The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersRussian Reaction Blog
Putin 2018: The Scorecard
🔊 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

putin-pepe

Putin Pepe. Once rare, now the market’s flooded with them.

I suppose this post can also double up as the Russian Elections 2018 thread. See archive: http://www.unz.com/author/anatoly-karlin/topic/russian-elections-2018/

My final prediction:

  • Turnout: 68.0%
  • Baburin: 0.8%
  • Grudinin: 9.7%
  • Zhirinovsky: 7.8%
  • Putin: 76.2%
  • Sobchak: 2.0%
  • Suraykin: 0.5%
  • Titov: 0.5%
  • Yavlinsky: 1.3%
  • Spoiled ballots: 1.2%

Politics

Putin needs to get his dues for arresting the centrifugal tendencies tearing apart the Russian state in the late 1990s, taming the oligarchs, and reversing federalization.

Also his post-Crimea 80% approval rating speaks for itself; he has become a “charismatic” leader on the level of Charles de Gaulle or Park Chung-hee. Will Russians Come Out to Defend Putin?

But he has become increasingly senile in recent years, and allowed himself to be surrounded by venal rent-seekers.

In these latest elections, couldn’t even be bothered compiling a program, or campaigning; his “Putin Team” was instead reusing old videos of his speeches.

Importance: 10
Rating: 4/5

Nation Building

Recovery of pride and self-confidence is a good thing, along with suppressing Western poz.

Downside: The dour Great Patriotic War cult on which the Russian state bases its legitimacy is just not that cool, interesting, or attractive.

Importance: 20
Rating: 3/5

Economics

Russian GDP per capita recovered and exceeded peak Soviet levels, and living standards improved greatly; although some improvement, due to the post-Soviet output gap and high oil prices, was inevitable under almost any kind of regime.

Restored domestic manufacturing – Russia now produces 70% of its own cars, and is the world’s largest grain exporter.

Defended economic liberals, balanced the budget, and prevented the likes of Glazyev from turning Russia into a second Venezuela. He seriously needs to be credited for this.

Improved the business climate, from ~120th in the early 2010s to 35th today according to the World Bank’s Ease of Doing Business rankings. Business raiding is no longer endemic like it once was. Bureaucracy has improved greatly, even if it still leaves much to be desired.

Inflation has come down to developed country levels, macroeconomic indicators are strong, and growth likely to be strong during the early 2020s.

Negative point: Russia has been more or less stagnant in terms of output since 2008. Then again, so has most of East-Central Europe.

Importance: 25
Rating: 4/5

Corruption & Institutions

I used to be a lot more positive about this, but it’s increasingly hard to keep up the pretense. I really do think the Russian high elite has gotten much more rapacious in the 2010s relative to the previous decade.

In fairness, this is a really hard problem.

Importance: 10
Rating: 3/5

Hi-Tech/Science

See Russia’s Technological Backwardness. Started improving from 2013. But it’s too little, too late.

Importance: 20
Rating: 1/5

Demographics

See Russian Demographics in 2018.

One of the undoubted bright spots – Russia has recovered from “lowest low” fertility, life expectancy is at record highs, etc., even if Putin did wait a bit too long to start on it, until the mid-2000s.

Importance: 25
Rating: 5/5

Immigration

Kirill Nesterov, main editor of our ROGPR podcast, once noted to me that in half a century’s time Putin, for all his anti-globalist credentials (adored by the Alt Right, hated by neoliberalism.txt) might be regarded in a similar light to Merkel – as someone who pushed their country into the Third World through open borders.

In fairness, Russia’s “open borders”-in-all-but-name policy wrt Central Asia means that Gastarbeiters rotate there and back, as opposed to settling and having children in Russia. Then again, as I understand it, this was similar to Germany in the 1960s.

Importance: 15
Rating: 2/5

Military

Reforms have been successful. The Russian military is now a well-oiled, intelligent, largely professional force, as opposed to the conscript rabble of the 1990s.

Russia has difficulties mastering post-Soviet latest generation technologies, but at least for now, it is more formidable than it has ever been.

Importance: 20
Rating: 5/5

High Geopolitics

Russia is close to a real New Cold War with the West, but at least Putin has been successful at striking up a strong strategic partnership with China. I doubt Russian nationalists could have pulled that off.

OTOH, Russia has failed almost completely at soft power, the Kremlin’s best efforts regardless. Millions of dollars to Ketchum – down the drain. Soft power orgs run by cronies and beneficiaries of nepotism.

Importance: 10
Rating: 4/5

The Ukraine

See The Ukraine Has Not Yet Perished (And Won’t Anytime Soon).

Even Crimea was… ambiguous [неоднозначная].

Importance: 25
Rating: 1/5

Near Abroad

The lack of Russian soft power or an interesting culture means that Russia has been able to keep those post-sovok regimes friendly at the price of Russian treasure and a steady dissolution of Russophile sentiment. In particular, Belorussia is basically Ukraine t – 20 years.

Importance: 10
Rating: 1/5

Chechnya, Georgia, Syria

Syria to date has been successful enough, I suppose – free training, weapons sales pitches, etc. – but irrelevant in the big picture.

The Kremlin drones didn’t know a thing about Deir ez-Zor before 2015; nor did they need to – as Putin himself noted, Bashar Al-Assad visited Paris more frequently than Moscow. But since then we are supposed to view it as the defining struggle against Globalist Zionism or whatever.

Kicked Saakashvili’s face in, and in the end even helped effect regime change, though Georgia has nonetheless drifted out of Russia’s orbit.

Brought Chechnya back within the RF and largely curtailed terrorism, but at the cost of sprouting a mini-Islamic state within its own borders. Russians may pay for this dearly after Putin.

Importance: 5
Rating: 4/5

TOTAL PUTIN SCORE: 80%

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Russia, Russian Elections 2018, Vladimir Putin 
Show 226 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Altogether he has been a successful leader, but I can only hope he’ll manage to find a good successor soon.

    Read More
    • Agree: Randal
    • Replies: @Lemurmaniac
    Who among the Russian elites has what it takes to lead Russia over the next decade?

    "And I sought for a man among them, that should make up the hedge, and stand in the gap before me for the land, that I should not destroy it: but I found none."

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. In these latest elections, couldn’t even be bothered compiling a program, or campaigning; his “Putin Team” was instead reusing old videos of his speeches.

    No, no, he’s just been campaigning by other means.

    I’ve lost count now of the number of people irl, online commenters and media propagandists who’ve explained to me in the last few days that Putin arranged a poison attack in Britain in order to get turnout and/or his vote up.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. Saker rants about the Anglo-Zionist empire aside, Syria does matter. Defence in depth has always been the Russian policy for the near abroad. A foothold in the Med and a reliable proxy in the ME makes sense from the Russian geopolitical perspective. It flanks NATO to the south on one hand, and allows Russia to stick its oar into the south western portion of the world land island the bear bestrides.

    What do you think will happen when the aging mall creep/security guard who runs Belarus sells out Moscow to the West? Another half-arsed ‘Northern Wind’? From what I’ve gleaned, there are significant swathes of the Belorussian population who are keen to distinguish themselves from the Eastern Russian and join their Western Slav brethren in looking West.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. Somehow, I never read your post regarding Ukraine that you cite within this article. I just couldn’t let this blooper pass without any comment:

    As a Russian nationalist, I remain unwaveringly committed to the idea of the triune Russian nation, just like Ivan Ilyin and Alexander Solzhenitsyn. There will ‘withcome a day when the dismemberment of the Russian nation will be but a bad memory in the Russian historical consciousness. This will almost certainly not happen under the current occupants of the Kremlin. But happen it will, or Russia will cease to exist as a civilizational entity.

    Then later in that thread you do a pretty good job of explaining all of Ukraine’s successes at the expense of Russia’s failed revanchism. In this posting, you do a good job of explaining how Russia is succeeding, despite all of its foolish setbacks, AND without Ukrainian support. You really can’t fathom how Russia can ‘exist as a civilizational entity’ without Ukraine squarely under its thumb? That’s crazy man, irrational, and surely not fitting for one as intelligent as you are. Put on your thinking cap and try harder, I know you can come up with some equally positive scenarios.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    Not a blooper.

    The Ukraine is a fake country whose existence is deeply offensive and wrong.

    Russia can and does exist without the Ukraine, but it requires the Ukraine in order to compete as a world power.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. @Mr. Hack
    Somehow, I never read your post regarding Ukraine that you cite within this article. I just couldn't let this blooper pass without any comment:

    As a Russian nationalist, I remain unwaveringly committed to the idea of the triune Russian nation, just like Ivan Ilyin and Alexander Solzhenitsyn. There will 'withcome a day when the dismemberment of the Russian nation will be but a bad memory in the Russian historical consciousness. This will almost certainly not happen under the current occupants of the Kremlin. But happen it will, or Russia will cease to exist as a civilizational entity.
     
    Then later in that thread you do a pretty good job of explaining all of Ukraine's successes at the expense of Russia's failed revanchism. In this posting, you do a good job of explaining how Russia is succeeding, despite all of its foolish setbacks, AND without Ukrainian support. You really can't fathom how Russia can 'exist as a civilizational entity' without Ukraine squarely under its thumb? That's crazy man, irrational, and surely not fitting for one as intelligent as you are. Put on your thinking cap and try harder, I know you can come up with some equally positive scenarios.

    Not a blooper.

    The Ukraine is a fake country whose existence is deeply offensive and wrong.

    Russia can and does exist without the Ukraine, but it requires the Ukraine in order to compete as a world power.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    Your Ukrainaphobic nonsense is revolting. It's just plainly stupid too.
    , @DFH
    You're a fake person whose existence is deeply offensive and wrong.
    , @Daniil Adamov
    1) Why are we obliged to compete as a world power? There are better uses for taxpayers' money. Competing as a world power is a fool's game, leave it to the Chinese and the Americans.

    2) If we DID want to compete as a world power, Siberia would be infinitely more important and useful than the Ukraine. I really don't see what the latter would give us in any global competition, other than a headache. In the long run if we could somehow absorb it peacefully and voluntarily after having achieved prosperity at home, that would be very nice. But it'd only be a bonus and we need to sort out our economic issues first in any case.
    , @Pavlo

    requires the Ukraine in order to compete as a world power.
     
    This is a thing that Poles believe because they're absolute cretins.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. The Ukraine became another place when the Patriarch of Moscow re-established the Kiev Metropolitanate after the Mongol invasion. At that time Rus meant Kiev.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  7. @reiner Tor
    Altogether he has been a successful leader, but I can only hope he’ll manage to find a good successor soon.

    Who among the Russian elites has what it takes to lead Russia over the next decade?

    “And I sought for a man among them, that should make up the hedge, and stand in the gap before me for the land, that I should not destroy it: but I found none.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous coward

    Who among the Russian elites has what it takes to lead Russia over the next decade?
     
    If we're serious for a moment: it should be obvious that Russia is run by a synedrion whose members are mostly not public, and Putin is just its public face.
    , @Sean
    Maybe he is already thinking of that and Putin's diplomacy is a deliberate start-a-Cold-War scorched earth strategy. He could be trying to sow massive mistrust between Russia and the West, thereby leaving his legacy of an independent Russia immune from any future liberal leadership coming to power in Russia.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. Russia doesn’t need to be awesome: it just needs to collapse a little bit slower than Europe.
    And that, Russia is accomplishing.

    Hang on a little bit longer and the USA will lose it’s power projection capability too.

    In a few decades the whole Western world will have Russia’s mix of semi-competent bureaucrats and corrupt oligarchs; but Russia will be marginally whiter than the rest.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  9. My score for Putin:

    Good – great guy on all kinds of domestic issues; moderate policies; lowering corruption (already unimaginable the days when you could buy a driving license without doing a test); revitalizing morale; trying to improve birthrates (it doesn’t have much impact now, but would still be around having to fund taxes in the 2050s or something, then better to have a lower dependency ratio); his personal skills; getting Crimea without anyone dying; building stronger relations with many countries, etc (lots of small things to add).

    Bad – lack of economic vision for 2030s and beyond; over the top open-borders immigration policy even from a moderate anti-racist perspective (why not we move more in the direction of Switzerland or Australia’s immigration policy?); wasting money on various stupid projects; incompetent attempts for ‘soft power’; some poor foreign policy issues (Syria strategy is hard to understand, I don’t support it, but at least they only intervene in a very small way).

    Overall 7/10.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. @Thorfinnsson
    Not a blooper.

    The Ukraine is a fake country whose existence is deeply offensive and wrong.

    Russia can and does exist without the Ukraine, but it requires the Ukraine in order to compete as a world power.

    Your Ukrainaphobic nonsense is revolting. It’s just plainly stupid too.

    Read More
    • Agree: for-the-record
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. Some countries are lucky. Habsburgs used to sing about ‘Felix Austria’, the combination of geography, people and resources that was optimal in 18th and 19th centuries. It was hard to mess it up and it took a few hundred years of bad leaders and some extraordinary stupid decisions before Habsburg Austria bit the dust.

    There have been other countries in similar sweet spots in the past. Today Russia is the best candidate for the lucky country: they have the resources, geography, small educated population, and the nukes. It is hard to mess it up and Russia’s natural trajectory is up. Putin helped, but any Russian leader who is patient, sober and sane, and more or less honest, would do fine.

    Material conditions determine a lot more about our lives than we are willing to accept. Many so called leadership decisions are not much more than doing the obvious, going with the flow. Russia simply needs calm, time is on her side.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Despite their generally intelligent and resilient people, and their fertile land and size: if the number of actual Russians is declining, then time is NOT on their side vis-a-vis China and Muslims both internal and external.

    The population of Chechnya, which is all Muslim, is quite small in the scheme of Russia, but increasing.

    By contrast, almost every other oblast / okrug in Russia has a total fertility rate WAY below replacement, usually below 1.8 and sometimes below 1.6.

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

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. I largely agree with what was written, except this.

    Negative point: Russia has been more or less stagnant in terms of output since 2008. Then again, so has most of East-Central Europe.

    Russia has a decently high per capita GDP, so one should compare it with similar countries in CEE. I’ve selected a list here:

    I’ve excluded the Baltics, since they are sometimes counted as CEE and sometimes not. But even if I would include them, the general pattern would only be strengthened. Even with all the Baltics added, Russia would still be doing poorly. Given that it has a significantly higher income than Belarus, Ukraine or most of the Balkans, those countries are not the relevant peer group. Croatia and Slovenia have done worse as of 2016, but both have very strong 2017s and will likely do better than Russia by this year. So from 2008-2018, they have surpassed Russia too in terms of GDP per capita growth performance.

    Yes, part of this stagnation is surely due to the fall of oil prices, which cannot be blamed on Putin. However, even by 2013, growth was starting to become anemic. Therefore even without a fall of oil prices, Russia’s economy was struggling.

    Some of this may be due to the fact that much of Europe was underwater, but I’m not sure just how integrated Russia’s economy is to Europe. I was under the impression that much of your exports was far more diversified than, say, Poland’s (90% of exports to EU countries).

    Russia is also a much more domestic-driven economy than mine.


    Which would mean that the weakness in 2013 cannot only be blamed on external factors. Therefore, Putin’s economic policies cannot be swept under the rug by claiming much of the relevant peer group countries in the CEE have stagnated, they haven’t.

    Additionally, the economic weakness was already apparent in 2013 and given that Russia is a much less globalised/outward-oriented economy than many CEE countries, the weakness cannot also be blamed on external factors.

    Putin deserves most credit in his economies policies for being fiscally prudent, where he has displayed an almost Germanic discipline. But in terms of economic growth, he got lucky for riding an oil wave as well as the fact that Russia’s GDP per capita had taken a huge plunge in the 1990s, which meant that it had a lot of “catch-up growth” to do. Once this had been exhausted in the early 2010s, his true economic skills came to light and they weren’t hugely impressive. Not bad, to be sure, but a reformer he probably is not.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  13. @Thorfinnsson
    Not a blooper.

    The Ukraine is a fake country whose existence is deeply offensive and wrong.

    Russia can and does exist without the Ukraine, but it requires the Ukraine in order to compete as a world power.

    You’re a fake person whose existence is deeply offensive and wrong.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. “Interesting” is very subjective. What do you mean by a “lack of interesting culture”? As for the GPW, the official propaganda around it is often badly overdone but there is just no escaping the fact that it is the foundational myth of modern Russia, and it IS a very potent and profound one. Moreover, as regards international soft power, it is a fact that most people who like Russia abroad like it in no small part because of their idea of the Eastern Front, cooperation against the Actual Nazis, etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

    As for the GPW, the official propaganda around it is often badly overdone but there is just no escaping the fact that it is the foundational myth of modern Russia, and it IS a very potent and profound one.
     
    Potent and profound to Russians - to Belorussians - not so much to Ukrainians - not at all to pretty much anyone else.

    Imagine a neutral observer.

    Which of these cultures is more attractive: The one dreaming of flying to the stars (the Musk cult), or the one living in the past (the GPW cult)?

    ... like it in no small part because of their idea of the Eastern Front, cooperation against the Actual Nazis, etc.
     
    Here is how most of the world outside Russia views the Eastern Front:

    https://www.unzcloud.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/poll-ussr-usa-contributed-allied-victory-ww2.png
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. @Thorfinnsson
    Not a blooper.

    The Ukraine is a fake country whose existence is deeply offensive and wrong.

    Russia can and does exist without the Ukraine, but it requires the Ukraine in order to compete as a world power.

    1) Why are we obliged to compete as a world power? There are better uses for taxpayers’ money. Competing as a world power is a fool’s game, leave it to the Chinese and the Americans.

    2) If we DID want to compete as a world power, Siberia would be infinitely more important and useful than the Ukraine. I really don’t see what the latter would give us in any global competition, other than a headache. In the long run if we could somehow absorb it peacefully and voluntarily after having achieved prosperity at home, that would be very nice. But it’d only be a bonus and we need to sort out our economic issues first in any case.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    This is a reasonable response unlike the embarrassing takes in praise of the fictional entity known as the Ukraine.

    1) Why are we obliged to compete as a world power? There are better uses for taxpayers’ money. Competing as a world power is a fool’s game, leave it to the Chinese and the Americans.
     

    This is a question well worth asking and gets down to very basic questions of the nature of man.

    My position is that men are hard-wired to form groups and compete with other groups of men for status and power. The state must attend to its basic duties first, but after that the whole point is being better than other countries. Greater power can also be used to bring in actual benefits, though imperial countries have not done this in a long time now owing to equalist dementia.

    There are trade offs. Switzerland had a much nicer 20th century than Germany did.

    The United States has nearly completely destroyed itself as a result playing the game ("civil rights" was only adopted in order to compete with Communism).


    2) If we DID want to compete as a world power, Siberia would be infinitely more important and useful than the Ukraine. I really don’t see what the latter would give us in any global competition, other than a headache. In the long run if we could somehow absorb it peacefully and voluntarily after having achieved prosperity at home, that would be very nice. But it’d only be a bonus and we need to sort out our economic issues first in any case.
     
    .
    Human capital is more important than raw materials. The Ukraine (and Belarus) would provide Russia with an immediate shot in the arm in this department, and the populations would be easy to integrate.

    Perhaps too much bad blood has been spilled since 2014 however.

    Another question worth asking is whether a Russia that only has 10% of China's population and which is reorienting itself towards dependence on China can actually preserve its freedom of action in a meaningful way (and I don't mean the absurd yellow peril scenario of hordes of Chinese illegal immigrants pouring into Siberia).

    Granted, even adding the Ukraine and Belarus would only increase Russia's population to 200m or so. People still don't realize what colossal power the Chinese will achieve.

    So perhaps Russia should hunker down for a a century and try to grow its population (and, ofc, economy) instead of playing the imperial game.

    , @Seraphim
    But of course, Siberia is definitely infinitely more important. It's Russia's Lebensraum, the direction of her natural movement and development.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. OK, let’s just collect the silliest phrases from this one.

    [he has become increasingly senile in recent years, and allowed himself to be surrounded by venal rent-seekers]
    [the Russian high elite has gotten much more rapacious in the 2010s relative to the previous decade]
    [Russia has difficulties mastering post-Soviet latest generation technologies]
    [Russia has failed almost completely at soft power]
    [Belorussia is basically Ukraine t – 20 years]
    [Syria ... irrelevant in the big picture.]

    There are many of them!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Parbes
    You don't need to dip too far into any Anatoly Karlin article before you hit silly, immature, clueless or geeky stuff. He is basically a brainwashed Western right-wing hipster with a jaundiced eye.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. In these latest elections, couldn’t even be bothered compiling a program, or campaigning

    He did this in every election, even his very first one when he was a “literally who”.

    Like I said, Russia is an Asian country in that there’s a whole lot of traditional mumbo-jumbo related to the sacralization of power.

    His “do not campaign” approach works, it effectively shows who has the mandate of heaven in the election.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lemurmaniac
    horseshit Soviet anthropology beloved by Dugin and the Saker just wont' die
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. @Lemurmaniac
    Who among the Russian elites has what it takes to lead Russia over the next decade?

    "And I sought for a man among them, that should make up the hedge, and stand in the gap before me for the land, that I should not destroy it: but I found none."

    Who among the Russian elites has what it takes to lead Russia over the next decade?

    If we’re serious for a moment: it should be obvious that Russia is run by a synedrion whose members are mostly not public, and Putin is just its public face.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    It is hard to combine the pose of peculiar wisdom and the reality of complete vacuity in a shorter space than you just did.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. OT: Speaking of Chinese technological convergence with the frontier.

    Samsung Electronics Uses Chinese Optical Parts for Its Flagship Smartphones for the First Time

    Sunny Optical from China supplied its optical parts to Samsung Electronics for its Galaxy S9. This is the first time when Chinese optical parts are used for Samsung Electronics’ flagship models. Optical parts have the highest technical barrier out of all Smartphone parts.

    South Korean industries are worried that their opportunities will become narrower in the future as competitive price of Chinese businesses becomes stronger

    Although Sunny Optical is a company that is unfamiliar to normal people, it is emerging as a global company as it has secured major Chinese Smartphone manufacturers such as Huawei, OPPO, and VIVO as its customer. According to iResearch and Hana Financial Investment, Sunny Optical’s market share in global market was 8% in 2015 followed by LG Innotek, Sharp, and Samsung Electro-Mechanics. Its technical skills have improved a lot as it is able to manufacture latest dual-camera modules.

    Chinese Smartphone part manufacturers are supplying various parts to major Smartphone manufacturers such as Samsung Electronics and Apple based on their competitive edge that they have accumulated in Chinese market. It is heard that O-film[Chinese company], which manufacturers touchscreen, camera module, and fingerprint recognition module, recently signed a contract with Apple.

    So, they have now reached the highest levels of technical sophistication in terms of smartphone components.

    Speaking of Chinese technological convergence…

    Zhaoxin launches their highest-performance Chinese x86 chips

    The newly announced processors are based on the WuDaoKou microarchitecture. Zhaoxin boasts that this as the first truly domestic x86 microarchitecture and the only one fully compatible with all existing software – including Window 10. The truth is a bit more complicated. WuDaoKou is the successor to ZhangJiang. The interesting part is what ZhangJiang succeeds? ZhangJiang is an out-of-order core manufactured on TSMC’s 28 nm process. We believe ZhangJiang is in fact the successor to VIA’s Isaiah II (as opposed to Isaiah). Isaiah was VIA’s first out-of-order design which found its way to the VIA Nano.

    Over the last couple of years, Zhaoxin has invested most of its resources into WuDaoKou which is substantially different from all prior designs. They no longer use TSMC 28nm but instead have opted to use Shanghai Huali Microelectronics Corporation (HLMC) 28 nm process meaning this chip is not only designed in China, it’s also made there.

    Zhaoxin is already working on their next generation, KX-6000, processors. Those processors are based on the Lujiazui microarchitecture which is planned for TSMC’s 16nm process (although we were told they might switch to SMIC’s 14nm eventually when ready). In order to increase the performance, a primary area of focus is increasing the clock frequency. Lujiazui is expected to reach at least 3 GHz. Additionally, the memory controller will support higher data rates (up to 3200 MT/s).

    Zhaoxin has stated they intend on reaching AMD level of performance with KX-6000’s successor, KX-7000. That is, they want the KX-7000 to match the performance of Zen 2. While the process for KX-7000 is currently unknown, they would most likely have to move to TSMC’s 10nm or 7nm process. They are planning on supporting DDR5 and PCIe 4 as well as even higher clock frequency. Zhaoxin stated that they plan on making major enhancements to the pipeline in order to substantially improve IPC although they did not go into any details. They expect around 1.5x improvement in single-thread performance over the KX-5000.

    Their current CPU is around the same performance of an Intel Atom Goldmont, which is not bad. But as the article states, they are now pursuing two tracks. Their peak performance model will use TSMC in order to rapidly converge but their lower-performing model will now switch to their domestic semiconductor facilities.

    Over time, they should be able to have a strong domestic CPU+semiconductor industry and I don’t think we’re talking a decade, possibly less than half that time. Part of the reason why Ryzen caught up so fast is that progress at the frontier is very slow. China already produces competitive SoCs, such as Huawei’s Kiren line-up, though of course substantially based on ARM architecture(but that is true for Qualcomm as well).

    For consumers, the emergence of a viable Chinese consumer CPU alternative (and hopefully a GPU initiative as well, given that AMD already has many hundreds of researchers in China) would naturally be good. The Chinese have already caught up in supercomputer performance, so I don’t see why they won’t in small(er) scale computing. Exciting times!

    Read More
    • Replies: @A22
    I believe I have read recently about a Russian CPU that will be utilized by the government/military. I don't remember the exact numbers but the TFLOP numbers were not bad at all. However what remains disappointing is that even with this design, I don't think Russia has anything near the state of the art fabrication process plants. I am honestly surprised to know the Chinese already have a 28nm process(even though it is starting to show age).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. @5371
    OK, let's just collect the silliest phrases from this one.

    [he has become increasingly senile in recent years, and allowed himself to be surrounded by venal rent-seekers]
    [the Russian high elite has gotten much more rapacious in the 2010s relative to the previous decade]
    [Russia has difficulties mastering post-Soviet latest generation technologies]
    [Russia has failed almost completely at soft power]
    [Belorussia is basically Ukraine t – 20 years]
    [Syria ... irrelevant in the big picture.]

    There are many of them!

    You don’t need to dip too far into any Anatoly Karlin article before you hit silly, immature, clueless or geeky stuff. He is basically a brainwashed Western right-wing hipster with a jaundiced eye.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    You don’t need to dip too far into any Anatoly Karlin article before you hit silly, immature, clueless or geeky stuff. He is basically a brainwashed Western right-wing hipster with a jaundiced eye.

     

    No, Karlin has a accurate viewpoint overall, even if his ideology is a bit eccentric.
    , @Greasy William
    But you western Russophiles appreciate the true infallible greatness that is Vladimir Putin.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. @Daniil Adamov
    1) Why are we obliged to compete as a world power? There are better uses for taxpayers' money. Competing as a world power is a fool's game, leave it to the Chinese and the Americans.

    2) If we DID want to compete as a world power, Siberia would be infinitely more important and useful than the Ukraine. I really don't see what the latter would give us in any global competition, other than a headache. In the long run if we could somehow absorb it peacefully and voluntarily after having achieved prosperity at home, that would be very nice. But it'd only be a bonus and we need to sort out our economic issues first in any case.

    This is a reasonable response unlike the embarrassing takes in praise of the fictional entity known as the Ukraine.

    1) Why are we obliged to compete as a world power? There are better uses for taxpayers’ money. Competing as a world power is a fool’s game, leave it to the Chinese and the Americans.

    This is a question well worth asking and gets down to very basic questions of the nature of man.

    My position is that men are hard-wired to form groups and compete with other groups of men for status and power. The state must attend to its basic duties first, but after that the whole point is being better than other countries. Greater power can also be used to bring in actual benefits, though imperial countries have not done this in a long time now owing to equalist dementia.

    There are trade offs. Switzerland had a much nicer 20th century than Germany did.

    The United States has nearly completely destroyed itself as a result playing the game (“civil rights” was only adopted in order to compete with Communism).

    2) If we DID want to compete as a world power, Siberia would be infinitely more important and useful than the Ukraine. I really don’t see what the latter would give us in any global competition, other than a headache. In the long run if we could somehow absorb it peacefully and voluntarily after having achieved prosperity at home, that would be very nice. But it’d only be a bonus and we need to sort out our economic issues first in any case.

    .
    Human capital is more important than raw materials. The Ukraine (and Belarus) would provide Russia with an immediate shot in the arm in this department, and the populations would be easy to integrate.

    Perhaps too much bad blood has been spilled since 2014 however.

    Another question worth asking is whether a Russia that only has 10% of China’s population and which is reorienting itself towards dependence on China can actually preserve its freedom of action in a meaningful way (and I don’t mean the absurd yellow peril scenario of hordes of Chinese illegal immigrants pouring into Siberia).

    Granted, even adding the Ukraine and Belarus would only increase Russia’s population to 200m or so. People still don’t realize what colossal power the Chinese will achieve.

    So perhaps Russia should hunker down for a a century and try to grow its population (and, ofc, economy) instead of playing the imperial game.

    Read More
    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @A22
    The question of increasing the population might be hard to address in democracies, but I can't really understand why is it so hard to deal with in an authoritarian state like Russia. Just pass a law that mandates having at least 2 children to get access to your social benefits when you are old. If you have the state to take care of you when you are old, why would you have children? There are other reasons to have children but having someone to care for you when you are old is a definitely a significant one. Of course, in reality, passing such a law will be very complicated but I am sure the government can figure it out if it has the dedication.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. @Polish Perspective
    OT: Speaking of Chinese technological convergence with the frontier.



    Samsung Electronics Uses Chinese Optical Parts for Its Flagship Smartphones for the First Time


    Sunny Optical from China supplied its optical parts to Samsung Electronics for its Galaxy S9. This is the first time when Chinese optical parts are used for Samsung Electronics’ flagship models. Optical parts have the highest technical barrier out of all Smartphone parts.

    South Korean industries are worried that their opportunities will become narrower in the future as competitive price of Chinese businesses becomes stronger

    Although Sunny Optical is a company that is unfamiliar to normal people, it is emerging as a global company as it has secured major Chinese Smartphone manufacturers such as Huawei, OPPO, and VIVO as its customer. According to iResearch and Hana Financial Investment, Sunny Optical’s market share in global market was 8% in 2015 followed by LG Innotek, Sharp, and Samsung Electro-Mechanics. Its technical skills have improved a lot as it is able to manufacture latest dual-camera modules.


    Chinese Smartphone part manufacturers are supplying various parts to major Smartphone manufacturers such as Samsung Electronics and Apple based on their competitive edge that they have accumulated in Chinese market. It is heard that O-film[Chinese company], which manufacturers touchscreen, camera module, and fingerprint recognition module, recently signed a contract with Apple.
     
    So, they have now reached the highest levels of technical sophistication in terms of smartphone components.

    Speaking of Chinese technological convergence...

    Zhaoxin launches their highest-performance Chinese x86 chips

    The newly announced processors are based on the WuDaoKou microarchitecture. Zhaoxin boasts that this as the first truly domestic x86 microarchitecture and the only one fully compatible with all existing software – including Window 10. The truth is a bit more complicated. WuDaoKou is the successor to ZhangJiang. The interesting part is what ZhangJiang succeeds? ZhangJiang is an out-of-order core manufactured on TSMC’s 28 nm process. We believe ZhangJiang is in fact the successor to VIA’s Isaiah II (as opposed to Isaiah). Isaiah was VIA’s first out-of-order design which found its way to the VIA Nano.

    Over the last couple of years, Zhaoxin has invested most of its resources into WuDaoKou which is substantially different from all prior designs. They no longer use TSMC 28nm but instead have opted to use Shanghai Huali Microelectronics Corporation (HLMC) 28 nm process meaning this chip is not only designed in China, it’s also made there.

    Zhaoxin is already working on their next generation, KX-6000, processors. Those processors are based on the Lujiazui microarchitecture which is planned for TSMC’s 16nm process (although we were told they might switch to SMIC’s 14nm eventually when ready). In order to increase the performance, a primary area of focus is increasing the clock frequency. Lujiazui is expected to reach at least 3 GHz. Additionally, the memory controller will support higher data rates (up to 3200 MT/s).

    Zhaoxin has stated they intend on reaching AMD level of performance with KX-6000’s successor, KX-7000. That is, they want the KX-7000 to match the performance of Zen 2. While the process for KX-7000 is currently unknown, they would most likely have to move to TSMC’s 10nm or 7nm process. They are planning on supporting DDR5 and PCIe 4 as well as even higher clock frequency. Zhaoxin stated that they plan on making major enhancements to the pipeline in order to substantially improve IPC although they did not go into any details. They expect around 1.5x improvement in single-thread performance over the KX-5000.
     
    Their current CPU is around the same performance of an Intel Atom Goldmont, which is not bad. But as the article states, they are now pursuing two tracks. Their peak performance model will use TSMC in order to rapidly converge but their lower-performing model will now switch to their domestic semiconductor facilities.

    Over time, they should be able to have a strong domestic CPU+semiconductor industry and I don't think we're talking a decade, possibly less than half that time. Part of the reason why Ryzen caught up so fast is that progress at the frontier is very slow. China already produces competitive SoCs, such as Huawei's Kiren line-up, though of course substantially based on ARM architecture(but that is true for Qualcomm as well).

    For consumers, the emergence of a viable Chinese consumer CPU alternative (and hopefully a GPU initiative as well, given that AMD already has many hundreds of researchers in China) would naturally be good. The Chinese have already caught up in supercomputer performance, so I don't see why they won't in small(er) scale computing. Exciting times!

    I believe I have read recently about a Russian CPU that will be utilized by the government/military. I don’t remember the exact numbers but the TFLOP numbers were not bad at all. However what remains disappointing is that even with this design, I don’t think Russia has anything near the state of the art fabrication process plants. I am honestly surprised to know the Chinese already have a 28nm process(even though it is starting to show age).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    The thing which will blow your mind, is when you find out GlobalFoundries is owned by the government of Qatar.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. @Parbes
    You don't need to dip too far into any Anatoly Karlin article before you hit silly, immature, clueless or geeky stuff. He is basically a brainwashed Western right-wing hipster with a jaundiced eye.

    You don’t need to dip too far into any Anatoly Karlin article before you hit silly, immature, clueless or geeky stuff. He is basically a brainwashed Western right-wing hipster with a jaundiced eye.

    No, Karlin has a accurate viewpoint overall, even if his ideology is a bit eccentric.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Parbes
    No he does not - he occasionally does make an incisive observation about this or that thing, but that's about it. Mostly what he does is, he throws out a bunch of ad hoc, cherry-picked "statistical" tables and graphs culled from various Western "media sources", without any serious consideration of their accuracy, reliability, objectivity, provenance, methodology - or whether the information contained in them is really significant or not for making deep value judgments about anything. (Many times his tables and graphs are not even actual statistics, but things like opinion polls, anecdotal "surveys" or high-school exam and competition results. And many times, he MISINTERPRETS HIS OWN TABLES AND GRAPHS). Then, based on his own flawed, narrow selection of tables and graphs - and without taking sufficient account of countervailing facts, arguments, factors, and the larger context and historical process - he makes sweeping generalizations about politics, society, economics, the future, etc. which conform to his biased "Western rightist hipster" worldview. His understanding of real sociopolitics, real economics, real geopolitics, real military issues, real history, and real science is superficial and sophomoric at best.

    Karlin is not any kind of a true, robust intellectual. In fact, his overall political philosophy and approach towards Russia and the "non-Anglosphere" world bears remarkable similarities to the blindly West-worshipping Russian "liberast" crowd and the Western Russophobe neocon and "liberal" pseudointellectuals whom he supposedly decries (or used to decry!)

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. @A22
    I believe I have read recently about a Russian CPU that will be utilized by the government/military. I don't remember the exact numbers but the TFLOP numbers were not bad at all. However what remains disappointing is that even with this design, I don't think Russia has anything near the state of the art fabrication process plants. I am honestly surprised to know the Chinese already have a 28nm process(even though it is starting to show age).

    The thing which will blow your mind, is when you find out GlobalFoundries is owned by the government of Qatar.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. @Thorfinnsson
    This is a reasonable response unlike the embarrassing takes in praise of the fictional entity known as the Ukraine.

    1) Why are we obliged to compete as a world power? There are better uses for taxpayers’ money. Competing as a world power is a fool’s game, leave it to the Chinese and the Americans.
     

    This is a question well worth asking and gets down to very basic questions of the nature of man.

    My position is that men are hard-wired to form groups and compete with other groups of men for status and power. The state must attend to its basic duties first, but after that the whole point is being better than other countries. Greater power can also be used to bring in actual benefits, though imperial countries have not done this in a long time now owing to equalist dementia.

    There are trade offs. Switzerland had a much nicer 20th century than Germany did.

    The United States has nearly completely destroyed itself as a result playing the game ("civil rights" was only adopted in order to compete with Communism).


    2) If we DID want to compete as a world power, Siberia would be infinitely more important and useful than the Ukraine. I really don’t see what the latter would give us in any global competition, other than a headache. In the long run if we could somehow absorb it peacefully and voluntarily after having achieved prosperity at home, that would be very nice. But it’d only be a bonus and we need to sort out our economic issues first in any case.
     
    .
    Human capital is more important than raw materials. The Ukraine (and Belarus) would provide Russia with an immediate shot in the arm in this department, and the populations would be easy to integrate.

    Perhaps too much bad blood has been spilled since 2014 however.

    Another question worth asking is whether a Russia that only has 10% of China's population and which is reorienting itself towards dependence on China can actually preserve its freedom of action in a meaningful way (and I don't mean the absurd yellow peril scenario of hordes of Chinese illegal immigrants pouring into Siberia).

    Granted, even adding the Ukraine and Belarus would only increase Russia's population to 200m or so. People still don't realize what colossal power the Chinese will achieve.

    So perhaps Russia should hunker down for a a century and try to grow its population (and, ofc, economy) instead of playing the imperial game.

    The question of increasing the population might be hard to address in democracies, but I can’t really understand why is it so hard to deal with in an authoritarian state like Russia. Just pass a law that mandates having at least 2 children to get access to your social benefits when you are old. If you have the state to take care of you when you are old, why would you have children? There are other reasons to have children but having someone to care for you when you are old is a definitely a significant one. Of course, in reality, passing such a law will be very complicated but I am sure the government can figure it out if it has the dedication.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson


    The question of increasing the population might be hard to address in democracies, but I can’t really understand why is it so hard to deal with in an authoritarian state like Russia.
     
    Russia is a lot less authoritarian than China. The country after all has free and (mostly) fair elections, they simply happen not to be competitive since Putin has sucked up all the oxygen in the room. I'm not really sure of the mechanism of control, but it's worth studying so we can duplicate it here for a generation or two (simply to liquidate leftism/equalism as a force forever).


    Just pass a law that mandates having at least 2 children to get access to your social benefits when you are old. If you have the state to take care of you when you are old, why would you have children? There are other reasons to have children but having someone to care for you when you are old is a definitely a significant one. Of course, in reality, passing such a law will be very complicated but I am sure the government can figure it out if it has the dedication.
     
    I think we can do a lot better than that.

    -End feminism (and I mean end it, bring back guardianship)
    -Instead of sending women to secondary school let alone university, send them to finishing school
    -Suppress pornography and prostitution
    -Create a state church and disenfranchise nonconformists
    -Allow men to take a second wife, of foreign origin only, once they have married a native woman
    -Extra children = extra voting power
    -Pervasive familial and natalist propaganda in media and entertainment
    -Suppress birth control and abortion except for undesirable minorities and the genetically unfit
    -Recreate the nobility for the elite and link noble status to appropriate marriage and producing sufficient numbers of children (goal being to reverse the elite fertility transition of the 18th and 19th centuries)

    I'm sure you could come up with quite a lot more if you put your mind to it. The Amish in America, who do not even make use of much labor-saving technology, manage a TFR exceeding seven. Their population doubles every 22 years with no inward conversions and considerable outward conversions.

    Doubling every 22 years might be excessive (consider infrastructure costs and the extreme dependency ratio), although the early American republic did this for its first century.

    But this should be thought about seriously. The state ought to have a population policy just as it has an economic policy and a foreign policy.
    , @Dmitry

    The question of increasing the population might be hard to address in democracies, but I can’t really understand why is it so hard to deal with in an authoritarian state like Russia.
     
    Because it's not an authoritarian state. And paying for other people's kids, or discriminating against people for this - is not a popular option. Unless you want to scare more of the good people to Canada, while the Muslims will stay around having bigger families.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. @anonymous coward

    Who among the Russian elites has what it takes to lead Russia over the next decade?
     
    If we're serious for a moment: it should be obvious that Russia is run by a synedrion whose members are mostly not public, and Putin is just its public face.

    It is hard to combine the pose of peculiar wisdom and the reality of complete vacuity in a shorter space than you just did.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous coward
    Look: we actually know Putin's personal views on politics.

    He is a classical liberal -- meaning, he believes in private enterprise, small government, representative democracy, free trade within reasonable bounds and national borders without racialism.

    His hobby is environmentalism. (The John Muir kind, not SWPL kind.)

    Note that Russia's policies are nothing like what they would be if Putin was personally calling the shots.

    The reason for that is that he doesn't. (This should be obvious at a half-second consideration, but people who live on the Internet instead of in reality will have their minds blown.)

