosts African slave markets years after the Americans were done with bombing them into freedom.

Meanwhile, the Ukraine scores a not entirely unrespectable 3.0/7, despite it hosting hundreds to thousands of political prisoners.

Finally, Turkey has declined from “Partly Free” to “Not Free” – it appears that being a record holder in numbers of imprisoned journalists started to matter more after they pivoted against US interests.

 
🔊 Listen RSS

The next Czech President will probably be the guy who signed a “scientists against fear and hatred” in response to Zeman’s “Islamophobia” and expressed concern about Russian elections hacking.

Not only did the tipsy, politically incorrect Zeman underperform his poll numbers by around 4% points in the first round of the elections, but current polls are giving Drahoš a 5%-10% lead over Zeman.

However, I have heard that he is a good debater when he is sober, so he still has chances if he makes a good showing (he refused to participate in debates during the first round).

In the first round, Zeman got 38.6% to Drahoš’ 26.6%. Drahoš will get virtually all of Fischer’s and Hilšer’s electorate, which should bring him to 45%, and a substantial share of Horáček’s will probably eke him out a win, assuming there are no further major underlying shifts in support levels.

All the main candidates (except Hannig, who only got 0.6%) have expressed their support for Drahoš’.

Zeman has a 39% chance according to kdovyhrajevolby.cz.

czech-elections-2018-prediction

Currently 26% on PredictIt. (Might be worth buying a few shares if you are fluent in Czech politics and consider this discrepancy real).

Its fascinating how politics literally everywhere in Europe and the US breaks down along the same basic basic schema.

  • Zeman is Trump, Le Pen, Putin: Populist, pro-Russian, anti-Islamist, fluent in blue-collar slang but not all that intellectual. Wins the regions and the countryside in the first round.
  • Drahoš is Merkel, Macron, Tony Blair: Big Brain academic, pro-European, Atlanticist, centrist. Wins Prague, overwhelmingly wins the foreign vote. For instance, in the UK, Drahoš got twice as many votes as he did in Czechia, while Zeman only got 3.2% (!).

The President is relatively more important in Czechia than in the other V4 countries, but he is still superseded by the Prime Minister, so this likely won’t translate into immediate major changes in policy, including on refugees.

But it might be a bellwether of future trends.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Czech Republic, Elections 
🔊 Listen RSS

Who could have expected this?

map-italy-book-readers

Other maps of Italy:

 

 
• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Books, Corruption, IQ, Italy 
🔊 Listen RSS

Charles Bausman (Russia Insider): It’s Time to Drop the Jew Taboo

The most vitriolic and obsessive Russia-bashing journalists in the media are mostly Jewish. The publications which push these writers most energetically are ALL Jewish-owned, and as a publisher, I know very well, that is where the buck stops.

On the policy side, the neo-conservative movement, Russia’s harshest foe, was conceived of, is led by, and consists mostly of, Jews. And their trouble-making extends far beyond Russia – they are responsible for America’s disastrous debacle in the Middle East over the last 20 years – where their crimes have been stymied by precisely one country – Russia. The psychotically anti-Russian recent UN ambassadors, Nikki Haley and Samantha Power, were put there by the Israel lobby, and given an independent brief, in other words, they answer not to their presidents, rather to their Jewish sponsors.

In Congress the biggest Russia-Gate tub-thumpers are noticeably Jewish – Schiff, Schumer, Blumenthal, Franken (although not as overwhelmingly as in the media). The Israel lobby routinely enforces legislation hostile to Russia. Bill Browder with his Magnitsky Sanctions – is Jewish.

This is objectively true. Heck, don’t ask me, someone who writes for a site famous for its “mix of far-right and far-left anti-Semitic crackpottery” (as per the Jew Cathy Young). Ask J-Pod.

podhoretz-no-jewish-russophile

Rachel Maddow, the nation’s most popular and influential liberal political show host is Jewish. She has gone so overboard demonizing Russia and pushing Russiagate that she has become a figure of fun. On the print side, the list is the same – the ones shrieking the loudest are mostly Jews, and disproportionately female – and there is an important lesson there too – Masha Gessen, Anne Applebaum, and Julia loffe, to name a few.

Also true.

I speculated about the deep causes of this in my classic article on The 5 Types of Russian-American back in 2012:

A controversial assertion, perhaps… But one need only drop a few names: Anne Applebaum (Putin stole my wallet), Miriam Elder (Putin stole my drycleaning ticket), Julia Ioffe (I hate objectivity), Masha Gessen (Putin has no face), Anna Nemtsova (Russian dudes suck).

One thing that really stands out is that it is female Jews who dislike Russia more than anything, at least among Western journalists. As this post has already pushed well beyond all respectable limits of political correctness, I might as well go the full nine yards and outline my theory of why that is the case. In my view, the reasons are ultimately psycho-sexual. Male Jews nowadays have it good in Russia, with many Slavic girls attracted to their wealth, intelligence and impeccable charm (if not their looks). But the position of Jewesses is the inverse. They find it hard to compete with those same Slavic chicks who tend to be both hotter and much more feminine than them; nor, like Jewish guys, can they compensate with intelligence, since it is considered far less important for women. This state of affairs leads to sexual frustration and permanent singledom (pump and dump affairs don’t count of course), which in turn gives rise to the angry radical feminism and lesbianism that oozes out of this piece by Anna Nemtsova bemoaning Russia’s “useless bachelors”.

Steve Sailer’s Law of Female Journalism rears its head again.

Charles Bausman’s thesis is of course a controversial one, and I don’t agree with some things at both the macro level – high Jewish verbal IQ partially, though not fully, explains the overrepresentation of Jews amongst elite Russophobes – as well as some of the historical details at the micro level.

