The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Putin Sponsors Muslim Migration
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

Commenter Jaakko Raipala writes:

Living in a small country next door to Russia, Putin most certainly does not come across as a champion of national sovereignty.

Best Friends Forever

Having watched St Petersburg evolve since that fall of the USSR, Putin also does not come across as a champion of borders. To the contrary, he is a champion of open borders with Central Asia. In the Western media you hear a lot about liberal Jews like Kasparov who are completely irrelevant in Russia, while it’s strangely ignored how Putin has a potential opposition in nationalists who aren’t enthusiastic about re-merging with Central Asia, but this time without Stalinist migration controls.

Things look extremely depressing for Eastern Europe at this point. We’re stuck choosing between American and Russian WWII victory cults, which have evolved into the same anti-nationalist, anti-racist ideologies that enable mass Muslim immigration.

The mirror is even perfect in how you can read in Western media that Russia is having problems with low Slavic birth rates, Muslim growth and failure of integration of Muslim minorities, and they sometimes even predict Islamization of Russia. But you can’t do the same analysis about the West without being classified as far-right. You can read in Russian media about low Western birth rates, Muslim growth and failure with Muslim minorities all the way up to predicting Islamization of the West, but of course they won’t make the same conclusions about Russia.

 
Hide 79 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Sid says:

    Even before the recent Syria clash, it was looking like the Kremlin was souring on Trump. They limited the amount of positive press coverage he could receive, for example.

    Russian nationalists were liking Trump too much. Take Classic Trumpism, the kind we all thought was too good to be true when Trump was campaigning on, and implement it in Russia. That means a wall being built along the Central Asian and Caucasus borders, deporting economic migrants from those regions, and “renegotiating” the Eurasian Economic Union.

    In short, you’ve torn up the kind of big, multiethnic empire Putin has been trying to build in this century, you’re left with a “Little Russia” nation-state.

    Read More
    • Agree: Peter Akuleyev
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

    In short, you’ve torn up the kind of big, multiethnic empire Putin has been trying to build in this century, you’re left with a “Little Russia” nation-state.
     
    This "multinational empire" trope is overdone. Russia is 83% Slavic, which is considerably more than the US is non-Hispanic White.

    Only a relatively small subsection of "liberal nationalists" such as Navalny want a "Little Russia."

    Most of the rest, including Solzhenitsyn and Ilyin, have supported and continue to support the return of territories of the triune Russian nation (Ukraine, Belorussia, North Kazakhstan), which amongst other things would raise the Slavic percentage to close to 90%.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /isteve/putin-sponsors-muslim-migration/#comment-1832664
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. JohnnyD says:

    I never really understood why Putin gets so much praise from many white nationalists, or why he makes Jewish liberals so hysterical. He’s actually pretty moderate when it comes to racial/ethnic issues. Also, Russia Today (RT) provides mostly a left-wing critique of America’s foreign policy; it’s hardly the alt-right propaganda network of Hillary’s fevered imagination.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    He seems to be a pro-Christian nationalist with no pervert agenda.

    What's not to like?

    As the Yiddites would say?
    , @RexLex
    It's because he isn't into empire building. Russia learned its lesson from the USSR collapse. Empire ends badly and he has gone head to head with the country's oligarchs, sometimes subduing them, sometimes befriending them, but always controlling them.

    America will figure this out in the next 40 years.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. inertial says:

    From recent Ross Douthat:

    In one common pattern, authoritarian rule evolves as a way for a majority or plurality group to hold power against the claims of diverse minorities, and to impose a kind of uniformity on weaker ethnic or religious groups. The Erdogan regime in Turkey and the Saudi monarchy’s Sunni authoritarianism offer obvious examples; so does the Han-Chinese chauvinism of the Chinese Politburo, the Orthodox-Christian Russian nationalism of Putin, and many more.

    This statement is correct in regards to Erdogan and probably wrong about the Chinese leaders (but I don’t know enough to say for sure.) It is hilariously 180 degree wrong about Putin.

    Unfortunately, Western intelligentsia has this shared idea about what Putin is like, and there is nothing that can budge them from it.

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

    ..And those terrible western and central Ukrainians wanted their country to have a partnership with Poland in the eastern EU, rather than join Russia’s Eurasian Customs Union with Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bored identity
    It's geography,stupid.


    But, then again, you are American Pole, aren't you?
    , @Sid
    Part of what makes Putin a dangerous SOB is that he will endorse two conflicting philosophies, according to what best suits him.

    One of the reasons why Putin has such a infamous reputation as a nationalist on the left (and a glowing one for that reason on the alt-right) is that he annexed Crimea on the grounds that ethnic Russians live there, and the Russian ethnicity has been artificially separated across numerous borders.

    On the other hand, the reason why he annexed Crimea is that Ukraine didn't want to join his big, multiethnic, increasingly Muslim empire.

    That's ultimately why so few world leaders can get along with Putin. He endorses contradictory philosophies and picks and chooses from them according to his immediate interests. Maybe we do that too, but he does it so brazenly and unabashedly that he's a wild card.
    , @Anon 2
    This idea of partnership betweeen Poland and western and
    central Ukraine needs to be explored. I'll post more on this later.
    By the way, as far as I know AP is Ukrainian, not Polish
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    This (ethnic/Muslim considerations) is like the 17th most important reason for the Maidan.

    For instance, this is what the Maidan elites would love to do:

    http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2015/11/06/light-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel-resettle-syrian-refugees-in-ukraine/

    The only thing stopping them, of course, is that Afghans and Somalis have zero desire to live in Ukraine.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. Whiskey says: • Website

    Yes, the opposition to Putin is not internationalist liberal. It is explicitly nationalist and anti-Muslim, and very Orthodox Christian. Putin has attempted to coopt this movement to a degree, and offers “victories” such as Crimea and Eastern Ukraine while allowing Muslims to flood into Russia to keep his mini-Me version of the USSR alive.

    After Putin, the probable leader will be far more nationalist and likely engage in a series of active wars within Russia which now has almost defacto Islamic Republics and and without; such as Central Asia. Lacking natural land barriers the Central Asians will either once again rule Russia as conquerors or be conquered, there is no other way.

    Just as Sweden, Britain, France, Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain etc. will face constant warfare from conquering Muslims demanding ever more territory in their Islamic Republics.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    Britain and France need to get rid of their nukes now, like the Boers did in South Africa before turning power over to the democratic majority.
    , @Hector_St_Clare
    This is only half right.

    Most of the opposition to Putin (and you know, the median Russian voter) is more nationalist than he is, and more opposed to Islam (and this goes for the Left, i.e. the Communists, as much as the Right), but they aren't necessarily more Orthodox Christian. One needs to distinguish between two different kinds of cultural conservatism here, and here the Inglehart-Welzel cultural map of the world is helpful. The Inglehart model distinguishes two axes of cultural values: "traditional vs. secular" and "group survival vs. individual self expression". The first axis correlates with religiosity, the second correlates with ethnocentricity. Russia scores very high on the secularism axis (it's a less religious society than America by most measures, and more accepting of things like premarital and extramaritial sex), but also very low on the "individualism" axis. The Russian hostility to mass migration is more about ethnicity than religion per se.

