The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersRussian Reaction Blog
Russian History
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

German_reader looks askance at my theological speculations. Am I serious?

Yes, actually, I am.

Here are a few ways of interpretating Russian 20th century history:

1. Russians spent 70 years under the rule of a succession of traitors and saboteurs. It turns out that Trotsky and the old Bolsheviks were traitors and foreign agents (1930s), as were their executioners (late 1930s), but then Khrushchev discovered that Stalin wasn’t really a comrade (1956), although Khruschev himself turned out to be an adventurist (1964), who was replaced by Brezhnev who people realized was a decrepit alcoholic who caused zastoi (mid-1980s), but that was OK because Gorbachev was gonna fix it and reform the corrupt Party (late 1980s), only to have it all come crashing down after which he too became an enemy, traitor, and foreign agent.

This is the literal Soviet version of their history when you get cancel out all the doublethink.

2. Russians spent 70 years serving as biomaterial for the intrigues of the English aristocracy.

Yes, there really is a theory that the USSR was a “cryptocolony” of England (and the RF remains such to this date). Guy called Dmitry Galkovsky. He enjoys great cred amongst many Russian nationalists for some reason I don’t understand. Why the hell would you even want to be a nationalist of a loser country that’s been cucked by the cucked royal family of a country that is cucking itself away into non-existence?

3. Russians spent 70 years getting anally raped by the Schicklgrubers, Dzhugashvilis, and sundry Bronsteins of the world. And many of them think that’s just swell to this day.

This is the non-sovok description of the 20th century that also happens to not be a Fomenko-tier historical conspiracy theory. Consequently, it is also the most credible one.

So yes, I am entirely serious about the Sixth Proof.

Given the choices on offer, I would much rather believe that God punishing Russia for its sins than any of the alternatives. It is in fact the only one in which Russians don’t come off as veritable subhumans.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: God, Soviet Union 
Hide 212 CommentsLeave a Comment
212 Comments to "Russian History"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. AaronB says:

    I like.

    It is in fact the only one in which Russians don’t come off as veritable subhumans.

    Finally, someone who understands the correct criteria for selecting narratives.

  2. I would much rather believe that God punishing Russia for its sins than any of the alternatives. It is in fact the only one in which Russians don’t come off as veritable subhumans.

    iirc you’ve admitted yourself that Russians on the whole aren’t very religious nowadays…so it seems unlikely that such a strange metaphysical explanation could have mass appeal.
    I don’t know how Russians should deal with their 20th century history (it’s not my business after all)…but “Russians were stupid cattle” (that’s what your views sometimes sound like) seems psychologically unhealthy and unlikely to gain much support. Obviously the Soviet system was a horrible mistake in hindsight, but lots of intelligent people believed in it and it appealed to some deep human desires for social justice and progress, even if the reality turned out to be rather tawdry.

    Btw, theory 2 sounds really interesting. iirc there are also still people in Iran who believe British schemes are behind everything. Ron Unz should commission a piece about this (though I suppose it would just turn out to be something about Jewish conspiracies again).

    • Agree: iffen, Denis
  3. Russians spent 70 years getting anally raped by the Schicklgrubers, Dzhugashvilis, and sundry Bronsteins of the world. And many of them think that’s just swell to this day.

    How does this not make Russians “come off as veritable subhumans”?

    I think there are at times hidden contradictions in populist historiography that attempt to merge opposing historical figures into a unified national pantheon, but it seems healthier than pessimistic “bydlo will be bydlo and therefore they deserved it”.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
  4. @Hyperborean

    Well fortunately, that is not my position – obviously God regards Russians as humans, and punishes and rewards them thus.

    It is sovoks, Galkovskyits, and your bydlo who are the real Russophobes who project their own feelings onto me. But that is the cross I must bear.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @Thea
  5. Lo says:

    Anatoly, the root of Russian problems is a shitty climate. Russians are as human as anyone else, it is just that they appear too willing to line behind authoritarians, and this is partly because of large geography it just appears there are enemies everywhere. Otherwise, Russia has enough resources both as human capital and as natural resources (so why its people’s fortune is so negatively correlated with their resources?). That’s why I suggested they’d do much better if they were concentrated in their ancestral homeland and focused their energy there. But it won’t happen. So, until an idea Russians will accept comes up, burn as much fossil fuel as possible in order to fasten the global warming, perhaps it will warm up Russia and they will have a chance to relax.

  6. anon[485] • Disclaimer says:

    As a nationalist, you would want religion that promises rewards for good behavior and threatens punishment for bad behavior. Encourages pro-social behavior and saves money on cops and prisons.

    From this perspective, your branch of vengeful religion is complete failure.
    If I am going to be punished anyway, even if I am the nicest person in the world, because my grandpa burned a church 50 years ago, why bother? Let’s go and sin, I might as well be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb.

  7. @anon

    To the contrary the fear of divine collective punishment would have pro-social effects, as people would be incenticized to check the transgressions of their compatriots lest their sins rebound on them.

    Also God does promise to judge you on your individual (de)merits in the afterlife. If you sin you will go to hell – that is specifically your problem.

    • Replies: @iffen
  8. inertial says:

    You cannot build any kind of viable Russian nationalism without incorporating the Soviet period in a positive way. Just my observation.

    • Agree: Thorfinnsson, AnonFromTN
    • Replies: @Mikhail
    , @Thea
  9. @anon

    As a nationalist, you would want religion that promises rewards for good behavior and threatens punishment for bad behavior.

    In theory it would seem to reward collective pro-social behavior too; if you behave well and everyone else around you behaves well, then perhaps you can 1)confirm that you are among the elect, and 2)”make up” for the sins of your comrades sufficient to earn heavenly forgiveness and even its blessing.

    It does seem like it’ll lend itself in that sense to virtue signaling, but doesn’t everything?

  10. Ludwig says:

    If you’re entirely serious about a theological explanation for what you perceive as Russia’s wretched history, than it’s indeed a sad day for logic and reason. Apparently the “I-can’t-process-a-particular-piece-of-data-to-find-rational-explanations-so-I’ll-pin-it-on-a-fictious-figure-who-has-magical-beyond-rational-Powers” has claimed another victim.

    Let’s just attribute all of History, from National to Personal to a Fairy. Why am I writing this? The Fairy made me do it. Why did X happen? Fairy. What’ll happen next? Ask the Fairy. Why am I happy today? Fairy. Sad? Fairy. Why…Fairy. Fairy is always the answer. QED.

  11. @Ludwig

    Sad? Fairy. Why…Fairy. Fairy is always the answer. QED.

    • Agree: AP
  12. notanon says:

    are you comparing like with like?

    seems to me the sequence is:
    – settled landed aristocracy (rural elite)
    – urbanization followed by rise of mercantile class (urban elite)
    – big fight between urban and rural
    – lots of bad stuff happens

    by that model i’d say the religious wars were the western equivalent of what happened in russia because in the west the rise of the towns was tied up with protestantism.

    england/holland – 1600s
    germany – 30 years war
    france – religious wars followed by lull followed by revolution

    all pretty terrible

    seems to me the big differences with russia are
    1) it happened later
    2) the urban elite who overthrew the rural elite weren’t russian.

    the elite is always going to be full of sociopaths and the only thing that holds them back even slightly is shared blood.

    • Replies: @FlintWheel4
    , @notanon2
  13. @Ludwig

    Occasionalism is an infinitesimal subset of epistemology, metaphysics, cosmology and theology.

    Consider diversifying your portfolio a bit.

  14. notanon says:
    @Ludwig

    materialism implies religion was adaptive.

  15. utu says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    the cross I must bear

    Have you considered switching the cross for menorah? Purportedly it is much lighter than the cross and it’s possible that the God responsible for the misfortunes of Russia is more pleased by it than by the cross.

    • LOL: Dan Hayes
  16. I am religious and am extremely cautious about the kinds of explanations AK is putting forward. But having seen with my own eyes his incorrupt relics, I’ll defer to St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco:

    https://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/english/pages/legacy/regicide.html

  17. neutral says:

    If people here don’t like the idea of superior and inferior races, then can you list any reasons why in principle you would be against things like mass immigration, miscegenation,MLK, and other such ideologies?

  18. Here’s my explanation for your preceding post:

    Russian psyche is by nature predisposed to magical, conspiratorial, muddled, highly-symbolic, sacral, sypernatural, mystic, impractical, and grandiose reasoning. Yes, I am completely serious too. Basing this on too much interaction with native Russians. You just happen to be couching this thinking in now fashionable language of simulation.

    • Agree: Philip Owen, E
  19. loser country

    In terms of relative expansion of population and land controlled, Anglos are definitely the most successful race of the last several hundred years.

  20. Yevardian says:

    It is in fact the only one in which Russians don’t come off as veritable subhumans.

    Yeah, I can see you’re reaaaaally going to make it in Russia, Anatoly. I give you a couple years at most before you move back to America.

    Btw, theory 2 sounds really interesting. iirc there are also still people in Iran who believe British schemes are behind everything.

    On personal anecdote, I’ve met many intelligent Iranians who have argued to me that the Ayatollah was installed by the British.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @Kent Nationalist
  21. Yevardian says:
    @Ludwig

    Occam’s razor: He just really hates Russia.
    However, at the same time he isn’t a fully assimilated American (a pronounced accent on his RT spot), so moved back to Russia thinking his Western upbringing would give him an air of prestige. Well surprise, Russians care little for such things today, and that just makes him lash out at contemporary Russia and all it’s modern (“Sovok”) history even more.

    • Replies: @Mikhail
    , @Thorfinnsson
  22. Mikhail says: • Website
    @inertial

    How so specifically?

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  23. utu says:
    @Yevardian

    On personal anecdote, I’ve met many intelligent Iranians who have argued to me that the Ayatollah was installed by the British.

    Mohammad Reza Pahlavi believed it himself. Recently some documents surfaced that may corroborate it. However my pet theory is that it was Israel that was behind the destabilization of Iran to decouple it from the West and turn it into the enemy of the West. Iran could have been the first piece of domino in the Yinon Plan that only has been publicly spelled out several years after the Iranian Revolution.

    • Replies: @Yevardian
  24. @Yevardian

    the Ayatollah was installed by the British.

    For what reason?

  25. It’s not about “punishment”. The goal of life, the universe and everything isn’t to die in comfort; if that’s your goal, then it’s better to not be born at all.

    Let’s look at the facts from God’s point of view and compare Russia in 1917 to Russia in 2017.

    Russia in 1917:

    – A polyreligious society full of sects, seclets and various para-Christianities.

    – The vast majority of the populace knows nothing about theology and God and has no way to access this knowledge.

    – The only official Christianity is a weird secular ministry of religion. The head of the Church is appointed by a bureaucrat and might well be an open atheist.

    – Protestant and other new-age heresies are abundant and spreading, America is on the upswing and is the main bastion of evangelical/baptist heresies.

    Russia in 2017:

    – Only strict Orthodox Christianity and Islam remain as religions.

    – You can buy clear, easy to read and correct religious instruction on every city block. (Not to mention the Internet.)

    – Orthodox Christianity is a real Church, run the way Chrysostom intended.

    – America now has a real Orthodox Church, which by the way is one of the only religious denominations in the USA that is healthy and growing. Evangelical/baptist heresies are now basically dead, thanks to gay liberation.

  26. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Yevardian

    Somewhat reminded of those patriotic French, Brits and Americans, who often criticize trends in their respective nation.

    Russia is by no means a monolithic place. Have had numerous Russians agreeing with me unlike many others who don’t.

    • Replies: @Yevardian
  27. Yevardian says:
    @Mikhail

    Can you name any ‘patriotic’ Western (or any country really) commentator that regularly labels the inhabitants of their country as subhuman? The only parallel I can think of are ‘patriots’ like Bill Crystall and John McCain.

  28. Yevardian says:
    @utu

    I actually suspect it’s a distinct possibility myself, American media had become very hostile towards the Shah by the mid-70s, and Mohammad Pahlavi, vain and delusional as he was, certainly cultivated an air of independence. As for the Ayatollah, I don’t think many Western Intelligence people took him seriously, and may have thought he would be an easily manipulated fool.

    Actually, on a side note, the Khomeini’s ideas were very far from orthodox themselves, apparently he was heavily inspired by Platon’s “Republic” for instance.

    The funny thing is the atavistic blaming of Britain that is still common Iran.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @Jayce
  29. @neutral

    I am delighted by that idea.

    But if we don’t accept that idea, you are still left with social cohesion (diversity reduces it) and the scarcity value of nationality. If we apply this to MLK and magically pretend blacks aren’t a uniquely troublesome, destructive race then it was still that case that integration damaged social cohesion and the social and political standing of whites.

    There are also banal quality of life issues like how exceptionally irritating it is to be forced to communicate with people who can’t properly speak your language on a routine basis.

  30. @Yevardian

    Lots of us have similar feelings about our own, non-Russian countries.

  31. @Mikhail

    I’m not Russian, but doesn’t he have a point?

    The Soviet period features two of the greatest ever Russian achievements:

    • The defeat and conquest of Germany
    • Launching the first man into space

    This is not a problem unique to Russian nationalists.

    I don’t view the past century of American history fondly either. But I can’t go out ranting and raving about what a catastrophe it was if I want support.

    Russians are arguably better off in this regard since Communism lost and is thus tainted.

    • Replies: @Mikhail
    , @anonymous
    , @Thea
  32. @Yevardian

    Well, that’s a good point, though you can make the case that it’s simply satirizing the Western Russophobic narrative which routinely takes a racial caste. AK has remarked on this before, including on his Twitter feed. Not positively mind you.

    It is somewhat common for dissidents of all stripes to become exasperated with the “normies” or, as they were once known, “sheeple”. You can read Revilo P. Oliver essays from fifty years ago despairing about how stupid his fellow Americans were for instance.

  33. @notanon

    A profound history lesson in 100 words!

    It seems to me the slight difference for America will be:

    1) it happens later still
    2) the urban elite who overthrow the rural elite have dual citizenship

    The elite are always going to be full of sociopaths but its the denial of even having shared blood where and when nothing holds them back.

    • Replies: @notanon
  34. Anon[181] • Disclaimer says:

    It could be that God punishes anyone who doesn’t follow a keto diet. Makes just as much sense.

    If this macro shit gets you worked up, wait until you get close to your personal age-related impairment. If your lot will include something like arthritis or bone metastases, you will become polytheistic.

    Eventually, if death will be delayed, you will be cured of all these superstitions.

  35. Here’s a contrarian viewpoint to troll Anatoly: Stalin was fuckin based.

    In his youth, he fucked bitches (well, all his life really), robbed banks, set a Rothschild refinery on fire and then lead worker revolts for higher wages after the workers helped put the fire down.

    Then, as he matured, he took control over the biggest country in the world, lead it through the most brutal conflict in human history and emerged victorious, all while trying to create a better society of tomorrow.
    I can’t imagine a more interesting life if I tried.
    Mistakes were made along the way, but only the people who don’t do anything don’t make mistakes, and if you do great things you are bound to make a few big mistakes.