    P.S. About the only time I can think of when Putin made a significant personal decision was when he cancelled a pipeline that threatened Baikal's ecology. Probably because nobody else in the inner circle cared enough one way or the other about it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Lol notice on voting form, how Putin was placed between Sobchak and Zhirinovsky.

    Also I wonder if Sobchak might get more votes because how she was placed under to Putin close to the center of the voting form.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  28. @A22
    The question of increasing the population might be hard to address in democracies, but I can't really understand why is it so hard to deal with in an authoritarian state like Russia. Just pass a law that mandates having at least 2 children to get access to your social benefits when you are old. If you have the state to take care of you when you are old, why would you have children? There are other reasons to have children but having someone to care for you when you are old is a definitely a significant one. Of course, in reality, passing such a law will be very complicated but I am sure the government can figure it out if it has the dedication.

    The question of increasing the population might be hard to address in democracies, but I can’t really understand why is it so hard to deal with in an authoritarian state like Russia.

    Russia is a lot less authoritarian than China. The country after all has free and (mostly) fair elections, they simply happen not to be competitive since Putin has sucked up all the oxygen in the room. I’m not really sure of the mechanism of control, but it’s worth studying so we can duplicate it here for a generation or two (simply to liquidate leftism/equalism as a force forever).

    Just pass a law that mandates having at least 2 children to get access to your social benefits when you are old. If you have the state to take care of you when you are old, why would you have children? There are other reasons to have children but having someone to care for you when you are old is a definitely a significant one. Of course, in reality, passing such a law will be very complicated but I am sure the government can figure it out if it has the dedication.

    I think we can do a lot better than that.

    -End feminism (and I mean end it, bring back guardianship)
    -Instead of sending women to secondary school let alone university, send them to finishing school
    -Suppress pornography and prostitution
    -Create a state church and disenfranchise nonconformists
    -Allow men to take a second wife, of foreign origin only, once they have married a native woman
    -Extra children = extra voting power
    -Pervasive familial and natalist propaganda in media and entertainment
    -Suppress birth control and abortion except for undesirable minorities and the genetically unfit
    -Recreate the nobility for the elite and link noble status to appropriate marriage and producing sufficient numbers of children (goal being to reverse the elite fertility transition of the 18th and 19th centuries)

    I’m sure you could come up with quite a lot more if you put your mind to it. The Amish in America, who do not even make use of much labor-saving technology, manage a TFR exceeding seven. Their population doubles every 22 years with no inward conversions and considerable outward conversions.

    Doubling every 22 years might be excessive (consider infrastructure costs and the extreme dependency ratio), although the early American republic did this for its first century.

    But this should be thought about seriously. The state ought to have a population policy just as it has an economic policy and a foreign policy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow
    I agree about the population policy - any state, or person not concerned with passing on what they are, is failing. They don't really exist. Some of your suggestions are outside of what I would propose, but then I am a fe-man-ist - I like females. Something needs to be done. It is way more important than liberating 'East Ghouta'.

    Amish might procreate properly, but they have taken the ordinariness of their women too seriously. Last time I was in Lancaster County, Pa, the Hershey chocolate bars made bigger impression than the local mating material. They need to bring it up a notch.

    The best way is to restrict pension rights for people with no or limited offspring - and apply an ethnic test. If you don't do your part for preserving your nation, you get less when you are old. It is in line with common sense and ancient tribal customs. And it would be relatively easy to do.

    , @Corvinus
    I thoroughly enjoy fantasy.

    --End feminism (and I mean end it, bring back guardianship)

    Not going to happen.

    --Instead of sending women to secondary school let alone university, send them to finishing school

    Not going to happen.

    --Suppress pornography and prostitution

    Good luck with that!

    --Create a state church and disenfranchise nonconformists.

    There is something called freedom of religion. Perhaps you heard of it before?

    --Allow men to take a second wife, of foreign origin only, once they have married a native woman.

    Not going to happen.

    --Extra children = extra voting power

    I'll throw you a bone here and give you one.

    --Pervasive familial and natalist propaganda in media and entertainment

    So, you are Jewish. Good to know.

    --Suppress birth control and abortion except for undesirable minorities and the genetically unfit.

    And now you have gone full Oliver Wendall Holmes. Never go full Oliver Wendall Holmes.

    --Recreate the nobility for the elite and link noble status to appropriate marriage and producing sufficient numbers of children (goal being to reverse the elite fertility transition of the 18th and 19th centuries)

    This isn't 19th century France, nor should it be!

    Anything else to add to your fantasy list? Because thankfully your proposals are antiquated and sterile.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. So, he won. We need no longer worry about that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    And here's the "Breaking News" front page report by the BBC:

    Russia's Vladimir Putin wins by big margin

    Note how careful they are to immediately follow the news of the victory with the discrediting line:

    "The main opposition leader, Alexei Navalny, was barred from the race."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. @reiner Tor
    So, he won. We need no longer worry about that.

    And here’s the “Breaking News” front page report by the BBC:

    Russia’s Vladimir Putin wins by big margin

    Note how careful they are to immediately follow the news of the victory with the discrediting line:

    “The main opposition leader, Alexei Navalny, was barred from the race.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    Navalny was disqualified from running by the constitution - as he has a conviction for corruption.

    The constitution tries to reduce corruption in politics, by disqualifying convicted corruption criminals, from running to be president.

    If Navalny run, he would still not win many votes, and probably come in very distant third or fourth place (well at best battling for third position with Zhirinovsky).

    There is a real problem in these election, that there was lack of popular alternative to Putin. And this is a symptom of the weakness of the political system in Russia to produce - even in a country with such a huge population - viable alternatives. In countries, like Australia, Canada or New Zealand, there is a more wide variety candidates. Even in an underdeveloped (more primitive) country like Israel, they have more close elections.

    But either way (allowed to run, or barred by constitution, as he was in the reality), Navalny was never any kind of threat or contender.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. @Randal
    And here's the "Breaking News" front page report by the BBC:

    Russia's Vladimir Putin wins by big margin

    Note how careful they are to immediately follow the news of the victory with the discrediting line:

    "The main opposition leader, Alexei Navalny, was barred from the race."

    Navalny was disqualified from running by the constitution – as he has a conviction for corruption.

    The constitution tries to reduce corruption in politics, by disqualifying convicted corruption criminals, from running to be president.

    If Navalny run, he would still not win many votes, and probably come in very distant third or fourth place (well at best battling for third position with Zhirinovsky).

    There is a real problem in these election, that there was lack of popular alternative to Putin. And this is a symptom of the weakness of the political system in Russia to produce – even in a country with such a huge population – viable alternatives. In countries, like Australia, Canada or New Zealand, there is a more wide variety candidates. Even in an underdeveloped (more primitive) country like Israel, they have more close elections.

    But either way (allowed to run, or barred by constitution, as he was in the reality), Navalny was never any kind of threat or contender.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    If Navalny run, he would still not win many votes, and probably come in very distant third or fourth place (well at best battling for third position with Zhirinovsky).
     
    Yes, this is a point Anatoly has made repeatedly, and I see no reason to doubt it.

    What amuses me is the BBC's openly propagandist use of the (false) assertion.
    , @reiner Tor
    Do you guys know if he really was corrupt? He didn’t even hold office. Or were those trumped up charges?
    , @dfordoom

    There is a real problem in these election, that there was lack of popular alternative to Putin. And this is a symptom of the weakness of the political system in Russia to produce – even in a country with such a huge population – viable alternatives.
     
    Is that really a weakness? Why? It would seem to be an indication that Russia has a government that enjoys very broad support - surely that's a good and healthy thing?

    In countries, like Australia, Canada or New Zealand, there is a more wide variety candidates.
     
    No, there isn't. In Australia for example the major parties are absolutely interchangeable. Two-party systems are an illusion. Worse than that, they're a deception. Australia's political system is much less healthy than Russia's.
    , @Pavlo

    In countries, like Australia, Canada or New Zealand, there is a more wide variety candidates
     
    Hahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahaa

    On the one hand: 'conservative' party whose economic strategy begins with endless foreign coolie labour and ends with housing bubbles.

    On the other: coalition of labour party, tumblr party crazies and right-wing populists. May eventually get around to building a few new houses and shutting down the diploma mills that serve as conduits for illegal Indian workers.

    Such choice, such bounty!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. @Thorfinnsson
    Not a blooper.

    The Ukraine is a fake country whose existence is deeply offensive and wrong.

    Russia can and does exist without the Ukraine, but it requires the Ukraine in order to compete as a world power.

    requires the Ukraine in order to compete as a world power.

    This is a thing that Poles believe because they’re absolute cretins.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. @Dmitry
    Navalny was disqualified from running by the constitution - as he has a conviction for corruption.

    The constitution tries to reduce corruption in politics, by disqualifying convicted corruption criminals, from running to be president.

    If Navalny run, he would still not win many votes, and probably come in very distant third or fourth place (well at best battling for third position with Zhirinovsky).

    There is a real problem in these election, that there was lack of popular alternative to Putin. And this is a symptom of the weakness of the political system in Russia to produce - even in a country with such a huge population - viable alternatives. In countries, like Australia, Canada or New Zealand, there is a more wide variety candidates. Even in an underdeveloped (more primitive) country like Israel, they have more close elections.

    But either way (allowed to run, or barred by constitution, as he was in the reality), Navalny was never any kind of threat or contender.

    If Navalny run, he would still not win many votes, and probably come in very distant third or fourth place (well at best battling for third position with Zhirinovsky).

    Yes, this is a point Anatoly has made repeatedly, and I see no reason to doubt it.

    What amuses me is the BBC’s openly propagandist use of the (false) assertion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    That much is obvious.

    I have seen on Facebook a Hungarian guy asking “if there was only one candidate, who did the other 26% vote for?” The power of propaganda. (The answers were along the “there were a few other candidates, all of them fake opposition, the real opposition was killed years ago or not allowed to run” lines.)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. @anonymous coward

    In these latest elections, couldn’t even be bothered compiling a program, or campaigning
     
    He did this in every election, even his very first one when he was a "literally who".

    Like I said, Russia is an Asian country in that there's a whole lot of traditional mumbo-jumbo related to the sacralization of power.

    His "do not campaign" approach works, it effectively shows who has the mandate of heaven in the election.

    horseshit Soviet anthropology beloved by Dugin and the Saker just wont’ die

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous coward
    Are you really a neural network running on keywords?

    Nothing I said has anything to do with anthropology or Dugin or Saker.

    Russians are a people that believe that law and power are sacred. Denying it is pointless, that's just how things are.

    Sacred things can't be gained in public debates and mudslinging; thus, if a politician is engaged in debates and campaigning and other shady tactics, this only proves that he doesn't have real power or law on his side.

    Putin knows this, Russians (even preschool children Russians) know this, only Internet trolls are somehow unaware of the basic facts of life...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. @Dmitry
    Navalny was disqualified from running by the constitution - as he has a conviction for corruption.

    The constitution tries to reduce corruption in politics, by disqualifying convicted corruption criminals, from running to be president.

    If Navalny run, he would still not win many votes, and probably come in very distant third or fourth place (well at best battling for third position with Zhirinovsky).

    There is a real problem in these election, that there was lack of popular alternative to Putin. And this is a symptom of the weakness of the political system in Russia to produce - even in a country with such a huge population - viable alternatives. In countries, like Australia, Canada or New Zealand, there is a more wide variety candidates. Even in an underdeveloped (more primitive) country like Israel, they have more close elections.

    But either way (allowed to run, or barred by constitution, as he was in the reality), Navalny was never any kind of threat or contender.

    Do you guys know if he really was corrupt? He didn’t even hold office. Or were those trumped up charges?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mitleser

    Do you guys know if he really was corrupt? He didn’t even hold office.
     

    Well, Navalny was an official governor's adviser who curated state-owned company Kirovles, Ofitserov was his friend, and Navalny forced Kirovles to sell timber through a middleman company VLK owned by Ofitserov. That's not exactly "entrepreneurship". More like "corruption".
     
    https://www.reddit.com/r/AskARussian/comments/7m4a6l/do_you_think_that_barring_navalni_from_running_is/drrqrhp/

    Or were those trumped up charges?
     

    In July 26, 2012, Navalny accused A. Bastrykin of being a Czech spy. Bastrykin is the chairman of the Investigative Committee of Russia; one may think of him as of the local version of John E. Hoover, head of the FBI. So Navalny 1) went with the false accusation, 2) put the false accusation on a person who had much more power and 3) put the false accusation on the person who was his natural ally. The latest statement must be clarified: if you position yourself as a watchdog, law enforcement agencies are your natural allies. You find some grease, they serve justice.

    Bastrykin was extremely pissed off and gave a backroom order "to find something". The Investigative Committee scrutinized Navalny's business activities, you know the rest of the story.

    So Navalny has made a stupid mistake and now faces the consequences. (And IMO people who make such stupid mistakes must be kept away from top rank political posts, no matter how good their intentions are.)
     
    https://www.reddit.com/r/AskARussian/comments/7m4a6l/do_you_think_that_barring_navalni_from_running_is/drrsq2k/
    , @Dmitry
    I don't think anyone involved in all these strange business deals he has - is clean. Would you trust him? No.

    Is it possible he has targeting more of him because of his blogging? (i.e. punishing his corruption, but ignoring other peoples', because of his politics blogging). Of course.


    -

    It's interesting to think about what he would be like, if in an alternative world he was elected.

    He is a nationalist, and in his writing I get feeling of underlying racist views.

    Of course, he would be trying to restrict the open-borders immigration policy.

    https://navalny.com/p/4547/


    Obviously, he would try to take down the oligarchs, probably getting a big cut for himself in process.

    At the same time he is very conciliatory to liberal views and groups, and to the West. He interprets everything America does, as being pro-Russian, because it is 'punishing corrupt people'.

    Overall, very difficult to know what his real behaviour would be in power.

    I don't believe that his anti-corruption investigations are motivated by much more than jealously, of the minor league player, looking at the major leagues.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. @Randal

    If Navalny run, he would still not win many votes, and probably come in very distant third or fourth place (well at best battling for third position with Zhirinovsky).
     
    Yes, this is a point Anatoly has made repeatedly, and I see no reason to doubt it.

    What amuses me is the BBC's openly propagandist use of the (false) assertion.

    That much is obvious.

    I have seen on Facebook a Hungarian guy asking “if there was only one candidate, who did the other 26% vote for?” The power of propaganda. (The answers were along the “there were a few other candidates, all of them fake opposition, the real opposition was killed years ago or not allowed to run” lines.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. @reiner Tor
    Do you guys know if he really was corrupt? He didn’t even hold office. Or were those trumped up charges?

    Do you guys know if he really was corrupt? He didn’t even hold office.

    Well, Navalny was an official governor’s adviser who curated state-owned company Kirovles, Ofitserov was his friend, and Navalny forced Kirovles to sell timber through a middleman company VLK owned by Ofitserov. That’s not exactly “entrepreneurship”. More like “corruption”.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/AskARussian/comments/7m4a6l/do_you_think_that_barring_navalni_from_running_is/drrqrhp/

    Or were those trumped up charges?

    In July 26, 2012, Navalny accused A. Bastrykin of being a Czech spy. Bastrykin is the chairman of the Investigative Committee of Russia; one may think of him as of the local version of John E. Hoover, head of the FBI. So Navalny 1) went with the false accusation, 2) put the false accusation on a person who had much more power and 3) put the false accusation on the person who was his natural ally. The latest statement must be clarified: if you position yourself as a watchdog, law enforcement agencies are your natural allies. You find some grease, they serve justice.

    Bastrykin was extremely pissed off and gave a backroom order “to find something”. The Investigative Committee scrutinized Navalny’s business activities, you know the rest of the story.

    So Navalny has made a stupid mistake and now faces the consequences. (And IMO people who make such stupid mistakes must be kept away from top rank political posts, no matter how good their intentions are.)

    https://www.reddit.com/r/AskARussian/comments/7m4a6l/do_you_think_that_barring_navalni_from_running_is/drrsq2k/

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Thanks.
    , @Beckow

    ...Navalny accused A. Bastrykin of being a Czech spy...
     
    Was he drunk? A Czech spy? What year does he think this is?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. @Mitleser

    Do you guys know if he really was corrupt? He didn’t even hold office.
     

    Well, Navalny was an official governor's adviser who curated state-owned company Kirovles, Ofitserov was his friend, and Navalny forced Kirovles to sell timber through a middleman company VLK owned by Ofitserov. That's not exactly "entrepreneurship". More like "corruption".
     
    https://www.reddit.com/r/AskARussian/comments/7m4a6l/do_you_think_that_barring_navalni_from_running_is/drrqrhp/

    Or were those trumped up charges?
     

    In July 26, 2012, Navalny accused A. Bastrykin of being a Czech spy. Bastrykin is the chairman of the Investigative Committee of Russia; one may think of him as of the local version of John E. Hoover, head of the FBI. So Navalny 1) went with the false accusation, 2) put the false accusation on a person who had much more power and 3) put the false accusation on the person who was his natural ally. The latest statement must be clarified: if you position yourself as a watchdog, law enforcement agencies are your natural allies. You find some grease, they serve justice.

    Bastrykin was extremely pissed off and gave a backroom order "to find something". The Investigative Committee scrutinized Navalny's business activities, you know the rest of the story.

    So Navalny has made a stupid mistake and now faces the consequences. (And IMO people who make such stupid mistakes must be kept away from top rank political posts, no matter how good their intentions are.)
     
    https://www.reddit.com/r/AskARussian/comments/7m4a6l/do_you_think_that_barring_navalni_from_running_is/drrsq2k/

    Thanks.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. @Parbes
    You don't need to dip too far into any Anatoly Karlin article before you hit silly, immature, clueless or geeky stuff. He is basically a brainwashed Western right-wing hipster with a jaundiced eye.

    But you western Russophiles appreciate the true infallible greatness that is Vladimir Putin.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Parbes
    Get lost you third-rate Jewish neocon idiot.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. @reiner Tor
    Do you guys know if he really was corrupt? He didn’t even hold office. Or were those trumped up charges?

    I don’t think anyone involved in all these strange business deals he has – is clean. Would you trust him? No.

    Is it possible he has targeting more of him because of his blogging? (i.e. punishing his corruption, but ignoring other peoples’, because of his politics blogging). Of course.

    -

    It’s interesting to think about what he would be like, if in an alternative world he was elected.

    He is a nationalist, and in his writing I get feeling of underlying racist views.

    Of course, he would be trying to restrict the open-borders immigration policy.

    https://navalny.com/p/4547/

    Obviously, he would try to take down the oligarchs, probably getting a big cut for himself in process.

    At the same time he is very conciliatory to liberal views and groups, and to the West. He interprets everything America does, as being pro-Russian, because it is ‘punishing corrupt people’.

    Overall, very difficult to know what his real behaviour would be in power.

    I don’t believe that his anti-corruption investigations are motivated by much more than jealously, of the minor league player, looking at the major leagues.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    He is a nationalist,

     

    On this actually seems quite sensible - discussion around 58 minutes area

    https://youtu.be/LudRtGloFOA?t=57m52s
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. @Dmitry

    You don’t need to dip too far into any Anatoly Karlin article before you hit silly, immature, clueless or geeky stuff. He is basically a brainwashed Western right-wing hipster with a jaundiced eye.

     

    No, Karlin has a accurate viewpoint overall, even if his ideology is a bit eccentric.

    No he does not – he occasionally does make an incisive observation about this or that thing, but that’s about it. Mostly what he does is, he throws out a bunch of ad hoc, cherry-picked “statistical” tables and graphs culled from various Western “media sources”, without any serious consideration of their accuracy, reliability, objectivity, provenance, methodology – or whether the information contained in them is really significant or not for making deep value judgments about anything. (Many times his tables and graphs are not even actual statistics, but things like opinion polls, anecdotal “surveys” or high-school exam and competition results. And many times, he MISINTERPRETS HIS OWN TABLES AND GRAPHS). Then, based on his own flawed, narrow selection of tables and graphs – and without taking sufficient account of countervailing facts, arguments, factors, and the larger context and historical process – he makes sweeping generalizations about politics, society, economics, the future, etc. which conform to his biased “Western rightist hipster” worldview. His understanding of real sociopolitics, real economics, real geopolitics, real military issues, real history, and real science is superficial and sophomoric at best.

    Karlin is not any kind of a true, robust intellectual. In fact, his overall political philosophy and approach towards Russia and the “non-Anglosphere” world bears remarkable similarities to the blindly West-worshipping Russian “liberast” crowd and the Western Russophobe neocon and “liberal” pseudointellectuals whom he supposedly decries (or used to decry!)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. @Greasy William
    But you western Russophiles appreciate the true infallible greatness that is Vladimir Putin.

    Get lost you third-rate Jewish neocon idiot.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greasy William
    apologize immediately for that remark!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. @Dmitry
    I don't think anyone involved in all these strange business deals he has - is clean. Would you trust him? No.

    Is it possible he has targeting more of him because of his blogging? (i.e. punishing his corruption, but ignoring other peoples', because of his politics blogging). Of course.


    -

    It's interesting to think about what he would be like, if in an alternative world he was elected.

    He is a nationalist, and in his writing I get feeling of underlying racist views.

    Of course, he would be trying to restrict the open-borders immigration policy.

    https://navalny.com/p/4547/


    Obviously, he would try to take down the oligarchs, probably getting a big cut for himself in process.

    At the same time he is very conciliatory to liberal views and groups, and to the West. He interprets everything America does, as being pro-Russian, because it is 'punishing corrupt people'.

    Overall, very difficult to know what his real behaviour would be in power.

    I don't believe that his anti-corruption investigations are motivated by much more than jealously, of the minor league player, looking at the major leagues.

    He is a nationalist,

    On this actually seems quite sensible – discussion around 58 minutes area

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. More needs to be said about synergies among the bold-print categories. As a single important example, Russia’s successful ‘Military’ reforms augment the importance of ‘High Geopolitics.’

    The effect of Russian missile technology is to impede US escalation at every level up to and including MAD. It negates US coercive capacity, putting a premium on influence and international standing.

    Furthermore, it’s highly debatable that Russia has failed at soft power. There’s more to it than public relations. Russia has emerged as the world’s most influential advocate for rule of law, with effectiveness greatly exceeding its predecessor in that role, Chirac/Villepin France. With exceptional discipline Russia justifies its positions and actions in terms of international law. Russia’s veto and military power thus furthers a key goal of Security Council reform.

    Russia also outperforms its US ‘partner’ in terms of human rights.

    http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Indicators/Pages/HRIndicatorsIndex.aspx

    However deep you dig into the documented facts, Russia’s performance dominates disgraceful US failure. US domestic propaganda notwithstanding, treaty parties worldwide know this.

    This is multipolarity in action. US aggression legally justifies Russia’s potential use of force. US impotence causes not a power vacuum but the international community’s express intent. The world codified the Nuremberg Charter and implemented pacific dispute resolution with state responsibility principles. Russia is enforcing those at gunpoint. You know who’s rooting for that? UN member nations representing more than four-fifths of world population and the global public at large, even in the NATO bloc states. All the US can do is fight a losing rear-guard battle of underhanded bureaucratic tricks in the UN Secretariat. That just intensifies the outside world’s contempt.

    Nothing can stop the process but general nuclear war. Let’s see if the Beltway parasites are willing to give up their nice McMansion lifestyle in Maclean for hammocks in jam-packed hardened bunkers. I think they will back down.

    Read More
    • Agree: Simpleguest
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  45. @Thorfinnsson


    The question of increasing the population might be hard to address in democracies, but I can’t really understand why is it so hard to deal with in an authoritarian state like Russia.
     
    Russia is a lot less authoritarian than China. The country after all has free and (mostly) fair elections, they simply happen not to be competitive since Putin has sucked up all the oxygen in the room. I'm not really sure of the mechanism of control, but it's worth studying so we can duplicate it here for a generation or two (simply to liquidate leftism/equalism as a force forever).


    Just pass a law that mandates having at least 2 children to get access to your social benefits when you are old. If you have the state to take care of you when you are old, why would you have children? There are other reasons to have children but having someone to care for you when you are old is a definitely a significant one. Of course, in reality, passing such a law will be very complicated but I am sure the government can figure it out if it has the dedication.
     
    I think we can do a lot better than that.

    -End feminism (and I mean end it, bring back guardianship)
    -Instead of sending women to secondary school let alone university, send them to finishing school
    -Suppress pornography and prostitution
    -Create a state church and disenfranchise nonconformists
    -Allow men to take a second wife, of foreign origin only, once they have married a native woman
    -Extra children = extra voting power
    -Pervasive familial and natalist propaganda in media and entertainment
    -Suppress birth control and abortion except for undesirable minorities and the genetically unfit
    -Recreate the nobility for the elite and link noble status to appropriate marriage and producing sufficient numbers of children (goal being to reverse the elite fertility transition of the 18th and 19th centuries)

    I'm sure you could come up with quite a lot more if you put your mind to it. The Amish in America, who do not even make use of much labor-saving technology, manage a TFR exceeding seven. Their population doubles every 22 years with no inward conversions and considerable outward conversions.

    Doubling every 22 years might be excessive (consider infrastructure costs and the extreme dependency ratio), although the early American republic did this for its first century.

    But this should be thought about seriously. The state ought to have a population policy just as it has an economic policy and a foreign policy.

    I agree about the population policy – any state, or person not concerned with passing on what they are, is failing. They don’t really exist. Some of your suggestions are outside of what I would propose, but then I am a fe-man-ist – I like females. Something needs to be done. It is way more important than liberating ‘East Ghouta’.

    Amish might procreate properly, but they have taken the ordinariness of their women too seriously. Last time I was in Lancaster County, Pa, the Hershey chocolate bars made bigger impression than the local mating material. They need to bring it up a notch.

    The best way is to restrict pension rights for people with no or limited offspring – and apply an ethnic test. If you don’t do your part for preserving your nation, you get less when you are old. It is in line with common sense and ancient tribal customs. And it would be relatively easy to do.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    Fe-man-ist is a funny coinage.

    I object to some of the various natalist religions on aesthetic grounds, and I hope we can get this done while preserving a real sense of style. I recently wrote a new company dress code which includes the line,


    Tasteful cleavage is welcomed and encouraged by management.,
     
    Pension right restrictions might work for ordinary average losers, but the elite (outside of Mormons) need to be considered as well.

    Given the severity of the crisis we need a full spectrum attack.

    For my part I embraced R-selection though I would not recommend that as state policy.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. The best way is to restrict pension rights for people with no or limited offspring – and apply an ethnic test. If you don’t do your part for preserving your nation, you get less when you are old. It is in line with common sense and ancient tribal customs. And it would be relatively easy to do.

    I’d certainly be up for this in my own country. But of course anyone proposing anything like it is immediately accused of supporting “fascist” policies. Then having dismissed pro-birth policies as unusable because “fascist”, they wring their hands and declare “there is simply no other solution to the population problem – we must import lots of foreigners or there will be nobody to wipe our backsides when we are senile”.

    Of course I’m not at all influenced by the fact that I have four adult blond haired and blue eyed children, with no evident trace of foreign origins (I believe my wife has some Hungarian and possibly other European relatives two or more generations back). I’ve done my part in breeding for victory!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  47. @Parbes
    Get lost you third-rate Jewish neocon idiot.

    apologize immediately for that remark!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Parbes
    Go eff yourself, Jewish neocon slime.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. @Beckow
    I agree about the population policy - any state, or person not concerned with passing on what they are, is failing. They don't really exist. Some of your suggestions are outside of what I would propose, but then I am a fe-man-ist - I like females. Something needs to be done. It is way more important than liberating 'East Ghouta'.

    Amish might procreate properly, but they have taken the ordinariness of their women too seriously. Last time I was in Lancaster County, Pa, the Hershey chocolate bars made bigger impression than the local mating material. They need to bring it up a notch.

    The best way is to restrict pension rights for people with no or limited offspring - and apply an ethnic test. If you don't do your part for preserving your nation, you get less when you are old. It is in line with common sense and ancient tribal customs. And it would be relatively easy to do.

    Fe-man-ist is a funny coinage.

    I object to some of the various natalist religions on aesthetic grounds, and I hope we can get this done while preserving a real sense of style. I recently wrote a new company dress code which includes the line,

    Tasteful cleavage is welcomed and encouraged by management.,

    Pension right restrictions might work for ordinary average losers, but the elite (outside of Mormons) need to be considered as well.

    Given the severity of the crisis we need a full spectrum attack.

    For my part I embraced R-selection though I would not recommend that as state policy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow

    I object to some of the various natalist religions on aesthetic grounds
     
    So do I. But in the current hierarchy of issues any aesthetic considerations rank fairly low. It is about survival. We can go back to style later.

    Elite has never been able to procreate in sustainable numbers. They need the 'middle' and 'upper middle' people for constant replenishment. I am not sure what it is, but being born into an elite group has paralysing effects. Elites have traditionally been somewhat non-traditional. You need to be realistic, the numbers are dire - natalism is the best one can hope for. Put an incentive in pensions, restrict it by clever means to the native ethnic middle class, and then watch if it works. (If that fails, there are always the Amish girls, but I wouldn't start there.)

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. Current results with around 70% counted:

    Бабурин 0.64%
    Грудинин 12.17%
    Жириновский 5.91%
    Путин 76.29%
    Собчак 1.56%
    Сурайкин 0.68%
    Титов 0.72%
    Явлинский 0.95%

    My predictions:

    Baburin: 0.8%
    Grudinin: 9.7%
    Zhirinovsky: 7.8%
    Putin: 76.2%
    Sobchak: 2.0%
    Suraykin: 0.5%
    Titov: 0.5%
    Yavlinsky: 1.3%

    Got Putin spot on. Overestimated Zhirik, underestimated Grudinin (too much sovok rabble in Russia). Otherwise mostly very correct.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    Overestimated Zhirik, underestimated Grudinin (too much sovok rabble in Russia).

     

    According to the exit poll of ВЦИОМ, age composition of Zhirik voters, is hardly better to Grudinin voters. So the idea that they will shortly die off, in comparison to Zhirik voters, does not favor well.
    http://images.vfl.ru/ii/1521412606/c1b27a79/21016399.jpg
    , @Randal
    Pretty good predictions.

    I read in some comment somewhere that Grudinin had promised to shave off his mustache if he didn't get (some percentage that I don't recall but that's higher than what he got).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. @Mitleser

    Do you guys know if he really was corrupt? He didn’t even hold office.
     

    Well, Navalny was an official governor's adviser who curated state-owned company Kirovles, Ofitserov was his friend, and Navalny forced Kirovles to sell timber through a middleman company VLK owned by Ofitserov. That's not exactly "entrepreneurship". More like "corruption".
     
    https://www.reddit.com/r/AskARussian/comments/7m4a6l/do_you_think_that_barring_navalni_from_running_is/drrqrhp/

    Or were those trumped up charges?
     

    In July 26, 2012, Navalny accused A. Bastrykin of being a Czech spy. Bastrykin is the chairman of the Investigative Committee of Russia; one may think of him as of the local version of John E. Hoover, head of the FBI. So Navalny 1) went with the false accusation, 2) put the false accusation on a person who had much more power and 3) put the false accusation on the person who was his natural ally. The latest statement must be clarified: if you position yourself as a watchdog, law enforcement agencies are your natural allies. You find some grease, they serve justice.

    Bastrykin was extremely pissed off and gave a backroom order "to find something". The Investigative Committee scrutinized Navalny's business activities, you know the rest of the story.

    So Navalny has made a stupid mistake and now faces the consequences. (And IMO people who make such stupid mistakes must be kept away from top rank political posts, no matter how good their intentions are.)
     
    https://www.reddit.com/r/AskARussian/comments/7m4a6l/do_you_think_that_barring_navalni_from_running_is/drrsq2k/

    …Navalny accused A. Bastrykin of being a Czech spy…

    Was he drunk? A Czech spy? What year does he think this is?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. Read More
    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    Anatoly,

    Your headgear is literally the apex of sartorial elegance.

    Keep On Voting!
    , @Dmitry
    Trump agents suspiciously spotted outside electoral station 1322 - this evidence needs to be submitted to Mueller investigation shortly.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. @Anatoly Karlin
    https://twitter.com/akarlin88/status/975321226334875648

    Anatoly,

    Your headgear is literally the apex of sartorial elegance.

    Keep On Voting!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. @Dmitry
    Navalny was disqualified from running by the constitution - as he has a conviction for corruption.

    The constitution tries to reduce corruption in politics, by disqualifying convicted corruption criminals, from running to be president.

    If Navalny run, he would still not win many votes, and probably come in very distant third or fourth place (well at best battling for third position with Zhirinovsky).

    There is a real problem in these election, that there was lack of popular alternative to Putin. And this is a symptom of the weakness of the political system in Russia to produce - even in a country with such a huge population - viable alternatives. In countries, like Australia, Canada or New Zealand, there is a more wide variety candidates. Even in an underdeveloped (more primitive) country like Israel, they have more close elections.

    But either way (allowed to run, or barred by constitution, as he was in the reality), Navalny was never any kind of threat or contender.

    There is a real problem in these election, that there was lack of popular alternative to Putin. And this is a symptom of the weakness of the political system in Russia to produce – even in a country with such a huge population – viable alternatives.

    Is that really a weakness? Why? It would seem to be an indication that Russia has a government that enjoys very broad support – surely that’s a good and healthy thing?

    In countries, like Australia, Canada or New Zealand, there is a more wide variety candidates.

    No, there isn’t. In Australia for example the major parties are absolutely interchangeable. Two-party systems are an illusion. Worse than that, they’re a deception. Australia’s political system is much less healthy than Russia’s.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    Is that really a weakness? Why? It would seem to be an indication that Russia has a government that enjoys very broad support – surely that’s a good and healthy thing?

     

    Everyone I know is very apathetic - not sure broad support is the right way to describe things. Most people are just not interested in politics - neither support, nor opposition (and especially considering opposition is worse than the present government).

    Governments are not different to companies, in the sense that the market benefits from competition - not monopolies -, that will pressure them to behave and serve the citizens.

    No, there isn’t. In Australia for example the major parties are absolutely interchangeable. Two-party systems are an illusion. Worse than that, they’re a deception. Australia’s political system is much less healthy than Russia’s.

     

    Well I confess I have not been to Australia. But, from what I can see, it seems to be a utopia to me - I find it hard to believe their political level is not very strong, or at least very competent, particularly on issues as, for example, their strict immigration system (i.e. merit based, rather than open borders) and their booming economy. That's not to say, I will surely not now be corrected by a sceptical Australian - if we have any here.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. @Greasy William
    apologize immediately for that remark!

    Go eff yourself, Jewish neocon slime.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greasy William
    You scoundrel! This is outrageous and I will not stand for being addressed in such a fashion!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. @Anatoly Karlin
    https://twitter.com/akarlin88/status/975321226334875648

    Trump agents suspiciously spotted outside electoral station 1322 – this evidence needs to be submitted to Mueller investigation shortly.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. @dfordoom

    There is a real problem in these election, that there was lack of popular alternative to Putin. And this is a symptom of the weakness of the political system in Russia to produce – even in a country with such a huge population – viable alternatives.
     
    Is that really a weakness? Why? It would seem to be an indication that Russia has a government that enjoys very broad support - surely that's a good and healthy thing?

    In countries, like Australia, Canada or New Zealand, there is a more wide variety candidates.
     
    No, there isn't. In Australia for example the major parties are absolutely interchangeable. Two-party systems are an illusion. Worse than that, they're a deception. Australia's political system is much less healthy than Russia's.

    Is that really a weakness? Why? It would seem to be an indication that Russia has a government that enjoys very broad support – surely that’s a good and healthy thing?

    Everyone I know is very apathetic – not sure broad support is the right way to describe things. Most people are just not interested in politics – neither support, nor opposition (and especially considering opposition is worse than the present government).

    Governments are not different to companies, in the sense that the market benefits from competition – not monopolies -, that will pressure them to behave and serve the citizens.

    No, there isn’t. In Australia for example the major parties are absolutely interchangeable. Two-party systems are an illusion. Worse than that, they’re a deception. Australia’s political system is much less healthy than Russia’s.

    Well I confess I have not been to Australia. But, from what I can see, it seems to be a utopia to me – I find it hard to believe their political level is not very strong, or at least very competent, particularly on issues as, for example, their strict immigration system (i.e. merit based, rather than open borders) and their booming economy. That’s not to say, I will surely not now be corrected by a sceptical Australian – if we have any here.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ussr andy
    it's the same in all Western democracies. Both fake-a$$ political camps are interchangeable on any long-term issue of import. That's why they can have .5% margins to start with - that'd be really undesirable, stability-wise, with the line-up Russia had. So, yes, they are more robust, in that sense, and Russia is weak. Somehow the West manages having two political camps and keep the in line. I'm convinced the Democrats want, just like the Republicans, to maintain and expand American power all across the world (it's just that the former's idea of a great country doesn't involve it being nice for working-class people.) It's still a deception though, like having 20 brands of shampoo.
    , @dfordoom

    Governments are not different to companies, in the sense that the market benefits from competition – not monopolies -, that will pressure them to behave and serve the citizens.
     
    I've yet to see any evidence that political competition leads to better governments. Look at Britain, arguably the worst-governed of all western societies despite fierce "competition" between Labour and the Tories. And Britain has been badly governed for at least a century.

    Democracy is largely an illusion. What you end up with is the Tweedledee Party and the Tweedledum Party.

    Politics in a liberal democracy works like the free market. In other words, it doesn't work. It's a sham. Competition is in practice fake competition. You get the political equivalent of cartels.

    The election result in Russia demonstrates that Putin at least governs with the broad consent of the people. That makes him a far more legitimate leader than Merkel, May or Trump.
    , @Thorfinnsson


    Well I confess I have not been to Australia. But, from what I can see, it seems to be a utopia to me – I find it hard to believe their political level is not very strong, or at least very competent, particularly on issues as, for example, their strict immigration system (i.e. merit based, rather than open borders) and their booming economy. That’s not to say, I will surely not now be corrected by a sceptical Australian – if we have any here.
     
    Australia was a utopia. The Aussies traditionally called themselves, "The Lucky Country". Compare Australia's history to Russia's or even America's (we have a luckier history than you, but we still had to fight the Indians for 300 years and suffered a catastrophic civil war). Their big military-national holiday is about a lost battle in...Turkey.

    This has been dismantled over the past forty or so years, beginning with the end of the White Australia Policy in 1975. Their immigration policy is arguably an improvement over America's, but bear in mind that "merit" includes absurd work visa categories such as horse racing croupiers and "restaurant managers" (in practice--waiters). And it's arguably worse than ours in that the immigration rate is shockingly high--over one percent of the population every year. A fair number of these immigrants are still white and even from the United Kingdom (British-born people are one-quarter of the entire population), but most are now non-white.

    The Aussies here simply look good compared to the pathetic Eurocucks who literally invited an Afro-Mohammedan invasion on 2015, whereas Australia successfully shut down THE BOATS (which continues to outrage many of Australia's native SJW cucks).

    The booming economy is entirely due to China as Australia is the world's largest exporter of coal and iron ore. Meanwhile the domestic manufacturing sector has been dismantled. Holden (GM's Australian brand), Ford, and Toyota have all closed their Australian assembly plants, closing the book on nearly a century of Australian automobile manufacturing. It's even worse than it sounds as the Australian automotive sector had climbed the value chain--both Ford and GM had indigenous Australian engineering groups which developed innovative cars some of which were even exported (my Chevrolet SS was engineered and built in Australia, and this car was also exported to Europe and Asia).

    The China boom has been mismanaged as well. Despite skyrocketing exports the country still has a current account deficit most years, and inept land use policies along with high immigration have resulted in the world's highest housing prices--quite an achievement in an empty continent.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. @Dmitry

    Is that really a weakness? Why? It would seem to be an indication that Russia has a government that enjoys very broad support – surely that’s a good and healthy thing?

     

    Everyone I know is very apathetic - not sure broad support is the right way to describe things. Most people are just not interested in politics - neither support, nor opposition (and especially considering opposition is worse than the present government).

    Governments are not different to companies, in the sense that the market benefits from competition - not monopolies -, that will pressure them to behave and serve the citizens.

    No, there isn’t. In Australia for example the major parties are absolutely interchangeable. Two-party systems are an illusion. Worse than that, they’re a deception. Australia’s political system is much less healthy than Russia’s.

     

    Well I confess I have not been to Australia. But, from what I can see, it seems to be a utopia to me - I find it hard to believe their political level is not very strong, or at least very competent, particularly on issues as, for example, their strict immigration system (i.e. merit based, rather than open borders) and their booming economy. That's not to say, I will surely not now be corrected by a sceptical Australian - if we have any here.

    it’s the same in all Western democracies. Both fake-a$$ political camps are interchangeable on any long-term issue of import. That’s why they can have .5% margins to start with – that’d be really undesirable, stability-wise, with the line-up Russia had. So, yes, they are more robust, in that sense, and Russia is weak. Somehow the West manages having two political camps and keep the in line. I’m convinced the Democrats want, just like the Republicans, to maintain and expand American power all across the world (it’s just that the former’s idea of a great country doesn’t involve it being nice for working-class people.) It’s still a deception though, like having 20 brands of shampoo.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    it’s the same in all Western democracies. Both fake-a$$ political camps are interchangeable on any long-term issue of import. That’s why they can have .5% margins to start with – that’d be really undesirable, stability-wise, with the line-up Russia had. So, yes, they are more robust, in that sense, and Russia is weak. Somehow the West manages having two political camps and keep the in line. I’m convinced the Democrats want, just like the Republicans, to maintain and expand American power all across the world (it’s just that the former’s idea of a great country doesn’t involve it being nice for working-class people.) It’s still a deception though, like having 20 brands of shampoo.