However, he is correct at a broad level.

Again, don’t ask me. As the Twitter mentions for this article make clear, the people he is talking about make the case far more succinctly than I could.

democratic-jew-journalists-respond

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Anti-Semitism, Jews, Russia, Russophobes, Western Media 
🔊 Listen RSS

In my previous post, I posted this map of how comfortable Europeans are regarding love relationships of their children in regards to race, and AP provided the original stats.

map-europe-poll-miscegeneration

I am always a bit saddened that Russia doesn’t participate in the Eurobarometer polls, but fortunately, I found that VCIOM asked rather similar questions in polls from 2002 and 2010.

The methodology is a bit different. Eurobarometer defined “being comfortable” if one of your children was in a love relationship with [member of ethnic group] and you rated your level of Comfort with that in the region of 7-10 (out of 10), or indifference. The Russian poll asks if you would approve, disapprove, or be indifferent towards one of your close relatives (son, daughter, grandkid) marrying [member of ethnic group].

I think the questions are close enough for direct comparisons to be meaningful by summing the percentage of Russians who either approve or are indifferent.

% Russians ok with kids marrying: 2002 2010
Russians 96% 96%
Ukrainians, Belorussians 83% 82%
Latvians, Estonians, Lithuanians 61% 57%
Georgians, Armenians, Azeris 38% 37%
Central Asians 38% 33%
Jews 49% 47%
Chechens 28% 28%
Germans, Frenchs, English 66% 61%
Americans . 55%
Arabs . 29%

In terms of marriage preferences, Russians seem to be less philo-Semitic than Poles, about the same as Czechs, Lithuanians, and Romanians, and more philo-Semitic than Slovaks.

They are also fully within the bands of normality for Eastern Europe so far as marriages with Muslims go.

If Chechens could be considered proxies for Africans, Russians would be as “based” on that question as any in Eastern Europe (though far less so than 1950s Americans).

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Conservatism, Eastern Europe, Opinion Poll, Russia 
🔊 Listen RSS

poll-gay-marriage-usa-russia-poland

Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4

Sometime in the 1990s, a critical mass of the American cognitive elite – that part of it which controls the bullhorns, anyway – must have decided that gay marriage was great. Now those people are usually well-spoken and articulate, with very high verbal IQs, while their opponents… tend to leave much to be desired in that department. So by the early 2010s, they had also convinced conservative intellectuals (Charles Murray was expressing support by 2012), and in the process once again demonstrating the neoreactionary dictum that conservatism is merely liberalism with a lag time of ten years. They had also convinced a symbolically important 50% of the population – no mean achievement, that, since male homosexuality is naturally repellent to the average person. The State Department formally adopted the Homintern agenda: “Gay rights are human rights, and human rights are gay rights,” as Hillary Clinton explained in 2011. Gay marriage became legal across the US soon afterwards in 2015.

If you’re in the Western media-intellectual sphere, there doesn’t seem to be anything you could do to arrest these trends, regardless of how conservative or religious you are at the outset. Take Poles and Utahns. When polling on the topic began, they were only marginally less “homophobic” than Russians. Even so, a majority of Utahns now support gay marriage, as do 38% of Poles. While Warsaw wages a conservative culture war against Brussels Values, it appears that actual Poles are going in the other direction.

Russia was of course implicitly hostile towards LGBT during the 1990s-2000s, but without any particular zeal. It was just another anodyne conservative place like Utah or Poland, where the idea of LGBT marriage proked more in the way of befuddlement and bemusement than angry opposition. However, it’s already low figures collapsed even further at around the time of Putin’s conservative pivot at the turn of the decade. It is worth mentioning that this collapse seems to have been pretty universal across social strata – while a poll registered 34% (!) support for gay marriage in Saint-Petersburg in 2008, as of a 2011 poll, it was at 21% along with Moscow, versus 11% for the country as a whole.

That said, it’s worth pointing out that in both policy and practice, Russia remains considerably less conservative than Poland in most aspects. Russians are much less religious, at least in terms of active practice, and the ROC is less influential than the Catholic Church. Abortion is legal, while it is not in Poland – and the conservatives there want now want to make these restrictions all the more total by even banning “eugenic” abortion. I suspect such cack-handed policies and the general unlikability of Polish conservatives, with their constant idiotic statements and conspiracy theorizing, are actually fostering the spread of liberalism in Polish society.

map-europe-poll-miscegeneration

As I have pointed out, despite its cool nationalist marches, Poland is now actually one of the least “based” societies in Eastern Europe, less so than even Czechia with its top of the charts atheism and per capita porn star production rates. They are the only country in the region where a majority are comfortable with their children being in a relationship with Blacks (see map right). They also have the most people who think it is “time for a gay leader.” At the rate things are going, I would not be surprised to see gay marriage legalized in Poland by 2028.

Recipes to keeping the Poz at bay: 1. Kick out Western NGOs, Western media, promote cultural anti-Americanism; 2. But don’t be an insufferable lout and get in people’s faces.

 
🔊 Listen RSS
 

I don’t know about that.

That said, it does have several… what we might diplomatically call dubious distinctions.

So far as I’m aware, it is the only country in the in the world to kick off its independence with literal white genocide – the real deal, not some half-hearted ethnic cleansing.

It is now the poorest, lowest IQ, most dysfunctional country in the western hemisphere.