    Someone can say “he just threw Russian lives at the Nazis until they were exhausted” but things could have gone wrong in so many ways. The fact is the Russians remained behind him, he motivated his people to fight without giving up, and himself stayed in the capital during the Battle of Moscow.

    When he died, he left a pair of old boots, a dacha, and a nuclear superpower behind him 🙂 He did all this, including all the women he fucked, while being 163 cm tall. When you are this alpha and based, nothing can stop you.

    And people who spend their days behind computers, living incredibly boring and pathetic lives in comparison (myself included) are not worthy of discussing based Stalin.

    He loved Russians, drank a toast for the Russian people, the Soviet hymn included “Great Rus”, something I believe the current one does not, he killed all the terrorists who terrorized the Russian people, he sent an assassin to finish Trotsky with a pickaxe in Mexico. Once he told the weakling Khruschev who succeeded him “The good workers at the factory should be given clubs so they can beat the hell out of those Jews.” and Khruschev tattled him to the rigid braindead commies like the cuck he was.

  36. @Spisarevski

    lead it through the most brutal conflict in human history and emerged victorious

    If he hadn’t concluded the Molotov-Ribbentropp pact, out of misguided ideological paranoia (as if Britain and France were just as much of a threat to the Soviet Union as Nazi Germany), Germany would never have been able to even start its war against the Soviet Union (nor its war against Poland and the western powers).
    He also had an awful lot – hundreds of thousands at least – of people killed (scientists, successful peasants etc.) who could have advanced Russia, and had significant parts of Russia’s cultural and architectural heritage demolished.
    So his record from a national Russian perspective shouldn’t be seen as really positive.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  37. @Spisarevski

    In his youth, he fucked bitches (well, all his life really)

    That’s not a positive point. Promiscuity is inappropriate for men just like it is for women.

    lead worker revolts for higher wages after the workers helped put the fire down.

    But when he got into power he increased wage differentials (which was grantedly a good and perhaps just thing to do at the time, but not really an “egalitarian” thing to do).

    The fact is the Russians remained behind him

    Because the Germans needlessly gave them them little alternative as realised a few months after the invasion. If the National Socialists had behaved more like Imperial Germans, how many would have surrendered?

    Staying in Moscow was however brave, as might sacrificing his son have been if they had had a better relationship.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  38. Anonymous[320] • Disclaimer says:
    @Kent Nationalist

    “Controlled”

  39. @German_reader

    With respect to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact hindsight is 20/20.

    Stalin had attempted to make common cause with France and Britain against Germany, and had been rebuffed. The USSR was excluded from Munich for instance. The 1935 alliances with France and Czechoslovakia, intended to provide for security from Germany, was used by the Germans as justification for open remilitarization which received much sympathy in Britain.

    In 1939 everyone had in mind World War One. The idea that in less than a year of war Hitler would be the master of Europe struct most, including Germans, as absurd. Even Poland was expected to hold out for at least three months against the Germans, and this was based on sound WW1 experience where minor powers like Belgium, Serbia, and Rumania proved tough nuts to crack. And bear in mind that the WW1 German army, except in the matter of morale, was largely superior to the WW2 German army.

    Other than some armor prophets like Guderian, few understood that technological changes in warfare meant that tactical breakthroughs could be operationally exploited for strategic effects. This includes the Germans themselves, as in advance of the battle in the west Hitler ordered a gigantic buildup of shells in expectation of a WW1 style struggle. This stockpile of shells ended up lasting through Operation Barbarossa.

    We could say that people should’ve “obviously” listened to the armor prophets, but this wasn’t so obvious. For a contemporary example look at the current debate about carriers, antiship missiles, etc. There were also the airpower prophets of the time, who ended up being mostly wrong. Douhet in particular was spectacularly wrong. Unfortunately for many of the belligerents the airpower prophets were largely more politically influential in the interwar period.

    So Stalin thought that by signing the pact he was setting Germany against the west for a long, bloody struggle instead of against the USSR while gaining important economic and territorial advantages for the USSR.

    He also probably didn’t understand how bad the Red Army was, though it shouldn’t have taken hindsight to understand that especially in light of his own role in degrading it.

  40. utu says:

    Several clues (from various sources):

    (1) “During the long Byzantine period, Orthodox scholars did not develop groundbreaking new scientific ideas; in fact, “innovation” had a rather pejorative connotation in late antiquity and the Middle Ages. They mainly taught and commented on the Greek science received from the past, adopting some elements of Islamic science as well. Byzantium contributed only in- directly to the European Renaissance, transmitting precious texts and knowledge through the mediation of eminent Byzantine scholars who moved to the West; it thereby lost its “chance to participate in the shaping of the modern spirit.” After the sixteenth century, the Christian Orthodox world did not actively participate in the making of the new science that was growing up in Europe. Therefore, in contrast to Western Christianity, the Orthodox Church was not confronted with revolutionary new scientific ideas developed by its believers. Instead, it had to deal with the reception and adoption of ideas produced by the often-hated “Latins,” promoting a distinct anthropological model that advanced the autonomy of rationality in the perception of the natural world while seeking its active manipulation. Thus the study of the relations between Eastern Christianity and science has to respond to different questions than those that emerge in the study of the relations of Western Christianity and science. The main concern of Eastern Christianity was the “legitimacy” of knowledge that did not originate from its own spiritual tradition; depending on the period, this knowledge was mainly ancient Greek (pagan), Islamic, or Western European.

    (2) “The struggle that so often in Byzantium brought the party of monks into opposition with certain high ecclesiastics sponsored by the emperors was largely based on the aversion among wide sectors of monasticism to the appearance of secular humanism. This was an actual drama within Byzantine civilization,” wrote the 1950s Byzantinist John Meyendorff. This permanent struggle between the partisans of secular humanism and a monastic spirituality that claimed the exclusivity of truth characterized the attitude of Byzantine Orthodoxy toward secular knowledge—and especially toward what we now call science.

    (3) Before the fall of Constantinople, antiunionist scholars did not oppose scientific teaching in general, and some were even involved in the Byzantine humanist movement. However, their antiscience stances would appear after the Ottoman conquest, when the anti-Latin feelings of those who remained in the city intensified. Most renowned scholars had already fled to Italy, and those who remained had to adapt to a new world dominated by the Islamic ideals of Ottoman rule. European science was developing fast in this period, and the current of scientific exchange had shifted direction; from that point on, ideas moved only from West to East.

    (4) Thus, the debate between Aristotelian natural philosophy and the theories of physics that arose after Newton was, to a great extent, an internal debate within the Church rather than a clash between the Church and secular scholars. It concerned the introduction of a new science curriculum that was to replace the one implemented by Korydalleus a century before. Was the new science, born and developed in a Catholic and Protestant Europe, compatible with Orthodox tradition? This question would dominate the debate between partisans of European Enlightenment, who saw European science as the development of ancient Greek science, and traditionalists who felt more secure with a scientific curriculum almost unchanged from Byzantine times.

    (5) Unfortunately for Russia, the sacking of Constantinople did not lead to a Byzantine Renaissance in Kiev as it would in Catholic Italy. Although the Russian Church was influenced by and subordinate to the Constantinople see, it did not inherit the Byzantine culture of classical literature, Greek philosophy, and the Church Fathers’ theology. As one scholar put it, “Kievan Russia was not the heir to the intellectual world of Byzantine culture but the obscurantism of Byzantine monasticism... any idea of a high level of intellectual culture in Kievan Russia must be dismissed.” Yet it was this obscurantist monasticism that was not only the center of learning, albeit mostly translated literature, but was also the center that played a role in the Kievan Rus politics.

    (6) Because the Russian clergy, unlike its Greek counterpart, was relatively landless, it had to rely heavily upon fines on its parishioners when they broke the ecclesiastical law. The Russian Church’s strategy therefore was to coincide their legal procedures with those ofthe state as much as possible, the collection of revenue being to the mutual advantage of both parties.

    (7) Caesaropapism was most notorious in the Tsardom of Russia when Ivan IV the Terrible assumed the title Czar in 1547 and subordinated the Russian Orthodox Church to the state. This level of caesaropapism far exceeded that of the Byzantine Empire[14] and was taken to a new level in 1721, when Peter the Great replaced the patriarchate with a Holy Synod, making the church a department of his government.

    (8) The future Russian Patriarch Alexius II said that Rodina has been created to “maintain spiritual ties with our compatriots” as one of its leading organizers. According to the archive and other sources, Alexius has been working for the KGB as agent DROZDOV and received an honorary citation from the agency for a variety of services. Priests have also recruited intelligence agents abroad and spied on Russian emigrant communities. This information by Mitrokhin has been corroborated by other sources.

    • Replies: @Hyperborean
  41. @Hyperborean

    The Imperial Germans tried to grab just as much food as the Nazi Germans. They just didn’t occupy is much territory as quickly and thus never got much. They also didn’t have the convenience of invading a country with already collectivized farms where peasants could be more easily controlled.

    The role of Nazi ideology in fomenting anti-Axis partisan resistance is exaggerated. It’s quite normal in all countries for the inhabitants to resist invading armies, especially when those invading armies are confiscating your food and property for their use.

    Though Nazi ideology did play a role in not employing Eastern European auxiliary and turncoat forces more effectively. General Vlasov being a prominent example.

    The Russians also weren’t given an alternative other than resistance by their own political leadership. Everyone interested in the Eastern Front is familiar with NKVD “blocking battalions” for instance.

    • Replies: @German_reader
  42. @Thorfinnsson

    The Imperial Germans tried to grab just as much food as the Nazi Germans.

    Imperial Germany wasn’t nearly as ruthless as Nazi Germany, no matter what Germanophobic hacks of the “The Kaiser was just like Hitler” sort claim. Mortality for Russian pows in German captivity during WW1 was probably below 10% (much lower than that of German pows in Russia, which was between 20 and 30%). That was very different from what happened in WW2, when two thirds of the Soviet pows captured in 1941 were simply left to starve to death, which was justified with the general food situation.
    There is of course a connection between WW1 and WW2, the extreme German policies in WW2 which regarded mass death of Soviet civilians through starvation as acceptable (maybe even desirable) were driven not least by a desire to prevent a repeat of the situation in WW1, when food shortages caused by the British blockade had affected the German home front so badly (and, in the Nazi interpretation of WW1, critically undermined support for the war).

    The role of Nazi ideology in fomenting anti-Axis partisan resistance is exaggerated. It’s quite normal in all countries for the inhabitants to resist invading armies

    It’s true that it didn’t all come down to Nazi ideology and that situational factors also played a role (German occupation divisions were undermanned, underequipped and overaged, and tried to compensate for those weaknesses with terror, which in turn increased support for the partisans). But the ideological nature of the German war effort undercut any attempts to win over parts of the native population to the German side; it would have been necessary to present a positive and credible political alternative to the Soviet system for that. This was recognized by individual German officers even at the time; but of course such efforts were rejected by the highest leadership.
    Hitler himself even viewed the partisan war as a chance for his programme of conquest and remarked in July 1941 er gibt uns die Möglichkeit, auszurotten, was sich gegen uns stellt (“it affords us the opportunity to exterminate anybody who resists us”), therefore had no real interest in attempts at deescalation and winning over the population in occupied areas.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  43. @utu

    Pardon, could you elaborate? I don’t quite see the relevance to… whichever point you are making.

    Are you making a statement or making psychological implications based on analysis of what the sources are saying or what?

    • Replies: @utu
  44. @German_reader

    My language suggests an equivalence of Imperial and Nazi occupation policy in the east, which I didn’t mean to imply.

    What I meant was that both powers attempted to seize food and property for the simple reason that they required it. The Imperial German army simply never got that far into Russia until the summer of 1918, at which point the Germans and Austro-Hungarians immediately set about getting as much grain as could be gotten.

    They were unable to get much as their forces available were small (most of the army being busy trying to win the war in the west) and Tsarist agriculture was not collectivized.

    It’s true that the Nazis did not make efforts to win over slavic populations, but even had they made such efforts I’m not sure it would have gotten major results. The normal response of all peoples at all times is to resist invaders, even if the resistance simply takes the form of sullen passivity. You can look at the response of the Danish, Dutch, and Norwegian populations during the war for instance. Nazi ideology could hardly have been better suited for these peoples (Hitler never even tried to recover Schleswig-Holstein), yet there was a great deal of passive and even active resistance.

    At the end of the day convincing conquered people to give their possessions to you and turn against their fellows is a very tall order.

    POW policy, however, is truly a stark difference between the Imperial and Nazi policies in the east. But even here economic reality asserts itself. After the failure of Barbarossa the Germans stopped intentionally starving Soviet POWs to death because they required them as labor.

    Note that I didn’t mean to imply moral equivalence between to the two German states. Rather I think it’s important to myth bust the idea that if only the Nazis had been cuddly teddybears to slavic peasants that they would’ve won their hearts and minds and won the war. To my knowledge that has not really succeeded ever, though probably you can find the odd example here and there.

    • Replies: @German_reader
    , @AP
  45. utu says:
    @Yevardian

    Iran was a darling of the West and imports American pawan ion the Cold War Chessboard but also a potential thread to Israel in long term scenarios.

    “Between fiscal year 1964 and FY 1978, Iran’s gross national product grew at an annual rate of 13.2 percent at constant prices. The oil, gas, and construction industries expanded by almost 500 percent during this period, while the share of value-added manufacturing increased by 4 percent. Women’s participation in the labor force in urban areas increased. Large numbers of urban Iranian women, from varying social strata, joined the semiskilled and skilled labor forces. In addition, the number of women enrolling in higher education increased from 5,000 in FY 1967 to more than 74,000 in FY 1978.”

    Iran had an excellent relationship with Israel and thus it was thoroughly penetrated by Israeli business representatives and military advisors. IIRC Israel was still maintaining diplomatic relations with Iran after the revolution.

    The British involvement might have been a disinfo cover story:

    British–Ruhollah Khomeini conspiracy theory
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British–Ruhollah_Khomeini_conspiracy_theory

    A number of observers, including the Shah, have written of rumours and allegations that the government of the United Kingdom has secretly supported “mullahs” (Shia clerics) in recent Iranian history, and in particular the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in his successful overthrow of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi in the Iranian Revolution of 1979. It is alleged that the 1979 Iranian revolution is a Western response to the Pahlavi’s White revolution which was intended to bring benefits to Iran and its people, but was unfavorable to the landlords, clergy and the United States and UK that feared that Iran will become independent, thus hampering their further involvement and control of Iranian petroleum.[1] Khomeini rejected the charges,[2] claiming it was the Shah who was a Western “agent” who had prevented the establishment of Islamic government in Iran until the revolution.[3]

    Here is a tidbit of another side:

    https://www.thejc.com/news/world/jews-and-iranian-revolution-1.474359
    How Mossad misread the Iranian revolution: The Israeli spy agency was asked by the Iranian prime minister to assassinate Khomeini. It refused and, within months, thousands of Jews had left the country

    1978 had been marked by demonstrations and a massacre of protesters in Tehran’s Jaleh Square in September. By mid-January 1979, the Shah had gone into exile and the Queen’s visit to Iran in the royal yacht, Britannia, had been abruptly cancelled. On 1 February, the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini returned from France — and a reputed three million people turned out to greet him. Within a year, tens of thousands of Jews had left the country.