     

    Because in America - they are not changing the bureaucracy, the elite class, the Supreme Court, the media, or the two political parties. This all stays the same.

    But they can see that Clinton's position on immigration was unpopular. And with two popular parties, this allows election of Trump to try to correct direction, even if he can only modestly change this.

    With Putin - he can also adjust policy in the same way if it is unpopular. He is actually quite responsive, and can substitute for two parties in a way.

    But things like immigration debate they have in America, is not even given space for debate.

    That's not to say I am particularly interested in this, or that it is high on my list of concerns.

    But can you imagine something like the Steve Sailer commentators living in Russia. They would still be angry, but they would have no equivalent like incoming president Trump to correct policies through. They would have to rely on changing mind of further towards the top of the pyramid.
    , @ussr andy
    case in point - the campaign against Yugoslavia was ok'd by a Socialist-Greens coalition in Germany (the joke goes the Greens mutated and became olive-green.) Same with Schroeder's labor market reforms etc. Russia may be authoritarian, but paradoxically that's not the kind of authoritarianism that gets sh** done or puts leaders in a position of not having to deal with real dissent (and not some fake sh** like when they go protesting for something that is already official policy, like moar feminism.) For all it's freedom and democracy the West is somehow much much better at subverting pluralism.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. @ussr andy
    it's the same in all Western democracies. Both fake-a$$ political camps are interchangeable on any long-term issue of import. That's why they can have .5% margins to start with - that'd be really undesirable, stability-wise, with the line-up Russia had. So, yes, they are more robust, in that sense, and Russia is weak. Somehow the West manages having two political camps and keep the in line. I'm convinced the Democrats want, just like the Republicans, to maintain and expand American power all across the world (it's just that the former's idea of a great country doesn't involve it being nice for working-class people.) It's still a deception though, like having 20 brands of shampoo.

    it’s the same in all Western democracies. Both fake-a$$ political camps are interchangeable on any long-term issue of import. That’s why they can have .5% margins to start with – that’d be really undesirable, stability-wise, with the line-up Russia had. So, yes, they are more robust, in that sense, and Russia is weak. Somehow the West manages having two political camps and keep the in line. I’m convinced the Democrats want, just like the Republicans, to maintain and expand American power all across the world (it’s just that the former’s idea of a great country doesn’t involve it being nice for working-class people.) It’s still a deception though, like having 20 brands of shampoo.

    Because in America – they are not changing the bureaucracy, the elite class, the Supreme Court, the media, or the two political parties. This all stays the same.

    But they can see that Clinton’s position on immigration was unpopular. And with two popular parties, this allows election of Trump to try to correct direction, even if he can only modestly change this.

    With Putin – he can also adjust policy in the same way if it is unpopular. He is actually quite responsive, and can substitute for two parties in a way.

    But things like immigration debate they have in America, is not even given space for debate.

    That’s not to say I am particularly interested in this, or that it is high on my list of concerns.

    But can you imagine something like the Steve Sailer commentators living in Russia. They would still be angry, but they would have no equivalent like incoming president Trump to correct policies through. They would have to rely on changing mind of further towards the top of the pyramid.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Steve Sailer has been around for almost a couple decades. Who do you think he rooted for in 2004, when the choice was George “invade/invite” W. Bush and Kerry? Or 2008, between John “Open Borders Warmonger” McCain and Obama? Or 2012, Romney and Obama?

    Trump was a freak occurrence, and probably all he will accomplish will be to slow down the immivasion somewhat. Unless he starts a nuclear war, which is in the cards, despite his promises.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. @ussr andy
    it's the same in all Western democracies. Both fake-a$$ political camps are interchangeable on any long-term issue of import. That's why they can have .5% margins to start with - that'd be really undesirable, stability-wise, with the line-up Russia had. So, yes, they are more robust, in that sense, and Russia is weak. Somehow the West manages having two political camps and keep the in line. I'm convinced the Democrats want, just like the Republicans, to maintain and expand American power all across the world (it's just that the former's idea of a great country doesn't involve it being nice for working-class people.) It's still a deception though, like having 20 brands of shampoo.

    case in point – the campaign against Yugoslavia was ok’d by a Socialist-Greens coalition in Germany (the joke goes the Greens mutated and became olive-green.) Same with Schroeder’s labor market reforms etc. Russia may be authoritarian, but paradoxically that’s not the kind of authoritarianism that gets sh** done or puts leaders in a position of not having to deal with real dissent (and not some fake sh** like when they go protesting for something that is already official policy, like moar feminism.) For all it’s freedom and democracy the West is somehow much much better at subverting pluralism.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. @Anatoly Karlin
    Current results with around 70% counted:

    Бабурин 0.64%
    Грудинин 12.17%
    Жириновский 5.91%
    Путин 76.29%
    Собчак 1.56%
    Сурайкин 0.68%
    Титов 0.72%
    Явлинский 0.95%

    My predictions:

    Baburin: 0.8%
    Grudinin: 9.7%
    Zhirinovsky: 7.8%
    Putin: 76.2%
    Sobchak: 2.0%
    Suraykin: 0.5%
    Titov: 0.5%
    Yavlinsky: 1.3%

    Got Putin spot on. Overestimated Zhirik, underestimated Grudinin (too much sovok rabble in Russia). Otherwise mostly very correct.

    Overestimated Zhirik, underestimated Grudinin (too much sovok rabble in Russia).

    According to the exit poll of ВЦИОМ, age composition of Zhirik voters, is hardly better to Grudinin voters. So the idea that they will shortly die off, in comparison to Zhirik voters, does not favor well.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. @Daniil Adamov
    1) Why are we obliged to compete as a world power? There are better uses for taxpayers' money. Competing as a world power is a fool's game, leave it to the Chinese and the Americans.

    2) If we DID want to compete as a world power, Siberia would be infinitely more important and useful than the Ukraine. I really don't see what the latter would give us in any global competition, other than a headache. In the long run if we could somehow absorb it peacefully and voluntarily after having achieved prosperity at home, that would be very nice. But it'd only be a bonus and we need to sort out our economic issues first in any case.

    But of course, Siberia is definitely infinitely more important. It’s Russia’s Lebensraum, the direction of her natural movement and development.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    But of course, Siberia is definitely infinitely more important. It’s Russia’s Lebensraum, the direction of her natural movement and development.

     

    Maybe, if global warming will become true.
    , @Thorfinnsson


    But of course, Siberia is definitely infinitely more important. It’s Russia’s Lebensraum, the direction of her natural movement and development.
     
    Lebensraum is irrelevant when you have below replacement fertility and are a net exporter of food, energy, and minerals.

    And even if Russia had above replacement fertility, why would a growing population settle in Siberia as opposed to, say, Moscow? The limits on megacity growth are largely theoretical.

    And, as I noted previously, human capital is more important than natural capital. It's not the 20th century anymore. And even in the 20th century this was perhaps true.

    Germany after all got all the resources it needed from the USSR from 1939-1941:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German–Soviet_Credit_Agreement_(1939)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German–Soviet_Commercial_Agreement_(1940)

    And this doesn't include the Reich's successful economic policies in Europe, the Balkans (I have officially decided that Balkanoids do not deserve to be called European), and Latin America.

    The H-man could've created his Lebensraum within the Reich itself and imported all of the food and raw materials required by exporting manufactured goods.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. @A22
    The question of increasing the population might be hard to address in democracies, but I can't really understand why is it so hard to deal with in an authoritarian state like Russia. Just pass a law that mandates having at least 2 children to get access to your social benefits when you are old. If you have the state to take care of you when you are old, why would you have children? There are other reasons to have children but having someone to care for you when you are old is a definitely a significant one. Of course, in reality, passing such a law will be very complicated but I am sure the government can figure it out if it has the dedication.

    The question of increasing the population might be hard to address in democracies, but I can’t really understand why is it so hard to deal with in an authoritarian state like Russia.

    Because it’s not an authoritarian state. And paying for other people’s kids, or discriminating against people for this – is not a popular option. Unless you want to scare more of the good people to Canada, while the Muslims will stay around having bigger families.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    It will be interesting to see if Putin can, after re-election, raise retirement age now.
    , @RadicalCenter
    As an American, I'd prefer that as many of the Muslims here relocate elsewhere, yes. I'd hope not Canada, but that would be better than them staying here.

    Canada will be gone in recognizable form anyway: Chinese dominance of "British" Columbia and to a lesser extent Alberta, Muslim / Indian / Pakistani a growing presence throughout BC and almost all the rest of that once-excellent country.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. @Seraphim
    But of course, Siberia is definitely infinitely more important. It's Russia's Lebensraum, the direction of her natural movement and development.

    But of course, Siberia is definitely infinitely more important. It’s Russia’s Lebensraum, the direction of her natural movement and development.

    Maybe, if global warming will become true.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. @Dmitry

    The question of increasing the population might be hard to address in democracies, but I can’t really understand why is it so hard to deal with in an authoritarian state like Russia.
     
    Because it's not an authoritarian state. And paying for other people's kids, or discriminating against people for this - is not a popular option. Unless you want to scare more of the good people to Canada, while the Muslims will stay around having bigger families.

    It will be interesting to see if Putin can, after re-election, raise retirement age now.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    I've read recently that Russia has made measurable progress reducing premature deaths from alcoholism. If this is true, are we starting to see an increase in the average lifespan of Russians, especially the men?

    If a somewhat higher percentage of Russians are able to keep working instead of dying or retiring due to alcoholism and its complications, that would seem to make a higher retirement age more feasible.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. @Dmitry
    Navalny was disqualified from running by the constitution - as he has a conviction for corruption.

    The constitution tries to reduce corruption in politics, by disqualifying convicted corruption criminals, from running to be president.

    If Navalny run, he would still not win many votes, and probably come in very distant third or fourth place (well at best battling for third position with Zhirinovsky).

    There is a real problem in these election, that there was lack of popular alternative to Putin. And this is a symptom of the weakness of the political system in Russia to produce - even in a country with such a huge population - viable alternatives. In countries, like Australia, Canada or New Zealand, there is a more wide variety candidates. Even in an underdeveloped (more primitive) country like Israel, they have more close elections.

    But either way (allowed to run, or barred by constitution, as he was in the reality), Navalny was never any kind of threat or contender.

    In countries, like Australia, Canada or New Zealand, there is a more wide variety candidates

    Hahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahaa

    On the one hand: ‘conservative’ party whose economic strategy begins with endless foreign coolie labour and ends with housing bubbles.

    On the other: coalition of labour party, tumblr party crazies and right-wing populists. May eventually get around to building a few new houses and shutting down the diploma mills that serve as conduits for illegal Indian workers.

    Such choice, such bounty!

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

    it’s the same in all Western democracies. Both fake-a$$ political camps are interchangeable on any long-term issue of import. That’s why they can have .5% margins to start with – that’d be really undesirable, stability-wise, with the line-up Russia had. So, yes, they are more robust, in that sense, and Russia is weak. Somehow the West manages having two political camps and keep the in line. I’m convinced the Democrats want, just like the Republicans, to maintain and expand American power all across the world (it’s just that the former’s idea of a great country doesn’t involve it being nice for working-class people.) It’s still a deception though, like having 20 brands of shampoo.

     

    Because in America - they are not changing the bureaucracy, the elite class, the Supreme Court, the media, or the two political parties. This all stays the same.

    But they can see that Clinton's position on immigration was unpopular. And with two popular parties, this allows election of Trump to try to correct direction, even if he can only modestly change this.

    With Putin - he can also adjust policy in the same way if it is unpopular. He is actually quite responsive, and can substitute for two parties in a way.

    But things like immigration debate they have in America, is not even given space for debate.

    That's not to say I am particularly interested in this, or that it is high on my list of concerns.

    But can you imagine something like the Steve Sailer commentators living in Russia. They would still be angry, but they would have no equivalent like incoming president Trump to correct policies through. They would have to rely on changing mind of further towards the top of the pyramid.

    Steve Sailer has been around for almost a couple decades. Who do you think he rooted for in 2004, when the choice was George “invade/invite” W. Bush and Kerry? Or 2008, between John “Open Borders Warmonger” McCain and Obama? Or 2012, Romney and Obama?

    Trump was a freak occurrence, and probably all he will accomplish will be to slow down the immivasion somewhat. Unless he starts a nuclear war, which is in the cards, despite his promises.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    The Steve Sailer commentators have an American president now. But in the past, even when they didn't have a presidential candidate supporting their agenda, they had many important members the Republican party.

    If they lived in Russia - they would have Navalny, with some blog posts, which are carefully written to be very moderate on the topic, and only hint at nationalist views. (And this is a guy who is too corrupt to ever qualify for a presidential race, and too unpopular to ever get more than a small faction of the vote).

    15 years ago, Zhirinovsky used to demagogue a lot on this topic, but now his agenda changed and he doesn't really care about it. And Zhirinovsky seems one of the only people allowed to get away with this kind of speech.

    Anti-immigration activists like Aleksandr Belov, which 15 years ago were quite influential - are subsequently prosecuted and put into jail for long sentences, along with their organizations.

    I really am not on the 'same page' as people obsessed with this topic, and have exactly zero sympathy with people like Belov that are Nazis in the closet. But it's interesting to imagine the Sailer commentators in this situation - to see where there is more outlet for discontented groups in the American system.

    The American system itself is, for anyone except the most naive, far from the role-model democracy, with all its own unchanging elites, censorship and electoral fraud (millions of illegal immigrants vote in their election, as it is assumed by political interests that they will vote for their favoured party - the Democrats). But the system is - to put it uncharitably - at least cleverly designed, in the way it allows slow correction of unpopular policies to develop, so long as they do not fundamentally undermine interests of the ruling American elites.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. @reiner Tor
    Steve Sailer has been around for almost a couple decades. Who do you think he rooted for in 2004, when the choice was George “invade/invite” W. Bush and Kerry? Or 2008, between John “Open Borders Warmonger” McCain and Obama? Or 2012, Romney and Obama?

    Trump was a freak occurrence, and probably all he will accomplish will be to slow down the immivasion somewhat. Unless he starts a nuclear war, which is in the cards, despite his promises.

    The Steve Sailer commentators have an American president now. But in the past, even when they didn’t have a presidential candidate supporting their agenda, they had many important members the Republican party.

    If they lived in Russia – they would have Navalny, with some blog posts, which are carefully written to be very moderate on the topic, and only hint at nationalist views. (And this is a guy who is too corrupt to ever qualify for a presidential race, and too unpopular to ever get more than a small faction of the vote).

    15 years ago, Zhirinovsky used to demagogue a lot on this topic, but now his agenda changed and he doesn’t really care about it. And Zhirinovsky seems one of the only people allowed to get away with this kind of speech.

    Anti-immigration activists like Aleksandr Belov, which 15 years ago were quite influential – are subsequently prosecuted and put into jail for long sentences, along with their organizations.

    I really am not on the ‘same page’ as people obsessed with this topic, and have exactly zero sympathy with people like Belov that are Nazis in the closet. But it’s interesting to imagine the Sailer commentators in this situation – to see where there is more outlet for discontented groups in the American system.

    The American system itself is, for anyone except the most naive, far from the role-model democracy, with all its own unchanging elites, censorship and electoral fraud (millions of illegal immigrants vote in their election, as it is assumed by political interests that they will vote for their favoured party – the Democrats). But the system is – to put it uncharitably – at least cleverly designed, in the way it allows slow correction of unpopular policies to develop, so long as they do not fundamentally undermine interests of the ruling American elites.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Navalny larped as a nationalist during 2011-12, he has since moved completely to the liberal mainstream.

    Zhirinovsky at least has a program that mentions russkie and their rights, and says correct nationalist things during debates, etc. The LDPR is also the only party that occasionally gives a hoot about things like Article 282.
    , @dfordoom

    But the system is – to put it uncharitably – at least cleverly designed, in the way it allows slow correction of unpopular policies to develop, so long as they do not fundamentally undermine interests of the ruling American elites.
     
    The system is cleverly designed to foster the illusion that unpopular policies can be gradually corrected. In practice the people get what the elites think they should have, and the people had better learn to like it.

    Liberal democracy exists in order to disguise a total lack of political freedom and a total lack of political choice. You have a choice of which laundry powder to buy, but they're both identical. You have a choice of which party to vote for, but they're both identical.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. @Lemurmaniac
    horseshit Soviet anthropology beloved by Dugin and the Saker just wont' die

    Are you really a neural network running on keywords?

    Nothing I said has anything to do with anthropology or Dugin or Saker.

    Russians are a people that believe that law and power are sacred. Denying it is pointless, that’s just how things are.

    Sacred things can’t be gained in public debates and mudslinging; thus, if a politician is engaged in debates and campaigning and other shady tactics, this only proves that he doesn’t have real power or law on his side.

    Putin knows this, Russians (even preschool children Russians) know this, only Internet trolls are somehow unaware of the basic facts of life…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lemurmaniac
    Russia is not an 'Asian country'. Most Russians are eastern slavs, and most of these slavs live on the European side of the Urals.


    The 'mandate of heaven' is a Chinese affair. Russians tend to be more authoritarian and more communal (leading to greater individual deference to centralized power) than some north-western Europeans; partly out of ethno-cultural mores, and partly out of the historical fact the Rus only survived in the vast expanses in the north of the world land island because of a a leviathan state capable of mobilizing the core to defend and periphery. However, despite these tendencies, they in no way resemble the borg mentality of the Chinese or other East Asians.

    Your entire frame is off.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. @Dmitry
    The Steve Sailer commentators have an American president now. But in the past, even when they didn't have a presidential candidate supporting their agenda, they had many important members the Republican party.

    If they lived in Russia - they would have Navalny, with some blog posts, which are carefully written to be very moderate on the topic, and only hint at nationalist views. (And this is a guy who is too corrupt to ever qualify for a presidential race, and too unpopular to ever get more than a small faction of the vote).

    15 years ago, Zhirinovsky used to demagogue a lot on this topic, but now his agenda changed and he doesn't really care about it. And Zhirinovsky seems one of the only people allowed to get away with this kind of speech.

    Anti-immigration activists like Aleksandr Belov, which 15 years ago were quite influential - are subsequently prosecuted and put into jail for long sentences, along with their organizations.

    I really am not on the 'same page' as people obsessed with this topic, and have exactly zero sympathy with people like Belov that are Nazis in the closet. But it's interesting to imagine the Sailer commentators in this situation - to see where there is more outlet for discontented groups in the American system.

    The American system itself is, for anyone except the most naive, far from the role-model democracy, with all its own unchanging elites, censorship and electoral fraud (millions of illegal immigrants vote in their election, as it is assumed by political interests that they will vote for their favoured party - the Democrats). But the system is - to put it uncharitably - at least cleverly designed, in the way it allows slow correction of unpopular policies to develop, so long as they do not fundamentally undermine interests of the ruling American elites.

    Navalny larped as a nationalist during 2011-12, he has since moved completely to the liberal mainstream.

    Zhirinovsky at least has a program that mentions russkie and their rights, and says correct nationalist things during debates, etc. The LDPR is also the only party that occasionally gives a hoot about things like Article 282.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    Isn't it more that Navalny LARP as mainstream? He was blogging for many years, with a nationalist orientation, although he is careful to avoid saying anything directly.

    It's funny - because this is another reason I don't like him and find it creepy, even though I think the immigration issues should be addressed.

    Zhirinovsky is past the prime of his career. He should become a professor on the history of Ancient Rome, or something like that, which he seems more interested in nowadays. Also he obviously likes the fact he has a privileged status to be allowed to say things - that ordinary cattle would not get away on.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. @5371
    It is hard to combine the pose of peculiar wisdom and the reality of complete vacuity in a shorter space than you just did.

    Look: we actually know Putin’s personal views on politics.

    He is a classical liberal — meaning, he believes in private enterprise, small government, representative democracy, free trade within reasonable bounds and national borders without racialism.

    His hobby is environmentalism. (The John Muir kind, not SWPL kind.)

    Note that Russia’s policies are nothing like what they would be if Putin was personally calling the shots.

    The reason for that is that he doesn’t. (This should be obvious at a half-second consideration, but people who live on the Internet instead of in reality will have their minds blown.)

    P.S. About the only time I can think of when Putin made a significant personal decision was when he cancelled a pipeline that threatened Baikal’s ecology. Probably because nobody else in the inner circle cared enough one way or the other about it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    Look: we actually know Putin’s personal views on politics.

    He is a classical liberal — meaning, he believes in private enterprise, small government, representative democracy, free trade within reasonable bounds and national borders without racialism.
     
    That's only one aspect of his political personality.

    This goes back to my earlier post, where I said that Putin is often able to substitute for multi-party system, by rotating between different agendas (like he was several different politicians, contained in a single man). This multiple personality syndrome (or substituting for different points of view) can also be a little confusing - but I guess it is an advantage for him as it relieves his gilded boredom.
    , @5371
    Unless you are Putin yourself, you can't possibly know the things you claim to know about him.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. The problem with democracy is that it isn’t very democratic in practice.

    I have thought a lot about this topic and here is my proposal for how to bring real democracy to the US:

    1. Scrap the Presidency and the Senate.
    2. Eliminate the ability of the Supreme Court and the judiciary to nullify laws. The courts should remain as independent as possible but their purview should be strictly limited to interpreting the law, not making it. Mandatory retirement for all judges at age 65.
    3. Increase the House numbers by a factor of 100, so from 435 to 43,500. The Speaker of the House would be Prime Minister and his cronies would have the other ministries.
    4. Elections every 4 years, or when a budget can’t be passed, or when there is a successful vote of no confidence or when parliament itself votes to dissolve.

    Greasy’s Plan for Freedom addresses all of the major political problems of modern democracies:

    1. Money and powerful lobbies will still exist, but their influence will be vastly reduced as every rep will be representing much fewer people and not need nearly as much cash to compete.
    2. Gets rid of the problems with a politicized and occasionally senile judiciary.
    3. Ends the problem of “separation of powers” and midterms which makes needed reforms difficult or even impossible.
    4. Returns the government to the people. Many more people would personally know their rep and running for office would become much more accessible to the common people. This would in turn keep reps tied to their community and reduce the phenomena of politicians “going Washington” after they are elected. Also, the influence of grassroots lobbying organizations like the NRA or anti immigration groups would be greatly strengthened while, at the same time, the influence of top-down, more pernicious lobbies would be lessened.

    If you disagree with my plan, you are wrong.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johnny Rico
    https://kilodocuments.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/molotov.jpg
    , @RadicalCenter
    Well, 43,500 members of the House of Reps seems unworkable.

    But an increase from 435 to 1,000 seems in order, given the ridiculously large number of people each Congressman is supposed to try to "represent."

    When the USA has population 350 million, then, each Congressman would represent about 350,000 people instead of 700,000 or more under current system.

    We'd probably get more ideologically extreme congressmen. We'd also probably get more explicit advocacy for the interests of a racial / cultural group that dominates the smaller congressional districts, since they wouldn't need to appeal to voters of other races even a little bit. (Then again, this is well underway already in "our" cities, with black Congressmen not even pretending to represent the few non-black voters in their districts, and something similar for Mexican congressmen in many California and Texas districts especially.)
    , @dfordoom

    The problem with democracy is that it isn’t very democratic in practice.
     
    Agreed. And thinking you can reform democracy is mere foolishness. Democracy is like prostitution - it corrupts both the buyer and the seller. It is inherently corrupt. It is a system for choosing the most effective liar and for choosing the party that is most successful at corruption.

    The only answer is to scrap the system entirely and return to monarchy. Not the ridiculous constitutional monarchy practised in absurd countries like Britain but actual monarchy. You know, like the Tsars.

    If you disagree with my plan, you are wrong.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. @Parbes
    Go eff yourself, Jewish neocon slime.

    You scoundrel! This is outrageous and I will not stand for being addressed in such a fashion!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Parbes
    Then don't start something you can't handle, you fifth-rate Jewish neocon turd.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. @Anatoly Karlin
    Current results with around 70% counted:

    Бабурин 0.64%
    Грудинин 12.17%
    Жириновский 5.91%
    Путин 76.29%
    Собчак 1.56%
    Сурайкин 0.68%
    Титов 0.72%
    Явлинский 0.95%

    My predictions:

    Baburin: 0.8%
    Grudinin: 9.7%
    Zhirinovsky: 7.8%
    Putin: 76.2%
    Sobchak: 2.0%
    Suraykin: 0.5%
    Titov: 0.5%
    Yavlinsky: 1.3%

    Got Putin spot on. Overestimated Zhirik, underestimated Grudinin (too much sovok rabble in Russia). Otherwise mostly very correct.

    Pretty good predictions.

    I read in some comment somewhere that Grudinin had promised to shave off his mustache if he didn’t get (some percentage that I don’t recall but that’s higher than what he got).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    15%, in a bet with YouTube interviewer star Yury Dud'.

    I wonder if he'll follow through.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. @Randal
    Pretty good predictions.

    I read in some comment somewhere that Grudinin had promised to shave off his mustache if he didn't get (some percentage that I don't recall but that's higher than what he got).

    15%, in a bet with YouTube interviewer star Yury Dud’.

    I wonder if he’ll follow through.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    Thanks. Always amusing to see how these rash promises pan out.
    , @5371
    Well, unlike McAfee, he can afford to lose the part of himself that he promised to cut off.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. @Anatoly Karlin
    15%, in a bet with YouTube interviewer star Yury Dud'.

    I wonder if he'll follow through.

    Thanks. Always amusing to see how these rash promises pan out.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. So is Zhirinovsky going to keep running until he’s dead, or next time will the LDPR get wise like the Commies and nominate someone other than an old fossil?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Zhirinovsky is Fuhrer of his party - I don't know if the LDPR will last beyond him.

    In any case, things may be very different in 2024, pointless to make party-specific political predictions so far out.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. @Jon0815
    So is Zhirinovsky going to keep running until he's dead, or next time will the LDPR get wise like the Commies and nominate someone other than an old fossil?

    Zhirinovsky is Fuhrer of his party – I don’t know if the LDPR will last beyond him.

    In any case, things may be very different in 2024, pointless to make party-specific political predictions so far out.

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

    - Improved the business climate, from ~120th in the early 2010s to 35th today according to the World Bank’s Ease of Doing Business rankings.

    - I really do think the Russian high elite has gotten much more rapacious in the 2010s relative to the previous decade.

    These two points sound completely contradictory. How can be ease of doing business improve so much and rapacious corruption increase so much during the same period? For example some components of the ease of doing business index include enforcing a contract, construction permits, etc.

    If rapacious corruption increases, then state actors or the court could be paid off to block the enforcement of a successful lawsuit. For construction permits only a small number of insiders would be able to get the permits while the rest would have to wait in line until they come begging with a suitcase of cash.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  79. The view in Britain:

    ‘Russia is turning into North Korea’: Putin’s defeated presidential rivals claim he falsely DOUBLED his share of the vote in rigged election

    Maybe this is how Grudinin’s moustache is saved. He really got 24.34%, before the vote-rigging halved it when Putin’s share was doubled.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    the dirtiest election since the fall of the Soviet Union
     
    Something’s wrong. The dirtiest election since the fall of the USSR was the 1996 election. Putin didn’t yet run in that race.

    On the other hand the 1996 election was a big step for the budding young Russian democracy, the first free and fair election in Russia’s 1000 year history. The MSM and the impartial western observers said so, and they never lie. I guess this new election was another step, now that Russian democracy has already blossomed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. @Greasy William
    You scoundrel! This is outrageous and I will not stand for being addressed in such a fashion!

    Then don’t start something you can’t handle, you fifth-rate Jewish neocon turd.

    Read More
    • Replies: @for-the-record
    you fifth-rate Jewish neocon turd

    This sophisticated language does not really aid your cause very much. In fact, looking back through your arguments on this thread (why I wasted the time is beyond me), it seems that your cause (or at least your method) is simply to issue gratuitous insults.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. @Randal
    The view in Britain:

    'Russia is turning into North Korea': Putin's defeated presidential rivals claim he falsely DOUBLED his share of the vote in rigged election

    Maybe this is how Grudinin's moustache is saved. He really got 24.34%, before the vote-rigging halved it when Putin's share was doubled.

    the dirtiest election since the fall of the Soviet Union

    Something’s wrong. The dirtiest election since the fall of the USSR was the 1996 election. Putin didn’t yet run in that race.

    On the other hand the 1996 election was a big step for the budding young Russian democracy, the first free and fair election in Russia’s 1000 year history. The MSM and the impartial western observers said so, and they never lie. I guess this new election was another step, now that Russian democracy has already blossomed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. In fairness, Russia’s “open borders”-in-all-but-name policy wrt Central Asia means that Gastarbeiters rotate there and back, as opposed to settling and having children in Russia. Then again, as I understand it, this was similar to Germany in the 1960s.

    At least you’re honest to admit this. Many russo-skeptic nationalists point out to pictures of endless columns of Muslims dutifully praying in Moscow as proof that Russia is just as bad as Western Europen and the Anglosphere.

    In reality, the Muslims always leave, or “rotate” — i.e. they leave and after a period — presumably after the money’s running out or there’s no job prospect — they come back again. They don’t bring their relatives with them, they don’t put down roots, and they generally live in cramped buildings.

    This is, incidentally, what Israel and other developed/developing economies (outside of America and Europe) where ethnicity matters do.

    Karlin loves statistics, but what about graphic proof? What do pupils look like in public schools of major Russian cities vs their counterparts in the West? After all, what better metric do we need than the racial composition of the next generation?

    Anyone who’s in the mood, please, google [insert city] pupils and post the results here.

    London:

    Moscow:

    Where are the ethnics at?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bigly
    More random pictures of London pupils:

    https://i.imgur.com/dHlrubO.jpg
    https://i.imgur.com/0Z1dsDw.jpg
    https://i.imgur.com/UBrZaT9.jpg

    St. Petersburg, where temporary construction workers are common:

    https://i.imgur.com/qiWdSCl.jpg
    https://i.imgur.com/jOPgj4T.jpg
    https://i.imgur.com/C3ghaYL.jpg

    A similar comparison would be interesting for major American & Western European cities. Maybe AK can do a post about it in the future.

    My point is that it's intellectually dishonest to talk about immigrants in Russia without informing readers that they are temporary and don't put down roots. As can be glanced from the pictures, the new generation will be as European in composition as the last one. AK briefly mentioned that the immigrants are temporary, and he deserves credit for it, but more should be written on the subject.

    , @Dmitry

    This is, incidentally, what Israel and other developed/developing economies (outside of America and Europe) where ethnicity matters do.
     
    Israel is far from a role-model on this topic. I was there last month, and have explored areas which feel like you are in Sudan, where whole parts of Tel Aviv are only living Sudanese Muslims.

    And you can see the kind of legal issues they have, with their ultra-liberal system:

    ‘Can illegal immigrant get legal status by committing rape?’

    Illegal immigrant living in Israel rapes Israeli woman, then demands legal status in Israel as father of child conceived in rape.


    https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/243226
     
    , @AP
    Here are high school graduates in Moscow:

    http://weirdrussia.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Graduates2016-2.jpg

    3 of the 12 look Caucasian (25%).

    Elementary school in Moscow:

    http://sch345.mskobr.ru/images/cms/data/gallery/1_sentyabrya_2017/sjp8tj7f8_c.jpg

    6 Central Asians (probably), 2 Caucasians out of 22 kids, also around 25%.

    My brother-in-law sold and moved out of his flat near Nakhimovsky Prospect metro station because the area had gone Caucasian, and his son in grade school was even picking up an accent.

    Moscow is certainly no London, not even close, but don't idealize it. Warsaw and Kiev are the largest pure European cities.
    , @Swedish Family

    Karlin loves statistics, but what about graphic proof? What do pupils look like in public schools of major Russian cities vs their counterparts in the West? After all, what better metric do we need than the racial composition of the next generation?
     
    He addressed this in a post last year. You will find it interesting, I'm sure.

    https://www.unzcloud.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/avdeev-map-russia-young-minorities.png

    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/russia-more-russian/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. @Bigly
    @Anatoly Karlin

    In fairness, Russia’s “open borders”-in-all-but-name policy wrt Central Asia means that Gastarbeiters rotate there and back, as opposed to settling and having children in Russia. Then again, as I understand it, this was similar to Germany in the 1960s.
     
    At least you're honest to admit this. Many russo-skeptic nationalists point out to pictures of endless columns of Muslims dutifully praying in Moscow as proof that Russia is just as bad as Western Europen and the Anglosphere.

    In reality, the Muslims always leave, or "rotate" — i.e. they leave and after a period — presumably after the money's running out or there's no job prospect — they come back again. They don't bring their relatives with them, they don't put down roots, and they generally live in cramped buildings.

    This is, incidentally, what Israel and other developed/developing economies (outside of America and Europe) where ethnicity matters do.

    Karlin loves statistics, but what about graphic proof? What do pupils look like in public schools of major Russian cities vs their counterparts in the West? After all, what better metric do we need than the racial composition of the next generation?

    Anyone who's in the mood, please, google [insert city] pupils and post the results here.

    London:
    https://i.imgur.com/epbrnCc.jpg
    https://i.imgur.com/Lf3M02V.jpg

    Moscow:
    https://i.imgur.com/51I7Faq.jpg
    https://i.imgur.com/kl6HV2E.jpg
    https://i.imgur.com/AOMxmX5.jpg
    https://i.imgur.com/7qYdpMG.jpg
    https://i.imgur.com/1nVrImn.jpg

    Where are the ethnics at?
    https://i.imgur.com/vdLlr23.jpg

    More random pictures of London pupils:
    https://i.imgur.com/0Z1dsDw.jpg
    St. Petersburg, where temporary construction workers are common:
    https://i.imgur.com/jOPgj4T.jpg
    A similar comparison would be interesting for major American & Western European cities. Maybe AK can do a post about it in the future.

    My point is that it’s intellectually dishonest to talk about immigrants in Russia without informing readers that they are temporary and don’t put down roots. As can be glanced from the pictures, the new generation will be as European in composition as the last one. AK briefly mentioned that the immigrants are temporary, and he deserves credit for it, but more should be written on the subject.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    It’s also more regionalized. The school composition will be quite different in different places.

    It’s not comparable to London – where entire districts are given to people of different nationalities (they have entire districts – for example, in Eastern London – where most people are African Jamaicans, and you can experience this if you even walk in these areas that you will feel out of place if your skin is not black).

    In Russia, you can’t always see – visually – people by their nationality, although you can spot the brown people working on the side of the road.

    Remember, people in non-Russian nationalities – Jews, Tatars, Chechens, etc – can be blonde (and the number that are even blonde in those nationalities is a lot higher than the stereotypes); while of course plenty of Russians are brunette and even tanned. Visually different nationalities are overlapping more, compared to in London, where the nationalities (coming from all over the regions of British imperialism) are very distinct.

    That’s where the game develops of looking at peoples’ names. Which is also in America – you only have to look at the Sailer commentators, who are also playing this game with Jews and Latinos. Personally, I find it in some bad taste.

    The problem is simply the open-border policies, which allows areas to be rapidly flooded with any kind of riff-raff that has no relation to improving the quality of population, and can be completely out of place as many of these tropical peoples seem to be in London - even more than Uzbeks in Moscow (who whether they study Pushkin or not is itself a matter for debating).

    The problem is not the other nationalities, but the quality of the people from those nationalities, and the absence of any filtration system, and absence of debate about whether any immigrants are needed at all, and if so (which is itself sometimes questionable), how many should be imported to country. The real role model in this are countries like Japan, that have not proposed open borders for their country, even if they do use some Korean guest workers, or Iranian asylum refugees.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. @Parbes
    Then don't start something you can't handle, you fifth-rate Jewish neocon turd.

    you fifth-rate Jewish neocon turd

    This sophisticated language does not really aid your cause very much. In fact, looking back through your arguments on this thread (why I wasted the time is beyond me), it seems that your cause (or at least your method) is simply to issue gratuitous insults.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Parbes
    If you don't like my comments then don't read them, nobody's forcing you. As for this particular flame war, it started with a gratuitous and stupid attack on me (when I wasn't talking to HIM) by your neocon buddy "Greasy", who is one of the most despicable Zionazi cretins on this website (which is saying a LOT), and who should simply go and off himself for the benefit of mankind. Not that I need to justify anything to you, anyways.

    Don't bother answering to this; you will be totally ignored by me.

    , @Lemurmaniac
    If all Jews were 'Zio-Nazis' and contented themselves with living in their tiny little country and abusing the Palestinians instead of promoting their degeneracy and anti-nationalism all around the world, I would be much more favourably disposed to them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. @A. Karlin: imagine you were suddenly named Putin’s main advisor. What would be your recommendations?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  86. @Anatoly Karlin
    Navalny larped as a nationalist during 2011-12, he has since moved completely to the liberal mainstream.

    Zhirinovsky at least has a program that mentions russkie and their rights, and says correct nationalist things during debates, etc. The LDPR is also the only party that occasionally gives a hoot about things like Article 282.

    Isn’t it more that Navalny LARP as mainstream? He was blogging for many years, with a nationalist orientation, although he is careful to avoid saying anything directly.

    It’s funny – because this is another reason I don’t like him and find it creepy, even though I think the immigration issues should be addressed.

    Zhirinovsky is past the prime of his career. He should become a professor on the history of Ancient Rome, or something like that, which he seems more interested in nowadays. Also he obviously likes the fact he has a privileged status to be allowed to say things – that ordinary cattle would not get away on.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. @Greasy William
    The problem with democracy is that it isn't very democratic in practice.

    I have thought a lot about this topic and here is my proposal for how to bring real democracy to the US:

    1. Scrap the Presidency and the Senate.
    2. Eliminate the ability of the Supreme Court and the judiciary to nullify laws. The courts should remain as independent as possible but their purview should be strictly limited to interpreting the law, not making it. Mandatory retirement for all judges at age 65.
    3. Increase the House numbers by a factor of 100, so from 435 to 43,500. The Speaker of the House would be Prime Minister and his cronies would have the other ministries.
    4. Elections every 4 years, or when a budget can't be passed, or when there is a successful vote of no confidence or when parliament itself votes to dissolve.

    Greasy's Plan for Freedom addresses all of the major political problems of modern democracies:

    1. Money and powerful lobbies will still exist, but their influence will be vastly reduced as every rep will be representing much fewer people and not need nearly as much cash to compete.
    2. Gets rid of the problems with a politicized and occasionally senile judiciary.
    3. Ends the problem of "separation of powers" and midterms which makes needed reforms difficult or even impossible.
    4. Returns the government to the people. Many more people would personally know their rep and running for office would become much more accessible to the common people. This would in turn keep reps tied to their community and reduce the phenomena of politicians "going Washington" after they are elected. Also, the influence of grassroots lobbying organizations like the NRA or anti immigration groups would be greatly strengthened while, at the same time, the influence of top-down, more pernicious lobbies would be lessened.

    If you disagree with my plan, you are wrong.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. @Bigly
    More random pictures of London pupils:

    https://i.imgur.com/dHlrubO.jpg
    https://i.imgur.com/0Z1dsDw.jpg
    https://i.imgur.com/UBrZaT9.jpg

    St. Petersburg, where temporary construction workers are common:

    https://i.imgur.com/qiWdSCl.jpg
    https://i.imgur.com/jOPgj4T.jpg
    https://i.imgur.com/C3ghaYL.jpg

    A similar comparison would be interesting for major American & Western European cities. Maybe AK can do a post about it in the future.

    My point is that it's intellectually dishonest to talk about immigrants in Russia without informing readers that they are temporary and don't put down roots. As can be glanced from the pictures, the new generation will be as European in composition as the last one. AK briefly mentioned that the immigrants are temporary, and he deserves credit for it, but more should be written on the subject.

    It’s also more regionalized. The school composition will be quite different in different places.

    It’s not comparable to London – where entire districts are given to people of different nationalities (they have entire districts – for example, in Eastern London – where most people are African Jamaicans, and you can experience this if you even walk in these areas that you will feel out of place if your skin is not black).

    In Russia, you can’t always see – visually – people by their nationality, although you can spot the brown people working on the side of the road.

    Remember, people in non-Russian nationalities – Jews, Tatars, Chechens, etc – can be blonde (and the number that are even blonde in those nationalities is a lot higher than the stereotypes); while of course plenty of Russians are brunette and even tanned. Visually different nationalities are overlapping more, compared to in London, where the nationalities (coming from all over the regions of British imperialism) are very distinct.

    That’s where the game develops of looking at peoples’ names. Which is also in America – you only have to look at the Sailer commentators, who are also playing this game with Jews and Latinos. Personally, I find it in some bad taste.

    The problem is simply the open-border policies, which allows areas to be rapidly flooded with any kind of riff-raff that has no relation to improving the quality of population, and can be completely out of place as many of these tropical peoples seem to be in London – even more than Uzbeks in Moscow (who whether they study Pushkin or not is itself a matter for debating).

    The problem is not the other nationalities, but the quality of the people from those nationalities, and the absence of any filtration system, and absence of debate about whether any immigrants are needed at all, and if so (which is itself sometimes questionable), how many should be imported to country. The real role model in this are countries like Japan, that have not proposed open borders for their country, even if they do use some Korean guest workers, or Iranian asylum refugees.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bigly

    It’s also more regionalized. The school composition will be quite different in different places.
     
    The point in choosing random public (i.e. gov-funded) schools in Moscow and St. Petersburg is that these two cities are major destinations for temporary foreign workers. Ergo, if they were to follow the Anglosphere/Western European pattern of permanent immigration and family reunification or formation, the shift in demographics among the school-aged would be apparent.