    It's also worth bearing in mind that while public opinion is much more ethnic-nationalist than Putin, it's also much further to the left on economics. In Russia today more than half of people tell the public-opinion surveys that they prefer an economy based on "central planning and distribution" to one based on market capitalism, and likewise more than half of people wish they had communism back. The Russian communists (still the largest opposition party, though they're barely ahead of the far right) is playing this smartly and have embraced the anti-immigration cause, stating (correctly) that mass immigration is the fault of capitalism and of economic inequality between countries.
    , @Nico
    The news coming out of Chechnya this morning only underscores this point. Putin's lip service to Orthodox Christianity help pacify and co-opt (for a short time at least) restless Orthodox, and his green light to Kadyrov's intense Islamization in Chechnya weakens (but does not eliminste) the Jihadist argument for separatism down there. A more convincing Russian nationalist/imperialist would have aimed for conversion and Russification of the Caucasus.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. newrouter says:

    The West AND Russia solidarity here:

    The Nicene Creed

    I believe in one God,
    the Father almighty,
    maker of heaven and earth,
    of all things visible and invisible.

    I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
    the Only Begotten Son of God,
    born of the Father before all ages.
    God from God, Light from Light,
    true God from true God,
    begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
    through him all things were made.
    For us men and for our salvation
    he came down from heaven,
    and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
    and became man.
    For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
    he suffered death and was buried,
    and rose again on the third day
    in accordance with the Scriptures.
    He ascended into heaven
    and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
    He will come again in glory
    to judge the living and the dead
    and his kingdom will have no end.

    I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
    who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
    who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
    who has spoken through the prophets.

    I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
    I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
    and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
    and the life of the world to come. Amen.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jJay
    Roman Catholicism is a philosophy and is, as such, a little better than having none. But Roman Catholics will be the first among us to be converted to Islam. Evangelicals will be the last. I am not religious or even mystic (I got nothin' myself), but I am sure you have saddled yourself to the wrong horse.
    , @Sid
    No, not really. Your version includes, "...who proceeds from the Father and the Son." In the Eastern Orthodox Church, they don't believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. The "filioque clause" as it was called was added in the Latin Church, but the Greek East doesn't accept it.
    , @Anon 2
    19th century optimism and faith in progress are not
    coming back. We know too much now. First the
    optimism was shattered by WW I and produced the
    Lost Generation (Hemingway, etc). Then any remaining
    optimism was shattered once again by WW II and produced
    the Beat Generation (i.e., beaten by life - Kerouac, etc) and
    the postwar preoccupation with existentialism, particularly
    in Europe (Sartre, Camus, ...). Then came the 1960s and the
    massive abandonment of mainline Christian denominations
    in the U.S. to the extent that Rod Dreher in his blog and in his
    latest book The Benedictine Option speaks of post-Christian
    America, and he is not the only one among Christians. We are
    disillusioned because we live in an unimpressive universe. The
    Age of Genius is gone because the brightest among us are no
    longer impressed by the Universe or by human nature.

    Many people draw the conclusion that we need to reject the
    claim that the Universe was created by God, made by the Book
    of Genesis, and go back to the ancient Greek philosophers who
    laughed at the Jewish claim that the world was created by the
    Supreme Being. After Darwin and the Two World Wars, fewer
    and fewer people are willing to accept that the world was created
    by God. This eliminates not only traditional Christianity but all
    Abrahamic religions.

    But there is a new movement that sees our disillusionment as the
    necessary part of growing up. Buddhism, for example, doesn't require
    a creator God. A Course in Miracles (1976), all 1250 pages of it, is another
    example of a modified Christianity which retains the idea of God but
    says that ultimately the world is an illusion, and was not created by God.
    Physics, in fact, is moving in the direction of the Universe as an illusion,
    as virtual reality of sort in which space and time are seen not as
    fundamental but as emergent qualities that our mind creates for our
    amusement. Immanuel Kant was already hinting at this in his system
    , @The Anti-Gnostic
    The Eastern and Western Churches split over your version of the Creed. There were other causes, but the filioque is a very big deal. Did you not know this?
    , @Hector_St_Clare
    Yes except neither Russia nor America is that traditionally religious a society any more. Russia even less so than America. How many Russians attend church weekly?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. Lagertha says:

    I dunno. I have been on team T & team P for a while now…but, falling off of both. I see the countries in the North banding together, eventually. I see rational people in USA/Russia, Aus, Europe, trying to do something.

    We can not solve the issues of the countries in the South and at the Equator – they must do that themselves without our help/interference. We went through that stuff centuries ago. And, now, we have the technology to do without the natural resources from those countries…since we have reserves in the arctic; steppes; and US lands.

    I am extremely pessimistic. I see decline, endless war, misery, disease…and, not much else. So, it is time to turtle.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    Reading this poem sometimes cheers me up, particularly the third stanza. Unfortunately, I don't know the author of the poem, but I remember John Derbyshire citing it.

    Say not the struggle naught availeth,
    The labour and the wounds are vain,
    The enemy faints not, nor faileth,
    And as things have been they remain.

    If hopes were dupes, fears may be liars;
    It may be, in yon smoke conceal'd,
    Your comrades chase e'en now the fliers,
    And, but for you, possess the field.

    For while the tired waves, vainly breaking,
    Seem here no painful inch to gain,
    Far back, through creeks and inlets making,
    Comes silent, flooding in, the main.

    And not by eastern windows only,
    When daylight comes, comes in the light;
    In front the sun climbs slow, how slowly!
    But westward, look, the land is bright!
    , @Frau Katze
    I know what you mean by decline and other depressing topics.

    After I retired I co-blogged for a Canadian site for two years. The amount of work was staggering, with neither weekends nor holidays off.

    But if I had thought we were making a difference I would have persevered. But every indicator was negative.

    And the news itself was depressing.

    One thing I noticed about Russia: their insistence on holding the useless north Caucasus. Chechnya wants out? Fine!

    There are no resources there. They're all Muslim except the Ossetians. Keep North Ossetia and set the others free.

    With their much larger families, each year sees Muslims moving farther and farther north.

    Then there is Putin, addicted to cheap Central Asian labour (all Muslim). Makes Mexicans look like a good deal (almost).

    Islam seems impossible to hold back.

    I can hardly bear to even think about it anymore. Again, if I thought there was anything I could do change things, I'd be doing it,

    Everything looks bleak and hopeless.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. @Lagertha
    I dunno. I have been on team T & team P for a while now...but, falling off of both. I see the countries in the North banding together, eventually. I see rational people in USA/Russia, Aus, Europe, trying to do something.

    We can not solve the issues of the countries in the South and at the Equator - they must do that themselves without our help/interference. We went through that stuff centuries ago. And, now, we have the technology to do without the natural resources from those countries...since we have reserves in the arctic; steppes; and US lands.

    I am extremely pessimistic. I see decline, endless war, misery, disease...and, not much else. So, it is time to turtle.

    Reading this poem sometimes cheers me up, particularly the third stanza. Unfortunately, I don’t know the author of the poem, but I remember John Derbyshire citing it.

    Say not the struggle naught availeth,
    The labour and the wounds are vain,
    The enemy faints not, nor faileth,
    And as things have been they remain.

    If hopes were dupes, fears may be liars;
    It may be, in yon smoke conceal’d,
    Your comrades chase e’en now the fliers,
    And, but for you, possess the field.

    For while the tired waves, vainly breaking,
    Seem here no painful inch to gain,
    Far back, through creeks and inlets making,
    Comes silent, flooding in, the main.