    Yossi Alpher, the author of Periphery: Israel’s Search for Middle East Allies, records that on the eve of the revolution, several thousand Israeli businessmen were living in Iran. There was even an Israeli school in Tehran. Despite Iran’s support for OPEC’s oil embargo after the Yom Kippur War, by 1977, “oil sales were booming”. Despite the turmoil all around, Israel and Iran were busily negotiating a $1.2 billion bilateral arms deal. The project would use Iranian finance for the development of six new Israeli weapon systems and a new generation of Jericho missiles.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_of_Iran%27s_Jews
    after the Iranian Revolution of 1979, during which the community of 80,000 dropped to less than 20,000.[1] The migration of Persian Jews after the Iranian Revolution is mostly attributed to fear of religious persecution,[1] economic hardships and insecurity after the deposition of the Shah regime, consequent domestic violence and the Iran–Iraq War.

    From the point of view of Israel Iran was turned into a pariah nation and most importantly it became the enemy of the US. Embargoes were imposed. It was economically set back a decade or more. Because of its ideology it did not become a client state of the USSR. The Iraq-Iran war in which paradoxically Israel was supplying Iran with weapon guaranteed that. Iran fell behind Turkey and had no access to modern western weapon technology.

    I like my hypothesis (though I have no proof for it except for cui bono and the known Israeli modus operandi)that Iran was the first piece of domino in the Yinon Plan that envisioned turning well functioning, developing, modernizing semi-secular and industrializing Muslim states in the ME into preindustrial backward Medieval Muslim entities with chaos of sectarian fighting and terrorism so they could be vilified for ever as the enemy of civilization and humanity. It was accomplished with Iraq (1990 and 2003), Libya (2011) and Syria (2012-) that were Soviet client states and Iran (1979) that was American client state.

  46. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Yevardian

    You mean Bill Kristol, not to be confused with comedian/actor Billy Crystal.

    In addition to what I previously said, Thorfinson addresses the aspect you raise.

  47. @Thorfinnsson

    The normal response of all peoples at all times is to resist invaders

    The Soviet Union in 1941 wasn’t exactly normal though. Its political and economic system was widely disliked, even hated, by significant parts of the population. Of course many Soviet citizens also genuinely believed in communism and its achievements, and the deeper German forces penetrated into core Russia, the rarer were occasions of them being greeted as “liberators”. But still, German policies were certainly counter-productive.
    And there’s a world of difference between “sullen, passive resistance” and an active, continuously growing partisan movement. The latter certainly isn’t always inevitable (notably nothing of the sort ever materialized when Germany was occupied in 1944/1945).

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  48. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Thorfinnsson

    I’m all for a mature recollection of the past.

    Pre-Soviet Russia had defeated Germany – something known to a good number of Russians, unlike numerous non-Russians, whose knowledge of Russian history is top heavy on the Soviet era, along with a left/anti-Russian view of the pre-Soviet period.

    I know a White Russian (anti-Communist/pro-Russian) who is a friend of the famous Soviet era Russian cosmonaut Valentina Tereshkova, who has taken a pro-Orthodox Christian position.

    • Replies: @German_reader
  49. @Mikhail

    Pre-Soviet Russia had defeated Germany

    A unified German state didn’t exist before 1870, and Russia in WW1 definitely didn’t defeat Germany, so what does this refer to?

    • Replies: @Mikhail
  50. anon[113] • Disclaimer says:

    Good justification for the events of 20th century.
    Now, explain 13th century.

    It is obvious that Mongolo-Tatar invasion was punishment for some great sin of Russians – but what sin?

    Is it mere coincidence that Mongols overran the Orthodox lands, and stopped at the borders of Catholic Europe (OK, Hungary is an exception, but how good Catholics were Hungarians at the time? Can our Hungarian commenter help identify what was the mortal sin of his 13th century ancestors?)

    Clearly, God is Catholic and the disobedience of the eastern schizmatics and their stubborn refusal to submit to the Pope enraged him greatly. There can be no other explanation.

  51. There is a time and place for theological deliberations – this is not it. Aside from everything else, believing oneself to be blessed by divine favour tends to be a prelude to monumental mistakes born from hubris, or even merely avoidable carelessness.

    • Replies: @German_reader
    , @AaronB
  52. @Hyperborean

    There is a time and place for theological deliberations

    e.g. Constantinople in the final decades before the Turkish conquest.

  53. iffen says:
    @German_reader

    Torn between agree and LOL.

  54. Mikhail says: • Website
    @German_reader

    I thought an answer like yours might come up. I’m of the view that German history didn’t suddenly begin in 1870. Keeping in mind how “Russia” is used as a synonym in place of the USSR and how Russian history includes the pre-Mongol subjugated Rus period.

    In answer to your question, the Elizabeth the Great period.

    As for WW II, the USSR learned from the mistake that Russia made in WW I, with Germany to a good extent doing the reverse.

    • Replies: @German_reader
  55. anon[113] • Disclaimer says:

    BTW, AK I am not alarmed by your Russian nationalism, but you are not thinking about taking back Alaska, are you?

  56. iffen says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    King James Bible Matthew 5:45

    That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

    AK, I am not alarmed by your Russian nationalism, but you are not thinking about taking back Alaska, are you? If so, how about taking Washington state and Oregon instead.

  57. Anonymous[320] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon

    RCs are loyal to Pope. Pope obviously doesn’t have power such God has, so his punishments are nowhere near.

  58. @Mikhail

    In answer to your question, the Elizabeth the Great period.

    That was only Prussia (not as large then as after 1815, only a medium power by European standards), and the defeat wasn’t as crushing as in WW2.

    As for WW II, the USSR learned from the mistake that Russia made in WW I

    Yeah, but isn’t that an argument that the Soviet system was more successful and effective than the Tsarist one?
    I thought you wanted to make a different argument…

    • Replies: @Mikhail
  59. AaronB says:
    @Hyperborean

    believing oneself to be blessed by divine favour tends to be a prelude to monumental mistakes

    Indeed, the path to success is clearly to be hesitant, doubtful, fatalistic, and never believe the divine is on our side.

    And fear of making mistakes should be our guiding principle.

    I see this HBD philosophy has a positive effect on the psyche, I must look into it more closely.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Hyperborean
  60. anon[113] • Disclaimer says:
    @AaronB

    I see this HBD philosophy has a positive effect on the psyche, I must look into it more closely.

    HBDIQ philosophy, if sincerely embraced, could have two effects:

    1/ I have low IQ genes, I was born to be failure. No point to do anything.
    2/ I have high IQ genes, I was born to be MASTER. Bow before me, low IQ swine!

    • Agree: AaronB
    • Replies: @AaronB
    , @Kent Nationalist
  61. Mikhail says: • Website
    @German_reader

    Prussia was defeated in a way that included a victorious Russian march thru Berlin. Including the Soviet period, Russia as such had done this three times. (Russia victoriously went thru Berlin in its counter-attack on Napoleon.)

    On your other point, there’s such a thing as a learning curve, which didn’t by default make pre-Soviet Russia so bad.

    • Replies: @German_reader
  62. @anon

    No way to control for ecological factors: https://akarlin.com/2019/01/could-the-mongols-have-conquered-europe/

    The Mongols were spawned to punish Muslims for heresy and to make sure Sung industrialization doesn’t take off took off, thus ensuring long-term Christian supremacy.

  63. AaronB says:
    @anon

    However, long-term internalization of the HBD outlook is enervating even to the high IQ people – as high IQ is substantially a product of effort and motivation (crystallized ability = innate ability + motivation).

    So internalization of the HBD outlook leads to complacency – the best way to see it, in my view, is as an expression of inner decadence.

    People who discount the role of effort are expressing inner exhaustion – nothing more. They have an inner need for rest.

    Jews and Asians emphasize effort over innate ability, as Europeans did in the past.

  64. @Mikhail

    Russia victoriously went thru Berlin in its counter-attack on Napoleon

    That was in the context of a process though which led to Prussia changing sides:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_of_Tauroggen

    Anyway, a bit of a pointless debate, of course Tsarist Russia was an important great power.

  65. Denis says:
    @German_reader

    Agree with the first part, not with the second. Theories about how the British and their aristocracy are secretly behind everything have always seemed completely bizarre and ridiculous to me.

  66. utu says:
    @Hyperborean

    In the West there is this idealization and frequent sentimental admiration of Russia and Russians for their great Russian souls, spiritualism. People love Father Zosima from Brothers Karamzov and they love Tolstoy’s Christianity but there is also the other side to it which is backwardness and obscurantism and too much power of the Orthodox Church. This lead to passivity and fatalism. The Orthodox Church did not develop its own anthropology and social teachings unlike the Catholic Church. No wonder that various mystics and charlatans from Russia were so successful in the West: Ouspensky, Gurdjieff, Blavatsky and after the collapse of the USSR there was a bumper crop of various charlatans in Russia some of which were even members or former members of Soviet Academy of Science.

    People in the West do not know much about various religious splinter heretic groups who found refuge in Siberia or who had to emigrate who could compete in weirdness of scripture interpretation and literal implementation with some of the craziest Protestant sects. Some of them practiced self mutilation like castration.

    At the same time political role of priests because of their power tarnished them by active participation and even instigations of violent social upheavals where a lot of blood was shed. But at the same time religious Russian women against government edicts would help the prosecuted and persecuted like prisoners and exiles during Tsarists times but also the escapees from Gulags during Stalinism and even they showed compassion to the enemy POWs by giving them food and water. So there was a basic and fundamental goodness among Russians which too large extend was lost in Protestant cultures and to lesser extent in Catholic cultures but at the same time they never developed a sense of civic virtues and responsibilities that were necessary for society to function when there is no strict supervision so they were resigned to the rule by knout because with their passivity and fatalism nothing seemed to work w/o it whether during Tsarist times or Stalinism.

    Why did I write it? I guess I wanted to take a burden from AK’s shoulder. To help him carry his cross like Simon of Cyrene. Supernatural solutions and the invocation of the wrath of God or alternatively toying with the idea of Russian being “subhuman” are not viable propositions. Russian character was formed for centuries and Orthodox Church played a dominant role with good and not so good effects. Personally I believe that Russians should embrace Christianity again, though I am not sure if this is possible. But at least thanks to possibly cynical moves by government they are going through the motions and are preparing the base at least in the form of infrastructure. Who knows if when things get much worse, which is always possible (WWIII) it may offer salvation.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZxKsXM-biY

    • Replies: @utu
    , @Hyperborean
  67. utu says:
    @utu

    Most important: Жанна Бичевская – Господи помилуй
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZxKsXM-biY

    • Replies: @utu
  68. @anon

    Why would knowing which genes you had make a difference? Everyone already has an idea of roughly how intelligent they are and makes decisions accordingly

    • Replies: @AaronB
  69. notanon says:
    @Kent Nationalist

    Anglos are definitely the most successful race of the last several hundred years

    “were”

    becoming the tallest poppy attracts the banking mafia which in the long term is a death sentence.

    Sumer
    Babylon
    Assyria
    Persia
    Greece
    Rome
    …lull
    Rome 2.0
    China
    India

    • Replies: @Kent Nationalist
  70. notanon says:
    @neutral

    can you list any reasons why in principle you would be against things like mass immigration

    supply and demand

  71. @German_reader

    The ideology that was held at bay with majoritarian, limited, contributory forms of socialism, like SS, is now gaining ground in the West. This time Marxisn is getting popular because of multiple decades of wage stagnation made possible, ironically, by multiple forms of 100%-free and ever-more-elaborate socialistic handouts to womb-productive citizens & noncitizens.

    The citizens, legal and illegal migrants in single-breadwinner households receiving free, non-contributory, means-tested handouts that cover all of their major expenses—from rent, to food, to electricity, plus monthly cash assistance and up to $6,431 in refundable child tax credit cash—can afford to work for very low wages in part time jobs or temp gigs. They have to work part time, in fact, to stay under the earned-income limits for the welfare programs, or they can work temp jobs, strategically dropping the welfare during months when their income exceeds the programs’ limits.

    Rigging the capitalist-in-name-only labor market against citizens who lack access to the socialistic handouts that reward womb-productive sex is driving the US toward full-out Marxism.

    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
  72. @German_reader

    France in the 1930s appeared to many observers to be on the cusp of civil war. France had a number of domestic factions which objected to the existence of the Third Republic (monarchists, fascists, and of course communists). Yet no one greeted the Germans as liberators. It’s not surprising that it was in the non-Russian western parts of the USSR where the Germans got the friendliest reception, which is also what happened in WW1.

    Partisans are rational strategic actors. When the Germans were ascendant, they had relatively fewer problems with partisans. As they appeared more likely to lose the war, the partisan movements were emboldened and attacked them more (and also received more support from Germany’s enemies). Even the Danes were becoming active partisans by 1943 for instance.

    Germany after its surrender on the other hand was totally, utterly defeated with no hope of any kind of seeing its conquerors defeated. Resisting the occupiers was fundamentally useless, and Germans responded rationally.

    And it’s not like the occupying victors treated the defeated Germans well at all, even in the west. That’s Cold War revisionism. For the first 2-3 years of occupation in the west Germans were treated far worse than any of the western countries Germany occupied, with the sole exception of the “hunger winter” the Germans imposed on the Dutch.

    Now I do of course agree that German policy in the east was not optimal and provoked additional resistance. Partisans appeared quite early in Belarus for instance. But the absence of partisans in the east in 1942 would not have resulted in German success in Fall Blau, which is why I stick to this line.

    • Replies: @German_reader
    , @songbird
  73. @notanon

    Redbar me on Rome (?) and bankers

    • Replies: @notanon
  74. @Thorfinnsson

    France in the 1930s appeared to many observers to be on the cusp of civil war. France had a number of domestic factions which objected to the existence of the Third Republic (monarchists, fascists, and of course communists).

    The French government didn’t actively wage war against large sectors of its own population, as the Soviet regime had against peasants during collectivization and again during the 1937/1938 terror, so I don’t think the two situations are comparable (fears of a civil war in France in the 1930s were exaggerated…what actually happened except some street fighting in 1934? The “fascist” rightist movements often weren’t really fascist, and mostly pretty fringe).

    But the absence of partisans in the east in 1942 would not have resulted in German success in Fall Blau

    Sure, in any case, the partisan war wasn’t decisive for the outcome of the war, so one probably shouldn’t exaggerate its military importance.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  75. notanon says:
    @Kent Nationalist

    i use “banking mafia” very broadly (probably too much so) to mean currency debasement, money-lending etc.

    the more general point i was aiming at is successful nations / civilizations attract various kinds of parasitism which destroys them.

  76. notanon says:
    @FlintWheel4

    yes, and i guess even worse if they bear a grudge.