    In Russia, you can’t always see – visually – people by their nationality, although you can spot the brown people working on the side of the road.

    Remember, people in non-Russian nationalities – Jews, Tatars, Chechens, etc – can be blonde (and the number that are even blonde in those nationalities is a lot higher than the stereotypes); while of course plenty of Russians are brunette and even tanned. Visually different nationalities are overlapping more, compared to in London, where the nationalities (coming from all over the regions of British imperialism) are very distinct.
     

    Everyone knows the overwhelming majority of non-white immigrants in Russia who do physical labour come mostly from the Stans and are alien in appearance. To say that those children could be Jewish or white-looking Tatars is beside the point.

    Belarusians, Ukrainians and (in part) Moldovans made and continue to make a sizeable % of the immigrant population, and I would not be able to tell them apart from looking at those school pictures, not that it matters because they are, from an ethnic point of view, assimilable. Southern Russia has a very strong Ukrainian component, but they are fully russified. The Ukrainian movement into Russia is centuries old, and they belong to the same East Slavic branch that Russians do — unlike the more recent workers from Central Asia. From the Russian officials' point of view, not all immigrants are created equal — which is why the bureaucracy keeps them from permanently settling in Russia.

    Sadly, immigration of ethnic Russians who found themselves outside their motherland when the USSR fell has dried up.

    , @Lemurmaniac
    I find your reluctance to own up to the implications of ethnic and racial differences in 'bad taste'.

    With a few exceptions, like the rarefied air of advanced research, you can't just randomly plug people into a foreign environment and retain a coherent culture, even if they are big brain nibbas. IQ, education, and its link to productivity are not the only dimensions of a successful society.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. @anonymous coward
    Look: we actually know Putin's personal views on politics.

    He is a classical liberal -- meaning, he believes in private enterprise, small government, representative democracy, free trade within reasonable bounds and national borders without racialism.

    His hobby is environmentalism. (The John Muir kind, not SWPL kind.)

    Note that Russia's policies are nothing like what they would be if Putin was personally calling the shots.

    The reason for that is that he doesn't. (This should be obvious at a half-second consideration, but people who live on the Internet instead of in reality will have their minds blown.)

    P.S. About the only time I can think of when Putin made a significant personal decision was when he cancelled a pipeline that threatened Baikal's ecology. Probably because nobody else in the inner circle cared enough one way or the other about it.

    Look: we actually know Putin’s personal views on politics.

    He is a classical liberal — meaning, he believes in private enterprise, small government, representative democracy, free trade within reasonable bounds and national borders without racialism.

    That’s only one aspect of his political personality.

    This goes back to my earlier post, where I said that Putin is often able to substitute for multi-party system, by rotating between different agendas (like he was several different politicians, contained in a single man). This multiple personality syndrome (or substituting for different points of view) can also be a little confusing – but I guess it is an advantage for him as it relieves his gilded boredom.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. @Bigly
    @Anatoly Karlin

    In fairness, Russia’s “open borders”-in-all-but-name policy wrt Central Asia means that Gastarbeiters rotate there and back, as opposed to settling and having children in Russia. Then again, as I understand it, this was similar to Germany in the 1960s.
     
    At least you're honest to admit this. Many russo-skeptic nationalists point out to pictures of endless columns of Muslims dutifully praying in Moscow as proof that Russia is just as bad as Western Europen and the Anglosphere.

    In reality, the Muslims always leave, or "rotate" — i.e. they leave and after a period — presumably after the money's running out or there's no job prospect — they come back again. They don't bring their relatives with them, they don't put down roots, and they generally live in cramped buildings.

    This is, incidentally, what Israel and other developed/developing economies (outside of America and Europe) where ethnicity matters do.

    Karlin loves statistics, but what about graphic proof? What do pupils look like in public schools of major Russian cities vs their counterparts in the West? After all, what better metric do we need than the racial composition of the next generation?

    Anyone who's in the mood, please, google [insert city] pupils and post the results here.

    London:
    https://i.imgur.com/epbrnCc.jpg
    https://i.imgur.com/Lf3M02V.jpg

    Moscow:
    https://i.imgur.com/51I7Faq.jpg
    https://i.imgur.com/kl6HV2E.jpg
    https://i.imgur.com/AOMxmX5.jpg
    https://i.imgur.com/7qYdpMG.jpg
    https://i.imgur.com/1nVrImn.jpg

    Where are the ethnics at?
    https://i.imgur.com/vdLlr23.jpg

    This is, incidentally, what Israel and other developed/developing economies (outside of America and Europe) where ethnicity matters do.

    Israel is far from a role-model on this topic. I was there last month, and have explored areas which feel like you are in Sudan, where whole parts of Tel Aviv are only living Sudanese Muslims.

    And you can see the kind of legal issues they have, with their ultra-liberal system:

    ‘Can illegal immigrant get legal status by committing rape?’

    Illegal immigrant living in Israel rapes Israeli woman, then demands legal status in Israel as father of child conceived in rape.

    https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/243226

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. @for-the-record
    you fifth-rate Jewish neocon turd

    This sophisticated language does not really aid your cause very much. In fact, looking back through your arguments on this thread (why I wasted the time is beyond me), it seems that your cause (or at least your method) is simply to issue gratuitous insults.

    If you don’t like my comments then don’t read them, nobody’s forcing you. As for this particular flame war, it started with a gratuitous and stupid attack on me (when I wasn’t talking to HIM) by your neocon buddy “Greasy”, who is one of the most despicable Zionazi cretins on this website (which is saying a LOT), and who should simply go and off himself for the benefit of mankind. Not that I need to justify anything to you, anyways.

    Don’t bother answering to this; you will be totally ignored by me.

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

    In fairness, Russia’s “open borders”-in-all-but-name policy wrt Central Asia means that Gastarbeiters rotate there and back, as opposed to settling and having children in Russia. Then again, as I understand it, this was similar to Germany in the 1960s.
     
    At least you're honest to admit this. Many russo-skeptic nationalists point out to pictures of endless columns of Muslims dutifully praying in Moscow as proof that Russia is just as bad as Western Europen and the Anglosphere.

    In reality, the Muslims always leave, or "rotate" — i.e. they leave and after a period — presumably after the money's running out or there's no job prospect — they come back again. They don't bring their relatives with them, they don't put down roots, and they generally live in cramped buildings.

    This is, incidentally, what Israel and other developed/developing economies (outside of America and Europe) where ethnicity matters do.

    Karlin loves statistics, but what about graphic proof? What do pupils look like in public schools of major Russian cities vs their counterparts in the West? After all, what better metric do we need than the racial composition of the next generation?

    Anyone who's in the mood, please, google [insert city] pupils and post the results here.

    London:
    https://i.imgur.com/epbrnCc.jpg
    https://i.imgur.com/Lf3M02V.jpg

    Moscow:
    https://i.imgur.com/51I7Faq.jpg
    https://i.imgur.com/kl6HV2E.jpg
    https://i.imgur.com/AOMxmX5.jpg
    https://i.imgur.com/7qYdpMG.jpg
    https://i.imgur.com/1nVrImn.jpg

    Where are the ethnics at?
    https://i.imgur.com/vdLlr23.jpg

    Here are high school graduates in Moscow:

    3 of the 12 look Caucasian (25%).

    Elementary school in Moscow:

    6 Central Asians (probably), 2 Caucasians out of 22 kids, also around 25%.

    My brother-in-law sold and moved out of his flat near Nakhimovsky Prospect metro station because the area had gone Caucasian, and his son in grade school was even picking up an accent.

    Moscow is certainly no London, not even close, but don’t idealize it. Warsaw and Kiev are the largest pure European cities.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    6 Central Asians (probably), 2 Caucasians out of 22 kids, also around 25%.

    My brother-in-law sold and moved out of his flat near Nakhimovsky Prospect metro station because the area had gone Caucasian, and his son in grade school was even picking up an accent.

    Moscow is certainly no London, not even close, but don’t idealize it. Warsaw and Kiev are the largest pure European cities.
     

    Yes but the problem is not melanin content of the skin, but the fact they are often 'not sending their best people' to put it mildly - to the extent this is inflow from outside the republics.

    And the solution is - at least for immigration inflow from outside the republics - to impose immigration restriction, with strong merit-based filtration to the extent any inflow is judged desriable.

    , @neutral

    Warsaw and Kiev are the largest pure European cities.
     
    Since both have embraced cuckservatism as their core ideology, they will both become like Paris and London within 50 years (probably even a shorter timespan because of mass third world immigration and enoforced open EU borders).
    , @Bigly
    Sorry but you went to great length to cherry-pick those pictures. Just out of curiosity, what's your country of birth?

    I searched using several terms, in English and Russian, and from the dozens of pictures I have seen that had several pupils in them, and from different sources to make sure they are not all of the same school, none, absolutely none had 25% ethnic minorities in them. Also in the 1st picture you posted I can see 1 non-white, not 3.

    More search examples, using Russian terms, all from Moscow:

    Picture 1 - 70+ students, 2 to 3 non-whites.

    Picture 2 - over a dozen pupils, all white

    Picture 3 - in this one, the dark girl stands out (Russian Caucasus? Georgia? Armenia?)

    Picture 4 - all white

    Picture 5 - out of 13, perhaps 1 has non-white (Uralid?) admixture, & this is speculative

    Picture 6 - 12+, all white

    Picture 7 - 20+, the boy in the front row looks suspicious, rest are as white as they come

    Eastern Europe is the future. But Eastern Europe without Russia is a footnote because they'll eventually be rolled over by poz and foreign-sponsored liberast compradors. If the Russians were really smart, imagine what a military defection to Russia from the US or the UK could do if the soldier denounced the dispossession of his people and hostility by the media, academia and government, 'worse than the Jews endured'... and if the soldier or whoever defects is not from the US, political oppression can be included in the denunciation, and Russia offered to "look into claims that [x] country is engaged in demographic dispossession against the majority population... if laws had been adopted that will deliberately result in the long-term demise of the European ethnos, which is an act of hostility and genocidal in intent" and offered asylum to the victims, so that in their new country, "the academia won't offer anti-white courses whose sole purpose is to cast their existence as inherently hateful and opposition to their own demise as deeply immoral, so that the media will not call them haters and supremacists merely for opposing laws and policies that will bring about their demise, so that the political class will not adopt hostile laws aimed at dispossessing and condemning them". Russia can do this because the population will not protest (in the West, there would be total mayhem if a government were to take this turn). All Putin needs is political will.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. @Dmitry
    It’s also more regionalized. The school composition will be quite different in different places.

    It’s not comparable to London – where entire districts are given to people of different nationalities (they have entire districts – for example, in Eastern London – where most people are African Jamaicans, and you can experience this if you even walk in these areas that you will feel out of place if your skin is not black).

    In Russia, you can’t always see – visually – people by their nationality, although you can spot the brown people working on the side of the road.

    Remember, people in non-Russian nationalities – Jews, Tatars, Chechens, etc – can be blonde (and the number that are even blonde in those nationalities is a lot higher than the stereotypes); while of course plenty of Russians are brunette and even tanned. Visually different nationalities are overlapping more, compared to in London, where the nationalities (coming from all over the regions of British imperialism) are very distinct.

    That’s where the game develops of looking at peoples’ names. Which is also in America – you only have to look at the Sailer commentators, who are also playing this game with Jews and Latinos. Personally, I find it in some bad taste.

    The problem is simply the open-border policies, which allows areas to be rapidly flooded with any kind of riff-raff that has no relation to improving the quality of population, and can be completely out of place as many of these tropical peoples seem to be in London - even more than Uzbeks in Moscow (who whether they study Pushkin or not is itself a matter for debating).

    The problem is not the other nationalities, but the quality of the people from those nationalities, and the absence of any filtration system, and absence of debate about whether any immigrants are needed at all, and if so (which is itself sometimes questionable), how many should be imported to country. The real role model in this are countries like Japan, that have not proposed open borders for their country, even if they do use some Korean guest workers, or Iranian asylum refugees.

    It’s also more regionalized. The school composition will be quite different in different places.

    The point in choosing random public (i.e. gov-funded) schools in Moscow and St. Petersburg is that these two cities are major destinations for temporary foreign workers. Ergo, if they were to follow the Anglosphere/Western European pattern of permanent immigration and family reunification or formation, the shift in demographics among the school-aged would be apparent.

    In Russia, you can’t always see – visually – people by their nationality, although you can spot the brown people working on the side of the road.

    Remember, people in non-Russian nationalities – Jews, Tatars, Chechens, etc – can be blonde (and the number that are even blonde in those nationalities is a lot higher than the stereotypes); while of course plenty of Russians are brunette and even tanned. Visually different nationalities are overlapping more, compared to in London, where the nationalities (coming from all over the regions of British imperialism) are very distinct.

    Everyone knows the overwhelming majority of non-white immigrants in Russia who do physical labour come mostly from the Stans and are alien in appearance. To say that those children could be Jewish or white-looking Tatars is beside the point.

    Belarusians, Ukrainians and (in part) Moldovans made and continue to make a sizeable % of the immigrant population, and I would not be able to tell them apart from looking at those school pictures, not that it matters because they are, from an ethnic point of view, assimilable. Southern Russia has a very strong Ukrainian component, but they are fully russified. The Ukrainian movement into Russia is centuries old, and they belong to the same East Slavic branch that Russians do — unlike the more recent workers from Central Asia. From the Russian officials’ point of view, not all immigrants are created equal — which is why the bureaucracy keeps them from permanently settling in Russia.

    Sadly, immigration of ethnic Russians who found themselves outside their motherland when the USSR fell has dried up.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    Everyone knows the overwhelming majority of non-white immigrants in Russia who do physical labour come mostly from the Stans and are alien in appearance. To say that those children could be Jewish or white-looking Tatars is beside the point.

    Belarusians, Ukrainians and (in part) Moldovans made and continue to make a sizeable % of the immigrant population, and I would not be able to tell them apart from looking at those school pictures, not that it matters because they are, from an ethnic point of view, assimilable. Southern Russia has a very strong Ukrainian component, but they are fully russified. The Ukrainian movement into Russia is centuries old, and they belong to the same East Slavic branch that Russians do — unlike the more recent workers from Central Asia. From the Russian officials’ point of view, not all immigrants are created equal — which is why the bureaucracy keeps them from permanently settling in Russia.

    Sadly, immigration of ethnic Russians who found themselves outside their motherland when the USSR fell has dried up.
     
    This is true that labour-permit, which all majority have, must not be confused with citizenship.

    Citizenship increases nonetheless (I believe the number of Uzbeks with Russian citizenship increased 100% between recent censuses, while still remaining only a fraction compared to those with work-permits).

    It's relevant the question that Navalny and Sobchak were discussing above, whether these people know Pushkin or not. Maybe this should be one of the tests for obtaining labour-permits, let alone citizenship. https://life.ru/t/%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8/1016961/zhitieli_uzbiekistana_ustroili_flieshmob_v_otviet_navalnomu_na_nieznaniie_pushkina

    As I don't have a problem with their appearance or melanin content of skin, the important thing is that only people who will improve the culture/nation (ceteris paribus) are allowed arriving or entrance to the country, as the visa-free zone, combined with amount of work-permits given, correlates strongly with the amount eventually receiving citizenship.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. @anonymous coward
    Look: we actually know Putin's personal views on politics.

    He is a classical liberal -- meaning, he believes in private enterprise, small government, representative democracy, free trade within reasonable bounds and national borders without racialism.

    His hobby is environmentalism. (The John Muir kind, not SWPL kind.)

    Note that Russia's policies are nothing like what they would be if Putin was personally calling the shots.

    The reason for that is that he doesn't. (This should be obvious at a half-second consideration, but people who live on the Internet instead of in reality will have their minds blown.)

    P.S. About the only time I can think of when Putin made a significant personal decision was when he cancelled a pipeline that threatened Baikal's ecology. Probably because nobody else in the inner circle cared enough one way or the other about it.

    Unless you are Putin yourself, you can’t possibly know the things you claim to know about him.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. @Anatoly Karlin
    15%, in a bet with YouTube interviewer star Yury Dud'.

    I wonder if he'll follow through.

    Well, unlike McAfee, he can afford to lose the part of himself that he promised to cut off.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. @AP
    Here are high school graduates in Moscow:

    http://weirdrussia.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Graduates2016-2.jpg

    3 of the 12 look Caucasian (25%).

    Elementary school in Moscow:

    http://sch345.mskobr.ru/images/cms/data/gallery/1_sentyabrya_2017/sjp8tj7f8_c.jpg

    6 Central Asians (probably), 2 Caucasians out of 22 kids, also around 25%.

    My brother-in-law sold and moved out of his flat near Nakhimovsky Prospect metro station because the area had gone Caucasian, and his son in grade school was even picking up an accent.

    Moscow is certainly no London, not even close, but don't idealize it. Warsaw and Kiev are the largest pure European cities.

    6 Central Asians (probably), 2 Caucasians out of 22 kids, also around 25%.

    My brother-in-law sold and moved out of his flat near Nakhimovsky Prospect metro station because the area had gone Caucasian, and his son in grade school was even picking up an accent.

    Moscow is certainly no London, not even close, but don’t idealize it. Warsaw and Kiev are the largest pure European cities.

    Yes but the problem is not melanin content of the skin, but the fact they are often ‘not sending their best people’ to put it mildly – to the extent this is inflow from outside the republics.

    And the solution is – at least for immigration inflow from outside the republics – to impose immigration restriction, with strong merit-based filtration to the extent any inflow is judged desriable.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. @Bigly

    It’s also more regionalized. The school composition will be quite different in different places.
     
    The point in choosing random public (i.e. gov-funded) schools in Moscow and St. Petersburg is that these two cities are major destinations for temporary foreign workers. Ergo, if they were to follow the Anglosphere/Western European pattern of permanent immigration and family reunification or formation, the shift in demographics among the school-aged would be apparent.

    In Russia, you can’t always see – visually – people by their nationality, although you can spot the brown people working on the side of the road.

    Remember, people in non-Russian nationalities – Jews, Tatars, Chechens, etc – can be blonde (and the number that are even blonde in those nationalities is a lot higher than the stereotypes); while of course plenty of Russians are brunette and even tanned. Visually different nationalities are overlapping more, compared to in London, where the nationalities (coming from all over the regions of British imperialism) are very distinct.
     

    Everyone knows the overwhelming majority of non-white immigrants in Russia who do physical labour come mostly from the Stans and are alien in appearance. To say that those children could be Jewish or white-looking Tatars is beside the point.

    Belarusians, Ukrainians and (in part) Moldovans made and continue to make a sizeable % of the immigrant population, and I would not be able to tell them apart from looking at those school pictures, not that it matters because they are, from an ethnic point of view, assimilable. Southern Russia has a very strong Ukrainian component, but they are fully russified. The Ukrainian movement into Russia is centuries old, and they belong to the same East Slavic branch that Russians do — unlike the more recent workers from Central Asia. From the Russian officials' point of view, not all immigrants are created equal — which is why the bureaucracy keeps them from permanently settling in Russia.

    Sadly, immigration of ethnic Russians who found themselves outside their motherland when the USSR fell has dried up.

    Everyone knows the overwhelming majority of non-white immigrants in Russia who do physical labour come mostly from the Stans and are alien in appearance. To say that those children could be Jewish or white-looking Tatars is beside the point.

    Belarusians, Ukrainians and (in part) Moldovans made and continue to make a sizeable % of the immigrant population, and I would not be able to tell them apart from looking at those school pictures, not that it matters because they are, from an ethnic point of view, assimilable. Southern Russia has a very strong Ukrainian component, but they are fully russified. The Ukrainian movement into Russia is centuries old, and they belong to the same East Slavic branch that Russians do — unlike the more recent workers from Central Asia. From the Russian officials’ point of view, not all immigrants are created equal — which is why the bureaucracy keeps them from permanently settling in Russia.

    Sadly, immigration of ethnic Russians who found themselves outside their motherland when the USSR fell has dried up.

    This is true that labour-permit, which all majority have, must not be confused with citizenship.

    Citizenship increases nonetheless (I believe the number of Uzbeks with Russian citizenship increased 100% between recent censuses, while still remaining only a fraction compared to those with work-permits).

    It’s relevant the question that Navalny and Sobchak were discussing above, whether these people know Pushkin or not. Maybe this should be one of the tests for obtaining labour-permits, let alone citizenship. https://life.ru/t/%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8/1016961/zhitieli_uzbiekistana_ustroili_flieshmob_v_otviet_navalnomu_na_nieznaniie_pushkina

    As I don’t have a problem with their appearance or melanin content of skin, the important thing is that only people who will improve the culture/nation (ceteris paribus) are allowed arriving or entrance to the country, as the visa-free zone, combined with amount of work-permits given, correlates strongly with the amount eventually receiving citizenship.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. @Thorfinnsson
    Fe-man-ist is a funny coinage.

    I object to some of the various natalist religions on aesthetic grounds, and I hope we can get this done while preserving a real sense of style. I recently wrote a new company dress code which includes the line,


    Tasteful cleavage is welcomed and encouraged by management.,
     
    Pension right restrictions might work for ordinary average losers, but the elite (outside of Mormons) need to be considered as well.

    Given the severity of the crisis we need a full spectrum attack.

    For my part I embraced R-selection though I would not recommend that as state policy.

    I object to some of the various natalist religions on aesthetic grounds

    So do I. But in the current hierarchy of issues any aesthetic considerations rank fairly low. It is about survival. We can go back to style later.

    Elite has never been able to procreate in sustainable numbers. They need the ‘middle’ and ‘upper middle’ people for constant replenishment. I am not sure what it is, but being born into an elite group has paralysing effects. Elites have traditionally been somewhat non-traditional. You need to be realistic, the numbers are dire – natalism is the best one can hope for. Put an incentive in pensions, restrict it by clever means to the native ethnic middle class, and then watch if it works. (If that fails, there are always the Amish girls, but I wouldn’t start there.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson

    So do I. But in the current hierarchy of issues any aesthetic considerations rank fairly low. It is about survival. We can go back to style later.
     

    Certainly survival takes top billing, but style is not irrelevant. In addition to creating a pleasing society we wish to live in, style is soft power.

    Elite has never been able to procreate in sustainable numbers. They need the ‘middle’ and ‘upper middle’ people for constant replenishment. I am not sure what it is, but being born into an elite group has paralysing effects. Elites have traditionally been somewhat non-traditional.
     

    The elite used to have the highest rate of procreation until the modern fertility transition. This transition occurred first in France. At the dawn of the 17th century, the average French noblewoman had eight children. By the close of the Ancien Regime, it was down to replacement fertility.

    The reason is at once amusing and depressing. Noblewomen avoided numerous pregnancies because they wanted to spend time in "society". This describes todays catastrophically low fertility quite well (the "cock carousel" as it is described in the Manosphere, I believe Roissy/Heartiste created the term).

    I don't know to which countries the modern fertility transition spread first, but the elite fertility transition began at the beginning of the 18th century in England. It took time to complete itself, as evidenced by the fact that Queen Victoria had nine children. The next two kings had six each, but George VI managed only three.

    Some comical examples of past elite fertility include Wilhelm I, Elector of Hesse-Kassel (24 known children by four women) and Augustus the Strong (14 recognized children, but contemporary sources claim over 300--he never recognized bastards sired with commoners).

    Note that while the nobility traditionally had the most children, the gentry's genetics predominate in us today because so many noblemen died in battle.

    Capitalists also used to have very large families. Anton Fugger (heir to the likely sterile Jacob Fugger) had ten children. Cornelius Vanderbilt had thirteen children.

    Eventually, as you note, elite fertility entirely collapsed. Middle class fertility remained adequate (outside of the Depression) if not robust until the 1960s when it too collapsed. Working class fertility remains adequate if chaotic (they almost all have truly chaotic "blended families"--it's really embarrassing).

    Lately fertility has become somewhat fashionable in America's upper class as a renewed marker of status. The ability to afford a family of five in Manhattan is after all quite impressive.

    You need to be realistic, the numbers are dire – natalism is the best one can hope for. Put an incentive in pensions, restrict it by clever means to the native ethnic middle class, and then watch if it works. (If that fails, there are always the Amish girls, but I wouldn’t start there.)
     

    I'm not opposed to this pension idea, but I regard it as rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. People are hyperbolic discounters. No one at age twenty is going to rearrange his reproductive strategy over concern of future pensions. The current pattern of too-late marriage will persist, which puts an ceiling on fertility.

    It won't be irrelevant of course. People first marrying in their 30s first will avoid deferring pregnancy for a few years as they do now. It presently takes a few years of nagging by a baby rabies possessed wife for a husband fearing his loss of bar and video game time to agree to having a child.

    Much, much more can and should be done, and we need to start thinking beyond just the matter of money.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. @AP
    Here are high school graduates in Moscow:

    http://weirdrussia.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Graduates2016-2.jpg

    3 of the 12 look Caucasian (25%).

    Elementary school in Moscow:

    http://sch345.mskobr.ru/images/cms/data/gallery/1_sentyabrya_2017/sjp8tj7f8_c.jpg

    6 Central Asians (probably), 2 Caucasians out of 22 kids, also around 25%.

    My brother-in-law sold and moved out of his flat near Nakhimovsky Prospect metro station because the area had gone Caucasian, and his son in grade school was even picking up an accent.

    Moscow is certainly no London, not even close, but don't idealize it. Warsaw and Kiev are the largest pure European cities.

    Warsaw and Kiev are the largest pure European cities.

    Since both have embraced cuckservatism as their core ideology, they will both become like Paris and London within 50 years (probably even a shorter timespan because of mass third world immigration and enoforced open EU borders).

    Read More
    • LOL: AP
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    I actually half-agree with this, with the important caveat that Poland/Ukraine have a massive head start.

    Also with Europe's lowest wages (on par with Kyrgyzstan), Ukraine is not going to be attracting anyone for at least two decades.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. @Bigly
    @Anatoly Karlin

    In fairness, Russia’s “open borders”-in-all-but-name policy wrt Central Asia means that Gastarbeiters rotate there and back, as opposed to settling and having children in Russia. Then again, as I understand it, this was similar to Germany in the 1960s.
     
    At least you're honest to admit this. Many russo-skeptic nationalists point out to pictures of endless columns of Muslims dutifully praying in Moscow as proof that Russia is just as bad as Western Europen and the Anglosphere.

    In reality, the Muslims always leave, or "rotate" — i.e. they leave and after a period — presumably after the money's running out or there's no job prospect — they come back again. They don't bring their relatives with them, they don't put down roots, and they generally live in cramped buildings.

    This is, incidentally, what Israel and other developed/developing economies (outside of America and Europe) where ethnicity matters do.

    Karlin loves statistics, but what about graphic proof? What do pupils look like in public schools of major Russian cities vs their counterparts in the West? After all, what better metric do we need than the racial composition of the next generation?

    Anyone who's in the mood, please, google [insert city] pupils and post the results here.

    London:
    https://i.imgur.com/epbrnCc.jpg
    https://i.imgur.com/Lf3M02V.jpg

    Moscow:
    https://i.imgur.com/51I7Faq.jpg
    https://i.imgur.com/kl6HV2E.jpg
    https://i.imgur.com/AOMxmX5.jpg
    https://i.imgur.com/7qYdpMG.jpg
    https://i.imgur.com/1nVrImn.jpg

    Where are the ethnics at?
    https://i.imgur.com/vdLlr23.jpg

    Karlin loves statistics, but what about graphic proof? What do pupils look like in public schools of major Russian cities vs their counterparts in the West? After all, what better metric do we need than the racial composition of the next generation?

    He addressed this in a post last year. You will find it interesting, I’m sure.

    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/russia-more-russian/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bigly
    Interesting:

    https://www.unzcloud.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/avdeev-map-russia-young-minorities.png

    The 94% figure matches what I have seen from researching the composition of state-funded schools in Moscow, even if some pictures returned by the query show Russians from other regions.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. @Daniil Adamov
    "Interesting" is very subjective. What do you mean by a "lack of interesting culture"? As for the GPW, the official propaganda around it is often badly overdone but there is just no escaping the fact that it is the foundational myth of modern Russia, and it IS a very potent and profound one. Moreover, as regards international soft power, it is a fact that most people who like Russia abroad like it in no small part because of their idea of the Eastern Front, cooperation against the Actual Nazis, etc.

    As for the GPW, the official propaganda around it is often badly overdone but there is just no escaping the fact that it is the foundational myth of modern Russia, and it IS a very potent and profound one.

    Potent and profound to Russians – to Belorussians – not so much to Ukrainians – not at all to pretty much anyone else.

    Imagine a neutral observer.

    Which of these cultures is more attractive: The one dreaming of flying to the stars (the Musk cult), or the one living in the past (the GPW cult)?

    … like it in no small part because of their idea of the Eastern Front, cooperation against the Actual Nazis, etc.

    Here is how most of the world outside Russia views the Eastern Front:

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. @neutral

    Warsaw and Kiev are the largest pure European cities.
     
    Since both have embraced cuckservatism as their core ideology, they will both become like Paris and London within 50 years (probably even a shorter timespan because of mass third world immigration and enoforced open EU borders).

    I actually half-agree with this, with the important caveat that Poland/Ukraine have a massive head start.

    Also with Europe’s lowest wages (on par with Kyrgyzstan), Ukraine is not going to be attracting anyone for at least two decades.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. @anonymous coward
    Are you really a neural network running on keywords?

    Nothing I said has anything to do with anthropology or Dugin or Saker.

    Russians are a people that believe that law and power are sacred. Denying it is pointless, that's just how things are.

    Sacred things can't be gained in public debates and mudslinging; thus, if a politician is engaged in debates and campaigning and other shady tactics, this only proves that he doesn't have real power or law on his side.

    Putin knows this, Russians (even preschool children Russians) know this, only Internet trolls are somehow unaware of the basic facts of life...

    Russia is not an ‘Asian country’. Most Russians are eastern slavs, and most of these slavs live on the European side of the Urals.

    The ‘mandate of heaven’ is a Chinese affair. Russians tend to be more authoritarian and more communal (leading to greater individual deference to centralized power) than some north-western Europeans; partly out of ethno-cultural mores, and partly out of the historical fact the Rus only survived in the vast expanses in the north of the world land island because of a a leviathan state capable of mobilizing the core to defend and periphery. However, despite these tendencies, they in no way resemble the borg mentality of the Chinese or other East Asians.

    Your entire frame is off.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous coward

    Russia is not an ‘Asian country’.
     
    I never said it was, you illiterate neanderthal.

    The ‘mandate of heaven’ is a Chinese affair.
     
    The word, yes. The concept, no. The concept is cross-cultural. Really only the Anglo-Saxons lack it.

    the borg mentality of the Chinese or other East Asians.
     
    The Chinese don't have a "borg mentality". They are corrupt atomized individualists, which is why they never could into empire and war.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. @for-the-record
    you fifth-rate Jewish neocon turd

    This sophisticated language does not really aid your cause very much. In fact, looking back through your arguments on this thread (why I wasted the time is beyond me), it seems that your cause (or at least your method) is simply to issue gratuitous insults.

    If all Jews were ‘Zio-Nazis’ and contented themselves with living in their tiny little country and abusing the Palestinians instead of promoting their degeneracy and anti-nationalism all around the world, I would be much more favourably disposed to them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. @Beckow
    Some countries are lucky. Habsburgs used to sing about 'Felix Austria', the combination of geography, people and resources that was optimal in 18th and 19th centuries. It was hard to mess it up and it took a few hundred years of bad leaders and some extraordinary stupid decisions before Habsburg Austria bit the dust.

    There have been other countries in similar sweet spots in the past. Today Russia is the best candidate for the lucky country: they have the resources, geography, small educated population, and the nukes. It is hard to mess it up and Russia's natural trajectory is up. Putin helped, but any Russian leader who is patient, sober and sane, and more or less honest, would do fine.

    Material conditions determine a lot more about our lives than we are willing to accept. Many so called leadership decisions are not much more than doing the obvious, going with the flow. Russia simply needs calm, time is on her side.

    Despite their generally intelligent and resilient people, and their fertile land and size: if the number of actual Russians is declining, then time is NOT on their side vis-a-vis China and Muslims both internal and external.

    The population of Chechnya, which is all Muslim, is quite small in the scheme of Russia, but increasing.

    By contrast, almost every other oblast / okrug in Russia has a total fertility rate WAY below replacement, usually below 1.8 and sometimes below 1.6.

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lemurmaniac
    So long as Russia doesn't adopt an insane immigration policy for Chinese, tactical nukes will keep Beijing deterred from revanchist expansionism in the Russian Far East.

    The kebab problem is another matter. The Muslim population in Russia is far more stable than the rapidly growing numbers of these Allah Akbar enthusiasts in Western Europe, but then the Muslims within Russia have actually succeeded in ethnically cleansing white European Christians from soil they had occupied for centuries. This is an affront to the entirety of Western civilization, even worse than 9/11 or Rotherham. In my mind, the Russian Muslims must be removed from European Russia, or what was European Russia, along with the rest of their co-coreligionists further west. 'White' Muslims need to be forcibly reconverted, just as their ancestors switched to Islam under duress from the Ottomans.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. @Dmitry
    It’s also more regionalized. The school composition will be quite different in different places.

    It’s not comparable to London – where entire districts are given to people of different nationalities (they have entire districts – for example, in Eastern London – where most people are African Jamaicans, and you can experience this if you even walk in these areas that you will feel out of place if your skin is not black).

    In Russia, you can’t always see – visually – people by their nationality, although you can spot the brown people working on the side of the road.

    Remember, people in non-Russian nationalities – Jews, Tatars, Chechens, etc – can be blonde (and the number that are even blonde in those nationalities is a lot higher than the stereotypes); while of course plenty of Russians are brunette and even tanned. Visually different nationalities are overlapping more, compared to in London, where the nationalities (coming from all over the regions of British imperialism) are very distinct.

    That’s where the game develops of looking at peoples’ names. Which is also in America – you only have to look at the Sailer commentators, who are also playing this game with Jews and Latinos. Personally, I find it in some bad taste.

    The problem is simply the open-border policies, which allows areas to be rapidly flooded with any kind of riff-raff that has no relation to improving the quality of population, and can be completely out of place as many of these tropical peoples seem to be in London - even more than Uzbeks in Moscow (who whether they study Pushkin or not is itself a matter for debating).

    The problem is not the other nationalities, but the quality of the people from those nationalities, and the absence of any filtration system, and absence of debate about whether any immigrants are needed at all, and if so (which is itself sometimes questionable), how many should be imported to country. The real role model in this are countries like Japan, that have not proposed open borders for their country, even if they do use some Korean guest workers, or Iranian asylum refugees.

    I find your reluctance to own up to the implications of ethnic and racial differences in ‘bad taste’.

    With a few exceptions, like the rarefied air of advanced research, you can’t just randomly plug people into a foreign environment and retain a coherent culture, even if they are big brain nibbas. IQ, education, and its link to productivity are not the only dimensions of a successful society.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. @Dmitry

    The question of increasing the population might be hard to address in democracies, but I can’t really understand why is it so hard to deal with in an authoritarian state like Russia.
     
    Because it's not an authoritarian state. And paying for other people's kids, or discriminating against people for this - is not a popular option. Unless you want to scare more of the good people to Canada, while the Muslims will stay around having bigger families.

    As an American, I’d prefer that as many of the Muslims here relocate elsewhere, yes. I’d hope not Canada, but that would be better than them staying here.

    Canada will be gone in recognizable form anyway: Chinese dominance of “British” Columbia and to a lesser extent Alberta, Muslim / Indian / Pakistani a growing presence throughout BC and almost all the rest of that once-excellent country.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. @RadicalCenter
    Despite their generally intelligent and resilient people, and their fertile land and size: if the number of actual Russians is declining, then time is NOT on their side vis-a-vis China and Muslims both internal and external.

    The population of Chechnya, which is all Muslim, is quite small in the scheme of Russia, but increasing.

    By contrast, almost every other oblast / okrug in Russia has a total fertility rate WAY below replacement, usually below 1.8 and sometimes below 1.6.

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

    So long as Russia doesn’t adopt an insane immigration policy for Chinese, tactical nukes will keep Beijing deterred from revanchist expansionism in the Russian Far East.

    The kebab problem is another matter. The Muslim population in Russia is far more stable than the rapidly growing numbers of these Allah Akbar enthusiasts in Western Europe, but then the Muslims within Russia have actually succeeded in ethnically cleansing white European Christians from soil they had occupied for centuries. This is an affront to the entirety of Western civilization, even worse than 9/11 or Rotherham. In my mind, the Russian Muslims must be removed from European Russia, or what was European Russia, along with the rest of their co-coreligionists further west. ‘White’ Muslims need to be forcibly reconverted, just as their ancestors switched to Islam under duress from the Ottomans.

    Read More
    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "...but then the Muslims within Russia have actually succeeded in ethnically cleansing white European Christians from soil they had occupied for centuries."

    There has not been "ethnic cleansing" in Russia by Muslims.

    "This is an affront to the entirety of Western civilization, even worse than 9/11 or Rotherham.

    An affront to YOU, assuredly.

    "In my mind, the Russian Muslims must be removed from European Russia, or what was European Russia, along with the rest of their co-coreligionists further west."

    So how will this process be achieved? What is your step by step plan? Are there contingencies if and when there is resistance?

    "‘White’ Muslims need to be forcibly reconverted, just as their ancestors switched to Islam under duress from the Ottomans."

    Again, do you have a course of action to reach this "noble" goal? Praytell, is it not other than humane to use coercion or physical force to compel a group of people to change their religion?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. @Greasy William
    The problem with democracy is that it isn't very democratic in practice.

    I have thought a lot about this topic and here is my proposal for how to bring real democracy to the US:

    1. Scrap the Presidency and the Senate.
    2. Eliminate the ability of the Supreme Court and the judiciary to nullify laws. The courts should remain as independent as possible but their purview should be strictly limited to interpreting the law, not making it. Mandatory retirement for all judges at age 65.
    3. Increase the House numbers by a factor of 100, so from 435 to 43,500. The Speaker of the House would be Prime Minister and his cronies would have the other ministries.
    4. Elections every 4 years, or when a budget can't be passed, or when there is a successful vote of no confidence or when parliament itself votes to dissolve.

    Greasy's Plan for Freedom addresses all of the major political problems of modern democracies:

    1. Money and powerful lobbies will still exist, but their influence will be vastly reduced as every rep will be representing much fewer people and not need nearly as much cash to compete.
    2. Gets rid of the problems with a politicized and occasionally senile judiciary.
    3. Ends the problem of "separation of powers" and midterms which makes needed reforms difficult or even impossible.
    4. Returns the government to the people. Many more people would personally know their rep and running for office would become much more accessible to the common people. This would in turn keep reps tied to their community and reduce the phenomena of politicians "going Washington" after they are elected. Also, the influence of grassroots lobbying organizations like the NRA or anti immigration groups would be greatly strengthened while, at the same time, the influence of top-down, more pernicious lobbies would be lessened.

    If you disagree with my plan, you are wrong.

    Well, 43,500 members of the House of Reps seems unworkable.

    But an increase from 435 to 1,000 seems in order, given the ridiculously large number of people each Congressman is supposed to try to “represent.”

    When the USA has population 350 million, then, each Congressman would represent about 350,000 people instead of 700,000 or more under current system.

    We’d probably get more ideologically extreme congressmen. We’d also probably get more explicit advocacy for the interests of a racial / cultural group that dominates the smaller congressional districts, since they wouldn’t need to appeal to voters of other races even a little bit. (Then again, this is well underway already in “our” cities, with black Congressmen not even pretending to represent the few non-black voters in their districts, and something similar for Mexican congressmen in many California and Texas districts especially.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    But an increase from 435 to 1,000 seems in order, given the ridiculously large number of people each Congressman is supposed to try to “represent.”
     
    With such a large increase in the number of pigs wanting to get their snouts in the trough you're going to need a much bigger trough. A thousand corrupt Congressmen certainly sounds like an improvement on 435 corrupt Congressmen.

    A better idea might be to eliminate congressional elections and just pick 435 names at random. They couldn't do a worse job than the current lot.

    Anyone who actively seeks political power is by definition unfit to wield it. That's why democracy doesn't work. So give political power to those who don't seek it. The ideal system might well be a king with a purely advisory parliament/congress chosen at random.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. @Dmitry
    It will be interesting to see if Putin can, after re-election, raise retirement age now.

    I’ve read recently that Russia has made measurable progress reducing premature deaths from alcoholism. If this is true, are we starting to see an increase in the average lifespan of Russians, especially the men?

    If a somewhat higher percentage of Russians are able to keep working instead of dying or retiring due to alcoholism and its complications, that would seem to make a higher retirement age more feasible.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    It's been occurring since the mid-2000s.

    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/russian-demographics-in-2018/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. @RadicalCenter
    I've read recently that Russia has made measurable progress reducing premature deaths from alcoholism. If this is true, are we starting to see an increase in the average lifespan of Russians, especially the men?

    If a somewhat higher percentage of Russians are able to keep working instead of dying or retiring due to alcoholism and its complications, that would seem to make a higher retirement age more feasible.

    It’s been occurring since the mid-2000s.

    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/russian-demographics-in-2018/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. @AP
    Here are high school graduates in Moscow:

    http://weirdrussia.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Graduates2016-2.jpg

    3 of the 12 look Caucasian (25%).

    Elementary school in Moscow:

    http://sch345.mskobr.ru/images/cms/data/gallery/1_sentyabrya_2017/sjp8tj7f8_c.jpg

    6 Central Asians (probably), 2 Caucasians out of 22 kids, also around 25%.

    My brother-in-law sold and moved out of his flat near Nakhimovsky Prospect metro station because the area had gone Caucasian, and his son in grade school was even picking up an accent.