    And not by eastern windows only,
    When daylight comes, comes in the light;
    In front the sun climbs slow, how slowly!
    But westward, look, the land is bright!

    Read More
    • Replies: @JerseyJeffersonian
    Arthur Hugh Clough is the poet.

    See here for links to more information:

    https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems-and-poets/poems/detail/43959
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. Jaako is nationalist from one of the Baltic States (Probably Estonian),which explains his revisionist perspective on WWII narrative.

    Putin is obviously not a nationalist like, let’s say Orbán, but Russia is also not ethno-monolitic entity like Hungary.

    Jaako mentioned Garry Kasparov.

    Kasparov was marching Moscow along with a poet, National Bolshevik, and confirmed KGB asset, Eduard Limonov, some years before Garry self-exiled his useless idiotic ass to conformity of NewYork Hive:

    This where the things get funny:

    During Balkan Wars of 1990′s Limonov tarnished his western reputation of being an authentic Russian Punker-Anticommunist, by siding himself with Bosnian Serbs (Edichka was literally machine-gunning on Sarajevo during a photo-op ) :

    Meanwhile, our young neconish apprentice Garik Kimovich Weinstein was showing a strong support for Bosnian predominantly muslim central government and even joined Bosnian leading chess team that eventually won European Chess Champions Cup in 1994:

    http://skbosna.ba/index.php/en/sk_bosna/nasi_uspjesi/

    Fast forward to 2007;
    Soros payrolls both Edichka & Garry…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. jJay says:
    @newrouter
    The West AND Russia solidarity here:


    The Nicene Creed

    I believe in one God,
    the Father almighty,
    maker of heaven and earth,
    of all things visible and invisible.

    I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
    the Only Begotten Son of God,
    born of the Father before all ages.
    God from God, Light from Light,
    true God from true God,
    begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
    through him all things were made.
    For us men and for our salvation
    he came down from heaven,
    and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
    and became man.
    For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
    he suffered death and was buried,
    and rose again on the third day
    in accordance with the Scriptures.
    He ascended into heaven
    and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
    He will come again in glory
    to judge the living and the dead
    and his kingdom will have no end.

    I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
    who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
    who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
    who has spoken through the prophets.

    I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
    I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
    and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
    and the life of the world to come. Amen.

    Roman Catholicism is a philosophy and is, as such, a little better than having none. But Roman Catholics will be the first among us to be converted to Islam. Evangelicals will be the last. I am not religious or even mystic (I got nothin’ myself), but I am sure you have saddled yourself to the wrong horse.

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

    Bad policy for Russia, but this is a problem for all of Christendom and Seculardom. They have failed to produce life. Also, those who produce life are too picky and spoiled.
    True of Europeans, East Asians, and middle class White Americans. They only want to have kids IF they can be assured of sending kids to good college for good careers. This is esp true as women hog so many jobs now, and women look for ideal mates, the Mr. Right who never comes along.
    Japanese look down on most jobs as ‘dirty, dangerous, and demeaning’, and they don’t want their own kids to do them. So, they have kids ONLY if they can be assured of success. That means birth dearth.

    But Muslim world still has children just for the sake of having children. Children are seen as blessing in and of themselves even if they are not successful in life. And women are expected to be wives and mothers.

    So, the advanced world is running out of labor. Too many people will have kids ONLY IF kids can be assured of success. So, that means fewer kids to grow up to do manual jobs and other such work. Advanced world only wants to produce kids who are college material.
    So, who will do the ‘lowly’ jobs? Advanced world looks to Third World. Same in EU, US, and now East Asia.

    And this is true of Russia as well.

    There is another thing. We may see Central Asia as being separate from Russia, but there is an element of Russian-ism that regards Central Asia as part of Russian Empire. After all, it was under the Tsars that Muslim parts were incorporated into the Russian Empire.
    Putin’s formative yrs were during the Soviet Era when Russia was the USSR that held not just Russian core but adjoining areas. Putin might see it as regaining what was lost than Russia being taken over by foreigners. But given today’s birth imbalances, it is a reckless move.
    Instead, something must be done to smash feminism, libertarian individualism, and elitism that looks down on labor as ‘dirty, dangerous, and demeaning’. One good thing about communism was all labor was seen as dignified. That must be regained.
    Unless organicist view shapes overall policy, civilization is dead. LIFE, creation-preservation-continuation-culturalization, must trump all other considerations.

    At any rate, the West is a failure from organicist perspective. It is for pleasures and happiness of life but forgot how to create and value life itself. It forgot life is valuable for just being life.

    Looking back, a big failure of communism was its feminist element. It should have created a system where men work and women keep the home. But as both men and women were sent to factories, it led to decline in family.
    And the same problem exists in the West.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    If making children just for the sake of being a blessing or whatever was fine and dandy was truly the best way to develop a society, African countries or even more "stable" less developed countries wouldn't have problems with so much poor people, violence and unemployment.
    It's better to be picky and have less children for it than letting just one more person be to the world and become an illiterate welfare leecher or a criminal. Latin American countries and similar places elsewhere has people with mentality just like that.
    Population naturally balances itself and might have growing birth rates even in developed countries depending on certain situations.
    The problem nowadays isn't refraining oneself to less children because of higher costs, it's refraining to have children at all because of liberal/defeatist nonsense about the harshness of this world and acceptance to be step parents to already born children from the farthest reaches of the planet.
    , @Luke Lea

    Instead, something must be done to smash feminism, libertarian individualism, and elitism that looks down on labor as ‘dirty, dangerous, and demeaning’. One good thing about communism was all labor was seen as dignified. That must be regained. Unless organicist view shapes overall policy, civilization is dead.
     
    Blurb for my upcoming Notes Towards a New Way of Life in America:

    "In this 21st century capitalist utopia, Luke Lea explores a world of New Country Towns in which the people work part-time outside the home, and in their free time help build their own houses, cultivate gardens, cook and care for their children and grandchildren, and pursue hobbies and other outside interests. They live on small family homesteads grouped around neighborhood greens and get around town in glorified golf-carts. So thoroughly are work and leisure integrated into the fabric of their everyday lives that they don’t feel much need to retire, and they die at home in their beds as a rule, surrounded by loved ones.

    For those who would like to move to this world he provides a map with some directions for how to get there from here."

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. Shallow State Euro-Megaphone & Double Standard Screech of Tinniest Fiddle ;

    ww.rferl.org/a/Sex_Video_Continues_Smear_Campaign_Against_Russias_Opposition/2022797.html

    Somebody please refresh my bored memory:
    What was the reason again that forced Spitzer to resign?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  13. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    At the very least, Caucasus Muslims are white. And they are an attractive people.

    Central Asia is racially different. There is more mixture with non-whites.

    China also has problems with Uighurs, a racially mixed people. But at least Han Chinese, for now, still outnumber Uighurs by a huge margin.

    Russia is a different case.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sid
    I lived in the Caucasus for awhile. They're phenotypically rather diverse, so you will see some Caucasians with red hair and pale white skin, others with black hair and brown skin, and most others somewhere in between.

    Honestly, I have a hard time classifying them as "white" or "brown." They're on the border zone between the Middle East and Europe, so classifying them as being one way or the other is a fairly arbitrary decision​, and varies according to circumstances.