  77. AaronB says:
    @Kent Nationalist

    The purpose is to convince you that you cannot improve through effort.

    Historically, cultures tend to invent fatalistic philosophies at the end of their existence, when they become decadent.

    The Hellenistic Age also saw the proliferation of fatalistic philosophies, until Christianity with its optimism swept everything aside on a wave of enthusiasm and hope.

    Until, in the 14th century, Christianity also became too fatalistic, and was swept aside by the optimistic Renaissance and the Reformation.

    In 50 years, HBD will be remembered as a quirky fatalistic philosophy coming at the end of the Renaissance Age.

    What new enthusiastic movement will replace the current fatalism is an interesting question.

    • Replies: @Kent Nationalist
  78. @AaronB

    But a lot of what you can do obviously is limited by your intelligence. For instance, a 90IQ person will never become a Physics professor. Most people are not capable of being professional footballers.
    Accepting that doesn’t mean that your behaviour doesn’t matter at all. I don’t know that people interested in HBD actually say that it does.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    , @iffen
  79. AaronB says:
    @Kent Nationalist

    Of course, I agree.

    But that 90 IQ is composed of effort + innate ability. That’s the formula.

    The HBDers are saying that that 90 IQ is 100% (for all practical purposes) innate ability.

    That’s the problem.

    They are trying to close the door on the role of effort.

    And effort is a complex thing. It depends on culture, psychology, upbringing, and the environment.

    But that’s very complex and hard to assess, and it also leaves room for future improvement.

    So they are annoyed by that, and prefer to pretend that all outcomes are inevitable.

    They don’t want to be called on to make an effort.

    They like to see the world as a machine – it just hums along on its gears and levers. It doesn’t need any human input – i.e any irksome personal agency or effort.

    For tired people at the end of a civilization, this is a very appealing philosophy.

  80. AP says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    It’s true that the Nazis did not make efforts to win over slavic populations, but even had they made such efforts I’m not sure it would have gotten major results. The normal response of all peoples at all times is to resist invaders,

    Slavic peasants under Bolsheviks felt that they were already under occupation and initially viewed the Germans as liberators. They viewed the crosses on German equipment as positive signs. Germans were initially seen as “invaders” in the way that the Americans in France were seen as “invaders” – not at all.

    Rather I think it’s important to myth bust the idea that if only the Nazis had been cuddly teddybears to slavic peasants that they would’ve won their hearts and minds and won the war.

    This is not a myth. It would not have taken much to win hearts and minds. Reopen the churches, shoot Chekists and hang communists in public, give land back to the peasants from whom it was stolen, take grain but not all of it. After the Bolshevik nightmare, World War I scale requisitions would have been seen as a blessing.

    Instead they kept the collective farms and used them take so much grain that something like a million people starved (a smaller-scale Holodomor), let 2/3 of POWS starve to death, shut down schools, arrested and shot lots of people, randomly grabbed people for slave labor in Germany. They proved to be even worse for the people than were the late 1930s Bolsheviks.

    In Galicia the Germans had a different administration that behaved fairly decently towards local Ukrainians – arrested troublemakers like Bandera, but freed lots of people from Bolshevik captivity, reopened churches, censored the press but allowed it to function, etc. As a result, the locals caused little trouble for the Germans, and indeed 80,000 volunteered to fight for them. Had German done the same in the rest of Ukraine and in Russia they probably would have had millions of volunteers willing to help crush Bolshevism.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  81. iffen says:
    @Kent Nationalist

    For instance, a 90IQ person will never become a Physics professor.

    No, but if you collect enough moombeams in a jar you can become the resident mystic guru at The Unz.

    • LOL: Kent Nationalist
  82. @Kent Nationalist

    That was then and this is now. Look at where the UK is now. Look at where we in the Anglo-Celtic diaspora are now, in our own countries. Wake up and smell the frigging coffee and put away the old maps with all the pink on it.

  83. @German_reader

    Yes, there was certainly a depth of hatred against the Bolshevik government which probably didn’t exist in any other European state.

    And the Germans made an error in not exploiting this to a greater degree.

    But as you seem to agree, I don’t see how this could have been strategically decisive.

    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
  84. @AP

    Slavic peasants under Bolsheviks felt that they were already under occupation and initially viewed the Germans as liberators. They viewed the crosses on German equipment as positive signs. Germans were initially seen as “invaders” in the way that the Americans in France were seen as “invaders” – not at all.

    Elements of the Baltic and Ukrainian populations in the First World War also welcomed the advance of the armies of the Central Powers.

    The degree to which the Germans were welcomed in the Second World War was no doubt greater, but not a new or unique phenomenon.

    This is not a myth. It would not have taken much to win hearts and minds. Reopen the churches, shoot Chekists and hang communists in public, give land back to the peasants from whom it was stolen, take grain but not all of it. After the Bolshevik nightmare, World War I scale requisitions would have been seen as a blessing.

    Instead they kept the collective farms and used them take so much grain that something like a million people starved (a smaller-scale Holodomor), let 2/3 of POWS starve to death, shut down schools, arrested and shot lots of people, randomly grabbed people for slave labor in Germany. They proved to be even worse for the people than were the late 1930s Bolsheviks.

    I don’t know whether or not any churches were reopened (I am guessing that at least some were), but the Germans certainly made quite a show of shooting chekists, commissars, communist officials, and other assorted Bolsheviks. Indeed the German army was ordered on day one of the campaign to execute any captured commissars.

    It wasn’t feasible for the Germans to restore the peasant farms or reduce their grain requisitions. The reality was that German-occupied Europe did not produce enough food. Prior to Barbarossa it depended on grain imports from the USSR. The problem was compounded by the fact that Germany also had to export food to Spain and Sweden in order to obtain vital supplies.

    Hermann Goering made the observation that if the Bolsheviks hadn’t invented collectivization the Germans would’ve had to come up with the idea themselves. From day one of the German campaign in the east it was intended the Wehrmacht would feed itself solely from Soviet agriculture and that prisoners of war would be starved. This, combined with the ongoing and intentional starvation of Jews in occupied Poland as well as the German-imposed famine in Greece, “solved” the problem.

    Likewise, other than coal the main constraint on German war production was labor. Thus the Germans required labor from conquered territories. They tried voluntary recruitment first, and when that failed resorted to slave labor. By the end of the war there were 8-9 million foreign workers toiling in Germany.

    In Galicia the Germans had a different administration that behaved fairly decently towards local Ukrainians – arrested troublemakers like Bandera, but freed lots of people from Bolshevik captivity, reopened churches, censored the press but allowed it to function, etc. As a result, the locals caused little trouble for the Germans, and indeed 80,000 volunteered to fight for them. Had German done the same in the rest of Ukraine and in Russia they probably would have had millions of volunteers willing to help crush Bolshevism.

    The Germans were unable to produce enough equipment to meet the demands of their own armed forces and their allies, so what good would this do? The Italian and Romanian armies guarding the flanks of the German 6th Army at Stalingrad had no modern anti-tank weapons, because the Germans couldn’t even meet the needs of their own forces (perhaps if they hadn’t wastefully employed so many 88mm guns in strategic air defense…). If the millions of volunteers had joyously volunteered for factory and construction work in Europe perhaps that would’ve made a real difference.

    I don’t think people understand the very serious constraints that the Germans were operating under. Even in the absence of Nazi ideology many of the same decisions would have been made.

  85. songbird says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    Resisting the occupiers was fundamentally useless, and Germans responded rationally.

    As a group, perhaps, but didn’t the Werewolves kill thousands of people? Today, it would certainly be seen as non-trivial.

  86. NYMOM says:

    I think that harsh climate/environmental conditions can have a lot to do with formation of a national personality if such a thing exists…

    I think unforgiving nature doesn’t allow easy going people to survive.

    Kind of like the saying “hard times make hard men”…

    So on and so forth…

  87. notanon says:
    @AaronB

    HBD is the opposite of fatalistic – it says you can fix anything over time but only across generations.

    https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/the-breeder-s-equation-24204828

    • Replies: @AaronB
  88. @Thorfinnsson

    … I don’t see how this could have been strategically decisive.

    By not having so many partisans attacking them behind the front lines.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  89. AaronB says:
    @notanon

    Sure, but in the short to medium term it’s all set in stone, and these generational changes are remote possibilities requiring high level coordination and political will.

    However, the most fatalistic aspect of it is the elimination of personal agency and the vision of people as machines that “output” an invariable level of performance.

    Its all very Skinnerian.

    Its not that genes don’t play a role, its just that it’s only half the equation – so pretending current day group outcomes are genetic just makes no sense. How can we possibly know?

    Secondly, the emphasis on genetic limitation rather than personal agency is fatalistic. We should accept genetic limitations, but place our emphasis on personal agency.

    We will never even “bump up” against our genetic potential if we don’t place our emphasis on personal agency.

    Anyways, the truth is personal agency and motivation are “second order” effects – they cannot be conjured up at will or worked on directly.

    They are results of having the proper relationship to the divine 🙂

    As Karlin is beginning to realize.

  90. @Thorfinnsson

    It may have made a difference considering that the USSR was itself operating on incredibly thin margins in 1941 and especially 1942.

    The Lokot Autonomy is a small experiment in how things may have gone under a “nicer” German occupation (abolition of collective farms, restoration of private property, reopening of churches and schools (which the Germans had initially closed), local authority delegated to Russians under German supervision). Region of about half a million people, almost all of them, incidentally, ethnic Russians => low rates of partisanship (which was brutally suppressed) and yielded a volunteer militia of 10,000-20,000 men. In per capita terms, that seems comparable to the 80,000 that AP says Galicia generated.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  91. @Thorfinnsson

    I don’t know whether or not any churches were reopened

    They were, restoration of religious freedom was one of the few popular measures the Germans did take, since it didn’t cost them anything.

    From day one of the German campaign in the east it was intended the Wehrmacht would feed itself solely from Soviet agriculture and that prisoners of war would be starved.

    It’s actually controversial whether there was a deliberate intention even before Barbarossa to starve pows to death. There are historians who claim this, e.g. Christian Gerlach who considers it part of a plan for mega-genocide. But there are others who reject that thesis and see the mass death of pows more as an unplanned development arising from the failure of the original Barbarossa plan (e.g. in German the article by Christian Hartmann, Massensterben oder Massenvernichtung? here: https://www.ifz-muenchen.de/heftarchiv/2001_1.pdf ). Even the latter group of historians however considers German treatment of Soviet pows to have been highly criminal, in breach of all moral and legal obligations, and with lives of pows seen as basically expendable.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  92. @Cagey Beast

    Do you know what strategically decisive means?

    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
  93. @Anatoly Karlin

    The survival of the USSR was very much in question in 1941, but not in 1942 (though the Germans again deluded themselves into thinking that was the case).

    At the end of Barbarossa there were a grand total of only 90,000 partisans in all of the German-occupied USSR. No official support, intelligence, or coordination from the Soviet government was available until May, 1942.

    So we again get back to my point, which was that the Soviet partisans were not strategically decisive.

    Beginning in 1943 Soviet partisans began to have an impact, something which was not unique to the USSR.

    In fairness to AP, there is what is seen and what is unseen. While I’ve discounted the idea of the Germans fielding large formations of Soviet renegades as regular infantry divisions, perhaps more labor could’ve been recruited earlier. Soviet renegades also perhaps could’ve formed fine line infantry formations which would’ve improved German reconnaissance, security, foraging, etc.

    So perhaps Germany with Soviet renegade helpers would’ve succeeded in its efforts to stalemate the Eastern Front.

    But in general with WW2 what if questions we get back to the fundamental fact that the deck was very much stacked against the Axis powers to begin with. The Allies and Soviets made numerous colossal blunders as well which no one really talks about today for obvious reasons.

  94. @German_reader

    Well that’s very interesting, thanks.

    • Replies: @German_reader
  95. @Endgame Napoleon

    “Rigging the capitalist-in-name-only labor market against citizens who lack access to the socialistic handouts that reward womb-productive sex is driving the US toward full-out Marxism.”

    Well, that’s at the bottom. At the top, the cost has been much higher to turn all corporate profits into stock option gains for no-skin-in-the-game executives. The latter costs more money, but I take it that you think the former is more demoralizing to the greater number of people?

  96. @Thorfinnsson

    iirc the argument basically is that mortality of pows through starvation only escalated in fall 1941 and reached its height in winter 1941/1942 – that is at a time when Hitler and other Nazi leaders had already decided that Soviet pows should be used as forced labourers, even within the Reich. If there had been a decision even before the start of Barbarossa to starve pows to death, one would have expected mass death to begin already in summer 1941.
    In this interpretation the Wehrmacht leadership essentially sacrificed the pows in the military and logistical crisis of late 1941, under the influence of shortages which allegedly left no other option. Of course this decision was greatly aided by the fact that the lives of Soviet pows were seen as of little value anyway, and the responsible Wehrmacht officers made few attempts to mitigate the situation.

    Regarding the food situation in general, there are of course the well-known statements by Herbert Backe from before Barbarossa that German exploitation of occupied areas would cause the deaths of many millions of Soviet civilians.

  97. Jayce says:
    @Yevardian

    The funny thing is the atavistic blaming of Britain that is still common Iran.

    A lot of them get particularly adamant about how they’ll boycott any content from the BBC forever because “it caused the revolution.” (Guess they’ll have to miss out on the Pidgin page then.)

    • Replies: @songbird
  98. @Thorfinnsson

    Yes, the difference between being able to carry out one’s strategic objectives or not. Thanks for the teenage sarcasm; it’s so rare to find it now days on the internet.

  99. anonymous[191] • Disclaimer says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    The defeat and conquest of Germany was an achievement? It was one of the greatest tragedies of the 20th century next to the rise of self-hatred among whites and the betrayal of whites in South Africa. The extremes of Naziism would’ve would itself down if Germany had been left alone and Germany would’ve become the greatest nation the world has ever seen (without the racial problems that the US has which are taking it down fast). Any happening that takes out large numbers of whites is bad in my view and is bad for the world at large.

  100. @AaronB

    I see this HBD philosophy has a positive effect on the psyche, I must look into it more closely.

    This is not related, I don’t know why you have a one track mind. You are beginning to rely on it as a clutch, it seems intellectually lazy. Maybe you are losing vitality?

    Fanatics who expect divine intervention either become overconfident and overeach, thereby causing their own downfall or they become needlessly passive, expecting others (i.e. magic) to fix their problens instantly.

    Something can be difficult and take a long time yet still must be done. You always portray “motivation” as some magic tool, when it takes genuine effort and time to alter people (as many governments have found out).

    • Replies: @AaronB
    , @Hyperborean
  101. @utu

    Okay, this makes more sense, thanks for explaining.

  102. AaronB says:
    @Hyperborean

    What’s wrong with thinking God is on your side?

    It seems like a pretty healthy place to be.

    Of course, it also means you have to be on God’s side – which involves sacrifice.

    And that’s not so comfortable, just like exerting effort isn’t.

    Luckily, we don’t have to exert effort because performance is genetic, and thinking God is on your side is potentially dangerous.