    Moscow is certainly no London, not even close, but don't idealize it. Warsaw and Kiev are the largest pure European cities.

    Sorry but you went to great length to cherry-pick those pictures. Just out of curiosity, what’s your country of birth?

    I searched using several terms, in English and Russian, and from the dozens of pictures I have seen that had several pupils in them, and from different sources to make sure they are not all of the same school, none, absolutely none had 25% ethnic minorities in them. Also in the 1st picture you posted I can see 1 non-white, not 3.

    More search examples, using Russian terms, all from Moscow:

    Picture 1 – 70+ students, 2 to 3 non-whites.

    Picture 2 – over a dozen pupils, all white

    Picture 3 – in this one, the dark girl stands out (Russian Caucasus? Georgia? Armenia?)

    Picture 4 – all white

    Picture 5 – out of 13, perhaps 1 has non-white (Uralid?) admixture, & this is speculative

    Picture 6 – 12+, all white

    Picture 7 – 20+, the boy in the front row looks suspicious, rest are as white as they come

    Eastern Europe is the future. But Eastern Europe without Russia is a footnote because they’ll eventually be rolled over by poz and foreign-sponsored liberast compradors. If the Russians were really smart, imagine what a military defection to Russia from the US or the UK could do if the soldier denounced the dispossession of his people and hostility by the media, academia and government, ‘worse than the Jews endured’… and if the soldier or whoever defects is not from the US, political oppression can be included in the denunciation, and Russia offered to “look into claims that [x] country is engaged in demographic dispossession against the majority population… if laws had been adopted that will deliberately result in the long-term demise of the European ethnos, which is an act of hostility and genocidal in intent” and offered asylum to the victims, so that in their new country, “the academia won’t offer anti-white courses whose sole purpose is to cast their existence as inherently hateful and opposition to their own demise as deeply immoral, so that the media will not call them haters and supremacists merely for opposing laws and policies that will bring about their demise, so that the political class will not adopt hostile laws aimed at dispossessing and condemning them”. Russia can do this because the population will not protest (in the West, there would be total mayhem if a government were to take this turn). All Putin needs is political will.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Eastern Europe is the future. But Eastern Europe without Russia is a footnote because they’ll eventually be rolled over by poz and foreign-sponsored liberast compradors.
     
    Obviously true, but how are you going to convince the eastern Europeans of this unpalatable fact?
    , @Dmitry

    Sorry but you went to great length to cherry-pick those pictures. Just out of curiosity, what’s your country of birth?

    I searched using several terms, in English and Russian, and from the dozens of pictures I have seen that had several pupils in them, and from different sources to make sure they are not all of the same school, none, absolutely none had 25% ethnic minorities in them. Also in the 1st picture you posted I can see 1 non-white, not 3.

    More search examples, using Russian terms, all from Moscow:

    Picture 1 – 70+ students, 2 to 3 non-whites.

    Picture 2 – over a dozen pupils, all white

    Picture 3 – in this one, the dark girl stands out (Russian Caucasus? Georgia? Armenia?)

    Picture 4 – all white

    Picture 5 – out of 13, perhaps 1 has non-white (Uralid?) admixture, & this is speculative

    Picture 6 – 12+, all white

    Picture 7 – 20+, the boy in the front row looks suspicious, rest are as white as they come
     
    Because many of native different nationality in the Russian Federation are (contrary to stereotypes) not very visually distinguishable from external view. It's all slightly over-lapping nationalities. So photograph is not the best way to determine whether a school has people with different nationalities (or descent of different nationalities) in it.

    Moreover, distribution of the nationalities varies a lot by region - where in many regions, the native population is 95% (self-identifying) Russian, and in other areas, the majority are non-Russian.

    Across the whole country you have something like self-identifying 80% Russian, and 20% non-Russian nationalities.

    It is multi-national country - not like Poland or Japan .

    Immigration inflow of Caucasian and Central Asian countries - as well as inflow from majority non-Russian republics - is indeed an issue that needs to be fixed. Even work permits correlates strongly with adoption of citizenship.

    But whole situation is not something that is 'out of control' or that we need to obsess on (at least yet).

    As I mention, Uzbeks with Russian citizenship rate increases 100% between censuses last two - on paper it sounds a lot. But you are talking some 0.002% of Russian citizens, who are Uzbeks.

    Moreover, against claims of Sobchak and Navalny, many of them claim to be very familiar with Puskin - extent to which this metric is relevant or not to immigration debate, is another issue though.

    Eastern Europe is the future. But Eastern Europe without Russia is a footnote because they’ll eventually be rolled over by poz and foreign-sponsored liberast compradors. If the Russians were really smart, imagine what a military defection to Russia from the US or the UK could do if the soldier denounced the dispossession of his people and hostility by the media, academia and government, ‘worse than the Jews endured’… and if the soldier or whoever defects is not from the US, political oppression can be included in the denunciation, and Russia offered to “look into claims that [x] country is engaged in demographic dispossession against the majority population… if laws had been adopted that will deliberately result in the long-term demise of the European ethnos, which is an act of hostility and genocidal in intent” and offered asylum to the victims, so that in their new country, “the academia won’t offer anti-white courses whose sole purpose is to cast their existence as inherently hateful and opposition to their own demise as deeply immoral, so that the media will not call them haters and supremacists merely for opposing laws and policies that will bring about their demise, so that the political class will not adopt hostile laws aimed at dispossessing and condemning them”. Russia can do this because the population will not protest (in the West, there would be total mayhem if a government were to take this turn). All Putin needs is political will.
     
    Russian position is a more fair (or fairly brutal) situation compared to the West, in that it hits both sides.

    Racism against any nationality is illegal, if it is mass published (which definition can included being posted on the internet).

    So you can easily be spending years in jail if you say something (mass published) inciting hatred against non-Russians in Russia. But equally, if you say something inciting hatred against Russians in Russia, you can easily go to jail. Sentences are same in either case.

    There will therefore never be a situation where publications with racism against Russian is tolerated any more than against non-Russian is tolerated. This contrasts with situation in the West, where there can be some cases where you go to jail if you publish racism against Africans, but not if you publish racism against Europeans.
    , @AP

    Sorry but you went to great length to cherry-pick those pictures. Just out of curiosity, what’s your country of birth?
     
    No, I did not. First one was the first image (upper left) that appeared when I googled in English. Second one was on the first page that appeared in Moscow secondary schools when I googled in Russian (even though it's not a secondary school).

    Also in the 1st picture you posted I can see 1 non-white, not 3.
     
    Perhaps you aren't familiar with what Caucasians look like? There were 2 non-Slavic Caucasian girls in that picture.

    Picture 1 – 70+ students, 2 to 3 non-whites.
     
    Special school for gifted kids, future doctors. Not representative of normal schools.

    Picture 2 – over a dozen pupils, all white
     
    St. Petersburg, not Moscow. And one may be Caucasian.

    Picture 3 – in this one, the dark girl stands out (Russian Caucasus? Georgia? Armenia?)
     
    So 1 in 3 non-Slavic.

    Picture 4 – all white
     
    Tourists from Kaliningrad, not Moscow kids.

    Picture 5 – out of 13, perhaps 1 has non-white (Uralid?) admixture, & this is speculative
     
    Special singing school for the stage. Not representative.

    Don't feel like researching the rest.

    Unlike you, I made sure to use Moscow kids.

    In the photos with regular Moscow kids, about 25% were non-Slavic.

    Here's another from the first page of google:

    https://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=2963741

    Moscow school kids, one Asian, on Caucasian, one uncertain, 3 Slavic.

    https://admspvoskresenskoe.ru/skola-no2070-vosla-v-rejting-lucsih-gorodskih-skol/

    Of 9 kids, 2 probably not Slavic, one questionable.

    Eastern Europe is the future. But Eastern Europe without Russia is a footnote because they’ll eventually be rolled over by poz and foreign-sponsored liberast compradors.
     
    Russia is 20% non-Slavic and growing (just not as quickly as the West) and in Customs Union with Central Asia. The West is, well, you know. Between the two is a 98% European space of 150 million people and large territory. Better to keep this region together, and apart from the other two, rather than experiment.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. @Dmitry

    Is that really a weakness? Why? It would seem to be an indication that Russia has a government that enjoys very broad support – surely that’s a good and healthy thing?

     

    Everyone I know is very apathetic - not sure broad support is the right way to describe things. Most people are just not interested in politics - neither support, nor opposition (and especially considering opposition is worse than the present government).

    Governments are not different to companies, in the sense that the market benefits from competition - not monopolies -, that will pressure them to behave and serve the citizens.

    No, there isn’t. In Australia for example the major parties are absolutely interchangeable. Two-party systems are an illusion. Worse than that, they’re a deception. Australia’s political system is much less healthy than Russia’s.

     

    Well I confess I have not been to Australia. But, from what I can see, it seems to be a utopia to me - I find it hard to believe their political level is not very strong, or at least very competent, particularly on issues as, for example, their strict immigration system (i.e. merit based, rather than open borders) and their booming economy. That's not to say, I will surely not now be corrected by a sceptical Australian - if we have any here.

    Governments are not different to companies, in the sense that the market benefits from competition – not monopolies -, that will pressure them to behave and serve the citizens.

    I’ve yet to see any evidence that political competition leads to better governments. Look at Britain, arguably the worst-governed of all western societies despite fierce “competition” between Labour and the Tories. And Britain has been badly governed for at least a century.

    Democracy is largely an illusion. What you end up with is the Tweedledee Party and the Tweedledum Party.

    Politics in a liberal democracy works like the free market. In other words, it doesn’t work. It’s a sham. Competition is in practice fake competition. You get the political equivalent of cartels.

    The election result in Russia demonstrates that Putin at least governs with the broad consent of the people. That makes him a far more legitimate leader than Merkel, May or Trump.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. @Dmitry
    The Steve Sailer commentators have an American president now. But in the past, even when they didn't have a presidential candidate supporting their agenda, they had many important members the Republican party.

    If they lived in Russia - they would have Navalny, with some blog posts, which are carefully written to be very moderate on the topic, and only hint at nationalist views. (And this is a guy who is too corrupt to ever qualify for a presidential race, and too unpopular to ever get more than a small faction of the vote).

    15 years ago, Zhirinovsky used to demagogue a lot on this topic, but now his agenda changed and he doesn't really care about it. And Zhirinovsky seems one of the only people allowed to get away with this kind of speech.

    Anti-immigration activists like Aleksandr Belov, which 15 years ago were quite influential - are subsequently prosecuted and put into jail for long sentences, along with their organizations.

    I really am not on the 'same page' as people obsessed with this topic, and have exactly zero sympathy with people like Belov that are Nazis in the closet. But it's interesting to imagine the Sailer commentators in this situation - to see where there is more outlet for discontented groups in the American system.

    The American system itself is, for anyone except the most naive, far from the role-model democracy, with all its own unchanging elites, censorship and electoral fraud (millions of illegal immigrants vote in their election, as it is assumed by political interests that they will vote for their favoured party - the Democrats). But the system is - to put it uncharitably - at least cleverly designed, in the way it allows slow correction of unpopular policies to develop, so long as they do not fundamentally undermine interests of the ruling American elites.

    But the system is – to put it uncharitably – at least cleverly designed, in the way it allows slow correction of unpopular policies to develop, so long as they do not fundamentally undermine interests of the ruling American elites.

    The system is cleverly designed to foster the illusion that unpopular policies can be gradually corrected. In practice the people get what the elites think they should have, and the people had better learn to like it.

    Liberal democracy exists in order to disguise a total lack of political freedom and a total lack of political choice. You have a choice of which laundry powder to buy, but they’re both identical. You have a choice of which party to vote for, but they’re both identical.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. @Greasy William
    The problem with democracy is that it isn't very democratic in practice.

    I have thought a lot about this topic and here is my proposal for how to bring real democracy to the US:

    1. Scrap the Presidency and the Senate.
    2. Eliminate the ability of the Supreme Court and the judiciary to nullify laws. The courts should remain as independent as possible but their purview should be strictly limited to interpreting the law, not making it. Mandatory retirement for all judges at age 65.
    3. Increase the House numbers by a factor of 100, so from 435 to 43,500. The Speaker of the House would be Prime Minister and his cronies would have the other ministries.
    4. Elections every 4 years, or when a budget can't be passed, or when there is a successful vote of no confidence or when parliament itself votes to dissolve.

    Greasy's Plan for Freedom addresses all of the major political problems of modern democracies:

    1. Money and powerful lobbies will still exist, but their influence will be vastly reduced as every rep will be representing much fewer people and not need nearly as much cash to compete.
    2. Gets rid of the problems with a politicized and occasionally senile judiciary.
    3. Ends the problem of "separation of powers" and midterms which makes needed reforms difficult or even impossible.
    4. Returns the government to the people. Many more people would personally know their rep and running for office would become much more accessible to the common people. This would in turn keep reps tied to their community and reduce the phenomena of politicians "going Washington" after they are elected. Also, the influence of grassroots lobbying organizations like the NRA or anti immigration groups would be greatly strengthened while, at the same time, the influence of top-down, more pernicious lobbies would be lessened.

    If you disagree with my plan, you are wrong.

    The problem with democracy is that it isn’t very democratic in practice.

    Agreed. And thinking you can reform democracy is mere foolishness. Democracy is like prostitution – it corrupts both the buyer and the seller. It is inherently corrupt. It is a system for choosing the most effective liar and for choosing the party that is most successful at corruption.

    The only answer is to scrap the system entirely and return to monarchy. Not the ridiculous constitutional monarchy practised in absurd countries like Britain but actual monarchy. You know, like the Tsars.

    If you disagree with my plan, you are wrong.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greasy William
    but then what prevents having a monarchy like Bahrain where the government works explicitly against the people?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. @dfordoom

    The problem with democracy is that it isn’t very democratic in practice.
     
    Agreed. And thinking you can reform democracy is mere foolishness. Democracy is like prostitution - it corrupts both the buyer and the seller. It is inherently corrupt. It is a system for choosing the most effective liar and for choosing the party that is most successful at corruption.

    The only answer is to scrap the system entirely and return to monarchy. Not the ridiculous constitutional monarchy practised in absurd countries like Britain but actual monarchy. You know, like the Tsars.

    If you disagree with my plan, you are wrong.

    but then what prevents having a monarchy like Bahrain where the government works explicitly against the people?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. @RadicalCenter
    Well, 43,500 members of the House of Reps seems unworkable.

    But an increase from 435 to 1,000 seems in order, given the ridiculously large number of people each Congressman is supposed to try to "represent."

    When the USA has population 350 million, then, each Congressman would represent about 350,000 people instead of 700,000 or more under current system.

    We'd probably get more ideologically extreme congressmen. We'd also probably get more explicit advocacy for the interests of a racial / cultural group that dominates the smaller congressional districts, since they wouldn't need to appeal to voters of other races even a little bit. (Then again, this is well underway already in "our" cities, with black Congressmen not even pretending to represent the few non-black voters in their districts, and something similar for Mexican congressmen in many California and Texas districts especially.)

    But an increase from 435 to 1,000 seems in order, given the ridiculously large number of people each Congressman is supposed to try to “represent.”

    With such a large increase in the number of pigs wanting to get their snouts in the trough you’re going to need a much bigger trough. A thousand corrupt Congressmen certainly sounds like an improvement on 435 corrupt Congressmen.

    A better idea might be to eliminate congressional elections and just pick 435 names at random. They couldn’t do a worse job than the current lot.

    Anyone who actively seeks political power is by definition unfit to wield it. That’s why democracy doesn’t work. So give political power to those who don’t seek it. The ideal system might well be a king with a purely advisory parliament/congress chosen at random.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. @Bigly
    Sorry but you went to great length to cherry-pick those pictures. Just out of curiosity, what's your country of birth?

    I searched using several terms, in English and Russian, and from the dozens of pictures I have seen that had several pupils in them, and from different sources to make sure they are not all of the same school, none, absolutely none had 25% ethnic minorities in them. Also in the 1st picture you posted I can see 1 non-white, not 3.

    More search examples, using Russian terms, all from Moscow:

    Picture 1 - 70+ students, 2 to 3 non-whites.

    Picture 2 - over a dozen pupils, all white

    Picture 3 - in this one, the dark girl stands out (Russian Caucasus? Georgia? Armenia?)

    Picture 4 - all white

    Picture 5 - out of 13, perhaps 1 has non-white (Uralid?) admixture, & this is speculative

    Picture 6 - 12+, all white

    Picture 7 - 20+, the boy in the front row looks suspicious, rest are as white as they come

    Eastern Europe is the future. But Eastern Europe without Russia is a footnote because they'll eventually be rolled over by poz and foreign-sponsored liberast compradors. If the Russians were really smart, imagine what a military defection to Russia from the US or the UK could do if the soldier denounced the dispossession of his people and hostility by the media, academia and government, 'worse than the Jews endured'... and if the soldier or whoever defects is not from the US, political oppression can be included in the denunciation, and Russia offered to "look into claims that [x] country is engaged in demographic dispossession against the majority population... if laws had been adopted that will deliberately result in the long-term demise of the European ethnos, which is an act of hostility and genocidal in intent" and offered asylum to the victims, so that in their new country, "the academia won't offer anti-white courses whose sole purpose is to cast their existence as inherently hateful and opposition to their own demise as deeply immoral, so that the media will not call them haters and supremacists merely for opposing laws and policies that will bring about their demise, so that the political class will not adopt hostile laws aimed at dispossessing and condemning them". Russia can do this because the population will not protest (in the West, there would be total mayhem if a government were to take this turn). All Putin needs is political will.

    Eastern Europe is the future. But Eastern Europe without Russia is a footnote because they’ll eventually be rolled over by poz and foreign-sponsored liberast compradors.

    Obviously true, but how are you going to convince the eastern Europeans of this unpalatable fact?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. @Bigly
    Sorry but you went to great length to cherry-pick those pictures. Just out of curiosity, what's your country of birth?

    I searched using several terms, in English and Russian, and from the dozens of pictures I have seen that had several pupils in them, and from different sources to make sure they are not all of the same school, none, absolutely none had 25% ethnic minorities in them. Also in the 1st picture you posted I can see 1 non-white, not 3.

    More search examples, using Russian terms, all from Moscow:

    Picture 1 - 70+ students, 2 to 3 non-whites.

    Picture 2 - over a dozen pupils, all white

    Picture 3 - in this one, the dark girl stands out (Russian Caucasus? Georgia? Armenia?)

    Picture 4 - all white

    Picture 5 - out of 13, perhaps 1 has non-white (Uralid?) admixture, & this is speculative

    Picture 6 - 12+, all white

    Picture 7 - 20+, the boy in the front row looks suspicious, rest are as white as they come

    Eastern Europe is the future. But Eastern Europe without Russia is a footnote because they'll eventually be rolled over by poz and foreign-sponsored liberast compradors. If the Russians were really smart, imagine what a military defection to Russia from the US or the UK could do if the soldier denounced the dispossession of his people and hostility by the media, academia and government, 'worse than the Jews endured'... and if the soldier or whoever defects is not from the US, political oppression can be included in the denunciation, and Russia offered to "look into claims that [x] country is engaged in demographic dispossession against the majority population... if laws had been adopted that will deliberately result in the long-term demise of the European ethnos, which is an act of hostility and genocidal in intent" and offered asylum to the victims, so that in their new country, "the academia won't offer anti-white courses whose sole purpose is to cast their existence as inherently hateful and opposition to their own demise as deeply immoral, so that the media will not call them haters and supremacists merely for opposing laws and policies that will bring about their demise, so that the political class will not adopt hostile laws aimed at dispossessing and condemning them". Russia can do this because the population will not protest (in the West, there would be total mayhem if a government were to take this turn). All Putin needs is political will.

    Sorry but you went to great length to cherry-pick those pictures. Just out of curiosity, what’s your country of birth?

    I searched using several terms, in English and Russian, and from the dozens of pictures I have seen that had several pupils in them, and from different sources to make sure they are not all of the same school, none, absolutely none had 25% ethnic minorities in them. Also in the 1st picture you posted I can see 1 non-white, not 3.

    More search examples, using Russian terms, all from Moscow:

    Picture 1 – 70+ students, 2 to 3 non-whites.

    Picture 2 – over a dozen pupils, all white

    Picture 3 – in this one, the dark girl stands out (Russian Caucasus? Georgia? Armenia?)

    Picture 4 – all white

    Picture 5 – out of 13, perhaps 1 has non-white (Uralid?) admixture, & this is speculative

    Picture 6 – 12+, all white

    Picture 7 – 20+, the boy in the front row looks suspicious, rest are as white as they come

    Because many of native different nationality in the Russian Federation are (contrary to stereotypes) not very visually distinguishable from external view. It’s all slightly over-lapping nationalities. So photograph is not the best way to determine whether a school has people with different nationalities (or descent of different nationalities) in it.

    Moreover, distribution of the nationalities varies a lot by region – where in many regions, the native population is 95% (self-identifying) Russian, and in other areas, the majority are non-Russian.

    Across the whole country you have something like self-identifying 80% Russian, and 20% non-Russian nationalities.

    It is multi-national country – not like Poland or Japan .

    Immigration inflow of Caucasian and Central Asian countries – as well as inflow from majority non-Russian republics – is indeed an issue that needs to be fixed. Even work permits correlates strongly with adoption of citizenship.

    But whole situation is not something that is ‘out of control’ or that we need to obsess on (at least yet).

    As I mention, Uzbeks with Russian citizenship rate increases 100% between censuses last two – on paper it sounds a lot. But you are talking some 0.002% of Russian citizens, who are Uzbeks.

    Moreover, against claims of Sobchak and Navalny, many of them claim to be very familiar with Puskin – extent to which this metric is relevant or not to immigration debate, is another issue though.

    Eastern Europe is the future. But Eastern Europe without Russia is a footnote because they’ll eventually be rolled over by poz and foreign-sponsored liberast compradors. If the Russians were really smart, imagine what a military defection to Russia from the US or the UK could do if the soldier denounced the dispossession of his people and hostility by the media, academia and government, ‘worse than the Jews endured’… and if the soldier or whoever defects is not from the US, political oppression can be included in the denunciation, and Russia offered to “look into claims that [x] country is engaged in demographic dispossession against the majority population… if laws had been adopted that will deliberately result in the long-term demise of the European ethnos, which is an act of hostility and genocidal in intent” and offered asylum to the victims, so that in their new country, “the academia won’t offer anti-white courses whose sole purpose is to cast their existence as inherently hateful and opposition to their own demise as deeply immoral, so that the media will not call them haters and supremacists merely for opposing laws and policies that will bring about their demise, so that the political class will not adopt hostile laws aimed at dispossessing and condemning them”. Russia can do this because the population will not protest (in the West, there would be total mayhem if a government were to take this turn). All Putin needs is political will.

    Russian position is a more fair (or fairly brutal) situation compared to the West, in that it hits both sides.

    Racism against any nationality is illegal, if it is mass published (which definition can included being posted on the internet).

    So you can easily be spending years in jail if you say something (mass published) inciting hatred against non-Russians in Russia. But equally, if you say something inciting hatred against Russians in Russia, you can easily go to jail. Sentences are same in either case.

    There will therefore never be a situation where publications with racism against Russian is tolerated any more than against non-Russian is tolerated. This contrasts with situation in the West, where there can be some cases where you go to jail if you publish racism against Africans, but not if you publish racism against Europeans.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    As I mention, Uzbeks with Russian citizenship rate increases 100% between censuses last two – on paper it sounds a lot. But you are talking some 0.002% of Russian citizens, who are Uzbeks.

     

    This should have been written 0.2% (not sure where the extra 00s came in).

    Although - one of those 0.2% Russians citizens who is Uzbek nationality, is also the country's richest citizen. They can hardly complain of discrimination at the top.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. @Dmitry

    Sorry but you went to great length to cherry-pick those pictures. Just out of curiosity, what’s your country of birth?

    I searched using several terms, in English and Russian, and from the dozens of pictures I have seen that had several pupils in them, and from different sources to make sure they are not all of the same school, none, absolutely none had 25% ethnic minorities in them. Also in the 1st picture you posted I can see 1 non-white, not 3.

    More search examples, using Russian terms, all from Moscow:

    Picture 1 – 70+ students, 2 to 3 non-whites.

    Picture 2 – over a dozen pupils, all white

    Picture 3 – in this one, the dark girl stands out (Russian Caucasus? Georgia? Armenia?)

    Picture 4 – all white

    Picture 5 – out of 13, perhaps 1 has non-white (Uralid?) admixture, & this is speculative

    Picture 6 – 12+, all white

    Picture 7 – 20+, the boy in the front row looks suspicious, rest are as white as they come
     
    Because many of native different nationality in the Russian Federation are (contrary to stereotypes) not very visually distinguishable from external view. It's all slightly over-lapping nationalities. So photograph is not the best way to determine whether a school has people with different nationalities (or descent of different nationalities) in it.

    Moreover, distribution of the nationalities varies a lot by region - where in many regions, the native population is 95% (self-identifying) Russian, and in other areas, the majority are non-Russian.

    Across the whole country you have something like self-identifying 80% Russian, and 20% non-Russian nationalities.

    It is multi-national country - not like Poland or Japan .

    Immigration inflow of Caucasian and Central Asian countries - as well as inflow from majority non-Russian republics - is indeed an issue that needs to be fixed. Even work permits correlates strongly with adoption of citizenship.

    But whole situation is not something that is 'out of control' or that we need to obsess on (at least yet).

    As I mention, Uzbeks with Russian citizenship rate increases 100% between censuses last two - on paper it sounds a lot. But you are talking some 0.002% of Russian citizens, who are Uzbeks.

    Moreover, against claims of Sobchak and Navalny, many of them claim to be very familiar with Puskin - extent to which this metric is relevant or not to immigration debate, is another issue though.

    Eastern Europe is the future. But Eastern Europe without Russia is a footnote because they’ll eventually be rolled over by poz and foreign-sponsored liberast compradors. If the Russians were really smart, imagine what a military defection to Russia from the US or the UK could do if the soldier denounced the dispossession of his people and hostility by the media, academia and government, ‘worse than the Jews endured’… and if the soldier or whoever defects is not from the US, political oppression can be included in the denunciation, and Russia offered to “look into claims that [x] country is engaged in demographic dispossession against the majority population… if laws had been adopted that will deliberately result in the long-term demise of the European ethnos, which is an act of hostility and genocidal in intent” and offered asylum to the victims, so that in their new country, “the academia won’t offer anti-white courses whose sole purpose is to cast their existence as inherently hateful and opposition to their own demise as deeply immoral, so that the media will not call them haters and supremacists merely for opposing laws and policies that will bring about their demise, so that the political class will not adopt hostile laws aimed at dispossessing and condemning them”. Russia can do this because the population will not protest (in the West, there would be total mayhem if a government were to take this turn). All Putin needs is political will.
     
    Russian position is a more fair (or fairly brutal) situation compared to the West, in that it hits both sides.

    Racism against any nationality is illegal, if it is mass published (which definition can included being posted on the internet).

    So you can easily be spending years in jail if you say something (mass published) inciting hatred against non-Russians in Russia. But equally, if you say something inciting hatred against Russians in Russia, you can easily go to jail. Sentences are same in either case.

    There will therefore never be a situation where publications with racism against Russian is tolerated any more than against non-Russian is tolerated. This contrasts with situation in the West, where there can be some cases where you go to jail if you publish racism against Africans, but not if you publish racism against Europeans.

    As I mention, Uzbeks with Russian citizenship rate increases 100% between censuses last two – on paper it sounds a lot. But you are talking some 0.002% of Russian citizens, who are Uzbeks.

    This should have been written 0.2% (not sure where the extra 00s came in).

    Although – one of those 0.2% Russians citizens who is Uzbek nationality, is also the country’s richest citizen. They can hardly complain of discrimination at the top.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. AP says:
    @Bigly
    Sorry but you went to great length to cherry-pick those pictures. Just out of curiosity, what's your country of birth?

    I searched using several terms, in English and Russian, and from the dozens of pictures I have seen that had several pupils in them, and from different sources to make sure they are not all of the same school, none, absolutely none had 25% ethnic minorities in them. Also in the 1st picture you posted I can see 1 non-white, not 3.

    More search examples, using Russian terms, all from Moscow:

    Picture 1 - 70+ students, 2 to 3 non-whites.

    Picture 2 - over a dozen pupils, all white

    Picture 3 - in this one, the dark girl stands out (Russian Caucasus? Georgia? Armenia?)

    Picture 4 - all white

    Picture 5 - out of 13, perhaps 1 has non-white (Uralid?) admixture, & this is speculative

    Picture 6 - 12+, all white

    Picture 7 - 20+, the boy in the front row looks suspicious, rest are as white as they come

    Eastern Europe is the future. But Eastern Europe without Russia is a footnote because they'll eventually be rolled over by poz and foreign-sponsored liberast compradors. If the Russians were really smart, imagine what a military defection to Russia from the US or the UK could do if the soldier denounced the dispossession of his people and hostility by the media, academia and government, 'worse than the Jews endured'... and if the soldier or whoever defects is not from the US, political oppression can be included in the denunciation, and Russia offered to "look into claims that [x] country is engaged in demographic dispossession against the majority population... if laws had been adopted that will deliberately result in the long-term demise of the European ethnos, which is an act of hostility and genocidal in intent" and offered asylum to the victims, so that in their new country, "the academia won't offer anti-white courses whose sole purpose is to cast their existence as inherently hateful and opposition to their own demise as deeply immoral, so that the media will not call them haters and supremacists merely for opposing laws and policies that will bring about their demise, so that the political class will not adopt hostile laws aimed at dispossessing and condemning them". Russia can do this because the population will not protest (in the West, there would be total mayhem if a government were to take this turn). All Putin needs is political will.

    Sorry but you went to great length to cherry-pick those pictures. Just out of curiosity, what’s your country of birth?

    No, I did not. First one was the first image (upper left) that appeared when I googled in English. Second one was on the first page that appeared in Moscow secondary schools when I googled in Russian (even though it’s not a secondary school).

    Also in the 1st picture you posted I can see 1 non-white, not 3.

    Perhaps you aren’t familiar with what Caucasians look like? There were 2 non-Slavic Caucasian girls in that picture.

    Picture 1 – 70+ students, 2 to 3 non-whites.

    Special school for gifted kids, future doctors. Not representative of normal schools.

    Picture 2 – over a dozen pupils, all white

    St. Petersburg, not Moscow. And one may be Caucasian.

    Picture 3 – in this one, the dark girl stands out (Russian Caucasus? Georgia? Armenia?)

    So 1 in 3 non-Slavic.

    Picture 4 – all white

    Tourists from Kaliningrad, not Moscow kids.

    Picture 5 – out of 13, perhaps 1 has non-white (Uralid?) admixture, & this is speculative

    Special singing school for the stage. Not representative.

    Don’t feel like researching the rest.

    Unlike you, I made sure to use Moscow kids.

    In the photos with regular Moscow kids, about 25% were non-Slavic.

    Here’s another from the first page of google:

    https://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=2963741

    Moscow school kids, one Asian, on Caucasian, one uncertain, 3 Slavic.

    https://admspvoskresenskoe.ru/skola-no2070-vosla-v-rejting-lucsih-gorodskih-skol/

    Of 9 kids, 2 probably not Slavic, one questionable.

    Eastern Europe is the future. But Eastern Europe without Russia is a footnote because they’ll eventually be rolled over by poz and foreign-sponsored liberast compradors.

    Russia is 20% non-Slavic and growing (just not as quickly as the West) and in Customs Union with Central Asia. The West is, well, you know. Between the two is a 98% European space of 150 million people and large territory. Better to keep this region together, and apart from the other two, rather than experiment.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    AP - Most people in all photos posted will be Russian nationality, given the place they are taken. Obviously you can see some Central Asians and Caucasians.

    But not absolutely everyone who is light, is from a Slavic nationality. Not everyone who is dark is from one of the Caucasian nationalities or Central Asian nationalities. The nationalities are little more complicated and varied than you claim.

    You're Ukrainian. You know this, as you have a lot of variety with the Ukraine (and even the Ukrainian nationality in Ukraine), which often can be quite diverse - maybe you can post about the town where are living.
    , @Jon0815

    Russia is 20% non-Slavic
     
    But 10-15% non-European/non-white.

    and in Customs Union with Central Asia
     
    No, in customs union with two of five Central Asian countries. One of those two, Kazakhstan, is about as wealthy as Russia and hence has little incentive for immigration. The other, Kyrgyzstan, has only 6 million people, many of its migrants prefer Kazakhstan over Russia, and it will likely color-revolution itself out of customs union membership before long anyway.



    The West is, well, you know. Between the two is a 98% European space of 150 million people and large territory. Better to keep this region together, and apart from the other two, rather than experiment.
     
    If Ukraine were to form an East Slavic confederation with Russia, that would still leave a 98% European space of 110 million people, while creating a more than 90% European great power.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. @Swedish Family

    Karlin loves statistics, but what about graphic proof? What do pupils look like in public schools of major Russian cities vs their counterparts in the West? After all, what better metric do we need than the racial composition of the next generation?
     
    He addressed this in a post last year. You will find it interesting, I'm sure.

    https://www.unzcloud.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/avdeev-map-russia-young-minorities.png

    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/russia-more-russian/

    Interesting:

    The 94% figure matches what I have seen from researching the composition of state-funded schools in Moscow, even if some pictures returned by the query show Russians from other regions.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    seen from researching the composition of state-funded schools in Moscow,
     
    Well no offense to the efforts. But posting random photos from different parts of the country (one of your photos was actually a school in Poland), is not so systematically "researching the composition of state-funded schools in Moscow".

    This is where Karlin could probably find real data on the nationalities (at least as self-identified) in the schools for a future post, if he has not done this before.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. @AP

    Sorry but you went to great length to cherry-pick those pictures. Just out of curiosity, what’s your country of birth?
     
    No, I did not. First one was the first image (upper left) that appeared when I googled in English. Second one was on the first page that appeared in Moscow secondary schools when I googled in Russian (even though it's not a secondary school).

    Also in the 1st picture you posted I can see 1 non-white, not 3.
     
    Perhaps you aren't familiar with what Caucasians look like? There were 2 non-Slavic Caucasian girls in that picture.

    Picture 1 – 70+ students, 2 to 3 non-whites.
     
    Special school for gifted kids, future doctors. Not representative of normal schools.

    Picture 2 – over a dozen pupils, all white
     
    St. Petersburg, not Moscow. And one may be Caucasian.

    Picture 3 – in this one, the dark girl stands out (Russian Caucasus? Georgia? Armenia?)
     
    So 1 in 3 non-Slavic.

    Picture 4 – all white
     
    Tourists from Kaliningrad, not Moscow kids.

    Picture 5 – out of 13, perhaps 1 has non-white (Uralid?) admixture, & this is speculative
     
    Special singing school for the stage. Not representative.

    Don't feel like researching the rest.

    Unlike you, I made sure to use Moscow kids.

    In the photos with regular Moscow kids, about 25% were non-Slavic.

    Here's another from the first page of google:

    https://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=2963741

    Moscow school kids, one Asian, on Caucasian, one uncertain, 3 Slavic.

    https://admspvoskresenskoe.ru/skola-no2070-vosla-v-rejting-lucsih-gorodskih-skol/

    Of 9 kids, 2 probably not Slavic, one questionable.

    Eastern Europe is the future. But Eastern Europe without Russia is a footnote because they’ll eventually be rolled over by poz and foreign-sponsored liberast compradors.
     
    Russia is 20% non-Slavic and growing (just not as quickly as the West) and in Customs Union with Central Asia. The West is, well, you know. Between the two is a 98% European space of 150 million people and large territory. Better to keep this region together, and apart from the other two, rather than experiment.

    AP – Most people in all photos posted will be Russian nationality, given the place they are taken. Obviously you can see some Central Asians and Caucasians.

    But not absolutely everyone who is light, is from a Slavic nationality. Not everyone who is dark is from one of the Caucasian nationalities or Central Asian nationalities. The nationalities are little more complicated and varied than you claim.

    You’re Ukrainian. You know this, as you have a lot of variety with the Ukraine (and even the Ukrainian nationality in Ukraine), which often can be quite diverse – maybe you can post about the town where are living.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    Correct. There are certainly light Tatars. And southern Russians, like Ukrainians, can be dark, thought they do not look like Caucasians.

    You’re Ukrainian. You know this, as you have a lot of variety with the Ukraine (and even the Ukrainian nationality in Ukraine), which often can be quite diverse
     
    Ethnic Ukrainians vary in lightness - some are are dark, others light. But the country as a whole was 99% European, before Crimea and most of its Tatars were lost. It is even more European than Poland (98.6% European).

    Here is a school in Kiev:

    http://1154298.shkola39.web.hosting-test.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/0-02-05-825eeecf32c4e410c5d868a250cdc45326049d779703cd1661ef84cee0dc7a82_full.jpg

    Lviv:

    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-uQbzy4OnReM/Vf53Fq8LzHI/AAAAAAAABG8/QTCncPaECOU/s1600/12030560_1019775388082720_2421693098873301935_o.jpg

    No central Asians, one kid in Kiev looks kinda dark but is probably just a darker Ukrainian.

    :::::::::::::::::::::

    So by providing arms to Donbas rebels Putin has decided to bleed one of the most European places on Earth.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. @Bigly
    Interesting:

    https://www.unzcloud.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/avdeev-map-russia-young-minorities.png

    The 94% figure matches what I have seen from researching the composition of state-funded schools in Moscow, even if some pictures returned by the query show Russians from other regions.

    seen from researching the composition of state-funded schools in Moscow,

    Well no offense to the efforts. But posting random photos from different parts of the country (one of your photos was actually a school in Poland), is not so systematically “researching the composition of state-funded schools in Moscow”.

    This is where Karlin could probably find real data on the nationalities (at least as self-identified) in the schools for a future post, if he has not done this before.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. Unlike you, I made sure to use Moscow kids.
    In the photos with regular Moscow kids, about 25% were non-Slavic.

    Kids where I live (St. Petersburg, Kurortny district):

    This is a typical photo: https://vk.com/muravey_library (lots of pictures of activities for kids). Moscow should not differ much from St. Petersburg.

    Russia is 20% non-Slavic and growing

    No http://www.unz.com/akarlin/russia-more-russian/

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Russia is 20% non-Slavic and growing

    No http://www.unz.com/akarlin/russia-more-russian/
     
    1. Slavs in Russia are assimilating into Russians. This doesn't increwase the % Slavic, just % Russian.

    2. Karlin's article stated that the core areas were becoming more Russian, not the Russian Federation as a whole. The Caucuses have high fertility rates and are becoming less Russian/Slavic. Neighboring Slavic areas in southern Russia are getting less Slavic (though not nearly to the extent that Texas is becoming less Anglo). Overall % of Slavs in the Russian Federation is decreasing, at a small rate, even without (so far) temporary migrants.
    , @Greasy William
    I'm not a WN or even a WN sympathizer. I don't give a shit if "white" genetics or phenotype are preserved. I also really dislike children in general.

    But damn if Nordic/Slavic children aren't just the most beautiful thing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. @Lemurmaniac
    Russia is not an 'Asian country'. Most Russians are eastern slavs, and most of these slavs live on the European side of the Urals.


    The 'mandate of heaven' is a Chinese affair. Russians tend to be more authoritarian and more communal (leading to greater individual deference to centralized power) than some north-western Europeans; partly out of ethno-cultural mores, and partly out of the historical fact the Rus only survived in the vast expanses in the north of the world land island because of a a leviathan state capable of mobilizing the core to defend and periphery. However, despite these tendencies, they in no way resemble the borg mentality of the Chinese or other East Asians.

    Your entire frame is off.

    Russia is not an ‘Asian country’.

    I never said it was, you illiterate neanderthal.

    The ‘mandate of heaven’ is a Chinese affair.

    The word, yes. The concept, no. The concept is cross-cultural. Really only the Anglo-Saxons lack it.

    the borg mentality of the Chinese or other East Asians.

    The Chinese don’t have a “borg mentality”. They are corrupt atomized individualists, which is why they never could into empire and war.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. @Beckow

    I object to some of the various natalist religions on aesthetic grounds
     
    So do I. But in the current hierarchy of issues any aesthetic considerations rank fairly low. It is about survival. We can go back to style later.

    Elite has never been able to procreate in sustainable numbers. They need the 'middle' and 'upper middle' people for constant replenishment. I am not sure what it is, but being born into an elite group has paralysing effects. Elites have traditionally been somewhat non-traditional. You need to be realistic, the numbers are dire - natalism is the best one can hope for. Put an incentive in pensions, restrict it by clever means to the native ethnic middle class, and then watch if it works. (If that fails, there are always the Amish girls, but I wouldn't start there.)

    So do I. But in the current hierarchy of issues any aesthetic considerations rank fairly low. It is about survival. We can go back to style later.

    Certainly survival takes top billing, but style is not irrelevant. In addition to creating a pleasing society we wish to live in, style is soft power.

    Elite has never been able to procreate in sustainable numbers. They need the ‘middle’ and ‘upper middle’ people for constant replenishment. I am not sure what it is, but being born into an elite group has paralysing effects. Elites have traditionally been somewhat non-traditional.

    The elite used to have the highest rate of procreation until the modern fertility transition. This transition occurred first in France. At the dawn of the 17th century, the average French noblewoman had eight children. By the close of the Ancien Regime, it was down to replacement fertility.