And it also appears to be one of the very few countries in the world that is poorer today than it was back in the 1940s.

haiti-gdp

Whereas Haiti was once level pegging with the Dominican Republic, there is now a more than twofold gap between the two. No doubt on account of the Dominican Republic’s superior environmental practices. /s

Even Communist Cuba has done far better.

kristol-conservative-haiti

On the positive side, at least they vote in line with the the wishes of the Jewish Lobby at the UN, unlike those Norwegian socialists. That makes them real American conservatives.

PS. Sputnik and Pogrom reaction: “While Putin imports hordes of “talented and hard-working” Gastarbeiters into the RF, who give the country “massive advantages for development,” Trump is calling Haiti and Nigeria “shitholes” and is demanding the US import Norwegians. What an anti-multinational bastard!

 
• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Donald Trump, Haiti, Immigration 
🔊 Listen RSS
 

After the surprise Communist candidacy of Pavel Grudinin, the main question was always going to be whether he would merely inherit Zyuganov’s ratings – or climb well above them by invigorating Russians with the prospect of a new face in politics.

We had to wait a couple of weeks longer than usual due to the New Year holidays, but we now have our answer with the release of the first elections poll to include him.

vciom-poll-russia-elections

Here is how the numbers now look according to VCIOM:

  • Putin – 81.1%;
  • Zhirinovsky (nationalist) – 4.2%;
  • Grudinin (communist) – 7.6% (Zyuganov had been at 3.3%);
  • Sobchak (liberal) – 0.7%
  • other people (mostly libs) – 1.6%
  • will spoil ballot – 0.4%
  • can’t say – 4.4%

It is also worth noting that the percentage of people saying they will “definitely” come to vote fell from 70% to 67%. This might be in response to Navalny’s call to boycott the vote.

Comments:

1. Unless he turns out to be very unlikeable on the TV cameras in the next couple of months, or experiences some other major scandal, then Grudinin – contrary to my expectations before this poll – will almost certainly do better than Zhirinovsky after all.

2. Incidentally, our resident Ukrainophiles should be happy with this development – in his recent debate with Zhirinovsky, Grudinin as much as implied that the “Russian World” was equivalent to fascism, and for all intents and purposes defended the Ukraine’s new language laws (“we should not fall to provocations”). This comports with the gathering evidence that he is the most pro-Ukrainian candidate in this race apart from the liberal candidate Sobchak, who, like Navalny, does not even unambiguously recognize the Crimea as part of Russia. Tellingly, in one of his recent shows, Grudinin was the only candidate to whom Navalny showed a somewhat positive disposition, even if he still rejected him as a “real” candidate.

And this was the guy nominated not just by the Left Front and the KPRF, but also by one of the more prominent national-patriotic organizations (NPSR). No wonder Igor Strelkov quit soon afterwards in disgust.

3. Renewed prediction [old predictions]:

  • Putin – 78% (down from 80%)
  • Zhirinovsky – 7% (down from 8%)
  • Grudinin – 13% (up from Zyuganov’s 7%)
  • Sobchak – 3%

Due to the apparent excitement around the new face, turnout might also be slightly higher than the minimally low 60% I was expecting at the start of the year.

I continue to very much doubt the kremlins will be able to fulfill the first part of their “70/70″ goal (70% turnout, 70% Putin), unless they really go overboard with the fraud this year.

Regardless, his candidacy appears to have been a great play by the Presidential Administration, raising interest in the elections, deflating the impact of Navalny’s calls to boycott them, and presenting no real threat to the Kremlin while sowing further division into the nationalist ranks.

 
🔊 Listen RSS
 

soros-russia-prediction

Well, we’re well into 2018 now.

Soros joins the many Very Respectable People – Anders Aslund has excelled in this regard more than most – who have predicted all several dozens of Russia’s past zero collapses.

russia-foreign-currency-reserves

 
• Category: Economics • Tags: George Soros, Russia, Russophobes 
🔊 Listen RSS
 

London Student: Exposed: London’s eugenics conference and its neo-Nazi links

A eugenics conference held annually at University College London by an honorary professor, the London Conference on Intelligence, is dominated by a secretive group of white supremacists with neo-Nazi links, London Student can exclusively reveal.

Content note: This article contains references to racism, anti-Semitism and child abuse.

The conference has taken place at UCL four times since its inception in 2014, and now even boasts its own YouTube channel bearing the UCL logo.

UCL have told London Student that they are investigating the conference. A spokesperson said: “We are an institution that is committed to free speech but also to combatting racism and sexism in all forms.”

Some background: This scandal broke out when Toby Young, a conservative British political figure with a colorful history of Twitter controversies, was appointed to a government board on education – and removed almost instantaneously, after this story broke in The London Student, and was subsequently reported across all of Britain’s major newspapers, including The Telegraph, The Guardian, and The Daily Mail.

Surprising enough – though perhaps not, for people familiar with the venom establishment conservatives are capable of – The Telegraph’s account is even more downright nasty and libellous than The Guardian’s, despite the former being considered to be the mouthpiece of The Conservative Party, while the latter is but a slightly higher end version of VICE and the late Gawker. In contrast, the usually tabloidy Daily Mail, representing Britain’s “Red Tribe,” has the most measured tone.

So what is there to say?

First, I really need to emphasize that James Thompson’s views are not controversial in academic psychometrics.

experts-iq-genetic

Yes, I suppose that by SJW standards, 83% of all IQ experts are white supremacists, since the only politically correct position is that 0% of group IQ differences are due to genes.

Incidentally, this would include people like Richard Haier, Jelte Wicherts and James Flynn, who all attended the ISIR conference conference in Canada last year, which according to The Guardian was “a similar conference” to the London Conference on Intelligence.