    So it’s great – no making sacrifices, and no exerting effort.

    Like I said, I do like this philosophy.

    • Replies: @Hyperborean
  103. @Hyperborean

    Charalatans who sell instant self-help cures will inevitably end up disappointing their victims, because they are lead to believe that life can be easy always, rather than acknowledging that life is at times hard – and that enduring this and learning from it can in fact be ennobling.

    • Replies: @Hyperborean
  104. @AaronB

    What’s wrong with thinking God is on your side?

    It seems like a pretty healthy place to be.

    Of course, it also means you have to be on God’s side – which involves sacrifice.

    And that’s not so comfortable, just like exerting effort isn’t.

    Ah, but it doesn’t require sacrifice, because you signed a contract, so as long as you are obeying the letter of the law, you can do whatever you want.

    Although, I suppose being clever enough to figure out the loopholes in the contract does require at least a minimal bit of effort for the less streetwise… but then again that only works until someone starts selling information on how to disobey the spirit of the law in handy little booklets for the lazy people.

  105. Russia was part of the British Empire from 1612 when the Romanovs were installed with English guns and Scottish generals. It was laost in 1917 when the Germans finally took over. (Ekaterina was a close call but her use of English advisors and specialists restored the situation).

  106. @Kent Nationalist

    Although not ruled administratively by the Empire Argentina and Chile could be added to the map as being under particularly strong economic control from Britain. IT was downhill all teh way for the Argies when they chucked the British out.

    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
  107. @Yevardian

    Some people voted for Brexit.

  108. @anon

    The endless plains stopped. Mongol tactics couldn’t deal with woodland ecology.

  109. @Philip Owen

    When would you say it was that the Argentines chucked the British out?

  110. songbird says:
    @Jayce

    Guess they’ll have to miss out on the Pidgin page then.

    I really love that the BBC has news in Pidgin now. Some time before that, I read a Michael Crichton novel where a universalist Hollywood prog was eaten by some Pidgin-speaking Melanesians, so it has resonated with me.

  111. @Hyperborean

    Ah, but I guess the Heavenly Kingdom, ISIS and Algerian Islamists simply weren’t “motivated” enough against their lifeless opponents, right?

    • Replies: @Hyperborean
  112. @Hyperborean

    Ah, but I guess the Heavenly Kingdom, ISIS and Algerian Islamists simply weren’t “motivated” enough against their lifeless opponents, right?

    And let’s not forget the Mahdists.

    • Replies: @utu
  113. utu says:
    @Hyperborean

    One year ago I addressed AaronB recurrent idée fixe; which when you look closer at it justifies Jewish modus operandi by criticizing gentile ‘passivity’, ‘materialism’ , etc., etc. He seems to want us to become like Jews and so on. But he really wants to dampen our spirit even more and reject our true identity which is the Western Civilization which is in opposition to Jewish Civilization. Does he realize know what he is really advocating? The last time when gentiles became like Jews was in Nazi Germany when Judaism was emulated.

    http://www.unz.com/ishamir/the-messiah-is-here/#comment-2338533

    As a Jew, you know well that of which I speak – you Jews already “know” the truth, and use logic merely instrumentally – to argue for what you already know, and realize your vision on earth.

    So what is this truth that Jews do have? Isn’t it just that: “Is it good for the Jews?” What gentiles suppose to do when confronted with it? There are only three options:

    (1) Accept Jewish goal as a universal goals for everybody, meaning that we all will be working to help Jews succeed and make the world Jewish in which Jews will be as special privileged ruling cast.

    (2) Reject and betray our universalism and emulate Jews and try to compete with them using “Is it good for us and screw everybody else?” Why would one want to do it? In name of what? Just convert to Judaism and become one of them and you have the whole enchilada. And it would be much safer.

    (3) Do not betray our universalism. Double down on it and treat Jews as undeveloped children who we must teach how to behave in the big world. They need to learn to play with other children. The first lesson: Never ever ask “Is it good for the Jews?” You must ask: “If what I do is it good for John and Jane?”

    You know very well that (3) is the only correct option. The other two are defeat and surrender. Jews and their Bronze Age ethnocentrism must be fought to the death if humanity is worth to survive. Right now option (1) is what we are de facto doing because we do not challenge Jews mostly out of fear and (2) is what various ethnically conscious gentiles (Kevin MacDonald) are proposing which is “Let’s us become like Jews.”

    • Replies: @AaronB
    , @AaronB
  114. AaronB says:
    @utu

    What Western civilization are you defending?

    Science?

    Rationality?

    Objectivity?

    Darwinism?

    HBD?

    Technology?

    The Enlightenment?

    Universalism?

    Equality?

    If not these things, then what?

  115. AaronB says:
    @utu

    But I think you are right utu.

    What I am trying to do is help forge whites into a people, just like the Jews. I secretly crave to belong to a people.

    I look to the Japanese and I see a people, and I envy them that. I look to the Jews and I see a people, and I envy them that.

    I look to whites and I see a scattered and aimless bunch of individuals who hate themselves or who believe in HBD and worship technology (i.e hate themselves slightly less).

    I don’t see even the psychological antecedents or rudiments of a people.

    And the truth is that there is no hope for whites, and the solution for me is staring me in the face.

    Whites are finished, and I am psychologically incompatible with diaspora Jewry, so my obvious choice is to move to Israel – I like the psychology and lifestyle there.

    Western Europeans and Americans will in the coming centuries join with browns and blacks and yellows to become new unique peoples, and form new regional identities.

    And that is great, but that’s just too long a time span for me.

    So really, good luck to you guys. Work it out for yourselves however you want. I need to psychologically separate myself from you.

    I also think China is following the path of the West, and will become deracinated and enervated in the coming century, perhaps after a great war.

    After that, they too might be a people again.

    • Replies: @Hyperborean
  116. @AaronB

    I need to psychologically separate myself from you.

    You have said similar things before. Why would now be any different?

    Perhaps you secretly long for what you perceive as decadence and demise?

    • Replies: @AaronB
    , @AaronB
  117. AaronB says:
    @Hyperborean

    Lol, perhaps that’s what I secretly long for.

    This time the plan involves moving to Israel.

    Before I thought my only alternative was to join diaspora Jewry, but I am not really compatible with that culture, so kept on returning to whites and trying desperately to help forge them into a people.

    Rather silly of me 🙂

    But I’ve been watching lots of Israeli TV and movies lately, and I think the time has come. I’m actually a citizen you know.

    • Replies: @Hyperborean
  118. AaronB says:
    @Hyperborean

    Btw Hyp, what do you think of my prediction that China has become too technology addicted and culture-thin and is on its way to becoming deracinated like the West?

    All these Chinese characters like Duke of Qin and EastKekistani and G Machine seem to have been completely swallowed up by the Darwinian view.

    Anyways, China’s gotta work it out for themselves too. Not my problem.

  119. @AaronB

    Does this imply that you won’t cease commenting? Kindly reconsider, it would wound my heart ever so much if your ever so precious wisdom were wasted on such incorrigible rogues and renegades such as ourselves.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  120. Btw Hyp, what do you think of my prediction that China has become too technology addicted and culture-thin and is on its way to becoming deracinated like the West?

    Deracinated? I am not sure how the future will turn out on that, however, I believe it is true that a “cult of technology” and belief in Darwinian struggle is prominent in modern China.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  121. AaronB says:
    @Hyperborean

    I’ll still be offering my mystical religious reflections specifically for you, because you love them 🙂

    You’re not a rogue or a renegade. There’s nothing wrong with you.

    I just won’t be trying to convince you to adopt the psychological traits of a people, because I will be focusing on becoming part of a different people myself.

    I unironically wish you luck, though.

    • Replies: @German_reader
    , @iffen
  122. AaronB says:
    @Hyperborean

    Interesting, thanks.

    • Replies: @Hyperborean
  123. @AaronB

    I unironically wish you luck, though.

    In your own weird way, thank you I suppose.

    I just won’t be trying to convince you to adopt the psychological traits of a people, because I will be focusing on becoming part of a different people myself.

    I think I’ve already stated that I am quite deracinated and doubtful that I will ever be completely rid of it, only ameliorate it.

    Interesting, thanks.

    I should add that this is not just my opinion but also some of my Chinese friends and acquaintances from school have similar impressions regarding ordinary people’s view on technology and social struggle.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  124. @AaronB

    because I will be focusing on becoming part of a different people myself.

    Would be hilarious, if they don’t want you in Israel either, lol.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  125. AaronB says:
    @German_reader

    I’m actually a citizen, lived there for 6 years when younger, returned for several visits since then, speak the language, and regularly interact with them when travelling in Asia and have Israeli friends in NY.

    Its more of a returning home.

    But yes, it would be hilarious 🙂

    • Replies: @German_reader
  126. AaronB says:
    @Hyperborean

    In your own weird way, thank you I suppose.

    You’re quite welcome. It’s sincere.

    I think I’ve already stated that I am quite deracinated and doubtful that I will ever be completely rid of it, only ameliorate it

    .

    And I think I finally accept that.

    Its not just you, it’s the condition of white people these days, and it probably has “deep causes” that are well beyond an idiot like me to even begin addressing.

    I should add that this is not just my opinion but also some of my Chinese friends and acquaintances from school have similar impressions regarding ordinary people’s view on technology and social struggle.

    Thanks for adding that. I think that jives with our Chinese commenters here. I think China hasn’t fully recovered from the Cultural Revolution and will be in fur a hard time, unfortunately.

  127. AaronB says:

    I guess this means I’ll be battling utu now on the anti-Israeli threads.

    See you on the battlefield, utu.

  128. @AaronB

    I’m actually a citizen, lived there for 6 years when younger

    That actually reinforces the “subversive Jew” persona many of your comments evoke imo, with all of your dubious advice.
    If it’s true, that is. Maybe you’re just a basement-dwelling alt-right teenager who’s played an elaborate long-term troll on us 🙂

    • Agree: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @AaronB
    , @iffen
    , @reiner Tor
  129. AaronB says:
    @German_reader

    My advice is dubious and you should not take it. It was all meant to subvert you, as utu says.

    Maybe you’re just a basement-dwelling alt-right teenager who’s played an elaborate long-term troll on us 🙂

    Maybe. Pretty good run though 🙂

  130. dfordoom says: • Website
    @neutral

    If people here don’t like the idea of superior and inferior races, then can you list any reasons why in principle you would be against things like mass immigration, miscegenation,MLK, and other such ideologies?

    Because I like diversity. Actual diversity, in other words the existence of lots of different cultures. I don’t want the entire planet to be a monoculture. And I believe that every culture has a right to survive. Mass immigration combined with assimilation is the ultimate evil because it destroys diversity.

    The idea of superior and inferior races is entirely irrelevant. It’s an argument for HBDers and they’re pathetic losers who make it almost impossible for sensible intelligent arguments against things like mass immigration and miscegenation to get heard.

  131. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Kent Nationalist

    In terms of relative expansion of population and land controlled, Anglos are definitely the most successful race of the last several hundred years.

    In terms of relative expansion of population and land controlled, Anglos definitely were the most successful race of the last several hundred years. FIFY.

    We had a good run but we blew it.

    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
  132. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Spisarevski

    And people who spend their days behind computers, living incredibly boring and pathetic lives in comparison (myself included) are not worthy of discussing based Stalin.

    Really great men will always be regarded with envy by little men.

    You could certainly argue that 20th century Russian history could have been a lot more disastrous without Stalin.

    If you want a villain to blame for Russia’s current misfortunes then the obvious one is that moron Gorbachev, who managed to undo all of Stalin’s accomplishments. Russians should be tearing down statues of Gorbachev.

  133. EldnahYm says:
    @neutral

    Citizenship has value, particularly in prosperous countries. The more people that have it, the less valuable it is. It is something we should value and take pride in passing on to our descendants, rather than carelessly passing it out to every one who comes around asking for it. Greater population density and higher property/land values harms quality of life.

    The idea of superior races is correct though, as is the idea that some cultures are better than others. We should openly espouse these ideas, particularly when they are obviously correct.

  134. Anon 2 says:

    Re: Karlin’s statement, “The blood price that God will exact of modern
    Americans and W. Europeans, etc”

    It’s embarrassing to watch a well-educated person like Anatoly employ a crude,
    primitive model of God that would be at home among the Old Testament
    Hebrews but hardly in the 21st century. There is progress in science, and there
    has been progress in religion. I previously referred to Judaism, Christianity,
    Islam, and even Buddhism as outdated but there is no question that Christianity
    and Buddhism are for the most part more advanced than Orthodox Judaism or Islam.
    As someone pointed out, Anatoly’s model doesn’t explain what grave sins the
    Ukrainians had committed that they would be punished so severely with holodomor.
    It would also be grossly facile for me to claim that both the Germans and the
    Russians have been punished (e.g., with extreme loss of territory) for their
    attempt to practice ruthless colonialism within Europe, which began with the partitions
    of Poland in the 18th century, and was initiated by two Germans.

    One of the most important things in life is to establish the correct relationship to
    time, i.e., to realize that there is no past, only the eternal Now. In our daily life
    this is achieved through a systematic practice of forgiveness. This is implicit in
    Buddhism, and this is probably where Christianity made its greatest advance,
    and moved ahead of Judaism. We know we live in harmony with the passage
    of time when we no longer bump into the cosmic furniture, so to speak, when
    we are carried effortlessly and synchronistically by the cosmic wave of events
    in our life. People are beginning to get it, as seen by the explosion of interest
    in the concept of synchronicity (developed by Carl Jung who published his
    treatise in 1952). 40 years ago there was really only one popularization of the
    concept, namely the book Tao of Psychology by Jean Shinoda Bolen. Now
    there are dozens. When you’re living synchronistically, you really feel you are
    on the right path and God is on your side. No wonder many people claim
    it’s more important to be lucky than to be smart. Take that, HBD fanatics!
    So that’s one answer to the question raised in this thread, “How do I know when
    God is on my side?” (equivalent to, “How do I know when I’m doing God’s will?)

    • Replies: @Anonn
  135. Anonn says:

    God punished rus for beung christcuck thats why pagan are increasing.

  136. Anonn says:
    @Anon 2

    SHUT UP U CUCK!

    systematic practice of forgiveness

    https://www.patreon.com/posts/part-1-or-force-23514517

    ਦੋਹਰਾ । ‘ਦਾਦੂ ਸਮਾ ਬਿਚਾਰਿ ਕੈ ਕਲਿ ਕਾ ਲੀਜੈ ਭਾਇ । ਜੇ ਕੋ ਮਾਰੈ ਢੀਮ ਇਟ ਲੀਜੈ ਸੀਸ ਚਢਾਇ ‘ ।22।
    “Dadu, in contemplating the state of our Age of Darkness, if one hits you with a mud brick, then lower your head [and forgive them].”