    What's interesting to me is that Middle Easterners were likely a "white race" at least until the rise of Islam or so. The Muslims we see today are the products of mixing between different races under Islam. Muslim Arabs now apparently have quite a bit of African and Indian ancestry, which makes them a "brown people." In contrast, Middle Eastern Christians, such as in Lebanon, apparently have a genome much closer to their ancient forebears in the region, and hence have much paler features.
    , @Frau Katze
    Islam is poison, whether they're white or not.

    It's going for world domination. And it's doing very well. Firm foothold in the foolish West.

    White Muslims might be even be MORE of a problem, because they'll more easily intermarry with us.

    After the spouse converts to the cult of course.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Pélerin says:

    Amen!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  15. Sid says:
    @newrouter
    The West AND Russia solidarity here:


    The Nicene Creed

    I believe in one God,
    the Father almighty,
    maker of heaven and earth,
    of all things visible and invisible.

    I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
    the Only Begotten Son of God,
    born of the Father before all ages.
    God from God, Light from Light,
    true God from true God,
    begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
    through him all things were made.
    For us men and for our salvation
    he came down from heaven,
    and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
    and became man.
    For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
    he suffered death and was buried,
    and rose again on the third day
    in accordance with the Scriptures.
    He ascended into heaven
    and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
    He will come again in glory
    to judge the living and the dead
    and his kingdom will have no end.

    I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
    who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
    who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
    who has spoken through the prophets.

    I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
    I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
    and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
    and the life of the world to come. Amen.

    No, not really. Your version includes, “…who proceeds from the Father and the Son.” In the Eastern Orthodox Church, they don’t believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. The “filioque clause” as it was called was added in the Latin Church, but the Greek East doesn’t accept it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. @AP
    ..And those terrible western and central Ukrainians wanted their country to have a partnership with Poland in the eastern EU, rather than join Russia's Eurasian Customs Union with Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan.

    It’s geography,stupid.

    But, then again, you are American Pole, aren’t you?

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    It’s geography,stupid.
     
    Ukraine indeed borders Poland and its capital is closer to Warsaw than it is to Moscow. So?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. Sid says:
    @AP
    ..And those terrible western and central Ukrainians wanted their country to have a partnership with Poland in the eastern EU, rather than join Russia's Eurasian Customs Union with Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan.

    Part of what makes Putin a dangerous SOB is that he will endorse two conflicting philosophies, according to what best suits him.

    One of the reasons why Putin has such a infamous reputation as a nationalist on the left (and a glowing one for that reason on the alt-right) is that he annexed Crimea on the grounds that ethnic Russians live there, and the Russian ethnicity has been artificially separated across numerous borders.

    On the other hand, the reason why he annexed Crimea is that Ukraine didn’t want to join his big, multiethnic, increasingly Muslim empire.

    That’s ultimately why so few world leaders can get along with Putin. He endorses contradictory philosophies and picks and chooses from them according to his immediate interests. Maybe we do that too, but he does it so brazenly and unabashedly that he’s a wild card.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    One of the reasons why Putin has such a infamous reputation as a nationalist on the left (and a glowing one for that reason on the alt-right) is that he annexed Crimea on the grounds that ethnic Russians live there, and the Russian ethnicity has been artificially separated across numerous borders.

    On the other hand, the reason why he annexed Crimea is that Ukraine didn’t want to join his big, multiethnic, increasingly Muslim empire.
     
    Both projected motivations are wrong.
    , @Opinionator
    If only he would stake out a consistently explicit pro-ethnic Russian position and close Russia's borders to Muslims, surely then world leaders would embrace him.
    , @Hector_St_Clare
    It's not contradiction, it's opportunism. If you saw that "Byzantium" documentary some years ago, narrated by Putin's confessor Tikhon Shevkunov, the strategy was laid out pretty plainly.
    "Russia must use the west against the east, and use the east against the west."

    From the point of view of a neo-Byzantinist like Shevkunov, both Islam and the West are twin enemies of the Third Rome, and neither is a friend: they're to be used against each other as the opportunity present itself.
    , @Hunsdon
    Also, Crimea is home to Black Sea Fleet. Somehow, everyone always skips over that little detail.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Dave Pinsen says: • Website

    I wish I remembered the details now, but there was an article in the FT a year or two ago about some newly influential, rediscovered Russian scholar who argued that Russia needed to pivot to Asia. It wasn’t all geopolitics, there was some romantic stuff about being spurned by Europe and having its destiny entwined with the Central Asian steppes or something to that effect.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  19. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Sid
    Part of what makes Putin a dangerous SOB is that he will endorse two conflicting philosophies, according to what best suits him.

    One of the reasons why Putin has such a infamous reputation as a nationalist on the left (and a glowing one for that reason on the alt-right) is that he annexed Crimea on the grounds that ethnic Russians live there, and the Russian ethnicity has been artificially separated across numerous borders.

    On the other hand, the reason why he annexed Crimea is that Ukraine didn't want to join his big, multiethnic, increasingly Muslim empire.

    That's ultimately why so few world leaders can get along with Putin. He endorses contradictory philosophies and picks and chooses from them according to his immediate interests. Maybe we do that too, but he does it so brazenly and unabashedly that he's a wild card.

    One of the reasons why Putin has such a infamous reputation as a nationalist on the left (and a glowing one for that reason on the alt-right) is that he annexed Crimea on the grounds that ethnic Russians live there, and the Russian ethnicity has been artificially separated across numerous borders.

    On the other hand, the reason why he annexed Crimea is that Ukraine didn’t want to join his big, multiethnic, increasingly Muslim empire.

    Both projected motivations are wrong.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sid
    That's cool if you disagree with me, but you haven't given me much of anything to argue with.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. @Lagertha
    I dunno. I have been on team T & team P for a while now...but, falling off of both. I see the countries in the North banding together, eventually. I see rational people in USA/Russia, Aus, Europe, trying to do something.

    We can not solve the issues of the countries in the South and at the Equator - they must do that themselves without our help/interference. We went through that stuff centuries ago. And, now, we have the technology to do without the natural resources from those countries...since we have reserves in the arctic; steppes; and US lands.

    I am extremely pessimistic. I see decline, endless war, misery, disease...and, not much else. So, it is time to turtle.

    I know what you mean by decline and other depressing topics.

    After I retired I co-blogged for a Canadian site for two years. The amount of work was staggering, with neither weekends nor holidays off.

    But if I had thought we were making a difference I would have persevered. But every indicator was negative.

    And the news itself was depressing.

    One thing I noticed about Russia: their insistence on holding the useless north Caucasus. Chechnya wants out? Fine!

    There are no resources there. They’re all Muslim except the Ossetians. Keep North Ossetia and set the others free.

    With their much larger families, each year sees Muslims moving farther and farther north.

    Then there is Putin, addicted to cheap Central Asian labour (all Muslim). Makes Mexicans look like a good deal (almost).

    Islam seems impossible to hold back.

    I can hardly bear to even think about it anymore. Again, if I thought there was anything I could do change things, I’d be doing it,

    Everything looks bleak and hopeless.

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

    Putin is Invading as well as Inviting. (Albeit not inviting the same people he invades)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  22. Sid says:
    @Anon
    At the very least, Caucasus Muslims are white. And they are an attractive people.

    Central Asia is racially different. There is more mixture with non-whites.

    China also has problems with Uighurs, a racially mixed people. But at least Han Chinese, for now, still outnumber Uighurs by a huge margin.

    Russia is a different case.