    The reason is at once amusing and depressing. Noblewomen avoided numerous pregnancies because they wanted to spend time in “society”. This describes todays catastrophically low fertility quite well (the “cock carousel” as it is described in the Manosphere, I believe Roissy/Heartiste created the term).

    I don’t know to which countries the modern fertility transition spread first, but the elite fertility transition began at the beginning of the 18th century in England. It took time to complete itself, as evidenced by the fact that Queen Victoria had nine children. The next two kings had six each, but George VI managed only three.

    Some comical examples of past elite fertility include Wilhelm I, Elector of Hesse-Kassel (24 known children by four women) and Augustus the Strong (14 recognized children, but contemporary sources claim over 300–he never recognized bastards sired with commoners).

    Note that while the nobility traditionally had the most children, the gentry’s genetics predominate in us today because so many noblemen died in battle.

    Capitalists also used to have very large families. Anton Fugger (heir to the likely sterile Jacob Fugger) had ten children. Cornelius Vanderbilt had thirteen children.

    Eventually, as you note, elite fertility entirely collapsed. Middle class fertility remained adequate (outside of the Depression) if not robust until the 1960s when it too collapsed. Working class fertility remains adequate if chaotic (they almost all have truly chaotic “blended families”–it’s really embarrassing).

    Lately fertility has become somewhat fashionable in America’s upper class as a renewed marker of status. The ability to afford a family of five in Manhattan is after all quite impressive.

    You need to be realistic, the numbers are dire – natalism is the best one can hope for. Put an incentive in pensions, restrict it by clever means to the native ethnic middle class, and then watch if it works. (If that fails, there are always the Amish girls, but I wouldn’t start there.)

    I’m not opposed to this pension idea, but I regard it as rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. People are hyperbolic discounters. No one at age twenty is going to rearrange his reproductive strategy over concern of future pensions. The current pattern of too-late marriage will persist, which puts an ceiling on fertility.

    It won’t be irrelevant of course. People first marrying in their 30s first will avoid deferring pregnancy for a few years as they do now. It presently takes a few years of nagging by a baby rabies possessed wife for a husband fearing his loss of bar and video game time to agree to having a child.

    Much, much more can and should be done, and we need to start thinking beyond just the matter of money.

    Read More
    • Replies: @LondonBob
    Prince William is on to his third, one more than his parents managed. I do see larger families as a trend in the elite, two being the chosen number for the middle class still.
    , @Beckow
    I agree, and elites should act as an example. Too few do these days.

    while the nobility traditionally had the most children, the gentry’s genetics predominate in us today because so many noblemen died in battle
     
    An interesting point that helps me understand some of the genealogical data I have seen. You can see gentry as the middle or upper-middle class of today.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. @Dmitry

    Is that really a weakness? Why? It would seem to be an indication that Russia has a government that enjoys very broad support – surely that’s a good and healthy thing?

     

    Everyone I know is very apathetic - not sure broad support is the right way to describe things. Most people are just not interested in politics - neither support, nor opposition (and especially considering opposition is worse than the present government).

    Governments are not different to companies, in the sense that the market benefits from competition - not monopolies -, that will pressure them to behave and serve the citizens.

    No, there isn’t. In Australia for example the major parties are absolutely interchangeable. Two-party systems are an illusion. Worse than that, they’re a deception. Australia’s political system is much less healthy than Russia’s.

     

    Well I confess I have not been to Australia. But, from what I can see, it seems to be a utopia to me - I find it hard to believe their political level is not very strong, or at least very competent, particularly on issues as, for example, their strict immigration system (i.e. merit based, rather than open borders) and their booming economy. That's not to say, I will surely not now be corrected by a sceptical Australian - if we have any here.

    Well I confess I have not been to Australia. But, from what I can see, it seems to be a utopia to me – I find it hard to believe their political level is not very strong, or at least very competent, particularly on issues as, for example, their strict immigration system (i.e. merit based, rather than open borders) and their booming economy. That’s not to say, I will surely not now be corrected by a sceptical Australian – if we have any here.

    Australia was a utopia. The Aussies traditionally called themselves, “The Lucky Country”. Compare Australia’s history to Russia’s or even America’s (we have a luckier history than you, but we still had to fight the Indians for 300 years and suffered a catastrophic civil war). Their big military-national holiday is about a lost battle in…Turkey.

    This has been dismantled over the past forty or so years, beginning with the end of the White Australia Policy in 1975. Their immigration policy is arguably an improvement over America’s, but bear in mind that “merit” includes absurd work visa categories such as horse racing croupiers and “restaurant managers” (in practice–waiters). And it’s arguably worse than ours in that the immigration rate is shockingly high–over one percent of the population every year. A fair number of these immigrants are still white and even from the United Kingdom (British-born people are one-quarter of the entire population), but most are now non-white.

    The Aussies here simply look good compared to the pathetic Eurocucks who literally invited an Afro-Mohammedan invasion on 2015, whereas Australia successfully shut down THE BOATS (which continues to outrage many of Australia’s native SJW cucks).

    The booming economy is entirely due to China as Australia is the world’s largest exporter of coal and iron ore. Meanwhile the domestic manufacturing sector has been dismantled. Holden (GM’s Australian brand), Ford, and Toyota have all closed their Australian assembly plants, closing the book on nearly a century of Australian automobile manufacturing. It’s even worse than it sounds as the Australian automotive sector had climbed the value chain–both Ford and GM had indigenous Australian engineering groups which developed innovative cars some of which were even exported (my Chevrolet SS was engineered and built in Australia, and this car was also exported to Europe and Asia).

    The China boom has been mismanaged as well. Despite skyrocketing exports the country still has a current account deficit most years, and inept land use policies along with high immigration have resulted in the world’s highest housing prices–quite an achievement in an empty continent.

    Read More
    • Agree: dfordoom, Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    Unz commentators are often spoil my dream utopias. I'm pretty sure I'd still be happy in Australia, at least from my pathetic knowledge of this country from youtube videos analyzing google streetview.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qngHkKk2S-U
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. @Seraphim
    But of course, Siberia is definitely infinitely more important. It's Russia's Lebensraum, the direction of her natural movement and development.

    But of course, Siberia is definitely infinitely more important. It’s Russia’s Lebensraum, the direction of her natural movement and development.

    Lebensraum is irrelevant when you have below replacement fertility and are a net exporter of food, energy, and minerals.

    And even if Russia had above replacement fertility, why would a growing population settle in Siberia as opposed to, say, Moscow? The limits on megacity growth are largely theoretical.

    And, as I noted previously, human capital is more important than natural capital. It’s not the 20th century anymore. And even in the 20th century this was perhaps true.

    Germany after all got all the resources it needed from the USSR from 1939-1941:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German–Soviet_Credit_Agreement_(1939)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German–Soviet_Commercial_Agreement_(1940)

    And this doesn’t include the Reich’s successful economic policies in Europe, the Balkans (I have officially decided that Balkanoids do not deserve to be called European), and Latin America.

    The H-man could’ve created his Lebensraum within the Reich itself and imported all of the food and raw materials required by exporting manufactured goods.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greasy William

    The H-man could’ve created his Lebensraum within the Reich itself and imported all of the food and raw materials required by exporting manufactured goods.
     
    No he had the right idea. Germany needed drastically more space if it was going to be the premier world power. The goal would be to have enough room to comfortably hold a stable population of 500 million. And a secure eastern border could only be had by pushing Russia behind the Urals.

    Good plan, bad execution.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. @Thorfinnsson

    So do I. But in the current hierarchy of issues any aesthetic considerations rank fairly low. It is about survival. We can go back to style later.
     

    Certainly survival takes top billing, but style is not irrelevant. In addition to creating a pleasing society we wish to live in, style is soft power.

    Elite has never been able to procreate in sustainable numbers. They need the ‘middle’ and ‘upper middle’ people for constant replenishment. I am not sure what it is, but being born into an elite group has paralysing effects. Elites have traditionally been somewhat non-traditional.
     

    The elite used to have the highest rate of procreation until the modern fertility transition. This transition occurred first in France. At the dawn of the 17th century, the average French noblewoman had eight children. By the close of the Ancien Regime, it was down to replacement fertility.

    The reason is at once amusing and depressing. Noblewomen avoided numerous pregnancies because they wanted to spend time in "society". This describes todays catastrophically low fertility quite well (the "cock carousel" as it is described in the Manosphere, I believe Roissy/Heartiste created the term).

    I don't know to which countries the modern fertility transition spread first, but the elite fertility transition began at the beginning of the 18th century in England. It took time to complete itself, as evidenced by the fact that Queen Victoria had nine children. The next two kings had six each, but George VI managed only three.

    Some comical examples of past elite fertility include Wilhelm I, Elector of Hesse-Kassel (24 known children by four women) and Augustus the Strong (14 recognized children, but contemporary sources claim over 300--he never recognized bastards sired with commoners).

    Note that while the nobility traditionally had the most children, the gentry's genetics predominate in us today because so many noblemen died in battle.

    Capitalists also used to have very large families. Anton Fugger (heir to the likely sterile Jacob Fugger) had ten children. Cornelius Vanderbilt had thirteen children.

    Eventually, as you note, elite fertility entirely collapsed. Middle class fertility remained adequate (outside of the Depression) if not robust until the 1960s when it too collapsed. Working class fertility remains adequate if chaotic (they almost all have truly chaotic "blended families"--it's really embarrassing).

    Lately fertility has become somewhat fashionable in America's upper class as a renewed marker of status. The ability to afford a family of five in Manhattan is after all quite impressive.

    You need to be realistic, the numbers are dire – natalism is the best one can hope for. Put an incentive in pensions, restrict it by clever means to the native ethnic middle class, and then watch if it works. (If that fails, there are always the Amish girls, but I wouldn’t start there.)
     

    I'm not opposed to this pension idea, but I regard it as rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. People are hyperbolic discounters. No one at age twenty is going to rearrange his reproductive strategy over concern of future pensions. The current pattern of too-late marriage will persist, which puts an ceiling on fertility.

    It won't be irrelevant of course. People first marrying in their 30s first will avoid deferring pregnancy for a few years as they do now. It presently takes a few years of nagging by a baby rabies possessed wife for a husband fearing his loss of bar and video game time to agree to having a child.

    Much, much more can and should be done, and we need to start thinking beyond just the matter of money.

    Prince William is on to his third, one more than his parents managed. I do see larger families as a trend in the elite, two being the chosen number for the middle class still.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. @Thorfinnsson


    But of course, Siberia is definitely infinitely more important. It’s Russia’s Lebensraum, the direction of her natural movement and development.
     
    Lebensraum is irrelevant when you have below replacement fertility and are a net exporter of food, energy, and minerals.

    And even if Russia had above replacement fertility, why would a growing population settle in Siberia as opposed to, say, Moscow? The limits on megacity growth are largely theoretical.

    And, as I noted previously, human capital is more important than natural capital. It's not the 20th century anymore. And even in the 20th century this was perhaps true.

    Germany after all got all the resources it needed from the USSR from 1939-1941:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German–Soviet_Credit_Agreement_(1939)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German–Soviet_Commercial_Agreement_(1940)

    And this doesn't include the Reich's successful economic policies in Europe, the Balkans (I have officially decided that Balkanoids do not deserve to be called European), and Latin America.

    The H-man could've created his Lebensraum within the Reich itself and imported all of the food and raw materials required by exporting manufactured goods.

    The H-man could’ve created his Lebensraum within the Reich itself and imported all of the food and raw materials required by exporting manufactured goods.

    No he had the right idea. Germany needed drastically more space if it was going to be the premier world power. The goal would be to have enough room to comfortably hold a stable population of 500 million. And a secure eastern border could only be had by pushing Russia behind the Urals.

    Good plan, bad execution.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    To be a truly independent world power, you need the ability to withstand any foreign embargo or naval blockade. Something which Germany learned at its own peril 1914-18. That's where Hitler got his clue.

    Another point is that it's a great thing if it's impossible or near impossible to conquer your country. By destroying Russia and creating a defensible border in the Ural, Germany would've become impossible (or near impossible) to conquer. (And yes, several hundreds of millions of people is also a requirement.)

    Nukes change these equations somewhat, but only somewhat. Even countries like Russia or China need nukes (and probably China probably will need many more than it currently has). But nukes are not enough. A Greater Germany (roughly August 1, 1939 borders) with nukes still would be vulnerable to an international embargo.

    But I agree with Thorfinsson that Hitler should've stayed on his ass in 1939, and build nukes. After that, Germany would've become a strong greater power, but not a fully independent one. So his successors would still have needed diplomatic skills. Germany simply wasn't in the position to become (especially to quickly become) a true superpower.
    , @Thorfinnsson


    No he had the right idea. Germany needed drastically more space if it was going to be the premier world power. The goal would be to have enough room to comfortably hold a stable population of 500 million. And a secure eastern border could only be had by pushing Russia behind the Urals.

    Good plan, bad execution.
     
    No reason you need to conquer Russia in order to grow your population to 500 million. You can put 500 million in Germany and simply trade for food and raw materials. The point of conquering Russia was autarky, which of course is less risky than depending on imports to sustain your population.

    Operation Barbarossa & Generalplan Ost wasn't a bad idea (from the German POV), but it was certainly a very high risk plan. Germany is lucky it didn't turn out even worse (e.g. the Morgenthau Plan).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. @Lemurmaniac
    So long as Russia doesn't adopt an insane immigration policy for Chinese, tactical nukes will keep Beijing deterred from revanchist expansionism in the Russian Far East.

    The kebab problem is another matter. The Muslim population in Russia is far more stable than the rapidly growing numbers of these Allah Akbar enthusiasts in Western Europe, but then the Muslims within Russia have actually succeeded in ethnically cleansing white European Christians from soil they had occupied for centuries. This is an affront to the entirety of Western civilization, even worse than 9/11 or Rotherham. In my mind, the Russian Muslims must be removed from European Russia, or what was European Russia, along with the rest of their co-coreligionists further west. 'White' Muslims need to be forcibly reconverted, just as their ancestors switched to Islam under duress from the Ottomans.

    “…but then the Muslims within Russia have actually succeeded in ethnically cleansing white European Christians from soil they had occupied for centuries.”

    There has not been “ethnic cleansing” in Russia by Muslims.

    “This is an affront to the entirety of Western civilization, even worse than 9/11 or Rotherham.

    An affront to YOU, assuredly.

    “In my mind, the Russian Muslims must be removed from European Russia, or what was European Russia, along with the rest of their co-coreligionists further west.”

    So how will this process be achieved? What is your step by step plan? Are there contingencies if and when there is resistance?

    “‘White’ Muslims need to be forcibly reconverted, just as their ancestors switched to Islam under duress from the Ottomans.”

    Again, do you have a course of action to reach this “noble” goal? Praytell, is it not other than humane to use coercion or physical force to compel a group of people to change their religion?

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    There has not been “ethnic cleansing” in Russia by Muslims.
     
    There has been, in Chechnya.
    , @Lemurmaniac
    I'm neither a humanist nor a liberal. If violence is necessary to defend our homelands, we will employ violence.

    The steps are pretty simple once you acquire political power.

    Resistance will be crushed. A simple way of doing it would be to ban reproduction. These Muslims would die out within a century inside Europe once that policy was applied.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. @Corvinus
    "...but then the Muslims within Russia have actually succeeded in ethnically cleansing white European Christians from soil they had occupied for centuries."

    There has not been "ethnic cleansing" in Russia by Muslims.

    "This is an affront to the entirety of Western civilization, even worse than 9/11 or Rotherham.

    An affront to YOU, assuredly.

    "In my mind, the Russian Muslims must be removed from European Russia, or what was European Russia, along with the rest of their co-coreligionists further west."

    So how will this process be achieved? What is your step by step plan? Are there contingencies if and when there is resistance?

    "‘White’ Muslims need to be forcibly reconverted, just as their ancestors switched to Islam under duress from the Ottomans."

    Again, do you have a course of action to reach this "noble" goal? Praytell, is it not other than humane to use coercion or physical force to compel a group of people to change their religion?

    There has not been “ethnic cleansing” in Russia by Muslims.

    There has been, in Chechnya.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "There has been, in Chechnya."

    Chechnya was free before brutal Russian intervention in the 1700's. It had sought to secede from the Russia in 1991, but it was denied that opportunity. That year, Chechnya declared independence. So, on one hand, Chechnya is part of Russia, but not by choice; rather, it is by Putin's strong-arm maneuvers. Imagine that! On the other hand, Chechnya has historically been it's own territory. Furthermore, the leader of Chechnya today apparently protects Islam.

    https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2015/10/chechnya-hard-line-protector-muslim-rights-151001085135746.html
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. @melanf

    Unlike you, I made sure to use Moscow kids.
    In the photos with regular Moscow kids, about 25% were non-Slavic.
     
    Kids where I live (St. Petersburg, Kurortny district): http://i12.pixs.ru/storage/4/5/4/JXqz7qDYU4_7818243_29694454.jpg

    This is a typical photo: https://vk.com/muravey_library (lots of pictures of activities for kids). Moscow should not differ much from St. Petersburg.

    Russia is 20% non-Slavic and growing
     
    No http://www.unz.com/akarlin/russia-more-russian/

    Russia is 20% non-Slavic and growing

    No http://www.unz.com/akarlin/russia-more-russian/

    1. Slavs in Russia are assimilating into Russians. This doesn’t increwase the % Slavic, just % Russian.

    2. Karlin’s article stated that the core areas were becoming more Russian, not the Russian Federation as a whole. The Caucuses have high fertility rates and are becoming less Russian/Slavic. Neighboring Slavic areas in southern Russia are getting less Slavic (though not nearly to the extent that Texas is becoming less Anglo). Overall % of Slavs in the Russian Federation is decreasing, at a small rate, even without (so far) temporary migrants.

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

    The H-man could’ve created his Lebensraum within the Reich itself and imported all of the food and raw materials required by exporting manufactured goods.
     
    No he had the right idea. Germany needed drastically more space if it was going to be the premier world power. The goal would be to have enough room to comfortably hold a stable population of 500 million. And a secure eastern border could only be had by pushing Russia behind the Urals.

    Good plan, bad execution.

    To be a truly independent world power, you need the ability to withstand any foreign embargo or naval blockade. Something which Germany learned at its own peril 1914-18. That’s where Hitler got his clue.

    Another point is that it’s a great thing if it’s impossible or near impossible to conquer your country. By destroying Russia and creating a defensible border in the Ural, Germany would’ve become impossible (or near impossible) to conquer. (And yes, several hundreds of millions of people is also a requirement.)

    Nukes change these equations somewhat, but only somewhat. Even countries like Russia or China need nukes (and probably China probably will need many more than it currently has). But nukes are not enough. A Greater Germany (roughly August 1, 1939 borders) with nukes still would be vulnerable to an international embargo.

    But I agree with Thorfinsson that Hitler should’ve stayed on his ass in 1939, and build nukes. After that, Germany would’ve become a strong greater power, but not a fully independent one. So his successors would still have needed diplomatic skills. Germany simply wasn’t in the position to become (especially to quickly become) a true superpower.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greasy William
    Big H inherited a much worse situation than is commonly appreciated.

    He said it himself explicitly, "Germany will be a world power or there will be no Germany". Well for Germany to be a world power, Poland and Russia simply have to go.

    But it could never have been done in Hitler's lifetime unless the UK and the US acquiesced to it. And they never would, even if Hitler dropped the Jew stuff.

    The amazing thing is that if Churchill and Roosevelt could have ever imagined what would happen to the West, they might have considered working something out with Hitler. Certainly none of the Allied soldiers would have fought Hitler if they saw what their own countries would become.

    , @Anatoly Karlin
    Re-1939. Benefit of hindsight. :) Really, if Hitler had only not made two, or perhaps even one, of the following three mistakes - declaring war on the US; waiting until 1943 to begin total war mobilization; treating the Slavs badly [they could have just waited to defeat the USSR before doing that] - then we would probably not be having this debate.
    , @Thorfinnsson


    To be a truly independent world power, you need the ability to withstand any foreign embargo or naval blockade. Something which Germany learned at its own peril 1914-18. That’s where Hitler got his clue.
     
    H-man's solution to this was economic autarky through the creation of a continental empire.

    But Britain showed in both wars that there was another way--control the sea. This of course is high risk as Japan discovered to its peril in the Pacific War (US submarine campaign & B-29 mining destroyed the Japanese merchant marine and with it Japanese industry).

    The USA in this time period had the best of both worlds. Continental autarky AND sea control. No need to import any raw materials (other than rubber) let alone manufactured goods, it was free to project power anywhere.


    Another point is that it’s a great thing if it’s impossible or near impossible to conquer your country. By destroying Russia and creating a defensible border in the Ural, Germany would’ve become impossible (or near impossible) to conquer. (And yes, several hundreds of millions of people is also a requirement.)

    Nukes change these equations somewhat, but only somewhat. Even countries like Russia or China need nukes (and probably China probably will need many more than it currently has). But nukes are not enough. A Greater Germany (roughly August 1, 1939 borders) with nukes still would be vulnerable to an international embargo.
     
    Strategic depth also makes it easier to fight and win a nuclear war owing to target dispersal.

    A number of modern weapons also require strategic depth simply to develop them (any hypersonic weapon or platform with range, large nuclear devices).


    But I agree with Thorfinsson that Hitler should’ve stayed on his ass in 1939, and build nukes. After that, Germany would’ve become a strong greater power, but not a fully independent one. So his successors would still have needed diplomatic skills. Germany simply wasn’t in the position to become (especially to quickly become) a true superpower.
     
    As Karlin has pointed out, the benefit of hindsight.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. @Dmitry
    AP - Most people in all photos posted will be Russian nationality, given the place they are taken. Obviously you can see some Central Asians and Caucasians.

    But not absolutely everyone who is light, is from a Slavic nationality. Not everyone who is dark is from one of the Caucasian nationalities or Central Asian nationalities. The nationalities are little more complicated and varied than you claim.

    You're Ukrainian. You know this, as you have a lot of variety with the Ukraine (and even the Ukrainian nationality in Ukraine), which often can be quite diverse - maybe you can post about the town where are living.

    Correct. There are certainly light Tatars. And southern Russians, like Ukrainians, can be dark, thought they do not look like Caucasians.

    You’re Ukrainian. You know this, as you have a lot of variety with the Ukraine (and even the Ukrainian nationality in Ukraine), which often can be quite diverse

    Ethnic Ukrainians vary in lightness – some are are dark, others light. But the country as a whole was 99% European, before Crimea and most of its Tatars were lost. It is even more European than Poland (98.6% European).

    Here is a school in Kiev:

    Lviv:

    No central Asians, one kid in Kiev looks kinda dark but is probably just a darker Ukrainian.

    :::::::::::::::::::::

    So by providing arms to Donbas rebels Putin has decided to bleed one of the most European places on Earth.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greasy William

    So by providing arms to Donbas rebels Putin has decided to bleed one of the most European places on Earth.
     
    I really don't think Putin cares about that stuff.
    , @Dmitry

    Correct. There are certainly light Tatars. And southern Russians, like Ukrainians, can be dark, thought they do not look like Caucasians.

     

    I had a classmate at school with a guy with a comically Muslim surname - he was blonde. Actually didn't realize his surname was Muslim at the time, just thought he had a funny name.

    I know plenty of people who are quite dark (could easily pass for French or Spanish) - their nationality is Russian. Also I know Ukrainians like this.

    At college, I knew a blonde girl whose surname is Kogan.

    I met once a student - she is very light, from Moscow, her surname is German, and her nationality is German (her parents immigrated from Kazakhstan).

    My mum was blonde before she became grey (but she actually has included substantial non-Russian, non-Slavic nationality in her family tree).

    I can keep adding more stories, but I will not bore you more.

    The point is it's not so simple - non-Slavic nationalities can be light, and Slavic nationalities can also sometimes be looking like from Latin speaking countries.

    -

    We have also our own hero and great leader, Karlin here. He could pass as a native Spanish, Iranian or Mexican - if he wanted to live in those places. But he belongs to a Slavic nationality (Russian).

    -

    As for Ukrainian nationality. There is plenty diversity as well. Brezhnev appearance for me, always reminds very strongly of an Italian. Probably no-one would think he was out of place slav, if he quietly was sipping expresso in cafe in downtown Milano. Well I guess the only way Italians would notice he was from a Slavic nationality, when they saw his suit wasn't cut stylishly enough to be a real Italian.

    https://s12.stc.all.kpcdn.net/share/i/12/4501838/inx960x640.jpg
    , @Dmitry
    But at school, kids are not well-behaved,

    The best kids in the world will be - at least alleged - the Japanese - due to reportedly almost universal good behaviour, discipline and quietness amongst them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. @reiner Tor

    There has not been “ethnic cleansing” in Russia by Muslims.
     
    There has been, in Chechnya.

    “There has been, in Chechnya.”

    Chechnya was free before brutal Russian intervention in the 1700′s. It had sought to secede from the Russia in 1991, but it was denied that opportunity. That year, Chechnya declared independence. So, on one hand, Chechnya is part of Russia, but not by choice; rather, it is by Putin’s strong-arm maneuvers. Imagine that! On the other hand, Chechnya has historically been it’s own territory. Furthermore, the leader of Chechnya today apparently protects Islam.

    https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2015/10/chechnya-hard-line-protector-muslim-rights-151001085135746.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Chechnya is too volatile to enjoy independence. It inevitably transitions into a slave entrepot ruled by warbands.

    Chechnya north of the Terek has always been Russian. They were ethnically cleansed in the early 1990s. http://www.unz.com/akarlin/the-russian-imperialist-genocide-in-chechnya/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. @reiner Tor
    To be a truly independent world power, you need the ability to withstand any foreign embargo or naval blockade. Something which Germany learned at its own peril 1914-18. That's where Hitler got his clue.

    Another point is that it's a great thing if it's impossible or near impossible to conquer your country. By destroying Russia and creating a defensible border in the Ural, Germany would've become impossible (or near impossible) to conquer. (And yes, several hundreds of millions of people is also a requirement.)

    Nukes change these equations somewhat, but only somewhat. Even countries like Russia or China need nukes (and probably China probably will need many more than it currently has). But nukes are not enough. A Greater Germany (roughly August 1, 1939 borders) with nukes still would be vulnerable to an international embargo.

    But I agree with Thorfinsson that Hitler should've stayed on his ass in 1939, and build nukes. After that, Germany would've become a strong greater power, but not a fully independent one. So his successors would still have needed diplomatic skills. Germany simply wasn't in the position to become (especially to quickly become) a true superpower.

    Big H inherited a much worse situation than is commonly appreciated.

    He said it himself explicitly, “Germany will be a world power or there will be no Germany”. Well for Germany to be a world power, Poland and Russia simply have to go.

    But it could never have been done in Hitler’s lifetime unless the UK and the US acquiesced to it. And they never would, even if Hitler dropped the Jew stuff.

    The amazing thing is that if Churchill and Roosevelt could have ever imagined what would happen to the West, they might have considered working something out with Hitler. Certainly none of the Allied soldiers would have fought Hitler if they saw what their own countries would become.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    The amazing thing is that if Churchill and Roosevelt could have ever imagined what would happen to the West, they might have considered working something out with Hitler.
     
    Didn't Churchill say after the war that "we butchered the wrong pig?"
    , @Thorfinnsson


    The amazing thing is that if Churchill and Roosevelt could have ever imagined what would happen to the West, they might have considered working something out with Hitler. Certainly none of the Allied soldiers would have fought Hitler if they saw what their own countries would become.
     
    Bear in mind that after the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia the H-man destroyed all remaining trust with the Western powers, which he himself failed to understand. Thus it was no longer possible to reach any kind of understanding with Britain and America, who considered him to simply be "not agreement-capable" and bent on world domination. Statements at party rallies such as, "Today we rule Germany, tomorrow the world," didn't help.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. @AP
    Correct. There are certainly light Tatars. And southern Russians, like Ukrainians, can be dark, thought they do not look like Caucasians.

    You’re Ukrainian. You know this, as you have a lot of variety with the Ukraine (and even the Ukrainian nationality in Ukraine), which often can be quite diverse
     
    Ethnic Ukrainians vary in lightness - some are are dark, others light. But the country as a whole was 99% European, before Crimea and most of its Tatars were lost. It is even more European than Poland (98.6% European).

    Here is a school in Kiev:

    http://1154298.shkola39.web.hosting-test.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/0-02-05-825eeecf32c4e410c5d868a250cdc45326049d779703cd1661ef84cee0dc7a82_full.jpg

    Lviv:

    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-uQbzy4OnReM/Vf53Fq8LzHI/AAAAAAAABG8/QTCncPaECOU/s1600/12030560_1019775388082720_2421693098873301935_o.jpg

    No central Asians, one kid in Kiev looks kinda dark but is probably just a darker Ukrainian.

    :::::::::::::::::::::

    So by providing arms to Donbas rebels Putin has decided to bleed one of the most European places on Earth.

    So by providing arms to Donbas rebels Putin has decided to bleed one of the most European places on Earth.

    I really don’t think Putin cares about that stuff.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. @melanf

    Unlike you, I made sure to use Moscow kids.
    In the photos with regular Moscow kids, about 25% were non-Slavic.
     
    Kids where I live (St. Petersburg, Kurortny district): http://i12.pixs.ru/storage/4/5/4/JXqz7qDYU4_7818243_29694454.jpg

    This is a typical photo: https://vk.com/muravey_library (lots of pictures of activities for kids). Moscow should not differ much from St. Petersburg.

    Russia is 20% non-Slavic and growing
     
    No http://www.unz.com/akarlin/russia-more-russian/

    I’m not a WN or even a WN sympathizer. I don’t give a shit if “white” genetics or phenotype are preserved. I also really dislike children in general.

    But damn if Nordic/Slavic children aren’t just the most beautiful thing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. @Greasy William
    Big H inherited a much worse situation than is commonly appreciated.

    He said it himself explicitly, "Germany will be a world power or there will be no Germany". Well for Germany to be a world power, Poland and Russia simply have to go.

    But it could never have been done in Hitler's lifetime unless the UK and the US acquiesced to it. And they never would, even if Hitler dropped the Jew stuff.

    The amazing thing is that if Churchill and Roosevelt could have ever imagined what would happen to the West, they might have considered working something out with Hitler. Certainly none of the Allied soldiers would have fought Hitler if they saw what their own countries would become.

    The amazing thing is that if Churchill and Roosevelt could have ever imagined what would happen to the West, they might have considered working something out with Hitler.

    Didn’t Churchill say after the war that “we butchered the wrong pig?”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. @reiner Tor
    To be a truly independent world power, you need the ability to withstand any foreign embargo or naval blockade. Something which Germany learned at its own peril 1914-18. That's where Hitler got his clue.

    Another point is that it's a great thing if it's impossible or near impossible to conquer your country. By destroying Russia and creating a defensible border in the Ural, Germany would've become impossible (or near impossible) to conquer. (And yes, several hundreds of millions of people is also a requirement.)

    Nukes change these equations somewhat, but only somewhat. Even countries like Russia or China need nukes (and probably China probably will need many more than it currently has). But nukes are not enough. A Greater Germany (roughly August 1, 1939 borders) with nukes still would be vulnerable to an international embargo.

    But I agree with Thorfinsson that Hitler should've stayed on his ass in 1939, and build nukes. After that, Germany would've become a strong greater power, but not a fully independent one. So his successors would still have needed diplomatic skills. Germany simply wasn't in the position to become (especially to quickly become) a true superpower.

    Re-1939. Benefit of hindsight. :) Really, if Hitler had only not made two, or perhaps even one, of the following three mistakes – declaring war on the US; waiting until 1943 to begin total war mobilization; treating the Slavs badly [they could have just waited to defeat the USSR before doing that] – then we would probably not be having this debate.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greasy William

    then we would probably not be having this debate
     
    Who you calling "we", white boy?
    , @reiner Tor
    I don't think the declaration of war against the US mattered that much. The US was supplying war materials to the UK and USSR at an ever increasing pace anyway; it was fighting a shooting war with the Germany Navy in the Atlantic (and its declared no-go zone for the Germans kept creeping eastwards); and the war was probably lost around November 1942, before the effects of US involvement were felt to any degree. Further, I think the US would've gotten involved later anyway.

    War mobilization started in 1939. The war economy wasn’t very efficient, and here lay Hitler’s biggest failure. Instead of staring at maps, he should’ve fixed the economy. But it was not nearly as easy or straightforward as seems in hindsight. His generals were the biggest obstacle to it, because they demanded high quality but expensive weapons instead of mass products.

    Treating the Slavs badly was stupid. But it was part of the original racialist ideology.

    There are other examples, like the diversion of divisions from Moscow to Kiev.

    But then again: the allies and the Soviets also made stupid mistakes. Tons of them. Fixing German mistakes while not fixing allied mistakes will inevitably lead to a German victory.
    , @Jon0815

    Really, if Hitler had only not made two, or perhaps even one, of the following three mistakes – declaring war on the US
     
    The result of Hitler declaring war on the US, was that Germany ended up divided rather than united under a Communist regime. It probably made no difference to the outcome of the war.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. @Anatoly Karlin
    Re-1939. Benefit of hindsight. :) Really, if Hitler had only not made two, or perhaps even one, of the following three mistakes - declaring war on the US; waiting until 1943 to begin total war mobilization; treating the Slavs badly [they could have just waited to defeat the USSR before doing that] - then we would probably not be having this debate.

    then we would probably not be having this debate

    Who you calling “we”, white boy?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. @Corvinus
    "There has been, in Chechnya."

    Chechnya was free before brutal Russian intervention in the 1700's. It had sought to secede from the Russia in 1991, but it was denied that opportunity. That year, Chechnya declared independence. So, on one hand, Chechnya is part of Russia, but not by choice; rather, it is by Putin's strong-arm maneuvers. Imagine that! On the other hand, Chechnya has historically been it's own territory. Furthermore, the leader of Chechnya today apparently protects Islam.

    https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2015/10/chechnya-hard-line-protector-muslim-rights-151001085135746.html

    Chechnya is too volatile to enjoy independence. It inevitably transitions into a slave entrepot ruled by warbands.

    Chechnya north of the Terek has always been Russian. They were ethnically cleansed in the early 1990s. http://www.unz.com/akarlin/the-russian-imperialist-genocide-in-chechnya/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Chechnya is too volatile to enjoy independence. It inevitably transitions into a slave entrepot ruled by warbands."

    It's not for Russia to unilaterally decide. And considering how Putin and the oligarchs operate, there is observably little difference here, IF true about this "transition" in Chechnya.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. @Greasy William

    The H-man could’ve created his Lebensraum within the Reich itself and imported all of the food and raw materials required by exporting manufactured goods.
     
    No he had the right idea. Germany needed drastically more space if it was going to be the premier world power. The goal would be to have enough room to comfortably hold a stable population of 500 million. And a secure eastern border could only be had by pushing Russia behind the Urals.

    Good plan, bad execution.

    No he had the right idea. Germany needed drastically more space if it was going to be the premier world power. The goal would be to have enough room to comfortably hold a stable population of 500 million. And a secure eastern border could only be had by pushing Russia behind the Urals.

    Good plan, bad execution.

    No reason you need to conquer Russia in order to grow your population to 500 million. You can put 500 million in Germany and simply trade for food and raw materials. The point of conquering Russia was autarky, which of course is less risky than depending on imports to sustain your population.

    Operation Barbarossa & Generalplan Ost wasn’t a bad idea (from the German POV), but it was certainly a very high risk plan. Germany is lucky it didn’t turn out even worse (e.g. the Morgenthau Plan).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. @reiner Tor
    To be a truly independent world power, you need the ability to withstand any foreign embargo or naval blockade. Something which Germany learned at its own peril 1914-18. That's where Hitler got his clue.

    Another point is that it's a great thing if it's impossible or near impossible to conquer your country. By destroying Russia and creating a defensible border in the Ural, Germany would've become impossible (or near impossible) to conquer. (And yes, several hundreds of millions of people is also a requirement.)

    Nukes change these equations somewhat, but only somewhat. Even countries like Russia or China need nukes (and probably China probably will need many more than it currently has). But nukes are not enough. A Greater Germany (roughly August 1, 1939 borders) with nukes still would be vulnerable to an international embargo.

    But I agree with Thorfinsson that Hitler should've stayed on his ass in 1939, and build nukes. After that, Germany would've become a strong greater power, but not a fully independent one. So his successors would still have needed diplomatic skills. Germany simply wasn't in the position to become (especially to quickly become) a true superpower.

    To be a truly independent world power, you need the ability to withstand any foreign embargo or naval blockade. Something which Germany learned at its own peril 1914-18. That’s where Hitler got his clue.

    H-man’s solution to this was economic autarky through the creation of a continental empire.

    But Britain showed in both wars that there was another way–control the sea. This of course is high risk as Japan discovered to its peril in the Pacific War (US submarine campaign & B-29 mining destroyed the Japanese merchant marine and with it Japanese industry).

    The USA in this time period had the best of both worlds. Continental autarky AND sea control. No need to import any raw materials (other than rubber) let alone manufactured goods, it was free to project power anywhere.

    Another point is that it’s a great thing if it’s impossible or near impossible to conquer your country. By destroying Russia and creating a defensible border in the Ural, Germany would’ve become impossible (or near impossible) to conquer. (And yes, several hundreds of millions of people is also a requirement.)

    Nukes change these equations somewhat, but only somewhat. Even countries like Russia or China need nukes (and probably China probably will need many more than it currently has). But nukes are not enough. A Greater Germany (roughly August 1, 1939 borders) with nukes still would be vulnerable to an international embargo.

    Strategic depth also makes it easier to fight and win a nuclear war owing to target dispersal.

    A number of modern weapons also require strategic depth simply to develop them (any hypersonic weapon or platform with range, large nuclear devices).

    But I agree with Thorfinsson that Hitler should’ve stayed on his ass in 1939, and build nukes. After that, Germany would’ve become a strong greater power, but not a fully independent one. So his successors would still have needed diplomatic skills. Germany simply wasn’t in the position to become (especially to quickly become) a true superpower.

    As Karlin has pointed out, the benefit of hindsight.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    As Karlin has pointed out, the benefit of hindsight.
     
    Changing anything else is hindsight, too. My proposal employs the least hindsight of all proposed changes. For example no one in 1939 had the idea that France was to be defeated in six weeks in 1940. Had it been a two year campaign, the USSR would’ve had a field day stabbing Germany in the back at an opportune moment.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. @Greasy William
    Big H inherited a much worse situation than is commonly appreciated.

    He said it himself explicitly, "Germany will be a world power or there will be no Germany". Well for Germany to be a world power, Poland and Russia simply have to go.

    But it could never have been done in Hitler's lifetime unless the UK and the US acquiesced to it. And they never would, even if Hitler dropped the Jew stuff.

    The amazing thing is that if Churchill and Roosevelt could have ever imagined what would happen to the West, they might have considered working something out with Hitler. Certainly none of the Allied soldiers would have fought Hitler if they saw what their own countries would become.

    The amazing thing is that if Churchill and Roosevelt could have ever imagined what would happen to the West, they might have considered working something out with Hitler. Certainly none of the Allied soldiers would have fought Hitler if they saw what their own countries would become.

    Bear in mind that after the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia the H-man destroyed all remaining trust with the Western powers, which he himself failed to understand. Thus it was no longer possible to reach any kind of understanding with Britain and America, who considered him to simply be “not agreement-capable” and bent on world domination. Statements at party rallies such as, “Today we rule Germany, tomorrow the world,” didn’t help.

    Read More
    • Agree: reiner Tor
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. Re-1939. Benefit of hindsight. :) Really, if Hitler had only not made two, or perhaps even one, of the following three mistakes – declaring war on the US; waiting until 1943 to begin total war mobilization; treating the Slavs badly [they could have just waited to defeat the USSR before doing that] – then we would probably not be having this debate.

    Waiting until 1943 for full mobilization is a half-truth, as Germany made a number of large capital investments in the late 1930s which didn’t start to come online until 1942. This of course still doesn’t excuse things like falling behind the UK in aircraft production during the Battle of Britain. The USSR and to a lesser extent the UK simply stopped producing capital goods of any kind during the war and imported them from the USA.

    The USA had opposed Germany’s foreign policy actively since at least 1937 and was effectively in a state of undeclared war against Germany and Japan from the middle of 1940.

    FDR would’ve found a way to declare war on Germany anyway, so the only question is how much time Germany would’ve bought. Delaying Operation Torch until 1943 could have changed the dynamics of the Eastern Front, for instance.

    Immediate cruel treatment of slavs (or, really, anyone at all) was of course idiotic and you’d think someone as Machiavellian and dishonest as the H-man and his henchmen would be able to postpone such things, but I guess they just couldn’t help themselves.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  149. @Anatoly Karlin
    Re-1939. Benefit of hindsight. :) Really, if Hitler had only not made two, or perhaps even one, of the following three mistakes - declaring war on the US; waiting until 1943 to begin total war mobilization; treating the Slavs badly [they could have just waited to defeat the USSR before doing that] - then we would probably not be having this debate.

    I don’t think the declaration of war against the US mattered that much. The US was supplying war materials to the UK and USSR at an ever increasing pace anyway; it was fighting a shooting war with the Germany Navy in the Atlantic (and its declared no-go zone for the Germans kept creeping eastwards); and the war was probably lost around November 1942, before the effects of US involvement were felt to any degree. Further, I think the US would’ve gotten involved later anyway.

    War mobilization started in 1939. The war economy wasn’t very efficient, and here lay Hitler’s biggest failure. Instead of staring at maps, he should’ve fixed the economy. But it was not nearly as easy or straightforward as seems in hindsight. His generals were the biggest obstacle to it, because they demanded high quality but expensive weapons instead of mass products.