    ਚੌਪਈ । ਸੁਨਿ ਗੁਰ ਕਹ੍ਯੋ ‘ ਤੁਮਹੁ ਇਮ ਕਰਨੀ । ਪੰਥ ਨ੍ਰਿਵਿਰਤ ਤਿਨਹੁ ਕਹੁ ਬਰਨੀ । ਜਿਨਹੁ ਕੁਕਰਮ ਹਟਾਵਨਿ ਕਰਨੋ । ਤਿਨ ਕੋ ਅਪਰ ਬਿਧੀ ਸੋਂ ਬਰਨੋ ।23।
    The Guru listening to this remarked, “That may be your path of action for your Panth, but [for us] to stop the spread of evil action, one must take a different method.

    ਦੋਹਰਾ ।’ਦਾਦੂ ! ਸਮਾਂ ਬਿਚਾਰ ਕੈ ਕਲਿਕਾ ਲੀਜੈ ਭਾਇ ।ਜੇ ਕੋ ਮਾਰੈ ਈਟ ਢੀਮ ਪਾਥਰ ਹਨੈ ਰਿਸਾਇ ‘ ।24।
    Dadu, in contemplating the state of our Age of Darkness, if one hits you with a mud brick, ferociously strike back with a stone bolder.

    • Replies: @Anon 2
  137. utu says:
    @utu

    Жанна Бичевская -Святым Царственным мученикам

    • Replies: @utu
  138. Anon 2 says:

    Re: Return of paganism

    I previously remarked how Christianity 1.0 is now dying
    even though two thousand years ago it effected a great
    advance in the level of human consciousness. To refer to
    God as Father, to think of God as loving and merciful
    rather than capricious and genocidal, to think of the
    Universe as benevolent as proclaimed by Jesus in the Sermon
    on the Mount – were all powerful stimulants that triggered
    a quantum jump in human self-awareness. But we can do even
    better. How?

    Two proposals that reflect what is already happening in Christianity:

    1. We need to reject the idea that Yahweh, the tribal god of the Hebrews,
    who somehow (through delusions of grandeur, i.e., my god is better
    than your god) was promoted to the status of the Creator of the Universe,
    actually deserves that title. This erroneous Jewish idea infected both
    Christianity and Islam. It’s time to get rid of it. This is the paradox that
    causes many people to become atheists: how could the Supreme Being,
    presumably benevolent, omniscient, and all-powerful create a world with
    so much evil and suffering? Well, He didn’t. Any rational person will
    agree that God did not create this world so let’s not blame God for the evil
    that exists this side of Eden. At the same time let’s not throw out the baby
    with the bath water, and get rid of God just because there are wars, and famines,
    and genocides. So who created the world? In my opinion the simplest answer
    is: our collective consciousness did. The Universe is suspended within our
    collective consciousness. Our Higher Selves created the physical reality (and
    astral, subtle, causal, etc levels of reality) as basically a video game to amuse
    ourselves while we are safely ensconced in Heaven with God. That’s how
    powerful we are – in Christianity 2.0 we are divine beings having a human
    experience. We should be filled with enthusiasm, what can be better than
    to be gods and goddesses?

    2. The second fundamental weakness of Judaism that infected Christianity
    and Islam is that too much emphasis was placed on divine transcendence, and
    not enough on divine immanence. Paganism, on the other hand, with its
    indwelling spirits, placed too much emphasis on divine immanence. So Christianity
    1.0 was a useful correction to that, but it went too far in the opposite direction,
    so Christianity 2.0 would be another correction but in the opposite direction.
    Paganism in Europe reached its peak in the person of Plotinus (204-270 AD)
    and his doctrine of Neoplatonism but its development was cut short by the
    rapid growth of Christianity. Everything indicates that people in the West
    yearn to return to paganism – paganism has the power to give a sense of
    rootedness to deracinated Westerners, and it can bring a sense of vitality to the
    psyche. Hence, e.g., an explosion of interest in the Middle Ages. Let’s develop
    paganism (which basically amounts to saying, “God is in everything I see.”
    Anyone who has experience with meditation and/or psychedelics will know
    what I mean – the world, the trees, rivers, mountains, and our bodies are
    sacred and pulsating with energy!) beyond the level it reached with Plotinus. This
    is a challenge to the future generations who no doubt will be motivated
    by the depredations we continue to inflict on our environment.

    • Replies: @Anon 2
  139. Anon 2 says:
    @Anonn

    Hundreds of pages can be written about the true meaning
    of forgiveness but the simplest way to understand it is that what
    we think is real is actually a dream (or a simulation if you
    like). I am reminded of an old joke. A woman wakes up
    angry at her husband. He asks, “What happened?” And she
    says, “I had a dream that you were flirting with the young
    woman who moved in next door.” To which he responds,
    “But it was only a dream.” “But,” she says, “this was exactly
    like something you would do.”

    I’m not advocating nonviolence. Currently we typically
    operate on the level of smart chimps – we are tribal,
    aggressive, revengeful, territorial, and status-seeking.
    People should operate on the highest level of awareness
    they are capable of – if someone thinks that in self-defense
    the best response is to hit someone, then by all means hit
    them (which can mean physically, verbally, etc).

    • Replies: @Kent Nationalist
  140. Anon 2 says:
    @Anon 2

    As an example of Europe returning gradually to paganism,
    I’d like to announce:

    TRIBAL GATHERING –
    NATIVE ELDERS AND WISDOM KEEPERS

    that will take place in Berlin on Sept. 12-17.

    One of the groups that will be represented there is
    the Polish polyphonic roots ensemble “Laboratorium Pieśni”
    (Song Laboratory). The group specializes primarily in the
    roots and folk music from the Intermarium area, i.e., Poland,
    Belarus, Ukraine, etc. Many of their songs are on YouTube, e.g.,
    “U lisi,” “Sztoj pa moru,” or “Live 09.04.2016.”

    Everyone is invited!

  141. @Anon 2

    That is a way of disengaging from ordinary reactive attitudes (e.g. resentment, blame, gratitude) in interpersonal relationships and adopting what one might call the ‘objective’ attitude (thinking about how a person’s childhood formed their character causing them to do such and such has the same effect). It isn’t actually forgiveness however, just a way of stopping resentment or blame arising in the first place.

    Read Strawson’s paper ‘Freedom and Resentment’ for more information

    • Replies: @Anon 2
  142. utu says:
    @utu

    Жанна Бичевская- Всё теперь против нас…

    • Replies: @utu
  143. utu says:
    @utu

    OK, last one.
    Alexander Vertinsky – Dorogoi dlinnoyu – Дорогой длинною

  144. iffen says:
    @AaronB

    You’re not a rogue or a renegade. There’s nothing wrong with you.

    Hey, wait a minute, how come he gets special treatment? Are you trying to sow the seed of factionalism among us whites before you leave?

    Where are the Jew-haters when you need them?

  145. iffen says:
    @German_reader

    That actually reinforces the “subversive Jew” persona many of your comments evoke imo, with all of your dubious advice.

    How does giving dubious advice make one subversive?

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
  146. @AaronB

    You seem to completely misunderstand what HBD is or what it teaches.

    90 IQ is composed of effort + innate ability. That’s the formula.

    Wrong. IQ is part of innate ability. (There are other components of it then IQ, and it’s not all genetic, some of it is basically luck, but there’s very little your parents or anyone including yourself could do to improve it other than giving you adequate food and housing.)

    Now, your performance will of course be a multiple of innate ability and effort. Without effort, no performance. Basically, with half the ability but a little bit over twice the effort you could beat someone, if we take A for ability, E for effort, and P for performance: P=A*E, and 0.5A*2.1E>A*E

    Luck also plays a relatively large role, but of course it doesn’t mean that effort is worthless, as seen above. It’s also confirmed by experience: relatively untalented people who put in a lot of effort often beat more talented people. Being lazy is a big disadvantage.

    Overcoming natural barriers is of course very inspirational: so like you see an untalented guy keep practicing until he gets better than the talented guys is inspirational. Seeing the talented guy putting in the same effort as everyone else, and then beat the others… not so much.

    In any event, I don’t think that you can get away with being lazy at the top. People like Mozart or Beethoven or Newton or Einstein were almost superhumanly talented, yet had they not put in the almost superhuman effort (Mozart probably spent something like 100 hours a week or more composing, playing, or listening to music), they would never have become the best in their fields. It was a lot of effort.

    Now, it’s possible I could never become Einstein. But I could become a better version of myself. Everyone could become a better version of themselves. Putting in lots of effort is worth it because it’s a pretty cool thing to become a better version of yourself. Believe me. Like passing a difficult exam, or getting rewarded and praised by your boss and colleagues at work, or achieving great business success if you are an entrepreneur, or deadlifting twice your bodyweight after spending the first two or three or four decades of your life a weakling etc. – it’s all pretty cool. But of course you need to be realistic – some guys have more talent or innate abilities than others.

    I don’t really understand what’s so controversial about the above.

    • Replies: @Logan
    , @Logan
    , @AaronB
  147. @German_reader

    This is one more reason to bundle him together with utu. Utu is also a subversive, handing out dubious advice, and for example Peter Frost now believes (wrongly, I think, but interestingly) that utu is a Jewish troll. In any event utu is just what a troll trying to sow discord among the readership of alt-rightish sites would look like: he makes horrible extremist remarks (like how he rejoiced at the thought of a nuclear war between Russia and Israel), which is off-putting to most normal people bumping into this site, and then uses this “street cred” to try to discredit HBD. That way he both associates HBD with horrible extremism (his own comments advocating for a nuclear destruction of Israel, Russian victims be damned; it doesn’t matter he himself is not an HBD advocate, it’s enough for guilt by association in the minds of most people) and try to discredit HBD among enemies of the System (“see? it’s not even extremist enough!”), so both handles are subversives.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  148. @iffen

    The dubious advice might be listened to.

    • Replies: @iffen
  149. Logan says:
    @reiner Tor

    I don’t understand it either.

    We seem to have no difficulty recognizing innate characteristics in some areas but enormous difficulty doing so in other areas.

    Few have a problem recognizing that some people have greater inborn athletic or musical talent than others. But recognizing similar intellectual abilities irks the hell out of many. Especially in the middle range.

    Again, not many will dispute that significant retardation (160 IQ) exist. But they have real problem recognizing that the difference between 100 and 115 IQ is plenty to be significant and that these differences create drastic differences in average life outcomes. People don’t seem to have as much of a problem recognizing that 85 vs. 100 creates real difference in ability, but not that 95 vs. 110, while still being both “average,” creates a similar difference.

    I think part of it is the American obsession, which I share, with “all men are created equal.” They extrapolate intellectual superiority with an implied claim that more intelligence = superior human being. This then gets all tangled up with known difference in average IQ between ethnic groups.

    I think that there is a simple logical flaw here. A more intelligent person is not a superior human being, other than in that one aspect of life. Anymore than someone with greater athletic or musical talent is a superior human being, outside that narrow aspect. Perhaps if we could recognize this the IQ/intelligence issue wouldn’t create so much acrimony.

    • Replies: @Lars Porsena
  150. iffen says:
    @reiner Tor

    The dubious advice might be listened to.

    There are thousands of sources of dubious advice. Mystic moonbeam collectors is just one variety and most of them are not Jewish. Subversion requires some intent to subvert an existing order. We could say that nihilists only wish to subvert without having a replacement in mind, but normally we expect that subversives would have some idea of what they are subverting and have a replacement in mind. I want to know how dubious mystic mumbo-jumbo advice qualifies as being “Jewish subversion.”

    Did subversive Jew come before recognition of the dubious advice?

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  151. Logan says:
    @reiner Tor

    Personality plays a huge part. The Big Five model appears to have a lot of empirical evidence that it addresses something real in humans.

    One of those traits is Conscientiousness. Someone low in this trait but high in IQ is not going to go much of anywhere, since success generally requires both ability and hard work.

    OTOH, a highly Conscientious but relatively low IQ person is likely to perform right up to the edge of their maximum potential, but that cannot be exceeded.

    I think of intelligence as something like height. Each of us has a maximum genetic potential to grow tall or to be intelligent. Given maximum environmental encouragement, we will probably reach that potential. We know all kinds of ways in which poor environment will keep a person from reaching their maximum potential height or intelligence, but we have no idea at all how to get someone above that potential.

  152. AaronB says:
    @reiner Tor

    Of course. I agree with everything you said. In fact that’s my point.

    So let’s look at IQ scores in this light. Asians score 103-105 and whites 100 on average.

    How can you possibly know how much of this 5 point difference is motivation and effort?

    Now, since we know the West is going through a decline, and Asians are super motivated, don’t we have some rough first level evidence to at least consider this?

    Now, extend this to all group outcomes – the preponderance of Asians in STEM – how can you know how much of this is motivation and effort and cultural shift? Isn’t the fact that when whites do engineering, like the Germans, they are equal to or better than Asians an interesting consideration?

    Now – what’s the HBD narrative – that Asians are smarter and better at STEM innately. In fact they assume this and try and prove this.

    Why?

    Please answer honestly, if you can.

  153. Anon 2 says:
    @Kent Nationalist

    Everything I wrote here could be expanded into long essays.
    For lack of space (and time) I’m summarizing things rather
    than explaining them. But let me concretize a few topics.

    Re: forgiveness There are now whole academic centers devoted to
    the study of forgiveness and its effects on our physiology and
    our relationships. Forgiveness can be seen as superior to justice
    because given our nature at our current primitive stage of
    evolution as basically smart chimps, under stress the pursuit of
    justice will often degenerate into a pursuit of revenge. The
    Middle East where neither the Jews nor the Muslims subscribe
    to the doctrine of forgiveness is a case in point.

    Amusingly, Deepak Chopra, the author of books on yoga and
    meditation, says that when something doesn’t go right in his
    life he tells himself that life is only a lucid dream, nothing to
    get too excited about.

    2. Re: Return of paganism In my opinion the foremost exponent of
    pagan thought today is Ken Wilber, although he used to be referred
    to as a transpersonal theorist (along with Washburn), and now he
    calls himself an integral thinker.

    3. An example of what I call Christianity 2.0 (i.e., a doctrine that has
    left the Old Testament behind and emphasizes equal balance between
    transcendent and immanent aspects of divinity) is A Course in
    Miracles, originally published in 1976 and now translated into close
    to 30 languages. Philosophically this doctrine is similar to panentheism,
    in the U.S. developed by Hartshorne.

    Let me say somewhat cryptically that those who practice Christianity 2.0
    are promised extraordinary powers, much greater than those who practice
    Christianity 1.0 . This is what Jesus promised, and is now beginning to take
    place. Progress in religion means that once humans realize they are divine
    beings they will achieve extraordinary abilities. To me this is the true meaning
    of transhumanism.

    • Replies: @Anonn
  154. AaronB says:
    @AaronB

    And shouldn’t a self loving white be motivated to consider these facts?

    There is considerable leeway in interpretation here, yet white HBDers choose the version that casts them as innately inferior. And they do this with gusto and enthusiasm.

    Now, why would they do this? Why when I go to Steve Sailers blog he and everyone on it agree that Asians are smarter when there is such leeway in possible interpretations?

    Do you find that weird?

    What do you think Reiner?

    Since I no longer identify as white, its no longer my responsibility to do this intellectual heavy lifting for you guys.