Customary reminder that IQ studies are the only major branch of psychology that is not afflicted by the replication crisis.

pinker-iq-no-replication-crisis

So hey, you want to defenestrate Thompson et al.? You would have to ban pretty much all of academic psychometrics for consistency.

UCL professor David Colquhoun expressed disbelief that the university would host such “pseudoscience” and stated that the organiser, Professor James Thompson, “clearly doesn’t understand genetics.”

“The actual genetic difference between humans, with respect to race or sex, is absolutely miniscule compared to what they have in common,” he told London Student.

This is just a direct example of Lewontin’s fallacy. Greg Cochran deconstructs it very concisely here.

Or if you need a higher profile name, here is what Dawkins has to say about it:

If any outside readers are interested in what typically gets presented at the conferences of this cabal white supremacists with Neo-Nazi links, a few of the speeches from 2017 are available online have been (hopefully temporarily) taken down, but you can still view Emil Kirkegaard’s speech.

As regards the allegations (frankly smears) against Emil Kirkegaard, they are based on the fantasies of a demented and unusually dedicated stalker, the contents of which he has addressed in some detail at his blog.

See also the video Emil has just released with Tara McCarthy about this affair.

One amusing thing jumps out in particular – the apparent inability of the “journalist” behind this piece to read the texts he links to.

Thompson is a frequent contributor to the Unz Review, which has been described as “a mix of far-right and far-left anti-Semitic crackpottery,” and features articles such as ‘America’s Jews are Driving America’s Wars’ and ‘What to do with Latinos?’. His own articles include frequent defences of the idea that women are innately less intelligent than men (1, 2, 3, and 4), and an analysis of the racial wage gap which concludes that “some ethnicities contribute relatively little,” namely “blacks.

It is safe to say that most people reading this on The London Student would come away with the impression that Fred Reed, the author of the article “What to do with Latinos?“, is some sort of hardcore anti-Latino fanatic.

Here’s a few quotes from that article:

The embittered anti-immigration people, readers of sites like VDare, would not care. Screw the vile brown scum, rapists and welfare parasites, murderers, drug peddlers, low-IQ nasty unevolved human flatworms. The bastards came illegally, so to hell with them. …

Many of the white nationalists exhibit an almost effeminate squeamishness at the thought of their precious bodily essences being polluted by oozing dark sludge. Well, as you will. There are reasons why this view isn’t going to prevail. See below.

Much hate so racism wow.

Meanwhile, in the world of reality, as opposed to the make-believe world of Britbong SJWs who don’t read their own links and don’t think anybody else would either, Fred Reed is married to a Mexican, voluntarily (and apparently happily) lives in Mexico, and is actually disliked in White Nationalist circles, to the extent that they are aware of him.

stop-iq-health-research Anyhow, continue to read The Unz Review – apart from the content, which stands for itself, you will also be entertained by neverending media drama and flame wars with the collective Society 282 and their “powerful takes” (see right for an especially powerful example).

Jokes aside, though, it’s pretty sad. Considering the very close relationship between intelligence and economic development, understanding it better should be one of the largest priorities in terms of alleviating global poverty and suffering – especially since we might be on the cusp of technological solutions (voluntary bioengineering).

It’s also in the end futile. The West may well stick its head in the sand on this issue, but China surely won’t, and will be all the more dominant in the 21st century on account of it.

 
🔊 Listen RSS
 

Some numbers:

There are about 300,000 babies born to foreign citizens in the US every year, of which the vast majority will be accruing to Central American illegals.

Only an estimated 40,000 occurs due to birth tourism.

There are no hard statistics on this. However, some cursory searching gave me this thesis by Brandon J. Folse, which cites “more than 10,000″ Chinese women giving birth in the US in 2012, and 40-60 Russian women giving birth in Miami each month (based on a Moscow Times report). Consequently, its safe to say that the total figure is less than 1,000, since Miami is the center of Russian birth tourism in the US, not to mention the long-standing tendency of The Moscow Times to exaggerate Russia’s emigration stats.

This would furthermore be in line with general immigration statistics.

China also sends the largest number of immigrants to the US after Mexico, and accounts for almost a third of its international students. This is understandable. China has very close commercial and cultural links with the US, and all things American enjoy a great deal of prestige in China.

In contrast, Russian emigration to the US is much more modest, even in per capita terms. It does not make the first 20 countries by numbers of total immigrants, nor the top 10 by numbers of foreign students.

It also syncs well with other anecdotal evidence and pure logic.

Twitter user Richard Hollywood investigates: “searching for birth tourism and репродуктивный туризм on yandex only brings up news/what is this articles. there’s some dedicated birth tourism sites in russian but also in like five other languages

In fairness, he did eventually find the site SFF-Miami, which offers birth tourism services to Russians and Ukrainians in Florida. I checked its visitorship numbers on SimilarWeb; there weren’t enough for it to even register there. Which is not surprising when you look at the prices – the standard “package” there costs $19,500. Another similarly obscure organization, AmeriMama, offers prices starting from $17,000.

These are prices that only perhaps 1-2% of Russians are able to pay out on just a lark, since birth tourism is essentially just a gamble that their children would 1) want to emigrate to the US on reaching adulthood, and 2) be subsequently willing to being their parents over on a Green Card.

Another important point.

Although I can understand that red-blooded Americans may not like foreigners essentially buying up US citizenships for their progeny on account of some outdated document written at a time when the Americas were still an unpopulated expanse, it’s worth noting that it’s not as if the children of rich birth tourists are going to be any sort of strain on the US welfare system. They will give birth, fork over $$$ to the US medical system, hotels, etc., and go back home. Even if their children do subsequently go to the US, the chances that they will end up collecting welfare are close to zero.