    I lived in the Caucasus for awhile. They’re phenotypically rather diverse, so you will see some Caucasians with red hair and pale white skin, others with black hair and brown skin, and most others somewhere in between.

    Honestly, I have a hard time classifying them as “white” or “brown.” They’re on the border zone between the Middle East and Europe, so classifying them as being one way or the other is a fairly arbitrary decision​, and varies according to circumstances.

    What’s interesting to me is that Middle Easterners were likely a “white race” at least until the rise of Islam or so. The Muslims we see today are the products of mixing between different races under Islam. Muslim Arabs now apparently have quite a bit of African and Indian ancestry, which makes them a “brown people.” In contrast, Middle Eastern Christians, such as in Lebanon, apparently have a genome much closer to their ancient forebears in the region, and hence have much paler features.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. @Anon
    At the very least, Caucasus Muslims are white. And they are an attractive people.

    Central Asia is racially different. There is more mixture with non-whites.

    China also has problems with Uighurs, a racially mixed people. But at least Han Chinese, for now, still outnumber Uighurs by a huge margin.

    Russia is a different case.

    Islam is poison, whether they’re white or not.

    It’s going for world domination. And it’s doing very well. Firm foothold in the foolish West.

    White Muslims might be even be MORE of a problem, because they’ll more easily intermarry with us.

    After the spouse converts to the cult of course.

    Read More
    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @Anon
    Fair enough. I don't like Islam. But Christianity failed to stop homomania. It has proven to be weak.

    Because Christianity is a pacifist religion, it can only survive with a pact with the Power. Christianity is cult of powerlessness wedded to Power. It's been so since the era of Emperor Constantine. If Christianity is followed to the letter, it is a death suicide cult.

    As the Power, economic and military, of the West has gone over to Jews, globalists, and homos, the result is Christianity no longer has a direct line to the Power. It is turning sappy. What is Christianity about today? It's about cuckish men adopting mulatto kids of white women who go black. I see it all around. No one respects this sappy cult anymore. Do-goodiness without spine and muscle get no respect.

    It still has some power in Russia cuz it's wedded to the Power. The state.

    Islam, in contrast, can survive on its own because it is combination of spiritual prophecy and warrior cult. The will to power is written into its very DNA.

    Christianity says "don't fight, turn the other cheek, and feel holier than thou"... and rely on warriors to kick butt for you and protect you. As long as this arrangement was kept, it thrived. But once it was cut off from the Power(that is now more invested in Zionism, homomania, afromania, and MLK cult and Mandela cult and pop culture), Christianity in the West is dying fast. Today's kids worship Oprah more than Jesus.

    In contrast, Islam says, "pray when you have to, fight when you have to." It is a total package.
    Problem is it has too many dumb laws and customs.

    What Christianity needs to do is gain warrior cult. So far, it forged an alliance with warrior cult while maintaining its creed as pacifist. This only opened it to accusations of hypocrisy.

    What Islam needs is to lose it so many archaic laws and food, dress, and no beer. Who needs all that baggage?

    Is Chrislam the answer?

    I think the best solution is Covenantism. Let each people become like the Jews. They should arrive at their own covenant with God, the higher being, the ultimate power, or etc.

    So, far the three options have been possible (1) Jews got Covenant with God (2) all of humanity are same under God (3) paganism that rejects the notion of One God.

    Fourth option: How about "each people should have their own special and unique covenant with God?" Who says there can be only ONE covenant? There is only one sun, but each nation has its own unique relation to it. Sweden gets sun differently from Mexico, and etc.

    Anyway, while I don't like Islam, I don't see it as worse than the total filth that has become modern culture. We went from John Ford and Akira Kurosawa to Bruce Caitlyn Jenner and George Takei. Why should we take advice from Bruce and George? What makes them such fountains of wisdom? Bruce thinks he's a gal and George wants to play wifey. I don't mind there being trannies and homos. They've always existed, and they contributed stuff to humanity tool But why put such stuff at the CENTER or CORE of civilization? Homomania has made 'gay worship' the core tenet of 'western values'.

    Islam is tyranny and no freedom. Current West is freedom turned into decadent dementia.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. @Sid
    Part of what makes Putin a dangerous SOB is that he will endorse two conflicting philosophies, according to what best suits him.

    One of the reasons why Putin has such a infamous reputation as a nationalist on the left (and a glowing one for that reason on the alt-right) is that he annexed Crimea on the grounds that ethnic Russians live there, and the Russian ethnicity has been artificially separated across numerous borders.

    On the other hand, the reason why he annexed Crimea is that Ukraine didn't want to join his big, multiethnic, increasingly Muslim empire.

    That's ultimately why so few world leaders can get along with Putin. He endorses contradictory philosophies and picks and chooses from them according to his immediate interests. Maybe we do that too, but he does it so brazenly and unabashedly that he's a wild card.

    If only he would stake out a consistently explicit pro-ethnic Russian position and close Russia’s borders to Muslims, surely then world leaders would embrace him.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sid
    No, but he'd be more predictable, which is what world leaders ultimate like in one another. The EU and the media might hiss at Orban, but they rarely say he's "Literally Hitler" as they do with Trump and Putin.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. Anon 2 says:
    @newrouter
    The West AND Russia solidarity here:


    The Nicene Creed

    I believe in one God,
    the Father almighty,
    maker of heaven and earth,
    of all things visible and invisible.

    I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
    the Only Begotten Son of God,
    born of the Father before all ages.
    God from God, Light from Light,
    true God from true God,
    begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
    through him all things were made.
    For us men and for our salvation
    he came down from heaven,
    and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
    and became man.
    For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
    he suffered death and was buried,
    and rose again on the third day
    in accordance with the Scriptures.
    He ascended into heaven
    and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
    He will come again in glory
    to judge the living and the dead
    and his kingdom will have no end.

    I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
    who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
    who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
    who has spoken through the prophets.

    I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
    I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
    and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
    and the life of the world to come. Amen.

    19th century optimism and faith in progress are not
    coming back. We know too much now. First the
    optimism was shattered by WW I and produced the
    Lost Generation (Hemingway, etc). Then any remaining
    optimism was shattered once again by WW II and produced
    the Beat Generation (i.e., beaten by life – Kerouac, etc) and
    the postwar preoccupation with existentialism, particularly
    in Europe (Sartre, Camus, …). Then came the 1960s and the
    massive abandonment of mainline Christian denominations
    in the U.S. to the extent that Rod Dreher in his blog and in his
    latest book The Benedictine Option speaks of post-Christian
    America, and he is not the only one among Christians. We are
    disillusioned because we live in an unimpressive universe. The
    Age of Genius is gone because the brightest among us are no
    longer impressed by the Universe or by human nature.

    Many people draw the conclusion that we need to reject the
    claim that the Universe was created by God, made by the Book
    of Genesis, and go back to the ancient Greek philosophers who
    laughed at the Jewish claim that the world was created by the
    Supreme Being. After Darwin and the Two World Wars, fewer
    and fewer people are willing to accept that the world was created
    by God. This eliminates not only traditional Christianity but all
    Abrahamic religions.