    Treating the Slavs badly was stupid. But it was part of the original racialist ideology.

    There are other examples, like the diversion of divisions from Moscow to Kiev.

    But then again: the allies and the Soviets also made stupid mistakes. Tons of them. Fixing German mistakes while not fixing allied mistakes will inevitably lead to a German victory.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. @Anatoly Karlin
    Re-1939. Benefit of hindsight. :) Really, if Hitler had only not made two, or perhaps even one, of the following three mistakes - declaring war on the US; waiting until 1943 to begin total war mobilization; treating the Slavs badly [they could have just waited to defeat the USSR before doing that] - then we would probably not be having this debate.

    Really, if Hitler had only not made two, or perhaps even one, of the following three mistakes – declaring war on the US

    The result of Hitler declaring war on the US, was that Germany ended up divided rather than united under a Communist regime. It probably made no difference to the outcome of the war.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. @Thorfinnsson


    To be a truly independent world power, you need the ability to withstand any foreign embargo or naval blockade. Something which Germany learned at its own peril 1914-18. That’s where Hitler got his clue.
     
    H-man's solution to this was economic autarky through the creation of a continental empire.

    But Britain showed in both wars that there was another way--control the sea. This of course is high risk as Japan discovered to its peril in the Pacific War (US submarine campaign & B-29 mining destroyed the Japanese merchant marine and with it Japanese industry).

    The USA in this time period had the best of both worlds. Continental autarky AND sea control. No need to import any raw materials (other than rubber) let alone manufactured goods, it was free to project power anywhere.


    Another point is that it’s a great thing if it’s impossible or near impossible to conquer your country. By destroying Russia and creating a defensible border in the Ural, Germany would’ve become impossible (or near impossible) to conquer. (And yes, several hundreds of millions of people is also a requirement.)

    Nukes change these equations somewhat, but only somewhat. Even countries like Russia or China need nukes (and probably China probably will need many more than it currently has). But nukes are not enough. A Greater Germany (roughly August 1, 1939 borders) with nukes still would be vulnerable to an international embargo.
     
    Strategic depth also makes it easier to fight and win a nuclear war owing to target dispersal.

    A number of modern weapons also require strategic depth simply to develop them (any hypersonic weapon or platform with range, large nuclear devices).


    But I agree with Thorfinsson that Hitler should’ve stayed on his ass in 1939, and build nukes. After that, Germany would’ve become a strong greater power, but not a fully independent one. So his successors would still have needed diplomatic skills. Germany simply wasn’t in the position to become (especially to quickly become) a true superpower.
     
    As Karlin has pointed out, the benefit of hindsight.

    As Karlin has pointed out, the benefit of hindsight.

    Changing anything else is hindsight, too. My proposal employs the least hindsight of all proposed changes. For example no one in 1939 had the idea that France was to be defeated in six weeks in 1940. Had it been a two year campaign, the USSR would’ve had a field day stabbing Germany in the back at an opportune moment.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson

    Changing anything else is hindsight, too. My proposal employs the least hindsight of all proposed changes. For example no one in 1939 had the idea that France was to be defeated in six weeks in 1940. Had it been a two year campaign, the USSR would’ve had a field day stabbing Germany in the back at an opportune moment.
     
    Good point.

    Had the Germans repeated their WW1 invasion plan (which was the original plan for Fall Gelb) it's quite possible that the outcome would been the same as the autumn of 1914--stalemate and trench warfare.

    Even without future Soviet (or American) intervention this would have been a serious strategic problem, as Britain and France could probably draw on more manpower and resources than Germany. Their plan was to outproduce Germany and launch a general offensive into Germany in 1941.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. @reiner Tor

    As Karlin has pointed out, the benefit of hindsight.
     
    Changing anything else is hindsight, too. My proposal employs the least hindsight of all proposed changes. For example no one in 1939 had the idea that France was to be defeated in six weeks in 1940. Had it been a two year campaign, the USSR would’ve had a field day stabbing Germany in the back at an opportune moment.

    Changing anything else is hindsight, too. My proposal employs the least hindsight of all proposed changes. For example no one in 1939 had the idea that France was to be defeated in six weeks in 1940. Had it been a two year campaign, the USSR would’ve had a field day stabbing Germany in the back at an opportune moment.

    Good point.

    Had the Germans repeated their WW1 invasion plan (which was the original plan for Fall Gelb) it’s quite possible that the outcome would been the same as the autumn of 1914–stalemate and trench warfare.

    Even without future Soviet (or American) intervention this would have been a serious strategic problem, as Britain and France could probably draw on more manpower and resources than Germany. Their plan was to outproduce Germany and launch a general offensive into Germany in 1941.

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

    Sorry but you went to great length to cherry-pick those pictures. Just out of curiosity, what’s your country of birth?
     
    No, I did not. First one was the first image (upper left) that appeared when I googled in English. Second one was on the first page that appeared in Moscow secondary schools when I googled in Russian (even though it's not a secondary school).

    Also in the 1st picture you posted I can see 1 non-white, not 3.
     
    Perhaps you aren't familiar with what Caucasians look like? There were 2 non-Slavic Caucasian girls in that picture.

    Picture 1 – 70+ students, 2 to 3 non-whites.
     
    Special school for gifted kids, future doctors. Not representative of normal schools.

    Picture 2 – over a dozen pupils, all white
     
    St. Petersburg, not Moscow. And one may be Caucasian.

    Picture 3 – in this one, the dark girl stands out (Russian Caucasus? Georgia? Armenia?)
     
    So 1 in 3 non-Slavic.

    Picture 4 – all white
     
    Tourists from Kaliningrad, not Moscow kids.

    Picture 5 – out of 13, perhaps 1 has non-white (Uralid?) admixture, & this is speculative
     
    Special singing school for the stage. Not representative.

    Don't feel like researching the rest.

    Unlike you, I made sure to use Moscow kids.

    In the photos with regular Moscow kids, about 25% were non-Slavic.

    Here's another from the first page of google:

    https://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=2963741

    Moscow school kids, one Asian, on Caucasian, one uncertain, 3 Slavic.

    https://admspvoskresenskoe.ru/skola-no2070-vosla-v-rejting-lucsih-gorodskih-skol/

    Of 9 kids, 2 probably not Slavic, one questionable.

    Eastern Europe is the future. But Eastern Europe without Russia is a footnote because they’ll eventually be rolled over by poz and foreign-sponsored liberast compradors.
     
    Russia is 20% non-Slavic and growing (just not as quickly as the West) and in Customs Union with Central Asia. The West is, well, you know. Between the two is a 98% European space of 150 million people and large territory. Better to keep this region together, and apart from the other two, rather than experiment.

    Russia is 20% non-Slavic

    But 10-15% non-European/non-white.

    and in Customs Union with Central Asia

    No, in customs union with two of five Central Asian countries. One of those two, Kazakhstan, is about as wealthy as Russia and hence has little incentive for immigration. The other, Kyrgyzstan, has only 6 million people, many of its migrants prefer Kazakhstan over Russia, and it will likely color-revolution itself out of customs union membership before long anyway.

    The West is, well, you know. Between the two is a 98% European space of 150 million people and large territory. Better to keep this region together, and apart from the other two, rather than experiment.

    If Ukraine were to form an East Slavic confederation with Russia, that would still leave a 98% European space of 110 million people, while creating a more than 90% European great power.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Russia is 20% non-Slavic

    But 10-15% non-European/non-white.
     
    You mean Armenians and Georgians? Okay.

    and in Customs Union with Central Asia

    No, in customs union with two of five Central Asian countries. One of those two, Kazakhstan, is about as wealthy as Russia and hence has little incentive for immigration. The other, Kyrgyzstan, has only 6 million people, many of its migrants prefer Kazakhstan over Russia, and it will likely color-revolution itself out of customs union membership before long anyway.
     
    Russian wiki claims Syria and Tunisia are candidate countries.

    Note that per the Customs Union there are no movement restrictions within the Customs Union.

    If Ukraine were to form an East Slavic confederation with Russia, that would still leave a 98% European space of 110 million people, while creating a more than 90% European great power.
     
    The loss of 40 million (with valuable agricultural lands, certain industries such as rocketry/missile tech), almost 1/3 of the population, is a worse blow for the European space than is the loss of 40 million from Eurasia. Without Ukraine, "pure Europe" has barely more people than Germany. With Ukraine, it has greater than Russia's population.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. @Anatoly Karlin
    Chechnya is too volatile to enjoy independence. It inevitably transitions into a slave entrepot ruled by warbands.

    Chechnya north of the Terek has always been Russian. They were ethnically cleansed in the early 1990s. http://www.unz.com/akarlin/the-russian-imperialist-genocide-in-chechnya/

    “Chechnya is too volatile to enjoy independence. It inevitably transitions into a slave entrepot ruled by warbands.”

    It’s not for Russia to unilaterally decide. And considering how Putin and the oligarchs operate, there is observably little difference here, IF true about this “transition” in Chechnya.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    The oligarchs have been replaced by the silovik, you should let your astroturf masters know to keep the propaganda book updated.
    , @Thorfinnsson

    It’s not for Russia to unilaterally decide.
     

    This is incorrect.

    It is for Russia to unilaterally decide.

    No other group, including the Chechens themselves, has the power to make this decision.

    And considering how Putin and the oligarchs operate, there is observably little difference here, IF true about this “transition” in Chechnya.
     

    This is incorrect. There is no more open air slave market in Grozny, and Chechen bandits no longer kidnap ethnic Russians.

    See this article from the LA Times in 2000 for details: http://articles.latimes.com/2000/sep/18/news/mn-23005

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. @Corvinus
    "Chechnya is too volatile to enjoy independence. It inevitably transitions into a slave entrepot ruled by warbands."

    It's not for Russia to unilaterally decide. And considering how Putin and the oligarchs operate, there is observably little difference here, IF true about this "transition" in Chechnya.

    The oligarchs have been replaced by the silovik, you should let your astroturf masters know to keep the propaganda book updated.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. @Corvinus
    "Chechnya is too volatile to enjoy independence. It inevitably transitions into a slave entrepot ruled by warbands."

    It's not for Russia to unilaterally decide. And considering how Putin and the oligarchs operate, there is observably little difference here, IF true about this "transition" in Chechnya.

    It’s not for Russia to unilaterally decide.

    This is incorrect.

    It is for Russia to unilaterally decide.

    No other group, including the Chechens themselves, has the power to make this decision.

    And considering how Putin and the oligarchs operate, there is observably little difference here, IF true about this “transition” in Chechnya.

    This is incorrect. There is no more open air slave market in Grozny, and Chechen bandits no longer kidnap ethnic Russians.

    See this article from the LA Times in 2000 for details: http://articles.latimes.com/2000/sep/18/news/mn-23005

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "This is incorrect. It is for Russia to unilaterally decide. No other group, including the Chechens themselves, has the power to make this decision."

    No, it is for Chechens to make their own political decisions within their own borders. Russia has done enough jackbooting.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. AP says:
    @Jon0815

    Russia is 20% non-Slavic
     
    But 10-15% non-European/non-white.

    and in Customs Union with Central Asia
     
    No, in customs union with two of five Central Asian countries. One of those two, Kazakhstan, is about as wealthy as Russia and hence has little incentive for immigration. The other, Kyrgyzstan, has only 6 million people, many of its migrants prefer Kazakhstan over Russia, and it will likely color-revolution itself out of customs union membership before long anyway.



    The West is, well, you know. Between the two is a 98% European space of 150 million people and large territory. Better to keep this region together, and apart from the other two, rather than experiment.
     
    If Ukraine were to form an East Slavic confederation with Russia, that would still leave a 98% European space of 110 million people, while creating a more than 90% European great power.

    Russia is 20% non-Slavic

    But 10-15% non-European/non-white.

    You mean Armenians and Georgians? Okay.

    and in Customs Union with Central Asia

    No, in customs union with two of five Central Asian countries. One of those two, Kazakhstan, is about as wealthy as Russia and hence has little incentive for immigration. The other, Kyrgyzstan, has only 6 million people, many of its migrants prefer Kazakhstan over Russia, and it will likely color-revolution itself out of customs union membership before long anyway.

    Russian wiki claims Syria and Tunisia are candidate countries.

    Note that per the Customs Union there are no movement restrictions within the Customs Union.

    If Ukraine were to form an East Slavic confederation with Russia, that would still leave a 98% European space of 110 million people, while creating a more than 90% European great power.

    The loss of 40 million (with valuable agricultural lands, certain industries such as rocketry/missile tech), almost 1/3 of the population, is a worse blow for the European space than is the loss of 40 million from Eurasia. Without Ukraine, “pure Europe” has barely more people than Germany. With Ukraine, it has greater than Russia’s population.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. Russia is 20% non-Slavic
    But 10-15% non-European/non-white.

    You mean Armenians and Georgians? Okay.

    In Russia is 81% ethnic Russian. If we sum up the rest of the peoples who are white and non-Muslims, non-Georgians, and non-Armenians (Germans, Karelians, Mordva, Chuvash, Tatars who are not Muslims, etc., etc.), it will clearly more than 4%.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    In 2010 Russia was 82.74% Slavic and .29% Germanic, so 83% European. This percentage would be slightly lower now due to higher Caucasian and Mongolian birthrates, if not for Donbas refugees (although I suppose these can be considered alongside Central Asian migrants).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. @Lemurmaniac
    Who among the Russian elites has what it takes to lead Russia over the next decade?

    "And I sought for a man among them, that should make up the hedge, and stand in the gap before me for the land, that I should not destroy it: but I found none."

    Maybe he is already thinking of that and Putin’s diplomacy is a deliberate start-a-Cold-War scorched earth strategy. He could be trying to sow massive mistrust between Russia and the West, thereby leaving his legacy of an independent Russia immune from any future liberal leadership coming to power in Russia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    16D chess, horseshoe version.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. @Sean
    Maybe he is already thinking of that and Putin's diplomacy is a deliberate start-a-Cold-War scorched earth strategy. He could be trying to sow massive mistrust between Russia and the West, thereby leaving his legacy of an independent Russia immune from any future liberal leadership coming to power in Russia.

    16D chess, horseshoe version.

    Read More
    • LOL: Greasy William
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. @melanf


    Russia is 20% non-Slavic
    But 10-15% non-European/non-white.
     
    You mean Armenians and Georgians? Okay.
     
    In Russia is 81% ethnic Russian. If we sum up the rest of the peoples who are white and non-Muslims, non-Georgians, and non-Armenians (Germans, Karelians, Mordva, Chuvash, Tatars who are not Muslims, etc., etc.), it will clearly more than 4%.

    In 2010 Russia was 82.74% Slavic and .29% Germanic, so 83% European. This percentage would be slightly lower now due to higher Caucasian and Mongolian birthrates, if not for Donbas refugees (although I suppose these can be considered alongside Central Asian migrants).

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Finno-Ugric or even some other Uralic speaking peoples? Finno-Ugric people number over 2 million, which is well over 1%, and I think they are Europeans. I think Udmurts have the highest percentage of redheads of any peoples anywhere, it’d be silly not to count them among the European populations. They are maybe 0.4% of the population. There might be a few similar groups.
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    I notice that you have a really strange and virulent hostility towards Donbass people while being normal towards Russians.

    Not judging or anything, it's just a pretty unusual combination.
    , @melanf

    In 2010 Russia was 82.74% Slavic and .29% Germanic, so 83% European. This percentage would be slightly lower now due to higher Caucasian and Mongolian birthrates, if not for Donbas refugees (although I suppose these can be considered alongside Central Asian migrants).
     
    Lets go. The Tatars of 3.55%. only half of Tatars consider themselves Muslims (4% of real Muslims among Tatars). Total Tatars are not non-Muslims-at least 1.5%.
    Chuvash - 0.8%, Mordovians - 0.45%, Mari - 0.3%, Udmurts 0.3%, Germans - 0.3%.

    82.74%+1.5%+0.8%+0.3%+0.3%+0.3%=85.94%

    And these are not all white non-Muslim peoples of Russia.
    That is, under any methods of counting, the number of white, non-Muslim, non-Georgian, non-Armenian population in Russia is more than 85%.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. @AP
    In 2010 Russia was 82.74% Slavic and .29% Germanic, so 83% European. This percentage would be slightly lower now due to higher Caucasian and Mongolian birthrates, if not for Donbas refugees (although I suppose these can be considered alongside Central Asian migrants).

    Finno-Ugric or even some other Uralic speaking peoples? Finno-Ugric people number over 2 million, which is well over 1%, and I think they are Europeans. I think Udmurts have the highest percentage of redheads of any peoples anywhere, it’d be silly not to count them among the European populations. They are maybe 0.4% of the population. There might be a few similar groups.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    I think these peoples are borderline. Physically, yes. In the case of Finns or Estonians, they are thoroughly Europeanized culturally. But some shamanic cultures far to the East- not necessarily. Obviously not aversive like Muslims, but in essence they are like Native Americans if the latter had European phenotypes. Non-European language, religion and culture.

    It is fascinating how the same language group shows transition from European to Asian physical appearance.

    Here are red-headed Udmurts:

    https://russianpickle.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/udmurt_people_red.jpg

    A Mansi boy (transitional):

    https://arctic.ru/images/28/07/280733.jpg

    And totally non-European-looking Nentsy:

    https://arctic.ru/images/28/11/281146.jpg
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. @AP
    In 2010 Russia was 82.74% Slavic and .29% Germanic, so 83% European. This percentage would be slightly lower now due to higher Caucasian and Mongolian birthrates, if not for Donbas refugees (although I suppose these can be considered alongside Central Asian migrants).

    I notice that you have a really strange and virulent hostility towards Donbass people while being normal towards Russians.

    Not judging or anything, it’s just a pretty unusual combination.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    I notice that you have a really strange and virulent hostility towards Donbass people while being normal towards Russians.
     
    I love Russia, but am hostile toward Soviet. Donbas = Soviet. There is no real pre-Soviet tradition there (Donetsk was founded by a Welshman but it grew under Soviets, real Soviets), the people are an ethnic mix who came together under Soviet supervision. Russian-speaking, but this is because that happened to be the main language of the USSR. When the Soviet Union fell apart, these people behaved as any people do when their world collapses (see: Native American reservations). And because there was nothing else there, unlike in Russia or Ukraine, their behavior never recovered or improved. Ukraine, alas, failed to save these people through Ukrainianization. Hopefully Russia can turn them into proper Russians, at least.

    Multinational empires have such pockets. A German-speaking person of mixed Czech, German, Polish, Ruthenian, descent from a city like Chernowitz (1918 population - 19% Ukrainian, 15% Romanian, 17% German, 33% Jewish, 15% Polish) could be considered homo austriacus. Not a bad thing, a product of a beautiful state worthy of respect. Homo sovieticus - not so much.

    That having been said, generalizations no matter how accurate have their limits. There certainly are nice, decently-behaving people from there. And they don't deserve their sad fate.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. AP says:
    @reiner Tor
    Finno-Ugric or even some other Uralic speaking peoples? Finno-Ugric people number over 2 million, which is well over 1%, and I think they are Europeans. I think Udmurts have the highest percentage of redheads of any peoples anywhere, it’d be silly not to count them among the European populations. They are maybe 0.4% of the population. There might be a few similar groups.

    I think these peoples are borderline. Physically, yes. In the case of Finns or Estonians, they are thoroughly Europeanized culturally. But some shamanic cultures far to the East- not necessarily. Obviously not aversive like Muslims, but in essence they are like Native Americans if the latter had European phenotypes. Non-European language, religion and culture.

    It is fascinating how the same language group shows transition from European to Asian physical appearance.

    Here are red-headed Udmurts:

    A Mansi boy (transitional):

    And totally non-European-looking Nentsy:

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Linguistically, the Mansi and the Khanty (or Vogul and Ostyak) languages are the closest relatives of Hungarian. That much we learned at school. They are still quite different.
    , @reiner Tor

    Non-European language
     
    Though it seems arbitrary that you attribute Finno-Ugric people “non-European language.” Proto-Uralic was probably spoken in Europe, not that far away from Proto-Indo-European. The ultimate roots (or part of them) of both were in Siberia. Some linguists have guessed that they were actually related.

    In any event, the vast majority of Finno-Ugric speakers are Europeans in any sense of the word. With Hungarians, there’s the factor of admixture. While the original Magyars had a strong Asian admixture, especially among the elite, by the 1100s it is no longer in evidence. Our closest genetic relatives are the Slavs around us (including the Ukrainians), but there’s a not insignificant German admixture.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. @Anatoly Karlin
    I notice that you have a really strange and virulent hostility towards Donbass people while being normal towards Russians.

    Not judging or anything, it's just a pretty unusual combination.

    I notice that you have a really strange and virulent hostility towards Donbass people while being normal towards Russians.

    I love Russia, but am hostile toward Soviet. Donbas = Soviet. There is no real pre-Soviet tradition there (Donetsk was founded by a Welshman but it grew under Soviets, real Soviets), the people are an ethnic mix who came together under Soviet supervision. Russian-speaking, but this is because that happened to be the main language of the USSR. When the Soviet Union fell apart, these people behaved as any people do when their world collapses (see: Native American reservations). And because there was nothing else there, unlike in Russia or Ukraine, their behavior never recovered or improved. Ukraine, alas, failed to save these people through Ukrainianization. Hopefully Russia can turn them into proper Russians, at least.

    Multinational empires have such pockets. A German-speaking person of mixed Czech, German, Polish, Ruthenian, descent from a city like Chernowitz (1918 population – 19% Ukrainian, 15% Romanian, 17% German, 33% Jewish, 15% Polish) could be considered homo austriacus. Not a bad thing, a product of a beautiful state worthy of respect. Homo sovieticus – not so much.

    That having been said, generalizations no matter how accurate have their limits. There certainly are nice, decently-behaving people from there. And they don’t deserve their sad fate.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Thanks for the explanation.

    From what I have read it is the LNR that is strongly Sovietesque in character, while many more in the DNR are Imperial LARPers.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. @Thorfinnsson

    It’s not for Russia to unilaterally decide.
     

    This is incorrect.

    It is for Russia to unilaterally decide.

    No other group, including the Chechens themselves, has the power to make this decision.

    And considering how Putin and the oligarchs operate, there is observably little difference here, IF true about this “transition” in Chechnya.
     

    This is incorrect. There is no more open air slave market in Grozny, and Chechen bandits no longer kidnap ethnic Russians.

    See this article from the LA Times in 2000 for details: http://articles.latimes.com/2000/sep/18/news/mn-23005

    “This is incorrect. It is for Russia to unilaterally decide. No other group, including the Chechens themselves, has the power to make this decision.”

    No, it is for Chechens to make their own political decisions within their own borders. Russia has done enough jackbooting.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson

    No, it is for Chechens to make their own political decisions within their own borders. Russia has done enough jackbooting.
     

    Your own religious views are irrelevant to the matter at hand.

    The FACT is that Russia has this unilateral power. This was decisively proven in 1999-2000 (or, taking, the long view, 1999-2009). The fact that you have a religious belief in Chechen self-determination doesn't change the facts on the ground. The reality is that the Chechens live in a world of Russian-determination.

    I am also waiting for you to admit that you were wrong on the second point.

    How does it feel to be wrong?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. @Corvinus
    "This is incorrect. It is for Russia to unilaterally decide. No other group, including the Chechens themselves, has the power to make this decision."

    No, it is for Chechens to make their own political decisions within their own borders. Russia has done enough jackbooting.

    No, it is for Chechens to make their own political decisions within their own borders. Russia has done enough jackbooting.

    Your own religious views are irrelevant to the matter at hand.

    The FACT is that Russia has this unilateral power. This was decisively proven in 1999-2000 (or, taking, the long view, 1999-2009). The fact that you have a religious belief in Chechen self-determination doesn’t change the facts on the ground. The reality is that the Chechens live in a world of Russian-determination.

    I am also waiting for you to admit that you were wrong on the second point.

    How does it feel to be wrong?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Your own religious views are irrelevant to the matter at hand."

    Thanks for the strawman.

    "The FACT is that Russia has this unilateral power. This was decisively proven in 1999-2000 (or, taking, the long view, 1999-2009)."

    By way of employing ground troops, certainly.

    "The fact that you have a religious belief in Chechen self-determination doesn’t change the facts on the ground."

    That would be a POLITICAL belief. The Chechen people, like any other group of people, need not have their heads smashed in by outsiders who believe they know what is best for them. Take your fascist sentiments somewhere else.

    "The reality is that the Chechens live in a world of Russian-determination."

    Russian determination by way of the gun, indeed. Chechens need not choose to be subjugated. The concept of self-determination is well-established under international law. Taking both Chechen and Russian actions into consideration, Chechnya decidedly has the liberty for self-rule.

    "I am also waiting for you to admit that you were wrong on the second point. How does it feel to be wrong?"

    Thanks for the Fake News alert, but I an APP for that on my phone already.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. @AP
    Correct. There are certainly light Tatars. And southern Russians, like Ukrainians, can be dark, thought they do not look like Caucasians.

    You’re Ukrainian. You know this, as you have a lot of variety with the Ukraine (and even the Ukrainian nationality in Ukraine), which often can be quite diverse
     
    Ethnic Ukrainians vary in lightness - some are are dark, others light. But the country as a whole was 99% European, before Crimea and most of its Tatars were lost. It is even more European than Poland (98.6% European).

    Here is a school in Kiev:

    http://1154298.shkola39.web.hosting-test.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/0-02-05-825eeecf32c4e410c5d868a250cdc45326049d779703cd1661ef84cee0dc7a82_full.jpg

    Lviv:

    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-uQbzy4OnReM/Vf53Fq8LzHI/AAAAAAAABG8/QTCncPaECOU/s1600/12030560_1019775388082720_2421693098873301935_o.jpg

    No central Asians, one kid in Kiev looks kinda dark but is probably just a darker Ukrainian.

    :::::::::::::::::::::

    So by providing arms to Donbas rebels Putin has decided to bleed one of the most European places on Earth.

    Correct. There are certainly light Tatars. And southern Russians, like Ukrainians, can be dark, thought they do not look like Caucasians.

    I had a classmate at school with a guy with a comically Muslim surname – he was blonde. Actually didn’t realize his surname was Muslim at the time, just thought he had a funny name.

    I know plenty of people who are quite dark (could easily pass for French or Spanish) – their nationality is Russian. Also I know Ukrainians like this.

    At college, I knew a blonde girl whose surname is Kogan.

    I met once a student – she is very light, from Moscow, her surname is German, and her nationality is German (her parents immigrated from Kazakhstan).

    My mum was blonde before she became grey (but she actually has included substantial non-Russian, non-Slavic nationality in her family tree).

    I can keep adding more stories, but I will not bore you more.

    The point is it’s not so simple – non-Slavic nationalities can be light, and Slavic nationalities can also sometimes be looking like from Latin speaking countries.

    -

    We have also our own hero and great leader, Karlin here. He could pass as a native Spanish, Iranian or Mexican – if he wanted to live in those places. But he belongs to a Slavic nationality (Russian).

    -

    As for Ukrainian nationality. There is plenty diversity as well. Brezhnev appearance for me, always reminds very strongly of an Italian. Probably no-one would think he was out of place slav, if he quietly was sipping expresso in cafe in downtown Milano. Well I guess the only way Italians would notice he was from a Slavic nationality, when they saw his suit wasn’t cut stylishly enough to be a real Italian.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    Some documents list Brezhnev as Russian, others as Ukrainian. Neither of his parents had Ukrainian surnames and they were from factory worker origins, suggesting ethnic Russian background, though he may have been Ukrainian (some Ukrainians Russified their surnames).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. @AP
    Correct. There are certainly light Tatars. And southern Russians, like Ukrainians, can be dark, thought they do not look like Caucasians.

    You’re Ukrainian. You know this, as you have a lot of variety with the Ukraine (and even the Ukrainian nationality in Ukraine), which often can be quite diverse
     
    Ethnic Ukrainians vary in lightness - some are are dark, others light. But the country as a whole was 99% European, before Crimea and most of its Tatars were lost. It is even more European than Poland (98.6% European).

    Here is a school in Kiev:

    http://1154298.shkola39.web.hosting-test.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/0-02-05-825eeecf32c4e410c5d868a250cdc45326049d779703cd1661ef84cee0dc7a82_full.jpg

    Lviv:

    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-uQbzy4OnReM/Vf53Fq8LzHI/AAAAAAAABG8/QTCncPaECOU/s1600/12030560_1019775388082720_2421693098873301935_o.jpg

    No central Asians, one kid in Kiev looks kinda dark but is probably just a darker Ukrainian.

    :::::::::::::::::::::

    So by providing arms to Donbas rebels Putin has decided to bleed one of the most European places on Earth.

    But at school, kids are not well-behaved,

    The best kids in the world will be – at least alleged – the Japanese – due to reportedly almost universal good behaviour, discipline and quietness amongst them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. @Thorfinnsson


    Well I confess I have not been to Australia. But, from what I can see, it seems to be a utopia to me – I find it hard to believe their political level is not very strong, or at least very competent, particularly on issues as, for example, their strict immigration system (i.e. merit based, rather than open borders) and their booming economy. That’s not to say, I will surely not now be corrected by a sceptical Australian – if we have any here.
     
    Australia was a utopia. The Aussies traditionally called themselves, "The Lucky Country". Compare Australia's history to Russia's or even America's (we have a luckier history than you, but we still had to fight the Indians for 300 years and suffered a catastrophic civil war). Their big military-national holiday is about a lost battle in...Turkey.

    This has been dismantled over the past forty or so years, beginning with the end of the White Australia Policy in 1975. Their immigration policy is arguably an improvement over America's, but bear in mind that "merit" includes absurd work visa categories such as horse racing croupiers and "restaurant managers" (in practice--waiters). And it's arguably worse than ours in that the immigration rate is shockingly high--over one percent of the population every year. A fair number of these immigrants are still white and even from the United Kingdom (British-born people are one-quarter of the entire population), but most are now non-white.

    The Aussies here simply look good compared to the pathetic Eurocucks who literally invited an Afro-Mohammedan invasion on 2015, whereas Australia successfully shut down THE BOATS (which continues to outrage many of Australia's native SJW cucks).

    The booming economy is entirely due to China as Australia is the world's largest exporter of coal and iron ore. Meanwhile the domestic manufacturing sector has been dismantled. Holden (GM's Australian brand), Ford, and Toyota have all closed their Australian assembly plants, closing the book on nearly a century of Australian automobile manufacturing. It's even worse than it sounds as the Australian automotive sector had climbed the value chain--both Ford and GM had indigenous Australian engineering groups which developed innovative cars some of which were even exported (my Chevrolet SS was engineered and built in Australia, and this car was also exported to Europe and Asia).

    The China boom has been mismanaged as well. Despite skyrocketing exports the country still has a current account deficit most years, and inept land use policies along with high immigration have resulted in the world's highest housing prices--quite an achievement in an empty continent.

    Unz commentators are often spoil my dream utopias. I’m pretty sure I’d still be happy in Australia, at least from my pathetic knowledge of this country from youtube videos analyzing google streetview.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pavlo
    Did you ever see the original Mad Max?

    I assure you, it was basically a documentary.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. @Thorfinnsson

    No, it is for Chechens to make their own political decisions within their own borders. Russia has done enough jackbooting.
     

    Your own religious views are irrelevant to the matter at hand.

    The FACT is that Russia has this unilateral power. This was decisively proven in 1999-2000 (or, taking, the long view, 1999-2009). The fact that you have a religious belief in Chechen self-determination doesn't change the facts on the ground. The reality is that the Chechens live in a world of Russian-determination.

    I am also waiting for you to admit that you were wrong on the second point.

    How does it feel to be wrong?

    “Your own religious views are irrelevant to the matter at hand.”

    Thanks for the strawman.

    “The FACT is that Russia has this unilateral power. This was decisively proven in 1999-2000 (or, taking, the long view, 1999-2009).”

    By way of employing ground troops, certainly.

    “The fact that you have a religious belief in Chechen self-determination doesn’t change the facts on the ground.”

    That would be a POLITICAL belief. The Chechen people, like any other group of people, need not have their heads smashed in by outsiders who believe they know what is best for them. Take your fascist sentiments somewhere else.

    “The reality is that the Chechens live in a world of Russian-determination.”

    Russian determination by way of the gun, indeed. Chechens need not choose to be subjugated. The concept of self-determination is well-established under international law. Taking both Chechen and Russian actions into consideration, Chechnya decidedly has the liberty for self-rule.

    “I am also waiting for you to admit that you were wrong on the second point. How does it feel to be wrong?”

    Thanks for the Fake News alert, but I an APP for that on my phone already.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson

    By way of employing ground troops, certainly.
     

    Your point?

    That would be a POLITICAL belief. The Chechen people, like any other group of people, need not have their heads smashed in by outsiders who believe they know what is best for them. Take your fascist sentiments somewhere else.
     
    Ideological and religious sentiments activate the exact same area of the brain. There is functionally no distinction between the two.

    One can certainly believe that the Chechen people, or indeed any group of people, "need not have their heads smashed in by outsiders who believe they know what is best for them".

    This, however, is irrelevant to the question at hand. The FACT is that Russian military power is the only arbiter of this question.

    Russian determination by way of the gun, indeed. Chechens need not choose to be subjugated. The concept of self-determination is well-established under international law. Taking both Chechen and Russian actions into consideration, Chechnya decidedly has the liberty for self-rule.
     

    The concept of self-determination is completely made up. It's a religious concept beloved by religious fanatics such as yourself.

    The entire history of diplomacy since the formation of League of Nations has shown that great powers rarely have the appetite to enforce international law, and certainly never do so in a consistent way. Thus international law is a farce and cannot be relied upon.

    Talk to me when China and the West join forces to threaten nuclear war against Russia unless Russia agrees to an internationally monitored independence referendum in Chechnya. Do you really think this will happen?

    Chechnya decidedly DOES NOT have the liberty for self-rule. It can only gain such liberty with Russian acquiescence, as was proven in 1999-2000.

    Thanks for the Fake News alert, but I an APP for that on my phone already.
     

    Once more--how does it feel to be WRONG?

    You should be ashamed of yourself, not only for being a committed wrongist but also for confessing to reading the news on a handset.

    And one more thing--learn how to quote properly you incompetent cretin. Use the BLOCKQUOTE tag.

    You need to apologize to us.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. @Dmitry
    Unz commentators are often spoil my dream utopias. I'm pretty sure I'd still be happy in Australia, at least from my pathetic knowledge of this country from youtube videos analyzing google streetview.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qngHkKk2S-U

    Did you ever see the original Mad Max?

    I assure you, it was basically a documentary.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. @AP
    In 2010 Russia was 82.74% Slavic and .29% Germanic, so 83% European. This percentage would be slightly lower now due to higher Caucasian and Mongolian birthrates, if not for Donbas refugees (although I suppose these can be considered alongside Central Asian migrants).

    In 2010 Russia was 82.74% Slavic and .29% Germanic, so 83% European. This percentage would be slightly lower now due to higher Caucasian and Mongolian birthrates, if not for Donbas refugees (although I suppose these can be considered alongside Central Asian migrants).

    Lets go. The Tatars of 3.55%. only half of Tatars consider themselves Muslims (4% of real Muslims among Tatars). Total Tatars are not non-Muslims-at least 1.5%.
    Chuvash – 0.8%, Mordovians – 0.45%, Mari – 0.3%, Udmurts 0.3%, Germans – 0.3%.

    82.74%+1.5%+0.8%+0.3%+0.3%+0.3%=85.94%

    And these are not all white non-Muslim peoples of Russia.
    That is, under any methods of counting, the number of white, non-Muslim, non-Georgian, non-Armenian population in Russia is more than 85%.

    Read More
    • Replies: @melanf
    The Tatars, Chuvash , Mordovians , Mari , Udmurts certainly white.
    https://cdn1.img.rsport.ru/images/112983/98/1129839844.jpg
    http://static.diary.ru/userdir/2/8/1/4/28142/81721794.jpg
    https://otvet.imgsmail.ru/download/293a3438e5e23ee6edbd657b0339a2bd_i-24.jpg
    https://gazeta13.ru/data/photo/032213_044519865814.jpg
    https://s10.stc.all.kpcdn.net/share/i/12/8981661/inx960x640.jpg

    By the way Armenians and Georgians are white, too
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. @melanf

    In 2010 Russia was 82.74% Slavic and .29% Germanic, so 83% European. This percentage would be slightly lower now due to higher Caucasian and Mongolian birthrates, if not for Donbas refugees (although I suppose these can be considered alongside Central Asian migrants).
     
    Lets go. The Tatars of 3.55%. only half of Tatars consider themselves Muslims (4% of real Muslims among Tatars). Total Tatars are not non-Muslims-at least 1.5%.
    Chuvash - 0.8%, Mordovians - 0.45%, Mari - 0.3%, Udmurts 0.3%, Germans - 0.3%.

    82.74%+1.5%+0.8%+0.3%+0.3%+0.3%=85.94%

    And these are not all white non-Muslim peoples of Russia.
    That is, under any methods of counting, the number of white, non-Muslim, non-Georgian, non-Armenian population in Russia is more than 85%.

    The Tatars, Chuvash , Mordovians , Mari , Udmurts certainly white.

    By the way Armenians and Georgians are white, too

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    My favorite is the communist Udmurt lady.
    , @AP
    So are Chechens. We are talking about Europeans, not whites.
    , @AP
    And not all Volga Tatars look white:

    https://i.pinimg.com/originals/83/0c/9b/830c9b82197b76577089da0162312ab9.jpg

    http://oi58.tinypic.com/1z6bd43.jpg

    Or Chuvash:

    https://i.ytimg.com/vi/79nKaijRl_E/maxresdefault.jpg

    https://i.pinimg.com/originals/5d/c8/3f/5dc83fd75307de473fcdc8afb5ff4044.jpg
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. @AP
    I think these peoples are borderline. Physically, yes. In the case of Finns or Estonians, they are thoroughly Europeanized culturally. But some shamanic cultures far to the East- not necessarily. Obviously not aversive like Muslims, but in essence they are like Native Americans if the latter had European phenotypes. Non-European language, religion and culture.

    It is fascinating how the same language group shows transition from European to Asian physical appearance.

    Here are red-headed Udmurts:

    https://russianpickle.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/udmurt_people_red.jpg

    A Mansi boy (transitional):

    https://arctic.ru/images/28/07/280733.jpg

    And totally non-European-looking Nentsy:

    https://arctic.ru/images/28/11/281146.jpg

    Linguistically, the Mansi and the Khanty (or Vogul and Ostyak) languages are the closest relatives of Hungarian. That much we learned at school. They are still quite different.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. @melanf
    The Tatars, Chuvash , Mordovians , Mari , Udmurts certainly white.
    https://cdn1.img.rsport.ru/images/112983/98/1129839844.jpg
    http://static.diary.ru/userdir/2/8/1/4/28142/81721794.jpg
    https://otvet.imgsmail.ru/download/293a3438e5e23ee6edbd657b0339a2bd_i-24.jpg
    https://gazeta13.ru/data/photo/032213_044519865814.jpg
    https://s10.stc.all.kpcdn.net/share/i/12/8981661/inx960x640.jpg

    By the way Armenians and Georgians are white, too

    My favorite is the communist Udmurt lady.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Would Greasy bang her? (#174, last jpg, upper right corner)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. @melanf
    The Tatars, Chuvash , Mordovians , Mari , Udmurts certainly white.
    https://cdn1.img.rsport.ru/images/112983/98/1129839844.jpg
    http://static.diary.ru/userdir/2/8/1/4/28142/81721794.jpg
    https://otvet.imgsmail.ru/download/293a3438e5e23ee6edbd657b0339a2bd_i-24.jpg
    https://gazeta13.ru/data/photo/032213_044519865814.jpg
    https://s10.stc.all.kpcdn.net/share/i/12/8981661/inx960x640.jpg

    By the way Armenians and Georgians are white, too

    So are Chechens. We are talking about Europeans, not whites.

    Read More
    • Replies: @melanf


    Total Tatars are non-Muslims-at least 1.5%.
    Chuvash – 0.8%, Mordovians – 0.45%, Mari – 0.3%, Udmurts 0.3%, Germans – 0.3%.
    82.74%+1.5%+0.8%+0.3%+0.3%+0.3%=85.94%
    And these are not all white non-Muslim peoples of Russia.
    That is, under any methods of counting, the number of white, non-Muslim, non-Georgian, non-Armenian population in Russia is more than 85%.
     
    So are Chechens. We are talking about Europeans, not whites.
     
    Tatars which non-Muslims, Chuvash , Mordovians , Mari , Udmurts - Europeans by any standart
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. @Dmitry

    Correct. There are certainly light Tatars. And southern Russians, like Ukrainians, can be dark, thought they do not look like Caucasians.

     

    I had a classmate at school with a guy with a comically Muslim surname - he was blonde. Actually didn't realize his surname was Muslim at the time, just thought he had a funny name.

    I know plenty of people who are quite dark (could easily pass for French or Spanish) - their nationality is Russian. Also I know Ukrainians like this.

    At college, I knew a blonde girl whose surname is Kogan.

    I met once a student - she is very light, from Moscow, her surname is German, and her nationality is German (her parents immigrated from Kazakhstan).

    My mum was blonde before she became grey (but she actually has included substantial non-Russian, non-Slavic nationality in her family tree).

    I can keep adding more stories, but I will not bore you more.

    The point is it's not so simple - non-Slavic nationalities can be light, and Slavic nationalities can also sometimes be looking like from Latin speaking countries.