Theoretically, the US should if anything gain financially, because it is the only country in the world (along with Eritrea) to claim taxes on the worldwide income of their citizens. I say theoretically, because in practice, I am sure that virtually no child of birth tourists is going to be doing that.

So why the media suddenly kvetching over this complete non-issue of a few thousand Russians practicing birth tourism and forming, as one Drumpf Resistor on Twitter put it, “the colony of Russian ppl (especially in NYC) nobodies talking about. Who I know coming here having babies getting public aid”?

As opposed to concerning themselves with the few million anchor babies planted by illegal immigrants in just the past couple of decades?

Well, Paul Nehlen has some ideas.

 
• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Immigration, Russiagate, United States 
🔊 Listen RSS
 

January 9, 2017 marks the day I began blogging a decade ago.

Donations

I suppose now’s as good a time as any to launch my second panhandling drive.

If you like the words that I write, and want me to write more of them, you can personally make that happen: http://akarlin.com/donations/

Looking Back

My first (non-intro) post: Reading Russia Right. On rereading it, I see that all of my main themes were already present. I might have perhaps been rather too pollyannaish about Russia’s prospects – after all, I did start off blogging as “Da Russophile” – but I don’t think anything there was actually cardinally wrong.

In contrast to the brief and more personalized account that follows, you can read a more detailed history of my blogging career here: http://akarlin.com/start/

akarlin-pageviews-2008-2017

The mid-2000s to the early 2010s were the golden age of blogging, and I hitched myself on about midway through the process.

There were considerable successes – although I never cared much for catering to popular trends, my blog(s) were getting around 750,000 annual pageviews by the early 2010s, despite a nasty pharma hack destroying my SEO ratings in early 2012. I also started openly incorporating HBD insights around mid-2012; just in time to scare off lefty Russophiles (majority in the West then), but too late to be one of its early adopters (I was writing about the importance of IQ from the very start in 2008, but had up till then been careful to maintain racial agnosticism, largely for education/work-related reasons).

But there were failures too. Part of this was due to blogging in general falling into a sort of dark age as social media ravaged community after community like an online venereal disease. But the main reason was that at the end of the day, blogging was a hobby for me. The disparate projects I had tried to launch in 2013 – most prominently, The Russian Spectrum translation portal and The Russia Debate forum – had all floundered, and I was increasingly busy with other things. I produced a total of about 5 posts in 2014. I did have some loose plans to resume serious blogging at that time, but to be fair, I am not 100% sure I would have ended up following through on them. Maybe in an alternate timeline, my blogging career would have ended around then.

akarlin-pageviews-2008-2017-monthly

But then Ron Unz wrote an email to me on Jan 2, 2015 offering me to resume blogging at The Unz Review, and the rest is history.

I more or less recovered my visitorship and pageview numbers in my first two years at The Unz Review, despite continued depreciation of my old websites, and blasted past them in last year, when I returned to Russia and began doing this and other related things more or less as a job instead of as just a hobby.

Items PWords Comms CWords Visits Views
2008 70 139,021 304 37,218
2009 72 254,052 867 152,868
2010 81 209,939 1,594 200,483
2011 75 152,706 3,159 406,353
2012 172 153,634 5,164 662,995
2013 167 132,173 1,986 259,421
2014 5 5,154 1,023 147,549
2015 130 156,592 5,504 664,553 128,326 382,574
2016 128 120,956 6,204 597,092 188,570 493,156
2017 262 190,137 17,326 1,808,417 237,477 791,675

That said, I still have some ways to go. For instance, Steve Sailer gets an order of magnitude more pageviews (c.11 million in 2017).

Looking Forwards

What next for the Russia blogosphere?

My impression is that things are becoming dumbed down, very r-selected. The Russia commentary now is dominated by folks who make La Russophobe (remember it?) look like the apex of nuance and reason. Which doesn’t stop the likes of Louise Mensch, Eric Garland, and Molly McKew from having a couple of orders of magnitude more Twitter followers than myself (or other minimally sane people, such as Bryan MacDonald, Ben Aris, or even Leonid Bershidsky).

It has to be admitted that grounding the Russia discourse in reality, a goal which I was seriously pursuing as late as 2013, has completely failed – and that the New Cold War is here to stay, even though it was a ridiculous prospect when Ed Lucas first wrote the eponymous Russia-baiting book. I do not care to participate in this information war on either side of the trenches, since I am not making money off it, and because my goals and values are orthogonal to those of the Kremlin elites and the globalist elites anyway.

With this in mind, I now feel more strongly than ever that I need to put a capstone to my Russia watching career in the form of a book: Dark Lord of the Kremlin.

Yes, yes, I know I have been promising it to my long-suffering readers for years now – but I really do think 2018 will be the year.

Could the increasing inanity/censorship of social media drive resurgence of a blogging?

I sure hope so, but there’s tentative signs that social media usage is falling off.

However, it seems many of them are migrating to other media formats, not back to bloggers.

Video seems like best way to reach the masses.

Our ROGPR YouTube channel (Alt Right politics and video gaming for Russians) now has 4,200 subscribers after half a year of intermittent new content.

People like RAMZPAUL have become media sensations, up to the point that Ron Unz has opened up a videos section on this journal.

This is certainly something I will delve into deeper, though not in 2018. Spreading oneself too thin is a mistake, and one that I have made more times than I should have.