    But there is a new movement that sees our disillusionment as the
    necessary part of growing up. Buddhism, for example, doesn’t require
    a creator God. A Course in Miracles (1976), all 1250 pages of it, is another
    example of a modified Christianity which retains the idea of God but
    says that ultimately the world is an illusion, and was not created by God.
    Physics, in fact, is moving in the direction of the Universe as an illusion,
    as virtual reality of sort in which space and time are seen not as
    fundamental but as emergent qualities that our mind creates for our
    amusement. Immanuel Kant was already hinting at this in his system

    Read More
    • Replies: @Owen
    I'm afraid you are objectively wrong about Kerouac and the beat poets. Kerouac chose the name "beat" from "beatus" the Latin for blessed (it's not widely reported by Kerouac identified as Catholic almost all his life). If anything, the beats were "Whitman's wild children" to quote one article I recall from College; staring wide eyed at the stars, jazz, and sex. In the US at least, the post-WWII era was one of optimism, though Europe certainly felt differently (because they had experience such direct damage to their cities).

    I would also object to claims that it's becoming harder to believe in a creator God. More and more scientific findings have clarified just how unlikely a planet capable of supporting life really is (witness how recent frenzy over newly discovered Trappist I planets quieted down once it became clear they too were likely not habitable and much of the "earth-like" descriptions derived from an overly-enthusiastic artist's rendering). The only way to dodge the seeming "fine-tuning" of the universe is to postulate a multi-verse; for which there is no evidence or justification except that it avoids bringing God into the equation.

    Likewise, the "modified" Christianity you speak of sounds indistinguishable from Gnosticism, which has been tried and failed so to speak since it never created a successful civilization but only small cult-like enclaves. The traditional Theravada Buddhism is a religion of despair honestly, with no hope except release from life and the endless cycles of birth.

    Look at the religion that is now most successful, Islam, and you find none of these things. Instead you see a religion that gives a good-evil narrative, belief in the goodness of the physical, a rigid set of guidelines to guide society and behavior, and absolute faith in the rightness of their beliefs. I would argue Christianity provides a better version of this narrative, but something like it seems the way forward, not the despairing faith you describe.
    , @Charles Erwin Wilson
    What a tissue of lies you have issued. When you swim in the Lake, remember that you chose sides as an act of your will - and you have no excuse.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Frau Katze
    Islam is poison, whether they're white or not.

    It's going for world domination. And it's doing very well. Firm foothold in the foolish West.

    White Muslims might be even be MORE of a problem, because they'll more easily intermarry with us.

    After the spouse converts to the cult of course.

    Fair enough. I don’t like Islam. But Christianity failed to stop homomania. It has proven to be weak.

    Because Christianity is a pacifist religion, it can only survive with a pact with the Power. Christianity is cult of powerlessness wedded to Power. It’s been so since the era of Emperor Constantine. If Christianity is followed to the letter, it is a death suicide cult.

    As the Power, economic and military, of the West has gone over to Jews, globalists, and homos, the result is Christianity no longer has a direct line to the Power. It is turning sappy. What is Christianity about today? It’s about cuckish men adopting mulatto kids of white women who go black. I see it all around. No one respects this sappy cult anymore. Do-goodiness without spine and muscle get no respect.

    It still has some power in Russia cuz it’s wedded to the Power. The state.

    Islam, in contrast, can survive on its own because it is combination of spiritual prophecy and warrior cult. The will to power is written into its very DNA.

    Christianity says “don’t fight, turn the other cheek, and feel holier than thou”… and rely on warriors to kick butt for you and protect you. As long as this arrangement was kept, it thrived. But once it was cut off from the Power(that is now more invested in Zionism, homomania, afromania, and MLK cult and Mandela cult and pop culture), Christianity in the West is dying fast. Today’s kids worship Oprah more than Jesus.

    In contrast, Islam says, “pray when you have to, fight when you have to.” It is a total package.
    Problem is it has too many dumb laws and customs.

    What Christianity needs to do is gain warrior cult. So far, it forged an alliance with warrior cult while maintaining its creed as pacifist. This only opened it to accusations of hypocrisy.

    What Islam needs is to lose it so many archaic laws and food, dress, and no beer. Who needs all that baggage?

    Is Chrislam the answer?

    I think the best solution is Covenantism. Let each people become like the Jews. They should arrive at their own covenant with God, the higher being, the ultimate power, or etc.

    So, far the three options have been possible (1) Jews got Covenant with God (2) all of humanity are same under God (3) paganism that rejects the notion of One God.

    Fourth option: How about “each people should have their own special and unique covenant with God?” Who says there can be only ONE covenant? There is only one sun, but each nation has its own unique relation to it. Sweden gets sun differently from Mexico, and etc.

    Anyway, while I don’t like Islam, I don’t see it as worse than the total filth that has become modern culture. We went from John Ford and Akira Kurosawa to Bruce Caitlyn Jenner and George Takei. Why should we take advice from Bruce and George? What makes them such fountains of wisdom? Bruce thinks he’s a gal and George wants to play wifey. I don’t mind there being trannies and homos. They’ve always existed, and they contributed stuff to humanity tool But why put such stuff at the CENTER or CORE of civilization? Homomania has made ‘gay worship’ the core tenet of ‘western values’.

    Islam is tyranny and no freedom. Current West is freedom turned into decadent dementia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    It's misinformation when they say Christianity is too pacifist or too hypocritical on its view of strenght, many instances in the New Testament advocate for self-defense of oneself and above all their faith if necessary. Even Buddhism didn't hold believers about resorting to violence and revolution when it was necessary to impose the belief, only then advocating for pacifism in the long run.
    I wouldn't say religions of any matter are flawless, far from that, but most of the failures that led christianity to lose to many vices (and even Sunni Islam has been infiltrated by many vices and isn't free from cases of homomania) is because of external forces of secular nature bashing religion from the outside and from the inside (secular people infiltrating the middle disseminating more materialistic and petty worldviews like Gnosticism and the like).
    , @Owen
    The New Testament itself doesn't advocate pacifism and very few Christian groups embraced pacifism until the Quakers (witness Constantine, the crusades, participation in the 100 years war, Civil War, WWII etc). Even Francis of Assisi, often held up as a "hippie Christian" ideal fully supported the crusades.

    I'm at work, so I can't dig up references, but I recall the scholar N.T. Wright offering evidence that the phrase "turn the other cheek" referred specifically to insults on one's honor rather than threats to one's safety (ie someone slapping your face with the back of their hand because they think they're better than you, not someone trying to cut you with a knife).

    This makes sense, since Christ himself embraced violence to overturn the moneychanger's tables. If you want to dig even further, I can quote you Orthodox theologians who would argue that the phrase "love your enemies" referred only to loving personal enemies rather than the enemies of God (ie love your annoying neighbor who looks down on you, not the hordes of angry muslims who want to kill you). But Catholicism has had different interpretations.

    I certainly agree that modern Christianity has embraced a warped, self-destructive version of these verses and a downright suicidal form of "love" than involves never saying a mean thing to anyone. However, that is not what historic Christianity practiced, nor what Christ himself actually did.
    , @Frau Katze
    I agree we're in a decadent society.

    Civilizations come and go. We've had a long run.

    Another thing to note is that in Muslim countries, many of citizens don't want to ruled as if it was still 7th century.

    The Egyptians rejected the Muslim Brotherhood, asking the military to oust them.

    True, there are Christians in Egypt, but they're a small minority (no one knows for sure how many there are). So that means that being born Muslim doesn't guarantee that you'll like sharia.

    But it's also true that the conflict between the seculars and fanatic Muslims can't be easily solved. It seems to require an authoritarian government.