    If, in a situation where the facts are ambiguous, you guys want to choose the worse one for yourselves – I am not the person to help you find better alternatives.

    Figure it out yourselves.

    • Replies: @Hyperborean
  155. @dfordoom

    I tend to agree but we’re not done yet. “The whistle has not blown. The ball is still in play”, as Idi Amin once said.

  156. @AaronB

    You really have a one track mind.

    Here’s a response from an “HBDer” from a decade ago (personally I find it just a tad too triumphalist):

    https://www.amren.com/news/2016/11/why-have-asians-not-dominated-iq-creativity/

  157. @AaronB

    I don’t know why you think “HBDers” have to be 100% genetically determined absolutists.

    To me, they are basically the only people even acknowledging that any genetic determination is real at all. That is the point of HBD. It’s saying that genetic inequality exists, not that it is everything there is in life.

    We are living in a time of rampant equalism where gender is considered a social construct. The point of HBD is merely that differences exist. That they exist at all is considered extremist, and it gets caricatured like you are claiming it is because to acknowledge any differences at all is equalist heresy.

    Biodiversity is simply a fact of reality.

    If HBDers seem obsessed with genetic differences it is because they are trying to prove that they are real and mean something. Not that they are everything and nothing is outside of it. Why would people who believe genetic differences are real, in our day and age, go around arguing there is so much more besides genes when the issue they face is trying to legitimize considering genes at all? There are already plenty of nutjobs making those points to argue the extremist complete reverse, that genes and height and age and hormones are all social constructs, and anyone acknowledging any innate differences at all is some kind of racist hatemonger trying to assert ethnic superiority.

    A simple semantic analysis here. You either believe humans are biologically diverse or not. If you do, you are an HBDer too since you are saying it is real (you don’t have to be obsessed with it to the exclusion of all else). The 100% extreme ideological dogmatism is on the other side that claims in effect it does not exist at all. The only way to not be an HBDer is if you will run around claiming women are just as physically capable as men or Thais are just as fast at sprinting as Nigerians.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  158. @AaronB

    In fact they assume this and try and prove this. Why? Please answer honestly, if you can.

    Because they’re trying to show that it is real and matters for something.

    You have to take into account what they’re arguing against. That all people are equal and group differences are only social constructs. The point HBD is that meaningful diversity is a real fact of reality, so they try to prove that.

    They’re also trying to argue against the idea that the inherent implication of this is Germanic white superiority since that is how it’s caricatured – as creating racial hierarchies rather than comparing divergent innate aptitudes.

  159. @Logan

    They extrapolate intellectual superiority with an implied claim that more intelligence = superior human being. This then gets all tangled up with known difference in average IQ between ethnic groups.

    I think there is certainly something to this, that a lot of the issue is conflating how good at math you are with your overall worth as a person. We are riddled with this nonsense.

    It’s seemingly unlikely that Einstein ever even had sex with his wife, let alone knew how to comb his own hair. If all humans had 200+ IQs we would go extinct, they could probably not procreate nor maintain decent living standards. People don’t realize how weird and Rainman-esque super geniuses can be. These are often people who will spend their whole lives obsessing over something like the movement of stars in the sky or measuring the weight of microscopic things to the detriment of eating properly without normie caretaking. Tesla died flat broke because he would spend every penny he had making experiments to do things like cause earthquakes or giant lightning-bolt sized arc flashes. Also he died a bachelor and probably a virgin. He was quite a genius who contributed a lot to society but how could anyone think a society full of him could maintain itself?

    I blame that thinking significantly on the enlightenment though, meritocracy, technocracy, rationalism, progressivism and capitalism are more to blame here. I don’t think it’s particularly American, although we do take equalist obsessions to new levels, this measurement of human worth through reasoning ability is not part of equalism per se or especially American. The tendency is somewhat contrary to equalism.

    • Replies: @Logan
  160. @reiner Tor

    There is a simple solution to the problem of both utu and AaronB:

    AaronB is an all right fellow but makes the same post over and over, and as for utu his comments aren’t even readable.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  161. @iffen

    In addition to the AGREE, DISAGREE, LOL, and TROLL buttons there needs to be a JEW button.

    Perhaps also HACK’S LAW, though I suppose it’s too much to ask our fearless overlord to add a button just for this blog.

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @Lars Porsena
  162. iffen says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    I think that it would be nice if each handle had a small note with pertinent political, race, religion, ethnic, nationality, age, etc. details. I think that it would reduce some clutter, but not all because there would be a lot of “you are not a true X.”

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  163. @iffen

    A police sketch of the commenter would be valuable as well.

    • Replies: @iffen
  164. iffen says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    A police sketch of the commenter would be valuable as well.

    AFAIK police sketches are pretty much worthless. They are certainly not worth the time and expense given to them.

    Maybe a security services profile would be worthwhile. 🙂

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  165. @Thorfinnsson

    Not related to Aaron but I have been thinking Unz needs a “FBI STING” button.

  166. @iffen

    A photograph suitably anonymized then.

    Physiognomy is real.

    • Replies: @utu
  167. Logan says:
    @Lars Porsena

    There is also the probable fact that for most of human history, for most people, super-high IQ would not aid survival or reproduction.

    A super-smart slave, serf or peasant would be likely to piss off his “betters” and get himself killed.

    The Einstein-level of intelligence probably had no benefit at all until quite recently, as there was no real outlet or purpose to which it could be turned.

  168. utu says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    Physiognomy is real.

    Two prominent IQists: Peter Frost and David Becker

    • Replies: @Anon
  169. Anonn says:
    @Anon 2

    vedic thought already says that u muppet same with illusion of reality. go lift weights

  170. Anon[296] • Disclaimer says:
    @utu

    @ https://theduran.com/the-origins-of-the-deep-state-in-north-america/

    Interesting, thank you. Precursors in the earlier 19th Century would be Palmerston and his “zoo”. It’s more of a problem tracing cabals after 1950. It cannot all be Bilderberg. Pretty sure, for example, that that nice and clubby Young President’s Organization is not only a “fishbowl” but a control network.
    The members are held, among other things, to NOT see each other socially except at weddings and funerals. And the networks don’t disband at 50. They quietly become YPO “gold”.

  171. AaronB says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    AaronB is an all right fellow but makes the same post over and over

    I no longer identify as white so it does not matter to me, but a bit of friendly advice from a well wisher for when you try and take over the world Thor – effective propaganda is to repeat the same point over and over. This has long been known. It is stupid, brutish, and simple – and therefore effective.

    Reiner Tor and Hyperborean were on the verge of breaking down under my relentless assault and disavowing HBD. The pressure was building. Even Peter Frost was feeling the strain.

    But then like the American army in Vietnam, on the verge of victory I suddenly lost political will because I became disgusted with my own side.

    But you would do well to keep in mind good tactical lessons in your bid for world supremacy.

    • LOL: iffen
  172. AaronB says:
    @Lars Porsena

    Your strategy is clearly a recipe for success – since the mainstream narrative is one of insane on-sidedness, we should adopt an opposite narrative of insane one-sidedness.

    Heaven forbid we actually adopt a mature, balanced, realistic, view that is line with psychological health, like our ancestors once did – like, oh, I don’t know, emphasize effort and accept genetic constraints, rather than try to paint a picture that it is all genetic constraints.

    What’s more, we shouldn’t even describe these genetic constraints accurately according to the data – we should blow them out of all proportion and lie about what the data says in order to paint ourselves as mediocre. We should positively revel in constraint, not possibility, and positively distort the data to prove ourselves mediocre.

    I know decadence when I see it.

    But enjoy.

    • Replies: @Lars Porsena
    , @reiner Tor
  173. @AaronB

    Reiner Tor and Hyperborean were on the verge of breaking down under my relentless assault and disavowing HBD. The pressure was building. Even Peter Frost was feeling the strain.

    I already stated that HBD is not very important to my political position – in fact, I had the same fascist beliefs while I didn’t believe in any racial differences in biological influences.

    This is almost beginning to be as retarded as the Ukraine circular shitposts.

    But then like the American army in Vietnam, on the verge of victory I suddenly lost political will because I became disgusted with my own side.

    Perhaps it is because you make statements like this that you are perceived as a concern-troll…

    • Replies: @AaronB
  174. AaronB says:
    @Hyperborean

    I

    already stated that HBD is not very important to my political position – in fact, I had the same fascist beliefs while I didn’t believe in any racial differences in biological influences.

    Interesting. That’s good to hear about HBD.

    Perhaps it is because you make statements like this that you are perceived as a concern-troll…

    Oh come, a bit of humor is all part of the fun, and does not detract from my seriousness.

  175. @AaronB

    It would be good form if you’re going to reply to me to actually reply to something I wrote.

    Your reply seems like you didn’t even read mine and just carried on saying what you were saying in the first place.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  176. @AaronB

    Now – what’s the HBD narrative – that Asians are smarter and better at STEM innately. In fact they assume this and try and prove this.

    That’s not exactly true. As has been pointed out to you (though you wouldn’t listen), IQ is not all there is to life. Asians, for example, appear to be less curious and more conformist than whites. Being too much of a conformist makes you innately worse at STEM – because, you know, to find new ways, you have to break with what’s accepted and standard.

    So why should I stick to a likely untrue narrative (“motivation caused a 5 point IQ advantage of Asians”) when a likely true narrative (“Asians are more conformist and less curious”) would do the job? It might also explain why in a Western culture (where they are encouraged by their environment to constantly find and express new ideas) they are more successful as scientists than in a culture composed of their fellow East Asians.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    , @AaronB
  177. @AaronB

    Reiner Tor and Hyperborean were on the verge of breaking down under my relentless assault and disavowing HBD.

    I never came close to disavowing HBD, in fact, I didn’t even change any of my opinions about HBD here.

  178. @AaronB

    since the mainstream narrative is one of insane on-sidedness, we should adopt an opposite narrative of insane one-sidedness

    As Lars Polena tried to inform you, the mainstream HBD position is not insanely one-sided. We merely talk about where we are in disagreement with the official narrative.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  179. AaronB says:
    @reiner Tor

    So why should I stick to a likely untrue narrative (“motivation caused a 5 point IQ advantage of Asians”)

    So you see, Tor, this is what I mean. Just above you gave this wonderful exposition about how you fully and totally accept that crystallized performance is a function of both innate ability and effort and motivation – how could anyone even deny this – but here you deny that motivation can possibly play any role.

    I am happy you did this, because this is such a perfect real-time example of what I have been claiming about you HBD guys – when challenged, you will beat a “strategic retreat” and claim your position is far more reasonable and accommodating than I make out….and then immediately after revert to just those extreme on-sided positions.

    And you present it as a “likely untrue” narrative that motivation can explain a modest IQ gap, as if you have reached this conclusion after careful deliberation and judicious weighinfg of the facts. In fact it merely expresses your wish – because as a decadent, you don’t want personal agency to play any serious role.

    So lets see what you’re saying here Reiner –

    Asians are innately smarter at STEM. But their personalitites innately handicap them.

    In both cases, what is innate is primary for you, and what is in the field of personal agency or environment is completely discounted – you explicitly declined to consider motivation a weighty factor( without offering any argument whatosever.)

    But shockingly, despite your eloquent avowal of considering non-innate factors above, you somehow manage to come up with a picture that is entirely 100% innate, fatalistic, genetic, and where psychology, environemnt, and history play no role. I am so surprised.

    But when I accuse you of being on-sidedly in favor of genetic constraint – oh no, of course not, you totally acknowledge the role of effort and environment, etc.

    Do we have to contine going thorugh this farce?

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
  180. AaronB says:
    @reiner Tor

    It might also explain why in a Western culture (where they are encouraged by their environment to constantly find and express new ideas) they are more successful as scientists than in a culture composed of their fellow East Asians.

    Here at least you consider the role of environment as it impacts upon innate ability, but not that of personal agency – effort and motivation. You want to live in a deterministic world.

    And BTW this is untrue – Asians in the West perform at roughly the same level as Asians in their own countries, they are not in the least more innovative. They follow the exact same pattern.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
  181. AaronB says:
    @reiner Tor

    Excellent, so your position is not so one sided.

    So, then I am sure you would agree with all these –

    1) Motivation and effort play a significant role in achievement, so test scores do not represent innate ability alone.

    2) For instance, the Asian-white IQ gap cannot be said to be a measure of innate ability differences, but a mix of innate ability and effort and motivation, as well as environment. We do not know what the innate difference is between the two groups. The same applies to Jews.

    3) The Asian preference for STEM may not be the result of innate aptitude but a cultural decision based on perception of threat from the encounter with the West. The available data are ambiguous and do not compel a genetic explanation, and there is no reason to prefer one.

    4) Since the genetic element is only part of the explanation, it is important to emphasize the role of effort and motivation and environment just as much, otherwise a distorted one sided picture will emerge.

    5) Its also important to emphasize effort because it is important to have people try their best and avoid messages that contribute to apathy.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    , @reiner Tor
  182. AaronB says:
    @AaronB

    6) Number 5 is especially critical in todays West, which is in a period of fatigue and decline and needs to be given a boost if it is to give its best and compete.

    7) I will agree with you that it is equally important to oppose the Blank Slaters and insist that there is a strong hereditary component to all crystalized performance and we are not infinitely malleable.

  183. AaronB says:
    @Lars Porsena

    I am sorry you do not see how my response was relevant.

    In theory, there is nothing wrong with HBD – it can be a useful corrective to Blank Slatism.

    In practice it is a grotesquely one-sided emphasis of genetic constraint. In practice data is ignored, glossed over, wrongly interpreted, and fudged in order to craft a fatalistic narrative of genetic constraint and a false picture of group potential.

    You see the main danger as Blank Slatism because your main concern is to keep blacks and browns out.

    I see the main danger as a fatalistic emphasis on genes because it creates a distorted image of white impotence and reduces motivation to compete against who I see as Western civilizations real competitors, Asians and Jews.

    Your ultimate goal is negative, to eliminate what you see as dysfunctional elements from your society. You do not care if you also end up hamstringing yourself and saddling yourself with a fatalstic and enervating philosophy.

    You also don’t grasp that crafting a narrative of yourlselves, whites, as mediocre you are actually undermining your goal of motivating people to maintain the ethnic integrity of European countries. People will defend what they find inspiring, now what they find dull and insipid.

    But in the end that is another difference between myself and white HBDers – your goals are practical, limited, modest, defeatist. You are keen to offer pragmatic reasons for why immigration should be limited but dont grasp that inspiring reasons are what will be effective.

    All of which is fine – you are what you are and I am what I am.

    I am merely pointing out that HBD is NOT on the side of Western revitalization – but is at best a pramatic program for limiting dysfunctional elements while simultaneously limiting the ability of the West to rejuvenate itself. Which youa are fine with.

    And I am not. So I am defecting – “flight from white” I believe Sailer calls it.

    Its either self-hate or the kind of defeatist uninspiring pragmatic nonsense you guys are offering. I want more out of life.