Other potential projects

  • Dark Equilibrium: Book length version/expansion of my essay on The Age of Malthusian Industrialism.
  • A post-apocalyptic sci-fi book (if I manage to get DLK and DE done this year).
  • Apollo’s Ascent: Book length version of this essay. Realistically speaking, not going to happen until 2021 at the earliest, since it’s a massive undertaking and I frankly don’t have the necessary background to adequately realize it yet.

What next for HBD, futurism?

Momentum is building up at a blistering pace, with new discoveries in the genomics of IQ made seemingly every week.

In the long-term, the political hysterias of today (Ukraine, Russiagate, Trump, etc.) will fade into irrelevance, but the future dynamics of genetic editing + IQ augmentation will pretty much determine who gets to rule the 21st century (unless machine intelligence cuts humanity out of the loop early). And I will gradually – especially after the publication of DLK – want to reorient more in that direction after 2018.

Definitely seems a good idea to get in on early on this for both publicistic and commercial reasons.

 
• Category: Miscellaneous • Tags: Anatoly Karlin, Blogging 
🔊 Listen RSS
 

The Alt-Right’s Asian Fetish (Audrea Lim):

The right-wing agitator Mike Cernovich, the writer John Derbyshire and an alt-right figure named Kyle Chapman (so notorious for swinging a lead-filled stick at Trump opponents at a protest in Berkeley, Calif., that he is now a meme) are all married to women of Asian descent. As a commenter wrote on an alt-right forum, “exclusively” dating Asian women is practically a “white-nationalist rite of passage.”

My blog has been recognized as an alt-right forum by the NYT, cool.

Admin of /r/hapas: 2017 full list of Neo-Nazis, alt-rights, conservatives, white supremacists who fetish / marry / date Asian women

He is clearly obsessed with the topic and overdoes the theme, but still, there’s a distinct pattern out there.

As I skipped classes to smoke in the courtyard, read Baudelaire to seem the “interesting” kind of smart and attempted to distance myself from the stereotypes, I didn’t know that the idea I wanted to run from — of Asians as civilized, advanced and highly intelligent — had roots in white supremacy.

The Chinese are market dominant minorities across swathes of South-East Asia to a far greater extent than in the US.

But you can have too much of a good thing, as evidenced by them getting repeatedly pogromed by Southern Mongoloid supremacists.

The main problem with white women, as many alt-right Asian fetishists have noted, is they’ve become too feminist.

Well, duh.

audrea-lim

That said, one Unz.com commenter suggests a more mundane reason for OP’s unhappiness: “Audrea is upset because not enough white guys have yellow fever for her. And she’s from Canada living in Brooklyn. She needs to go back.”

That’s what it usually boils down to.

 

 
• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Asian Americans, New York Times, SJWs, Women 
🔊 Listen RSS
 

khmeimim-drone

Russian Ministry of Defense:

Security system of the Russian Khmeimim air base and Russian Naval CSS point in the city of Tartus successfully warded off a terrorist attack with massive application of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) through the night of 5th – 6th January, 2018.

As evening fell, the Russia air defence forces detected 13 unidentified small-size air targets at a significant distance approaching the Russian military bases.

Ten assault drones were approaching the Khmeimim air base, and another three – the CSS point in Tartus.

Six small-size air targets were intercepted and taken under control by the Russian EW units. Three of them were landed on the controlled area outside the base, and another three UAVs exploded as they touched the ground.

Seven UAVs were eliminated by the Pantsir-S anti-aircraft missile complexes operated by the Russian air defence units on 24-hours alert.

The Russian bases did not suffer any casualties or damages.

The Khmeimim air base and Russian Naval CSS point in Tartus are functioning on a scheduled basis.

Currently, the Russian military experts are analyzing the construction, technical filling and improvised explosives of the captured UAVs.

Having decoded the data recorded on the UAVs, the specialists found out the launch site.

It was the first time when terrorists applied a massed drone aircraft attack launched at a range of more than 50 km using modern GPS guidance system

Technical examination of the drones showed that such attacks could have been made by terrorists at a distance of about 100 kilometers.

Engineering decisions applied by terrorists while attacks on the Russian objects in Syria could be received from one of countries with high-technological capabilities of satellite navigation and remote dropping control of professionally assembled improvised explosive devices in assigned coordinates. All drones of terrorists are fitted with pressure transducers and altitude control servo-actuators.

Terrorists’ aircraft-type drones carried explosive devices with foreign detonating fuses.

The Russian specialists are determining supply channels, through which terrorists had received the technologies and devices, as well as examining type and origin of explosive compounds used in the IEDs.

The fact of usage of strike aircraft-type drones by terrorists is the evidence that militants have received technologies to carry out terrorist attacks using such UAVs in any country.

The “one of countries with high-technological capabilities” is of course referring to the US, Israel, and maybe Turkey.

If this is true, then I think the suspicions that I expressed have basically been confirmed:

Frankly, I have a hard time buying that this is the sort of thing that can be manufactured, smuggled in, and organized by deep cover rebel operatives.

However, there are forces in the region who are credibly capable of such operations.

Is it true?

Well, there’s no reason it can’t be – and I say this as someone who hardly has a reputation for conspiracy theorizing or uncritically buying the Kremlin’s version of events.

There are basically several counter-arguments to this, but they are all rather weak.

It’s a primitive contraption, it couldn’t have flown that far/or autonomously.

Except that both things have been done 15 ago, and over transcontinental distances:

By 2003, a hobbyist launched a GPS-guided model airplane/drone that flew autonomously from Newfoundland to precisely the right landing point in Ireland. Built of balsa and plywood with a tiny gasoline engine that burned less than one gallon of fuel in the 26 hour flight, it was cheap enough that the hobbyist built 23 to ensure he could be the first hobbyist to fly across the Atlantic. … Today [hobbyists and businesses] are routinely flying smart systems with intercontinental range — they lack only a payload to be a precision weapons system. Their composite construction and very low energy usage mean they will be very difficult to detect.