    We already see some loss of freedom of speech in countries like the U.K.

    And Canada just passed a bill committing the government to act against "Islamophobia."

    Note that post-Charlie Hebdo no one in France will satirize Islam or Muslims.

    Their willingness to resort to violence is highly effective. That's in contrast to idiotic Western politicians saying "we won't let terror win."

    They've already let it win in some areas.
    , @Charles Erwin Wilson

    If Christianity is followed to the letter, it is a death suicide cult.
     
    Your rigid fundamentalism is misguided. The kind of literalism you describe with a "followed to the letter" approach would have rendered all Christians bereft of eyes and hands. Hyperbole was the tool of instruction to a people that would not have made your mistake.

    Your misreading has skewed your perspective. Reject the pacifist heresies peddled by the Leftist "Christians" and adhere to the orthodox understanding of Christianity.

    Or, if you prefer, burn in Hell. After all, you earned it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Anon 2 says:
    @AP
    ..And those terrible western and central Ukrainians wanted their country to have a partnership with Poland in the eastern EU, rather than join Russia's Eurasian Customs Union with Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan.

    This idea of partnership betweeen Poland and western and
    central Ukraine needs to be explored. I’ll post more on this later.
    By the way, as far as I know AP is Ukrainian, not Polish

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

    Don’t let The Saker and his Russian shills see this. Denial is strong in some parts of unz.com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  29. The recent Petersburg terrorist attack was a mirror image of the sort of thing that goes on in France or the UK, and just underlines Jaakko’s point. At least if we accept the official story, a Muslim born in Kyrgyzstan moves to Russia, gets Russian citizenship at age 16 without even being able to speak Russian well, joins up with Islamic terrorists and then kills Russian citizens. Why was this man allowed into Russia in the first place? Why are thousands like him coming to Russia every day? Russia is repeating with its former imperial territories the same mistakes that France and the UK made. The elites seem to think that if they keep an open door policy with their former colonies they will be able to continue to exert cultural and economic influence more effectively than if they treat their former colonies like any other nations. And for the elites, maybe the benefits do outweigh the risks, but of course the ordinary citizen has to pay the price of actually, you know, living next to these people.

    But to reiterate, Putin’s policy towards Muslim immigration has made it painfully clear that he is a Soviet multicultural imperialist, not a Russian nationalist. This is a big reason why Navalny is becoming increasingly popular with young Russians.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  30. @Sid
    Even before the recent Syria clash, it was looking like the Kremlin was souring on Trump. They limited the amount of positive press coverage he could receive, for example.

    Russian nationalists were liking Trump too much. Take Classic Trumpism, the kind we all thought was too good to be true when Trump was campaigning on, and implement it in Russia. That means a wall being built along the Central Asian and Caucasus borders, deporting economic migrants from those regions, and "renegotiating" the Eurasian Economic Union.

    In short, you've torn up the kind of big, multiethnic empire Putin has been trying to build in this century, you're left with a "Little Russia" nation-state.

    In short, you’ve torn up the kind of big, multiethnic empire Putin has been trying to build in this century, you’re left with a “Little Russia” nation-state.

    This “multinational empire” trope is overdone. Russia is 83% Slavic, which is considerably more than the US is non-Hispanic White.

    Only a relatively small subsection of “liberal nationalists” such as Navalny want a “Little Russia.”

    Most of the rest, including Solzhenitsyn and Ilyin, have supported and continue to support the return of territories of the triune Russian nation (Ukraine, Belorussia, North Kazakhstan), which amongst other things would raise the Slavic percentage to close to 90%.

    Read More
    • Agree: Felix Keverich
    • Replies: @Sid
    The Russian Federation today is not a multiethnic empire, so much as a very large state with numerous ethnic minorities.

    What I would say that is that Putin's policies are meant to make it easier for economic migrants from throughout the former Soviet Union, including Islamic ones, to work in Russia. Russia in return exerts influence over former Soviet states. This is largely the purpose of the Eurasian Economic Union, and what Putin has been working towards.

    Yes, most Russian nationalists do wish that parts of the states you mentioned would be incorporated into Russia. So far it looks like the Kremlin has been willing to let those states hold onto those territories, so long as they show enough deference to Russian interests.
    , @Verymuchalive
    As you've written a number of times, AK, Putin's policies are a balancing act. The main consideration is not to do anything that might enable his enemies to promote unrest and undermine the state.
    Given the overwhelming hostility of the US to Russia throughout this century, given the US promotion of Colour Coded Revolutions in Eastern Europe and elsewhere, that is a very sensible policy.
    There will be, there can only be, changes to this policy when the US finally implodes economically sometime later this decade. The Neocon threat will vanish. Also the deteriorating economic situation elsewhere will result in more forceful policies, not only in Russia but in European countries too.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. @AP
    ..And those terrible western and central Ukrainians wanted their country to have a partnership with Poland in the eastern EU, rather than join Russia's Eurasian Customs Union with Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan.

    This (ethnic/Muslim considerations) is like the 17th most important reason for the Maidan.

    For instance, this is what the Maidan elites would love to do:

    http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2015/11/06/light-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel-resettle-syrian-refugees-in-ukraine/

    The only thing stopping them, of course, is that Afghans and Somalis have zero desire to live in Ukraine.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    This (ethnic/Muslim considerations) is like the 17th most important reason for the Maidan.
     
    Specifically that aspect - yes. But choosing Europe vs. Eurasia was close to the top. Ukrainian nationalists like to use a term for Eurasia that is a bit different - Azyopa.

    For instance, this is what the Maidan elites would love to do:

    http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2015/11/06/light-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel-resettle-syrian-refugees-in-ukraine/

     

    I couldn't get through the paywall to read the article, but the author wasn't a known person of any consequence.

    Some Ukrainians have a soft spot for Crimean Tatars but they are not really crazy about Caucasians, Central Asians, or other Muslims. They are basically no different from Poles.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. A lot of people have some really retarded binary with us/against us ideas on Putin and Russia.

    No it is not an Alt Right Putlerreich.

    No it is not a “halal only legal food” multicultural hellhole.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  33. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Anon
    Bad policy for Russia, but this is a problem for all of Christendom and Seculardom. They have failed to produce life. Also, those who produce life are too picky and spoiled.
    True of Europeans, East Asians, and middle class White Americans. They only want to have kids IF they can be assured of sending kids to good college for good careers. This is esp true as women hog so many jobs now, and women look for ideal mates, the Mr. Right who never comes along.
    Japanese look down on most jobs as 'dirty, dangerous, and demeaning', and they don't want their own kids to do them. So, they have kids ONLY if they can be assured of success. That means birth dearth.

    But Muslim world still has children just for the sake of having children. Children are seen as blessing in and of themselves even if they are not successful in life. And women are expected to be wives and mothers.

    So, the advanced world is running out of labor. Too many people will have kids ONLY IF kids can be assured of success. So, that means fewer kids to grow up to do manual jobs and other such work. Advanced world only wants to produce kids who are college material.
    So, who will do the 'lowly' jobs? Advanced world looks to Third World. Same in EU, US, and now East Asia.

    And this is true of Russia as well.