    -

    We have also our own hero and great leader, Karlin here. He could pass as a native Spanish, Iranian or Mexican - if he wanted to live in those places. But he belongs to a Slavic nationality (Russian).

    -

    As for Ukrainian nationality. There is plenty diversity as well. Brezhnev appearance for me, always reminds very strongly of an Italian. Probably no-one would think he was out of place slav, if he quietly was sipping expresso in cafe in downtown Milano. Well I guess the only way Italians would notice he was from a Slavic nationality, when they saw his suit wasn't cut stylishly enough to be a real Italian.

    https://s12.stc.all.kpcdn.net/share/i/12/4501838/inx960x640.jpg

    Some documents list Brezhnev as Russian, others as Ukrainian. Neither of his parents had Ukrainian surnames and they were from factory worker origins, suggesting ethnic Russian background, though he may have been Ukrainian (some Ukrainians Russified their surnames).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    Forged documentation. According to our sources - born:Palermo, Sicily; name: Don Leonardo Brezzno. Of course, Ukrainian identity papers cheaper to buy on the black market.

    http://anti-troll.ru/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/95362405_5_tak_vuyglyadel_brezhnev_v_1971_godu1.jpg
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. AP says:
    @melanf
    The Tatars, Chuvash , Mordovians , Mari , Udmurts certainly white.
    https://cdn1.img.rsport.ru/images/112983/98/1129839844.jpg
    http://static.diary.ru/userdir/2/8/1/4/28142/81721794.jpg
    https://otvet.imgsmail.ru/download/293a3438e5e23ee6edbd657b0339a2bd_i-24.jpg
    https://gazeta13.ru/data/photo/032213_044519865814.jpg
    https://s10.stc.all.kpcdn.net/share/i/12/8981661/inx960x640.jpg

    By the way Armenians and Georgians are white, too

    And not all Volga Tatars look white:

    Or Chuvash:

    Read More
    • Replies: @melanf

    And not all Volga Tatars look white:
     
    As shown by the group photo of the Kazan Tatars, the Mongolian features are very rare among them.

    http://m.tatar-inform.ru/upload/image/gallery/2010/05/24/10pz.jpg
    http://www.elitat.ru/one/13105/1400851776.jpg
    http://kpfu.ru/portal/docs/F139152881/DSCF2510.JPG

    Indeed "Mongoloid" Tatars-Nogai (in your photo), but their number is small and in most they are Muslims.
    In General, 1.5% of the population of Russia is the minimum estimate of "white" Tatars which non Muslims.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. @reiner Tor
    My favorite is the communist Udmurt lady.

    Would Greasy bang her? (#174, last jpg, upper right corner)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greasy William
    nope
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. @AP

    I notice that you have a really strange and virulent hostility towards Donbass people while being normal towards Russians.
     
    I love Russia, but am hostile toward Soviet. Donbas = Soviet. There is no real pre-Soviet tradition there (Donetsk was founded by a Welshman but it grew under Soviets, real Soviets), the people are an ethnic mix who came together under Soviet supervision. Russian-speaking, but this is because that happened to be the main language of the USSR. When the Soviet Union fell apart, these people behaved as any people do when their world collapses (see: Native American reservations). And because there was nothing else there, unlike in Russia or Ukraine, their behavior never recovered or improved. Ukraine, alas, failed to save these people through Ukrainianization. Hopefully Russia can turn them into proper Russians, at least.

    Multinational empires have such pockets. A German-speaking person of mixed Czech, German, Polish, Ruthenian, descent from a city like Chernowitz (1918 population - 19% Ukrainian, 15% Romanian, 17% German, 33% Jewish, 15% Polish) could be considered homo austriacus. Not a bad thing, a product of a beautiful state worthy of respect. Homo sovieticus - not so much.

    That having been said, generalizations no matter how accurate have their limits. There certainly are nice, decently-behaving people from there. And they don't deserve their sad fate.

    Thanks for the explanation.

    From what I have read it is the LNR that is strongly Sovietesque in character, while many more in the DNR are Imperial LARPers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. @AP
    Some documents list Brezhnev as Russian, others as Ukrainian. Neither of his parents had Ukrainian surnames and they were from factory worker origins, suggesting ethnic Russian background, though he may have been Ukrainian (some Ukrainians Russified their surnames).

    Forged documentation. According to our sources – born:Palermo, Sicily; name: Don Leonardo Brezzno. Of course, Ukrainian identity papers cheaper to buy on the black market.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. @Corvinus
    "Your own religious views are irrelevant to the matter at hand."

    Thanks for the strawman.

    "The FACT is that Russia has this unilateral power. This was decisively proven in 1999-2000 (or, taking, the long view, 1999-2009)."

    By way of employing ground troops, certainly.

    "The fact that you have a religious belief in Chechen self-determination doesn’t change the facts on the ground."

    That would be a POLITICAL belief. The Chechen people, like any other group of people, need not have their heads smashed in by outsiders who believe they know what is best for them. Take your fascist sentiments somewhere else.

    "The reality is that the Chechens live in a world of Russian-determination."

    Russian determination by way of the gun, indeed. Chechens need not choose to be subjugated. The concept of self-determination is well-established under international law. Taking both Chechen and Russian actions into consideration, Chechnya decidedly has the liberty for self-rule.

    "I am also waiting for you to admit that you were wrong on the second point. How does it feel to be wrong?"

    Thanks for the Fake News alert, but I an APP for that on my phone already.

    By way of employing ground troops, certainly.

    Your point?

    That would be a POLITICAL belief. The Chechen people, like any other group of people, need not have their heads smashed in by outsiders who believe they know what is best for them. Take your fascist sentiments somewhere else.

    Ideological and religious sentiments activate the exact same area of the brain. There is functionally no distinction between the two.

    One can certainly believe that the Chechen people, or indeed any group of people, “need not have their heads smashed in by outsiders who believe they know what is best for them”.

    This, however, is irrelevant to the question at hand. The FACT is that Russian military power is the only arbiter of this question.

    Russian determination by way of the gun, indeed. Chechens need not choose to be subjugated. The concept of self-determination is well-established under international law. Taking both Chechen and Russian actions into consideration, Chechnya decidedly has the liberty for self-rule.

    The concept of self-determination is completely made up. It’s a religious concept beloved by religious fanatics such as yourself.

    The entire history of diplomacy since the formation of League of Nations has shown that great powers rarely have the appetite to enforce international law, and certainly never do so in a consistent way. Thus international law is a farce and cannot be relied upon.

    Talk to me when China and the West join forces to threaten nuclear war against Russia unless Russia agrees to an internationally monitored independence referendum in Chechnya. Do you really think this will happen?

    Chechnya decidedly DOES NOT have the liberty for self-rule. It can only gain such liberty with Russian acquiescence, as was proven in 1999-2000.

    Thanks for the Fake News alert, but I an APP for that on my phone already.

    Once more–how does it feel to be WRONG?

    You should be ashamed of yourself, not only for being a committed wrongist but also for confessing to reading the news on a handset.

    And one more thing–learn how to quote properly you incompetent cretin. Use the BLOCKQUOTE tag.

    You need to apologize to us.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Ideological and religious sentiments activate the exact same area of the brain."

    Actually, research indicates when political views are challenged, there is activity in two different parts of the brain--the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex and the orbitofrontal cortex. When presented with counter-evidence, there is activity in the amygdala. In determining which brain networks are involved in representing feelings experienced after a religious service, researchers found that there was activation in the nucleus accumbens and the medial prefrontal cortex.

    "There is functionally no distinction between the two."

    You are decidedly in error here. Ideology is the larger category, with religion the subset. A religion focuses on ANSWERING the world-view, including afterlife and other things not part of the materialistic world. Ideologies tend to focus on providing a world-view about the materialistic world.

    In simpler terms that you can even comprehend...

    ideology--the set of ideas and beliefs of a group or political party
    religion--an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or gods

    "One can certainly believe that the Chechen people, or indeed any group of people, “need not have their heads smashed in by outsiders who believe they know what is best for them”."

    The Chechen people know what is best for them. That is without question. But keep peacocking if it makes you feel important.

    "This, however, is irrelevant to the question at hand. The FACT is that Russian military power is the only arbiter of this question."

    Actually, despite your feeble protestation, the Chechen people have exclusive domain over their individual lives, as well as what they deem to be collectively vital for their existence. They need not be bludgeoned to death by the Russian war machine merely because Russia thinks it knows what it is best for them.

    "The concept of self-determination is completely made up. It’s a religious concept beloved by religious fanatics such as yourself."

    Please educate yourself on the matter, as you absolutely and decided wrong on this matter. Would you like to know even more, citizen?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination

    "The entire history of diplomacy since the formation of League of Nations has shown that great powers rarely have the appetite to enforce international law, and certainly never do so in a consistent way. Thus international law is a farce and cannot be relied upon."

    Thank you for offering your red herring, but I'm full. Perhaps another time I will entertain it.

    Talk to me when China and the West join forces to threaten nuclear war against Russia unless Russia agrees to an internationally monitored independence referendum in Chechnya. Do you really think this will happen?

    Chechnya decidedly DOES NOT have the liberty for self-rule. It can only gain such liberty with Russian acquiescence, as was proven in 1999-2000.


    "Talk to me when China and the West join forces to threaten nuclear war against Russia unless Russia agrees to an internationally monitored independence referendum in Chechnya. Do you really think this will happen?"

    The fact that Russia is imposing its will on Chechnya only proves that self-rule is Chechnya's desire, and that desire is unequivocally being suppressed.

    "Chechnya decidedly DOES NOT have the liberty for self-rule. It can only gain such liberty with Russian acquiescence, as was proven in 1999-2000."

    Of course Chechnya has the liberty for self-rule. It is Russian strong-arm tactics that prevent it from freely exercising that liberty. In other words, it is an artificial barrier to their natural choice to be free. There need not be "Russian acquiescence", since Chechan self-rule is not contingent upon it. Russia is without question interfering with a people's freedom of choice.

    "You need to apologize to us."

    All your lies are belong to us.

    So, are you done embarrassing yourself?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. @AP
    And not all Volga Tatars look white:

    https://i.pinimg.com/originals/83/0c/9b/830c9b82197b76577089da0162312ab9.jpg

    http://oi58.tinypic.com/1z6bd43.jpg

    Or Chuvash:

    https://i.ytimg.com/vi/79nKaijRl_E/maxresdefault.jpg

    https://i.pinimg.com/originals/5d/c8/3f/5dc83fd75307de473fcdc8afb5ff4044.jpg

    And not all Volga Tatars look white:

    As shown by the group photo of the Kazan Tatars, the Mongolian features are very rare among them.

    Indeed “Mongoloid” Tatars-Nogai (in your photo), but their number is small and in most they are Muslims.
    In General, 1.5% of the population of Russia is the minimum estimate of “white” Tatars which non Muslims.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    Are those pictures of ethnic Tatars or just people from Kazan? Kazan has as many Russians as it does Tatars.

    Kazan Tatars:

    https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/drugoi/484155/389858/389858_original.jpg

    https://i.ytimg.com/vi/uEY2iTxuPIA/maxresdefault.jpg

    They look like people who are about 1/4 Asian; the ones I know in real life, do too. But it's not just about that. Chechens are white, they still aren't European:

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-KxoQ-0q_DwY/UnJ1k4dGMaI/AAAAAAAAApE/cWkzf6cT61M/s1600/2363qx.jpg
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. @melanf

    And not all Volga Tatars look white:
     
    As shown by the group photo of the Kazan Tatars, the Mongolian features are very rare among them.

    http://m.tatar-inform.ru/upload/image/gallery/2010/05/24/10pz.jpg
    http://www.elitat.ru/one/13105/1400851776.jpg
    http://kpfu.ru/portal/docs/F139152881/DSCF2510.JPG

    Indeed "Mongoloid" Tatars-Nogai (in your photo), but their number is small and in most they are Muslims.
    In General, 1.5% of the population of Russia is the minimum estimate of "white" Tatars which non Muslims.

    Are those pictures of ethnic Tatars or just people from Kazan? Kazan has as many Russians as it does Tatars.

    Kazan Tatars:

    They look like people who are about 1/4 Asian; the ones I know in real life, do too. But it’s not just about that. Chechens are white, they still aren’t European:

    Read More
    • Replies: @melanf

    Are those pictures of ethnic Tatars or just people from Kazan? Kazan has as many Russians as it does Tatars.
     
    These are photos from Kazan. What are Russian in appearance can not be distinguished from the Tatars, and together they form a homogeneous "white" crowd, gives a clear answer.

    However, you can watch athletes of the Tatars (unlike photomodels this is a representative sample)

    http://www.gotennis.ru/uploads/PicCache/uploads/gallery/photo/bolshoji_shlem_i_masters_cup/roland_garros_2010_-_women/Safina-r~0.jpg/600x.jpeg

    https://img.championat.com/news/big/1481189076560620260.jpg

    http://www.kostiskal.net/zignat1/ntlia2.jpg

    http://www.temakazan.ru/media/news/6/4906/59fe403c0bd644664a1a84a20a34285a.jpg

    http://www.gksport.ru/images/stories/sait/news/aliya-mustafina-russia.jpg

    https://ss.sport-express.ru/userfiles/materials/118/1188322/large.jpg
    The last two photos - different girl (Aliya Mustafina and Alina Sagitova)


    For full accuracy you can get a list of the Russian athletes Tatars from Wikipedia and posting all the photos (without selection). Better yet, show these photos in any racist forum, and ask - white or not.


    Chechens are white
     
    Undoubtedly. But they're Muslims.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. @Thorfinnsson

    By way of employing ground troops, certainly.
     

    Your point?

    That would be a POLITICAL belief. The Chechen people, like any other group of people, need not have their heads smashed in by outsiders who believe they know what is best for them. Take your fascist sentiments somewhere else.
     
    Ideological and religious sentiments activate the exact same area of the brain. There is functionally no distinction between the two.

    One can certainly believe that the Chechen people, or indeed any group of people, "need not have their heads smashed in by outsiders who believe they know what is best for them".

    This, however, is irrelevant to the question at hand. The FACT is that Russian military power is the only arbiter of this question.

    Russian determination by way of the gun, indeed. Chechens need not choose to be subjugated. The concept of self-determination is well-established under international law. Taking both Chechen and Russian actions into consideration, Chechnya decidedly has the liberty for self-rule.
     

    The concept of self-determination is completely made up. It's a religious concept beloved by religious fanatics such as yourself.

    The entire history of diplomacy since the formation of League of Nations has shown that great powers rarely have the appetite to enforce international law, and certainly never do so in a consistent way. Thus international law is a farce and cannot be relied upon.

    Talk to me when China and the West join forces to threaten nuclear war against Russia unless Russia agrees to an internationally monitored independence referendum in Chechnya. Do you really think this will happen?

    Chechnya decidedly DOES NOT have the liberty for self-rule. It can only gain such liberty with Russian acquiescence, as was proven in 1999-2000.

    Thanks for the Fake News alert, but I an APP for that on my phone already.
     

    Once more--how does it feel to be WRONG?

    You should be ashamed of yourself, not only for being a committed wrongist but also for confessing to reading the news on a handset.

    And one more thing--learn how to quote properly you incompetent cretin. Use the BLOCKQUOTE tag.

    You need to apologize to us.

    “Ideological and religious sentiments activate the exact same area of the brain.”

    Actually, research indicates when political views are challenged, there is activity in two different parts of the brain–the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex and the orbitofrontal cortex. When presented with counter-evidence, there is activity in the amygdala. In determining which brain networks are involved in representing feelings experienced after a religious service, researchers found that there was activation in the nucleus accumbens and the medial prefrontal cortex.

    “There is functionally no distinction between the two.”

    You are decidedly in error here. Ideology is the larger category, with religion the subset. A religion focuses on ANSWERING the world-view, including afterlife and other things not part of the materialistic world. Ideologies tend to focus on providing a world-view about the materialistic world.

    In simpler terms that you can even comprehend…

    ideology–the set of ideas and beliefs of a group or political party
    religion–an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or gods

    “One can certainly believe that the Chechen people, or indeed any group of people, “need not have their heads smashed in by outsiders who believe they know what is best for them”.”

    The Chechen people know what is best for them. That is without question. But keep peacocking if it makes you feel important.

    “This, however, is irrelevant to the question at hand. The FACT is that Russian military power is the only arbiter of this question.”

    Actually, despite your feeble protestation, the Chechen people have exclusive domain over their individual lives, as well as what they deem to be collectively vital for their existence. They need not be bludgeoned to death by the Russian war machine merely because Russia thinks it knows what it is best for them.

    “The concept of self-determination is completely made up. It’s a religious concept beloved by religious fanatics such as yourself.”

    Please educate yourself on the matter, as you absolutely and decided wrong on this matter. Would you like to know even more, citizen?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination

    “The entire history of diplomacy since the formation of League of Nations has shown that great powers rarely have the appetite to enforce international law, and certainly never do so in a consistent way. Thus international law is a farce and cannot be relied upon.”

    Thank you for offering your red herring, but I’m full. Perhaps another time I will entertain it.

    Talk to me when China and the West join forces to threaten nuclear war against Russia unless Russia agrees to an internationally monitored independence referendum in Chechnya. Do you really think this will happen?

    Chechnya decidedly DOES NOT have the liberty for self-rule. It can only gain such liberty with Russian acquiescence, as was proven in 1999-2000.

    “Talk to me when China and the West join forces to threaten nuclear war against Russia unless Russia agrees to an internationally monitored independence referendum in Chechnya. Do you really think this will happen?”

    The fact that Russia is imposing its will on Chechnya only proves that self-rule is Chechnya’s desire, and that desire is unequivocally being suppressed.

    “Chechnya decidedly DOES NOT have the liberty for self-rule. It can only gain such liberty with Russian acquiescence, as was proven in 1999-2000.”

    Of course Chechnya has the liberty for self-rule. It is Russian strong-arm tactics that prevent it from freely exercising that liberty. In other words, it is an artificial barrier to their natural choice to be free. There need not be “Russian acquiescence”, since Chechan self-rule is not contingent upon it. Russia is without question interfering with a people’s freedom of choice.

    “You need to apologize to us.”

    All your lies are belong to us.

    So, are you done embarrassing yourself?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson

    Actually, research indicates when political views are challenged, there is activity in two different parts of the brain–the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex and the orbitofrontal cortex. When presented with counter-evidence, there is activity in the amygdala. In determining which brain networks are involved in representing feelings experienced after a religious service, researchers found that there was activation in the nucleus accumbens and the medial prefrontal cortex.
     

    This falls into the category of "not even wrong".

    What do you suppose happens when someone's religious views--such as yours--are challenged?

    What is happening to your profoundly wrong brain right now?

    You are decidedly in error here. Ideology is the larger category, with religion the subset. A religion focuses on ANSWERING the world-view, including afterlife and other things not part of the materialistic world. Ideologies tend to focus on providing a world-view about the materialistic world.
     

    Right, so Mosaic Law has nothing to do with the material world.

    In simpler terms that you can even comprehend…
     

    Projection.

    You are projecting your own mental inferiority upon your superior antagonist.

    Instead you must SUBMIT and APOLOGIZE.

    ideology–the set of ideas and beliefs of a group or political party
    religion–an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or gods
     

    So you decided to admit that you are wrong after all?

    The Chechen people know what is best for them. That is without question. But keep peacocking if it makes you feel important.
     

    There are two problems with this claim.

    The first is the idea that what is the best for the Chechen people is relevant to this discussion. It is not and is in fact irrelevant.

    The second is that the Chechen people do in fact know what is best for them. This not something which can be assumed and must be proven. I suppose you have extensive polling data from the Chechens to see if they know what's best for them?

    Actually, despite your feeble protestation, the Chechen people have exclusive domain over their individual lives, as well as what they deem to be collectively vital for their existence.
     

    Once again I request you stop allowing your religious fanaticism to influence this discussion.

    As previously noted, Russia has demonstrated that it has domain over the Chechens. This was decisively proven in 1999-2000.

    You can hate reality all you like, but nothing in your religion will ever allow you to eliminate it.


    They need not be bludgeoned to death by the Russian war machine merely because Russia thinks it knows what it is best for them.
     
    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

    Do you have evidence that Russia even cares what is best for Chechens?

    Please educate yourself on the matter, as you absolutely and decided wrong on this matter. Would you like to know even more, citizen?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination
     

    Do not address me as "citizen", as it suggests we are equal. You are a completely inferior commenter who must be destroyed.

    Posting a Wikipedia link is, surprise, not an argument.

    Thank you for offering your red herring, but I’m full. Perhaps another time I will entertain it.
     

    Once again, not an argument.

    You are wrong and must admit you are wrong.

    The fact that Russia is imposing its will on Chechnya only proves that self-rule is Chechnya’s desire, and that desire is unequivocally being suppressed.
     

    And your point is...?

    The origin of this dispute is your incorrect statement that Chechens, "It’s not for Russia to unilaterally decide. "

    I have shown that this is completely incorrect--that it is in fact for Russia to unilaterally decide.

    The fact that you worship Chechens and "self-determination" is irrelevant. I am not interest in your religion, and your religion has no basis in reality.

    Of course Chechnya has the liberty for self-rule. It is Russian strong-arm tactics that prevent it from freely exercising that liberty. In other words, it is an artificial barrier to their natural choice to be free.
     

    If Chechnya had the liberty for self-rule, it would either have self-rule or democratically agree to be ruled by Russia.

    The barrier in question is not artificial. It is a very real barrier of Russian military power.

    There need not be “Russian acquiescence”, since Chechan self-rule is not contingent upon it. Russia is without question interfering with a people’s freedom of choice.
     

    You are, once again, WRONG.

    Chechen self-rule is 100% contingent on Russian acquiescence, because Russia has overwhelming military power over Chechnya.

    If Russia does not want Chechnya to rule itself, then Chechnya will not rule itself.

    And yes, this interferes with a people's freedom of choice. Welcome to reality rather than your religious fantasy world.

    All your lies are belong to us.

    So, are you done embarrassing yourself?

     

    Please stop projecting.

    The fact that you are an embarrassing liar does not mean that I or other commenters are.

    You need to admit you are wrong.

    You need to learn how to quote properly.

    And you need apologize to us.

    In conclusion fuck you. You are a despicable piece of shit and I hope you are murdered by Chechens.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. @Thorfinnsson


    The question of increasing the population might be hard to address in democracies, but I can’t really understand why is it so hard to deal with in an authoritarian state like Russia.
     
    Russia is a lot less authoritarian than China. The country after all has free and (mostly) fair elections, they simply happen not to be competitive since Putin has sucked up all the oxygen in the room. I'm not really sure of the mechanism of control, but it's worth studying so we can duplicate it here for a generation or two (simply to liquidate leftism/equalism as a force forever).


    Just pass a law that mandates having at least 2 children to get access to your social benefits when you are old. If you have the state to take care of you when you are old, why would you have children? There are other reasons to have children but having someone to care for you when you are old is a definitely a significant one. Of course, in reality, passing such a law will be very complicated but I am sure the government can figure it out if it has the dedication.
     
    I think we can do a lot better than that.

    -End feminism (and I mean end it, bring back guardianship)
    -Instead of sending women to secondary school let alone university, send them to finishing school
    -Suppress pornography and prostitution
    -Create a state church and disenfranchise nonconformists
    -Allow men to take a second wife, of foreign origin only, once they have married a native woman
    -Extra children = extra voting power
    -Pervasive familial and natalist propaganda in media and entertainment
    -Suppress birth control and abortion except for undesirable minorities and the genetically unfit
    -Recreate the nobility for the elite and link noble status to appropriate marriage and producing sufficient numbers of children (goal being to reverse the elite fertility transition of the 18th and 19th centuries)

    I'm sure you could come up with quite a lot more if you put your mind to it. The Amish in America, who do not even make use of much labor-saving technology, manage a TFR exceeding seven. Their population doubles every 22 years with no inward conversions and considerable outward conversions.

    Doubling every 22 years might be excessive (consider infrastructure costs and the extreme dependency ratio), although the early American republic did this for its first century.

    But this should be thought about seriously. The state ought to have a population policy just as it has an economic policy and a foreign policy.

    I thoroughly enjoy fantasy.

    –End feminism (and I mean end it, bring back guardianship)

    Not going to happen.

    –Instead of sending women to secondary school let alone university, send them to finishing school

    Not going to happen.

    –Suppress pornography and prostitution

    Good luck with that!

    –Create a state church and disenfranchise nonconformists.

    There is something called freedom of religion. Perhaps you heard of it before?

    –Allow men to take a second wife, of foreign origin only, once they have married a native woman.

    Not going to happen.

    –Extra children = extra voting power

    I’ll throw you a bone here and give you one.

    –Pervasive familial and natalist propaganda in media and entertainment

    So, you are Jewish. Good to know.

    –Suppress birth control and abortion except for undesirable minorities and the genetically unfit.

    And now you have gone full Oliver Wendall Holmes. Never go full Oliver Wendall Holmes.

    –Recreate the nobility for the elite and link noble status to appropriate marriage and producing sufficient numbers of children (goal being to reverse the elite fertility transition of the 18th and 19th centuries)

    This isn’t 19th century France, nor should it be!

    Anything else to add to your fantasy list? Because thankfully your proposals are antiquated and sterile.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    tldr

    I don't agree with this stuff so therefore it's impossible!

    Just stop commenting on this site. You don't even deserve to read it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. @reiner Tor
    Would Greasy bang her? (#174, last jpg, upper right corner)

    nope

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. @Corvinus
    "Ideological and religious sentiments activate the exact same area of the brain."

    Actually, research indicates when political views are challenged, there is activity in two different parts of the brain--the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex and the orbitofrontal cortex. When presented with counter-evidence, there is activity in the amygdala. In determining which brain networks are involved in representing feelings experienced after a religious service, researchers found that there was activation in the nucleus accumbens and the medial prefrontal cortex.

    "There is functionally no distinction between the two."

    You are decidedly in error here. Ideology is the larger category, with religion the subset. A religion focuses on ANSWERING the world-view, including afterlife and other things not part of the materialistic world. Ideologies tend to focus on providing a world-view about the materialistic world.

    In simpler terms that you can even comprehend...

    ideology--the set of ideas and beliefs of a group or political party
    religion--an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or gods

    "One can certainly believe that the Chechen people, or indeed any group of people, “need not have their heads smashed in by outsiders who believe they know what is best for them”."

    The Chechen people know what is best for them. That is without question. But keep peacocking if it makes you feel important.

    "This, however, is irrelevant to the question at hand. The FACT is that Russian military power is the only arbiter of this question."

    Actually, despite your feeble protestation, the Chechen people have exclusive domain over their individual lives, as well as what they deem to be collectively vital for their existence. They need not be bludgeoned to death by the Russian war machine merely because Russia thinks it knows what it is best for them.

    "The concept of self-determination is completely made up. It’s a religious concept beloved by religious fanatics such as yourself."

    Please educate yourself on the matter, as you absolutely and decided wrong on this matter. Would you like to know even more, citizen?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination

    "The entire history of diplomacy since the formation of League of Nations has shown that great powers rarely have the appetite to enforce international law, and certainly never do so in a consistent way. Thus international law is a farce and cannot be relied upon."

    Thank you for offering your red herring, but I'm full. Perhaps another time I will entertain it.

    Talk to me when China and the West join forces to threaten nuclear war against Russia unless Russia agrees to an internationally monitored independence referendum in Chechnya. Do you really think this will happen?

    Chechnya decidedly DOES NOT have the liberty for self-rule. It can only gain such liberty with Russian acquiescence, as was proven in 1999-2000.


    "Talk to me when China and the West join forces to threaten nuclear war against Russia unless Russia agrees to an internationally monitored independence referendum in Chechnya. Do you really think this will happen?"

    The fact that Russia is imposing its will on Chechnya only proves that self-rule is Chechnya's desire, and that desire is unequivocally being suppressed.

    "Chechnya decidedly DOES NOT have the liberty for self-rule. It can only gain such liberty with Russian acquiescence, as was proven in 1999-2000."

    Of course Chechnya has the liberty for self-rule. It is Russian strong-arm tactics that prevent it from freely exercising that liberty. In other words, it is an artificial barrier to their natural choice to be free. There need not be "Russian acquiescence", since Chechan self-rule is not contingent upon it. Russia is without question interfering with a people's freedom of choice.

    "You need to apologize to us."

    All your lies are belong to us.

    So, are you done embarrassing yourself?

    Actually, research indicates when political views are challenged, there is activity in two different parts of the brain–the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex and the orbitofrontal cortex. When presented with counter-evidence, there is activity in the amygdala. In determining which brain networks are involved in representing feelings experienced after a religious service, researchers found that there was activation in the nucleus accumbens and the medial prefrontal cortex.

    This falls into the category of “not even wrong”.

    What do you suppose happens when someone’s religious views–such as yours–are challenged?

    What is happening to your profoundly wrong brain right now?

    You are decidedly in error here. Ideology is the larger category, with religion the subset. A religion focuses on ANSWERING the world-view, including afterlife and other things not part of the materialistic world. Ideologies tend to focus on providing a world-view about the materialistic world.

    Right, so Mosaic Law has nothing to do with the material world.

    In simpler terms that you can even comprehend…

    Projection.

    You are projecting your own mental inferiority upon your superior antagonist.

    Instead you must SUBMIT and APOLOGIZE.

    ideology–the set of ideas and beliefs of a group or political party
    religion–an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or gods

    So you decided to admit that you are wrong after all?

    The Chechen people know what is best for them. That is without question. But keep peacocking if it makes you feel important.

    There are two problems with this claim.

    The first is the idea that what is the best for the Chechen people is relevant to this discussion. It is not and is in fact irrelevant.

    The second is that the Chechen people do in fact know what is best for them. This not something which can be assumed and must be proven. I suppose you have extensive polling data from the Chechens to see if they know what’s best for them?

    Actually, despite your feeble protestation, the Chechen people have exclusive domain over their individual lives, as well as what they deem to be collectively vital for their existence.

    Once again I request you stop allowing your religious fanaticism to influence this discussion.

    As previously noted, Russia has demonstrated that it has domain over the Chechens. This was decisively proven in 1999-2000.

    You can hate reality all you like, but nothing in your religion will ever allow you to eliminate it.

    They need not be bludgeoned to death by the Russian war machine merely because Russia thinks it knows what it is best for them.

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

    Do you have evidence that Russia even cares what is best for Chechens?

    Please educate yourself on the matter, as you absolutely and decided wrong on this matter. Would you like to know even more, citizen?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination

    Do not address me as “citizen”, as it suggests we are equal. You are a completely inferior commenter who must be destroyed.

    Posting a Wikipedia link is, surprise, not an argument.

    Thank you for offering your red herring, but I’m full. Perhaps another time I will entertain it.

    Once again, not an argument.

    You are wrong and must admit you are wrong.

    The fact that Russia is imposing its will on Chechnya only proves that self-rule is Chechnya’s desire, and that desire is unequivocally being suppressed.

    And your point is…?

    The origin of this dispute is your incorrect statement that Chechens, “It’s not for Russia to unilaterally decide. “

    I have shown that this is completely incorrect–that it is in fact for Russia to unilaterally decide.

    The fact that you worship Chechens and “self-determination” is irrelevant. I am not interest in your religion, and your religion has no basis in reality.

    Of course Chechnya has the liberty for self-rule. It is Russian strong-arm tactics that prevent it from freely exercising that liberty. In other words, it is an artificial barrier to their natural choice to be free.

    If Chechnya had the liberty for self-rule, it would either have self-rule or democratically agree to be ruled by Russia.

    The barrier in question is not artificial. It is a very real barrier of Russian military power.

    There need not be “Russian acquiescence”, since Chechan self-rule is not contingent upon it. Russia is without question interfering with a people’s freedom of choice.

    You are, once again, WRONG.

    Chechen self-rule is 100% contingent on Russian acquiescence, because Russia has overwhelming military power over Chechnya.

    If Russia does not want Chechnya to rule itself, then Chechnya will not rule itself.

    And yes, this interferes with a people’s freedom of choice. Welcome to reality rather than your religious fantasy world.

    All your lies are belong to us.

    So, are you done embarrassing yourself?

    Please stop projecting.

    The fact that you are an embarrassing liar does not mean that I or other commenters are.

    You need to admit you are wrong.

    You need to learn how to quote properly.

    And you need apologize to us.

    In conclusion fuck you. You are a despicable piece of shit and I hope you are murdered by Chechens.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "This falls into the category of “not even wrong”. What do you suppose happens when someone’s religious views–such as yours–are challenged? What is happening to your profoundly wrong brain right now?"

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Do you have evidence that counters my assertion?

    Tit for tat.

    "You are projection your own mental inferiority upon your superior antagonist. Instead you must SUBMIT and APOLOGIZE."

    It's really cute the anger you are trying to convey.

    "The first is the idea that what is the best for the Chechen people is relevant to this discussion. It is not and is in fact irrelevant."

    It is most germane to the discussion. Making this claim only demonstrates your utter ignorance on this matter.

    "I've just defended MY country. We didn't call the Russians. They came here and occupied our land. We did't want war they came here wanted to start a war with us. I've no regrets about what I've done"--Salman Raduyev

    "Any slave who does not try to escape slavery, deserves double slavery"--Dzhokhar Dudayev

    "Posting a Wikipedia link is, surprise, not an argument."

    It's called a source, one that offered evidence that countered your claim. Do you want to know more, citizen?

    "Once again I request you stop allowing your religious fanaticism to influence this discussion."

    False characterization. As I had proven, self-determination is a political ideology. There is no religion nor fanaticism involved.

    "The fact that you worship Chechens and “self-determination” is irrelevant. I am not interest in your religion, and your religion has no basis in reality."

    Again, another false characterization. Is it a nervous tick on your part?

    "In conclusion fuck you. You are a despicable piece of shit and I have you are murdered by Chechens."

    All your lies are belong to us.

    "Just stop commenting on this site. You don’t even deserve to read it."

    OK, Chief.

    "You are a completely inferior commenter who must be destroyed."

    And now you have shown you are mentally unstable. Sad, because you give Scandanavians a bad name with your ass-hattery.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. @Corvinus
    I thoroughly enjoy fantasy.

    --End feminism (and I mean end it, bring back guardianship)

    Not going to happen.

    --Instead of sending women to secondary school let alone university, send them to finishing school

    Not going to happen.

    --Suppress pornography and prostitution

    Good luck with that!

    --Create a state church and disenfranchise nonconformists.

    There is something called freedom of religion. Perhaps you heard of it before?

    --Allow men to take a second wife, of foreign origin only, once they have married a native woman.

    Not going to happen.

    --Extra children = extra voting power

    I'll throw you a bone here and give you one.

    --Pervasive familial and natalist propaganda in media and entertainment

    So, you are Jewish. Good to know.

    --Suppress birth control and abortion except for undesirable minorities and the genetically unfit.

    And now you have gone full Oliver Wendall Holmes. Never go full Oliver Wendall Holmes.

    --Recreate the nobility for the elite and link noble status to appropriate marriage and producing sufficient numbers of children (goal being to reverse the elite fertility transition of the 18th and 19th centuries)

    This isn't 19th century France, nor should it be!

    Anything else to add to your fantasy list? Because thankfully your proposals are antiquated and sterile.

    tldr

    I don’t agree with this stuff so therefore it’s impossible!

    Just stop commenting on this site. You don’t even deserve to read it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. @Thorfinnsson

    Actually, research indicates when political views are challenged, there is activity in two different parts of the brain–the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex and the orbitofrontal cortex. When presented with counter-evidence, there is activity in the amygdala. In determining which brain networks are involved in representing feelings experienced after a religious service, researchers found that there was activation in the nucleus accumbens and the medial prefrontal cortex.
     

    This falls into the category of "not even wrong".

    What do you suppose happens when someone's religious views--such as yours--are challenged?

    What is happening to your profoundly wrong brain right now?

    You are decidedly in error here. Ideology is the larger category, with religion the subset. A religion focuses on ANSWERING the world-view, including afterlife and other things not part of the materialistic world. Ideologies tend to focus on providing a world-view about the materialistic world.
     

    Right, so Mosaic Law has nothing to do with the material world.

    In simpler terms that you can even comprehend…
     

    Projection.

    You are projecting your own mental inferiority upon your superior antagonist.

    Instead you must SUBMIT and APOLOGIZE.

    ideology–the set of ideas and beliefs of a group or political party
    religion–an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or gods
     

    So you decided to admit that you are wrong after all?

    The Chechen people know what is best for them. That is without question. But keep peacocking if it makes you feel important.
     

    There are two problems with this claim.

    The first is the idea that what is the best for the Chechen people is relevant to this discussion. It is not and is in fact irrelevant.

    The second is that the Chechen people do in fact know what is best for them. This not something which can be assumed and must be proven. I suppose you have extensive polling data from the Chechens to see if they know what's best for them?

    Actually, despite your feeble protestation, the Chechen people have exclusive domain over their individual lives, as well as what they deem to be collectively vital for their existence.
     

    Once again I request you stop allowing your religious fanaticism to influence this discussion.

    As previously noted, Russia has demonstrated that it has domain over the Chechens. This was decisively proven in 1999-2000.

    You can hate reality all you like, but nothing in your religion will ever allow you to eliminate it.


    They need not be bludgeoned to death by the Russian war machine merely because Russia thinks it knows what it is best for them.
     
    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

    Do you have evidence that Russia even cares what is best for Chechens?

    Please educate yourself on the matter, as you absolutely and decided wrong on this matter. Would you like to know even more, citizen?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination
     

    Do not address me as "citizen", as it suggests we are equal. You are a completely inferior commenter who must be destroyed.

    Posting a Wikipedia link is, surprise, not an argument.

    Thank you for offering your red herring, but I’m full. Perhaps another time I will entertain it.
     

    Once again, not an argument.

    You are wrong and must admit you are wrong.

    The fact that Russia is imposing its will on Chechnya only proves that self-rule is Chechnya’s desire, and that desire is unequivocally being suppressed.
     

    And your point is...?

    The origin of this dispute is your incorrect statement that Chechens, "It’s not for Russia to unilaterally decide. "

    I have shown that this is completely incorrect--that it is in fact for Russia to unilaterally decide.

    The fact that you worship Chechens and "self-determination" is irrelevant. I am not interest in your religion, and your religion has no basis in reality.

    Of course Chechnya has the liberty for self-rule. It is Russian strong-arm tactics that prevent it from freely exercising that liberty. In other words, it is an artificial barrier to their natural choice to be free.
     

    If Chechnya had the liberty for self-rule, it would either have self-rule or democratically agree to be ruled by Russia.

    The barrier in question is not artificial. It is a very real barrier of Russian military power.

    There need not be “Russian acquiescence”, since Chechan self-rule is not contingent upon it. Russia is without question interfering with a people’s freedom of choice.
     

    You are, once again, WRONG.

    Chechen self-rule is 100% contingent on Russian acquiescence, because Russia has overwhelming military power over Chechnya.

    If Russia does not want Chechnya to rule itself, then Chechnya will not rule itself.

    And yes, this interferes with a people's freedom of choice. Welcome to reality rather than your religious fantasy world.

    All your lies are belong to us.

    So, are you done embarrassing yourself?

     

    Please stop projecting.

    The fact that you are an embarrassing liar does not mean that I or other commenters are.

    You need to admit you are wrong.

    You need to learn how to quote properly.

    And you need apologize to us.

    In conclusion fuck you. You are a despicable piece of shit and I hope you are murdered by Chechens.

    “This falls into the category of “not even wrong”. What do you suppose happens when someone’s religious views–such as yours–are challenged? What is happening to your profoundly wrong brain right now?”

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Do you have evidence that counters my assertion?

    Tit for tat.

    “You are projection your own mental inferiority upon your superior antagonist. Instead you must SUBMIT and APOLOGIZE.”

    It’s really cute the anger you are trying to convey.

    “The first is the idea that what is the best for the Chechen people is relevant to this discussion. It is not and is in fact irrelevant.”

    It is most germane to the discussion. Making this claim only demonstrates your utter ignorance on this matter.

    “I’ve just defended MY country. We didn’t call the Russians. They came here and occupied our land. We did’t want war they came here wanted to start a war with us. I’ve no regrets about what I’ve done”–Salman Raduyev

    “Any slave who does not try to escape slavery, deserves double slavery”–Dzhokhar Dudayev

    “Posting a Wikipedia link is, surprise, not an argument.”

    It’s called a source, one that offered evidence that countered your claim. Do you want to know more, citizen?

    “Once again I request you stop allowing your religious fanaticism to influence this discussion.”

    False characterization. As I had proven, self-determination is a political ideology. There is no religion nor fanaticism involved.

    “The fact that you worship Chechens and “self-determination” is irrelevant. I am not interest in your religion, and your religion has no basis in reality.”

    Again, another false characterization. Is it a nervous tick on your part?

    “In conclusion fuck you. You are a despicable piece of shit and I have you are murdered by Chechens.”

    All your lies are belong to us.

    “Just stop commenting on this site. You don’t even deserve to read it.”

    OK, Chief.

    “You are a completely inferior commenter who must be destroyed.”

    And now you have shown you are mentally unstable. Sad, because you give Scandanavians a bad name with your ass-hattery.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    tldr

    You are wrong and refuse to admit you are wrong, making you a wrongist: someone who genuinely prefers to be wrong for emotional reasons. You further pretend a false equality to your superiors which is deeply offensive and contravenes the principle of hierarchy.

    And you are an incompetent moron unable to quote properly. Use the BLOCKQUOTE tag you stupid piece of shit.
    Reply