It’s a primitive contraption, period.

Well, it has to look home-made for it to be deniable. Maybe you could call them “little green drones.”

The sophisticated internals (navigation, control, etc.), and the swarm nature of the attack, is much more impressive, requiring a degree of logistics, testing, and technical expertise that one suspects might be beyond the capabilities of 80 average IQ Islamists, who are currently losing and hard pressed enough as it is.

Assuming this is true, this could mean one of, and probably both of, these things.

1. The US/Israel want to (cheaply, deniably) probe the Russian AA systems at Khmeimim, in case they’re thinking of resuming the regime change program.

And if it wildly happens to succeed in temporarily disabling Russian air power, as the first round of attacks on Dec 31 seems to have done so, then all the better.

2. Telling Putin he should start thinking about packing up his bags in Syria.

EDIT 01/10:

Alexander Mercouris – Drone attack on Russian bases launched from Turkish controlled area

 
🔊 Listen RSS
 

beer-and-books

History – discoveries, revolutions, innovations – has always been made by the select few: The extraordinarily intelligent, and the extraordinarily driven and curious.

It is easy to proxy the former (IQ tests), but quantifying the latter is more difficult.

My suggestion: Look at the demographic composition of the “out of left field” groups whose equivalents would have met up at the 18th century coffee salons of London and Paris to discuss the separation of powers and the settlement of the Americas.

I did this for six such major communities:

Racial Demographics

Whites Asians Blacks Hispanics Jews S.Asians Other
US Census 2010 72.4% 4.8% 12.6% 16.3% ~2.0% ~1.0%
Occupy Wall Street 2011 81.2% 2.8% 1.6% 6.8% 7.6%
Burning Man 2014 87.0% 5.7% 1.3% 6.3% 6.3%+ 0.4%+ 4.9%
Transhumanists 2012 85.3% 3.3% 1.4% 1.3%+
LessWrong 2014 86.1% 3.9% 0.8% 2.1% ~9.4% 2.2% 3.9%
LessWrong 2016 87.3% 3.5% 0.4% 1.9% ~11.9% 1.9% 4.1%
Slate Star Codex 2018 88.0% 3.6% 0.5% 2.0% ~9.8% 2.4% 2.8%

Before we go further, I would argue that the H+/EA/LW-sphere are actually less conformist than both OWS and Burning Man. One is a standard Leftist protest movement, and not a particularly radical one at that, and while it was once countercultural, Burning Man has long been suborned by… well, The Man. To the contrary, discussing the efficacy of different nootropics, trying to quantify the conscious experience of a parakeet, and analyzing the different takeoff scenarios for superintelligence really is quite… eccentric, in the best sense of that very English word, not to mention a great deal more g-loaded than camping out in Central Park or the Nevada desert. I would wager that these people are some of the likeliest to achieve major successes in culture, science, and technology on a per capita basis.

The first thing that jumps out is the substantial underrepresentation of Hispanics, the severe underrepresentation of Blacks, and the astounding overrepresentation of Jews – a pattern present across all groups, but particularly extreme in the Rationalism sphere. This is no puzzle for non-IQ deniers, so I will leave this without further comment.

The second notable thing is the relative underrepresentation of Asians, and the overrepresentation of Whites; a pattern that holds even when you subtract Jews from Whites. This is especially puzzling when you consider that Asian-Americans (median age – 36) are considerably younger than American Whites (median age – 43), though perhaps this is counterbalanced by some fraction of them hiding out in the “Other” and/or multiracial categories.

It is however less of a puzzle to those aware of the “Asian Paradox” in HBD discussions – the tendency for East Asian nations to outperform White ones on IQ tests, but to underperform them on scientific output (e.g. Japan produces less elite science than either Germany or the UK, despite a higher average national IQ and a much bigger population of 127 million versus 82 million and 65 million, respectively) and even on economic productivity. 52 million South Koreans produce about as much elite science as 8 million Swiss, as proxied by the number of annual publications in Nature. This is despite Japan having no NAMs to drag its average down, as in the US and much of Europe.

This general pattern pertains to Asian Americans as well, which suggests that not only cultural/national factors are involved. Although they score substantially higher than American Whites on IQ tests, and are vastly overrepresented amongst elite college enrollments – around 40% at Caltech, and 15% at other colleges where they are discriminated against by affirmative action, according to the numbers compiled by Ron Unz – non-boring accomplishment tend to trail off after that point. For instance, (the Japanese researcher) Kenya Kura notes: “Among undergrads, 40% or more are Asians, but graduate students are something like 20% (depending on departments). Faculty members are well less than 10%.” (This is not a difference that can be wholly or even mostly ascribed to the different age structure of the White and East Asian population). On the other hand, they do go on to make a lot more money than Whites (something that SJW propagandists of “white privilege” studiously ignore). This suggests East Asians in particular have a proclivity towards taking the safe, conformist, socially respectable, path in life.

Incidentally, I would also note that the one “out of left field” group in which East Asians are slightly overrepresented is Burning Man (though this vanishes when you consider that many of its participants come from the West Coast). However, it has long ceased to be any sort of particularly subversive and countercultural undercurrent – certainly by 2014, which is when the cited survey was taken. Over the past several years, Burning Man has been trending its way into the Californian SWPL memeplex, complete with corporate endorsements, luxury camps for Silicon Valley oligarchs, and police crackdowns on its old freewheeling drugs and nudist culture. Can’t get much more straight-laced than that.

feminist-philosophy

Tries hard to make a feminist point, but sort of makes the opposite one.