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @Lars Porsena
  184. iffen says:
    @AaronB

    I am merely pointing out that HBD is NOT on the side of Western revitalization

    It is to the extent that the scientific method and rational un-biased inquiry are Western.

  185. @AaronB

    You see the main danger as Blank Slatism because your main concern is to keep blacks and browns out.

    Out of what?

    I see blank slatism as dangerous because it is crazy and wrong. It has become decadent and deranged and frankly desperate which is why it’s tilting toward totalitarianism.

    Your ultimate goal is negative, to eliminate what you see as dysfunctional elements from your society.

    Actually I personally prefer a paternalistic approach. I am not exterminationist. You project too much.

    We need to acknowledge differences in order to manage and adequately accommodate them.

    You also don’t grasp that crafting a narrative of yourlselves, whites, as mediocre you are actually undermining your goal of motivating people to maintain the ethnic integrity of European countries.

    Because Chinese people on average have 4 IQ points on us??? That makes us “mediocre” as a people? Is IQ all you think there is to life? No wonder you think everyone wants to exterminate the blacks.

    At any rate, who said my goal in life was motivating Euro’s to keep their countries ethnically pure? I would advise it, but I’m not even a Euro, what do I really care what they do?

    You make up too much crap. I don’t even know who you’re talking to. This entire thing appears to be you arguing with some figment of your imagination you’ve projected onto people.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  186. AaronB says:
    @Lars Porsena

    You make many good points.

    The truth is, the wind has gone out of my sails. I am only half heartedly arguing at this point, because increasingly I feel I have no skin in the game.

    I have chosen my path, and you whites should choose whatever path you feel is good.

    If you are happy with the philosophy promoted by people like Sailer, Derb, Frost, et al, then well and good.

    And I wish you luck. I don’t really have the sense urgency to argue this anymore.

    I will probably be taking potshots at HBD ideology because I find it generally illogical and unscientific so fun and easy to criticize, but I am not so interested in the larger philosophic issues involved as I was last week.

  187. Mr. XYZ says:
    @AaronB

    Why don’t you identify as White any longer? Is it due to White nationalists refusing to accept you as White?

    • Replies: @AaronB
  188. AaronB says:
    @Mr. XYZ

    No, its because there is nothing inspiring on the white side, no sense of community and no vitality, no ambition and no ideals. There is either morbid leftist self-hate, or HBD style mediocrity and pseudo scientific retardation. There is no tradition and no culture. And there is absolutely no one on the white side who represents anything different or shows signs of wanting to be different.

    I thought maybe I could help change this, but I don’t think so anymore. It is evident to me that whites wish to go peacefully into that Long Sleep.

    Luckily, I have another community I can join – or rather, reaffirm my identity with, that is healthy, ambitious, communal, has an organic tradition and ideals, and that will survive.

    In 100 years from now the West will be gone, and new nations formed of whites, browns, and yellows will occupy the places where once Western nations stood, just like happened with Greece and Rome.

    White nationalists are perfectly willing to accept half-Jews – look at Milo, and I could easily join them. But white nationalists are just another form of the decadence.

  189. @AaronB

    1) Motivation and effort play a significant role in achievement, so test scores do not represent innate ability alone.

    No, it’s highly unlikely, and if you even cursorily read the IQ literature, you’d know that.

    Individual IQ scores would fluctuate readily with motivation – individuals’ motivations could change enormously over a lifetime. If large groups’ test scores were capable of changing 5 points (one third of an std) to change due to motivation, then I’d expect individuals’ scores to fluctuate by at least one std over a lifetime. It doesn’t happen. And “whites” are an enormous category – Russians’ or Italian Americans might get more motivated during the period WASPs get demotivated.

    So while it might be a good starting hypothesis, no, it’s very unlikely that the difference between whites and Asians is due to motivation or some similar crap.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  190. @AaronB

    Asians in the West perform at roughly the same level as Asians in their own countries

    That’s untrue, though. There are many Chinese-American Nobel laureates born in the West (all or most in the US), which is vastly disproportionate, especially since they were born half a century or more ago (one of them in 1930). Even if we consider that most Chinese in China have not had the same education opportunities, that’s vastly disproportionate.

    Here at least you consider the role of environment as it impacts upon innate ability

    You idiotically keep mixing things up. Innate ability can only be destroyed by the environment (for example if you are launched into the Sun on board a spaceship, your ability will decrease 100% upon impact; or if you are starving in childhood, your ability will decrease), but in a normal range of environments (no starvation, no unusual pathogen load, etc.) your innate ability will not be impacted by the environment, and I never wrote it did.

    Performance, on the other hand, could be impacted by the environment.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  191. AaronB says:
    @reiner Tor

    👍

    You make excellent points. Now continue spreading them to your fellow white people and all will be good.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
  192. AaronB says:
    @reiner Tor

    👌

    Bravo. Well argued. You have a fine and discriminating mind. May your philosophy become widespread in Europe.

  193. @AaronB

    Just above you gave this wonderful exposition about how you fully and totally accept that crystallized performance is a function of both innate ability and effort and motivation – how could anyone even deny this – but here you deny that motivation can possibly play any role.

    Motivation plays very little if any role in IQ scores, otherwise it’d fluctuate throughout a lifetime, and it doesn’t.

    However, it’s obvious that motivation plays a huge role in achievement – a super motivated 115 IQ person will beat a demotivated and depressed 130 IQ person any day, and twice on Sunday. Though, there are things for which the 115 IQ person will be too dumb, and no amount of motivation will help him. But for anything else, motivation will matter a great deal. Of course, with the same motivation, the 130 IQ person will always win, and even with half the effort he might thoroughly beat the 115 IQ person. So it depends, but yes, motivation might matter.

    you will beat a “strategic retreat” and claim your position is far more reasonable and accommodating than I make out….and then immediately after revert to just those extreme on-sided positions.

    No. I never changed my position, and it’s you who keep misunderstanding me. I never said motivation played a role in IQ, because that’s not what we see in individual IQ scores, which don’t fluctuate (therefore IQ tests very well measure the underlying IQ scores), but I always maintained (as I’d be an idiot not to) that motivation affects actual (real life) performance.

    you somehow manage to come up with a picture that is entirely 100% innate, fatalistic, genetic

    I was responding to you claiming that HBDers think that Asians are innately superior. That’s what I was responding to – Asians are far from assured to be innately superior, in fact, it could be the other way around. They might be innately less curious and less adventurous, which might (innately) hinder their actual performance.

    As I will now say, this is not very well proven, but it’s not at all unlikely to be true. (See Japanese or Chinese relative underperformance for the past several centuries.)

    So contrary to your claims that HBDers invariably think that East Asians are superior, they usually don’t think that, but even if they do, they don’t think it’s by a wide margin. (To be honest, 5 IQ points are not that big of a difference in my mind. That’s smaller than the purported difference between Hungarians and Croatians, and Croats don’t strike me as dumb. Though the Hungarian-Croat difference might be due to measurement error, who knows.)

  194. @AaronB

    I hope I’ll do!

    I wish you all the best in Israel. I started learning the Hebrew alphabet. I already know the aleph, bet/vet and gimel.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  195. AaronB says:
    @reiner Tor

    Thanks.

    That’s interesting. Hebrew is an interesting language with a complex grammar, like Latin and Greek, although a bit simpler.

    But very different than English so interesting. I don’t know how it compares to Hungarian, which is supposed to be very difficult.

    Good luck in your studies.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    , @Dmitry
  196. @AaronB

    Hebrew is an interesting language with a complex grammar

    I don’t think I’ll learn the language, only the alphabet. I once started learning Arabic, and the language seemed horribly difficult. I can say a couple sentences, but basically it’s just the alphabet that I learned. (I’d learn the language if there was a compelling reason to do so, but otherwise I prefer to spend my time on other things.)

    So now I plan the same with the Hebrew alphabet, to be able to read city names etc.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    , @Dmitry
  197. AaronB says:
    @reiner Tor

    That makes sense. There is really no reason to learn Hebrew for most people unless you have a special interest in languages or the country.

    But reading city named in foreign countries is indeed quite useful.

  198. Dmitry says:
    @AaronB

    I’ve been learning Hebrew as well (for more than a year now), although in a very lazy and informal way.

    The grammar is unusually logical (it feels like a 19th century machinery, some kind of grammatical version of a steam engine).

    The weird thing is more the word order and the vocabulary. And the fact everything has to be gendered and numbered.

    Also it’s funny that when there are Western words in Hebrew, they are almost always a transliteration from a Russian version of them (so it’s pronounced like a French word, borrowed into Russian, then transliterated into Hebrew).

    • Replies: @AaronB
    , @AaronB
  199. Dmitry says:
    @reiner Tor

    The annoying thing is to learn the dots for the vowels. And then you see they don’t write dots in modern text. And there are some other random rules for vowels.

    For example,

    Your name is like ריינר טור
    Instead of רנר טור

    Because the two ‘ys’ (”) in the top one can create the “ey” vowel sound.

    https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/double-yod.3374010/#post-17104787

    • Replies: @AaronB
    , @reiner Tor
  200. AaronB says:
    @Dmitry

    The grammar is unusually logical (it feels like a 19th century machinery, some kind of grammatical version of a steam engine

    ).

    That’s s feature of ancient languages, I believe. I took some Latin and Greek in university, and it was the same thing. And Latin has long been recommended as a training in logic, believe it or not.

    Which is weird because you’d expect the more modern the language the more logical. But no.

  201. AaronB says:
    @Dmitry

    Right, the bottom one would be rener, or maybe roner. You’d have to know the pronunciation before hand.

    I think some French words have weird marks also helping with pronunciation like the horizontal : mark on top of u, and some other European languages too.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
  202. Dmitry says:
    @AaronB

    feature of ancient languages,

    There logic in Biblical Hebrew, but it’s not what I mean.

    Things like temporal grammar of Modern Hebrew, was created in the late 19th century. That’s why it’s so systematic, logical and mechanical (it feels like a steam engine) – because it’s a constructed grammar.

    (This is not like Latin, which uses quite an intricate and artificial looking machinery for time, but is still a natural language and will have a lot of irregularities.)

    the bottom one would be rener, or maybe roner.

    No, if it was roner, it would have to be רונר.

    I think some French words have weird marks also helping with pronunciation like the horizontal : mark on top of u, and some other European languages too.

    The diacritics are not comparable to the dots. I learned to quite advanced Spanish without ever even needing to learn the diacritics. With the dots in Hebrew, you really need to know them very well, but at the same time, they are missing in the modern text – so you have to infer them (so you have to know the rules to infer them).

    It will have a different neurological effect than normal languages.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3694568/

    There are also other annoying things like all the different spellings of same sounds (לא לו), to have different meanings.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  203. AaronB says:
    @Dmitry

    Things like temporal grammar of Modern Hebrew, was created in the late 19th century. That’s why it’s so systematic, logical and mechanical (it feels like a steam engine) – because it’s a constructed grammar.

    What’s different between the grammar of ancient Hebrew and modern Hebrew? You can read the bible if you know modern Hebrew, you just need a larger vocabulary to understand the more complex passages, especially the Prophets.

    As far as I understand, modern Hebrew basically resurrected the grammar of ancient Hebrew and added modern words and discarded a few archaic terms, but not many.

    No, if it was roner, it would have to be רונר.

    But you could put the dot nekudah above the resh to give it an o sound.

    The diacritics are not comparable to the dots. I learned to quite advanced Spanish without ever even needing to learn the diacritics. With the dots in Hebrew, you really need to know them very well, but at the same time, they are missing in the modern text – so you have to infer them (so you have to know the rules to infer them).

    Good point, and a lot if times you really just have to know how it’s pronounced.

    It will have a different neurological effect than normal languages.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles

    Fascinating how different languages react in the brain.

    There are also other annoying things like all the different spellings of same sounds (לא לו), to have different meanings

    .

    Yes, but no language is spared this – English is notorious for this, like weigh and way, or desert and dessert, etc.

    In some of the Asian tonal languages, the exact same sound can mean entirely different things based on slight changes in tone that would be imperceptible to anyone unfamiliar. It’s dangerous – some words become vulgar words with just a slight change in tone!

    • Replies: @Dmitry
  204. AaronB says:
    @Dmitry

    Like “protectzia” I guess, which sounds like Russian. It means guanxi.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
  205. Dmitry says:
    @AaronB

    What’s different between the grammar of ancient Hebrew and modern Hebrew? You can read the bible if you know modern Hebrew

    Grammar of time and tense system is all new as they scaffolded the old language onto a new modern system they had invented in the late 19th century.

    So when modern Israelis read the Bible, they understand most of the words, but they are often understanding the sentences in the wrong tenses and therefore misunderstand time placement of actions. (It’s why there exist so many scholars of Biblical Hebrew to explain this).

    For example, time in Biblical Hebrew – they didn’t use tenses.

    modern Hebrew basically resurrected the grammar of ancient Hebrew and added modern words and

    No because there was created in the 19th century and early 20th century a new system of tenses, and grammar for time. It’s why tenses are so logical and simple in Modern Hebrew.

    But you could put the dot nekudah above the resh to give it an o sound.

    Because of so-called “ktiv maleh” rules, it would have to be written with ו.

  206. Dmitry says:
    @AaronB

    Russian words in Modern Hebrew, is the terminology where it was impossible for them to invent their own words or to borrow something from Arabic.

    So all the names of countries, of languages, of modern political or scientific terminology – it is usually very direct Russian transcriptions, of French/Greek/English/Latin words, with minor modifications.

    Israelis themselves probably won’t know this, and think that they are using their own original pronunciations, when they are using transcriptions from Russian.

  207. @Dmitry

    It’s not very different from Arabic.

  208. Thea says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    God punishes His all children as does an earthly father discipline. We are sinners in the hands of an angry God. Better to receive this punishment and turn from sin than not be chastised and allowed to continue along the road to Hell.

    But that doesn’t rule out the other options either. He is punishing but using human machinations to do so.

    At least the Russian Federation hasn’t totally mocked His law with same-sex marriage. Which shouldn’t they call it same-gender to fit the ideology? USA is playing with fire with that.

  209. Thea says:
    @inertial

    I really agree.

    There is an analogy to be made that a true American nationalism would need to portray slavery and the Indian wars positively. This is much less likely than putting a good spin on the USSR

  210. Thea says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    Add
    3 raised literacy
    4 increased life expectancy due to rapid industrialization

  211. notanon2 says:
    @notanon

    thinking about this some more…

    if my take is correct that every currently industrial nation went through a nasty phase during the power transition from landed aristo (rural) to mercantile (rural) elites when the towns in their respective nations got big enough then Russia’s experience over the last century was simply their version of this transition e.g.English civil war, Flemish independence, French revolution, 1848 etc – except through local circumstances Russia ended up ruled by an urban elite from a different ethnic group.

    in which case possibly the best analogy for Russia’s recent history is Ireland from c. 1660-1860 (different causal factors but similar end result).

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - If you are new to my work, *start here*. If you liked this post, and want me to produce more such content, consider *donating*.


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Anatoly Karlin Comments via RSS