Sex Demographics

Men Women
Occupy Wall Street 2011 61.0% 37.5%
Burning Man 2014 58.2% 40.6%
Transhumanists 2012 90.1% 9.9%
LessWrong 2014 87.2% 11.9%
LessWrong 2016 83.6% 16.4%
Effective Altruism 2017 70% 26%
Slate Star Codex 2018 89.9% 10.1%

Women don’t differ much from men in terms of IQ (serious estimates range from equality to a 5 point disadvantage), though they do have thinner tails, so there are significantly fewer very intelligent women than there are very intelligent men and this starts to become an increasingly important factor from around IQ=130 or so. Moreover, women are marginally superior in terms of verbal IQ, which tends to correlate best with worldly success. However, as is well known, sex differences in human accomplishment is where pure IQ reductionism – despite its general successes – fails most thoroughly and consistently, regardless of 20th century feminist achievements (women accounted for 4% of Nobel Prize winners in literature and the sciences in 1900-1950, and 3% in 1950-2000).

Women have near parity in Burning Man participation and Occupy Wall Street. Neither are principally anti-systemic, both have a sort of a cool/fun factor to which ordinary people are drawn to, and OWS in particular has a marked Leftist tilt (politically, relative to men, women are conformist Leftists). However, the female share falls to around 10% in the rationalist-sphere, which is much more g-loaded (average IQ is at least 2 S.D. above the average), and where you can only really have fun if you have a very specific personality type (rational, open-minded, abstract, data-centric). If we are to assume that membership/participation in them can be considered a proxy for curiosity as well as IQ, and bearing in mind that the discovery threshold for major new scientific discoveries is perhaps another S.D. or two higher than for participating in those communities, then the lingering paucity of female achievement in those areas to this day becomes more intuitively understandable.

The Effective Altruism community is basically a less abstract/more practical extension of the rationalist community, with strongly charitably overtones, so women are more prevalent within it.

Speculations

1. Sociological concepts like “structural oppression” has never explained anything well, so why should the “bamboo ceiling” be an exception? As opposed to qualities such as curiosity actually being important for management and CEO positions?

2. Maybe, just maybe – as John Derbyshire seems to have intuited – elite college discrimination against Asians actually serves a purpose?

At least if your goal is not fairness, or pure meritocracy, or increasing the supply of quality doctors and lawyers and engineers… but maximizing the rate of innovation.

3. There doesn’t seem to be any reason the above argument can’t be extended to women.

 
🔊 Listen RSS
 

syrian-civil-war-jan-2018

I have long warned that Islamic State’s defeat will be a double-edged sword.

  • Positive: Syrian government-held territory effectively doubles, though mostly in terms of useless, depopulated desert.
  • Negative: Status quo returns to that of several years ago, i.e. back when Assad was “killing his own people” so far as the Western press, without the superlative evil of Islamic State spoiling the optics.

Now that Islamic State is out of the picture, the regime change program can now in principle be safely resumed, should the “Western partners” decide on that.

There are, of course, more bulwarks against it now than back then, but they are all quite malleable:

1. President Trump. Relevant back when there was a powerful protectionist/isolationist wing to counterbalance the neocons, but now that the latter are ascendant, this is no longer significant.

2. Iran. Plays an even more critical now than ever before, with the continuous disintegration of the SAA (here is a translation of a Russian army colonel on the how and why).

This is putting strain on Iran itself, as recent protests have shown (in which spending on foreign wars was a big grievance). As was widely expected, they did not in the end amount to much. However, the Iranian government will still have to deal with the economic sources of those protests, and that money will have to come from somewhere. And there might be less money available, period, if the US manages to use this opportunity to reinstate sanctions.

3. Turkey. Erdogan would prefer an Islamist Syria to Assad, but would prefer a unitary Syria even under Assad to a powerful Rojava occupying half the country’s territory. This largely explains his heel turn in Syria. Even so, there is nothing stopping him from doubling back should circumstances on the ground change yet again. It is worth noting that in the recent meeting between Macron and Erdogan – better known for Macron saying the EU should drop the hypocrisy of pretending that Turkey would ever become a member – the two men agreed that Assad could not remain President of Syria, and Macron went on to further argue that the Astana Agreements are not “constructive to peace,” since Iran and Russia “don’t share our interests.”

4. US/Israel/Saudi Arabia. There is now a stunning convergence of interests amongst those powers, in stark contrast to the Obama period which were fraught with minor squabbles between all three. Israel is dead-set against Assadist Syria, and its star has perhaps never before shone brighter in Washington D.C. Meanwhile, MbS is implacable towards Iran even by Saudi standards.

5. Russia. Putin has already gotten all the political capital (and Donbass distraction) he could hope for with his “short victorious war” against Islamic State.

Conspiracy mode engaged: The drone assault on Khmeimim – in line with a propaganda campaign explicitly aimed at undermining his domestic standing, which has already been faithfully echoed by Navalny – could be the “Western partners” gently telling him that he should start thinking of packing up his bags, with the threat of a more serious “conversation” at around the time of the Russian elections or the FIFA World Cup hanging in the air.

Okay, I should point out that this post is more an extension of my blackpill timeline – that is, an expression of gloomy presentiments and pessimistic possibilities – than it is a formal prediction (my actual predictions).

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Geopolitics, Russia, Syrian Civil War 
Anatoly Karlin
About Anatoly Karlin

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

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

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