    There is another thing. We may see Central Asia as being separate from Russia, but there is an element of Russian-ism that regards Central Asia as part of Russian Empire. After all, it was under the Tsars that Muslim parts were incorporated into the Russian Empire.
    Putin's formative yrs were during the Soviet Era when Russia was the USSR that held not just Russian core but adjoining areas. Putin might see it as regaining what was lost than Russia being taken over by foreigners. But given today's birth imbalances, it is a reckless move.
    Instead, something must be done to smash feminism, libertarian individualism, and elitism that looks down on labor as 'dirty, dangerous, and demeaning'. One good thing about communism was all labor was seen as dignified. That must be regained.
    Unless organicist view shapes overall policy, civilization is dead. LIFE, creation-preservation-continuation-culturalization, must trump all other considerations.

    At any rate, the West is a failure from organicist perspective. It is for pleasures and happiness of life but forgot how to create and value life itself. It forgot life is valuable for just being life.

    Looking back, a big failure of communism was its feminist element. It should have created a system where men work and women keep the home. But as both men and women were sent to factories, it led to decline in family.
    And the same problem exists in the West.

    If making children just for the sake of being a blessing or whatever was fine and dandy was truly the best way to develop a society, African countries or even more “stable” less developed countries wouldn’t have problems with so much poor people, violence and unemployment.
    It’s better to be picky and have less children for it than letting just one more person be to the world and become an illiterate welfare leecher or a criminal. Latin American countries and similar places elsewhere has people with mentality just like that.
    Population naturally balances itself and might have growing birth rates even in developed countries depending on certain situations.
    The problem nowadays isn’t refraining oneself to less children because of higher costs, it’s refraining to have children at all because of liberal/defeatist nonsense about the harshness of this world and acceptance to be step parents to already born children from the farthest reaches of the planet.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Priss Factor's point is simply this, I believe:

    Massively increasing population might not be a winning strategy for welfare in a country, but it is the successful winning strategy for a democracy. Even the Amish are demonstrating more political influence simply by having more babies.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Anon
    Fair enough. I don't like Islam. But Christianity failed to stop homomania. It has proven to be weak.

    Because Christianity is a pacifist religion, it can only survive with a pact with the Power. Christianity is cult of powerlessness wedded to Power. It's been so since the era of Emperor Constantine. If Christianity is followed to the letter, it is a death suicide cult.

    As the Power, economic and military, of the West has gone over to Jews, globalists, and homos, the result is Christianity no longer has a direct line to the Power. It is turning sappy. What is Christianity about today? It's about cuckish men adopting mulatto kids of white women who go black. I see it all around. No one respects this sappy cult anymore. Do-goodiness without spine and muscle get no respect.

    It still has some power in Russia cuz it's wedded to the Power. The state.

    Islam, in contrast, can survive on its own because it is combination of spiritual prophecy and warrior cult. The will to power is written into its very DNA.

    Christianity says "don't fight, turn the other cheek, and feel holier than thou"... and rely on warriors to kick butt for you and protect you. As long as this arrangement was kept, it thrived. But once it was cut off from the Power(that is now more invested in Zionism, homomania, afromania, and MLK cult and Mandela cult and pop culture), Christianity in the West is dying fast. Today's kids worship Oprah more than Jesus.

    In contrast, Islam says, "pray when you have to, fight when you have to." It is a total package.
    Problem is it has too many dumb laws and customs.

    What Christianity needs to do is gain warrior cult. So far, it forged an alliance with warrior cult while maintaining its creed as pacifist. This only opened it to accusations of hypocrisy.

    What Islam needs is to lose it so many archaic laws and food, dress, and no beer. Who needs all that baggage?

    Is Chrislam the answer?

    I think the best solution is Covenantism. Let each people become like the Jews. They should arrive at their own covenant with God, the higher being, the ultimate power, or etc.

    So, far the three options have been possible (1) Jews got Covenant with God (2) all of humanity are same under God (3) paganism that rejects the notion of One God.

    Fourth option: How about "each people should have their own special and unique covenant with God?" Who says there can be only ONE covenant? There is only one sun, but each nation has its own unique relation to it. Sweden gets sun differently from Mexico, and etc.

    Anyway, while I don't like Islam, I don't see it as worse than the total filth that has become modern culture. We went from John Ford and Akira Kurosawa to Bruce Caitlyn Jenner and George Takei. Why should we take advice from Bruce and George? What makes them such fountains of wisdom? Bruce thinks he's a gal and George wants to play wifey. I don't mind there being trannies and homos. They've always existed, and they contributed stuff to humanity tool But why put such stuff at the CENTER or CORE of civilization? Homomania has made 'gay worship' the core tenet of 'western values'.

    Islam is tyranny and no freedom. Current West is freedom turned into decadent dementia.

    It’s misinformation when they say Christianity is too pacifist or too hypocritical on its view of strenght, many instances in the New Testament advocate for self-defense of oneself and above all their faith if necessary. Even Buddhism didn’t hold believers about resorting to violence and revolution when it was necessary to impose the belief, only then advocating for pacifism in the long run.
    I wouldn’t say religions of any matter are flawless, far from that, but most of the failures that led christianity to lose to many vices (and even Sunni Islam has been infiltrated by many vices and isn’t free from cases of homomania) is because of external forces of secular nature bashing religion from the outside and from the inside (secular people infiltrating the middle disseminating more materialistic and petty worldviews like Gnosticism and the like).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. Luke Lea says:
    @Anon
    Bad policy for Russia, but this is a problem for all of Christendom and Seculardom. They have failed to produce life. Also, those who produce life are too picky and spoiled.
    True of Europeans, East Asians, and middle class White Americans. They only want to have kids IF they can be assured of sending kids to good college for good careers. This is esp true as women hog so many jobs now, and women look for ideal mates, the Mr. Right who never comes along.
    Japanese look down on most jobs as 'dirty, dangerous, and demeaning', and they don't want their own kids to do them. So, they have kids ONLY if they can be assured of success. That means birth dearth.

    But Muslim world still has children just for the sake of having children. Children are seen as blessing in and of themselves even if they are not successful in life. And women are expected to be wives and mothers.

    So, the advanced world is running out of labor. Too many people will have kids ONLY IF kids can be assured of success. So, that means fewer kids to grow up to do manual jobs and other such work. Advanced world only wants to produce kids who are college material.
    So, who will do the 'lowly' jobs? Advanced world looks to Third World. Same in EU, US, and now East Asia.

    And this is true of Russia as well.

    There is another thing. We may see Central Asia as being separate from Russia, but there is an element of Russian-ism that regards Central Asia as part of Russian Empire. After all, it was under the Tsars that Muslim parts were incorporated into the Russian Empire.
    Putin's formative yrs were during the Soviet Era when Russia was the USSR that held not just Russian core but adjoining areas. Putin might see it as regaining what was lost than Russia being taken over by foreigners. But given today's birth imbalances, it is a reckless move.
    Instead, something must be done to smash feminism, libertarian individualism, and elitism that looks down on labor as 'dirty, dangerous, and demeaning'. One good thing about communism was all labor was seen as dignified. That must be regained.
    Unless organicist view shapes overall policy, civilization is dead. LIFE, creation-preservation-continuation-culturalization, must trump all other considerations.

    At any rate, the West is a failure from organicist perspective. It is for pleasures and happiness of life but forgot how to create and value life itself. It forgot life is valuable for just being life.

    Looking back, a big failure of communism was its feminist element. It should have created a system where men work and women keep the home. But as both men and women were sent to factories, it led to decline in family.
    And the same problem exists in the West.

    Instead, something must be done to smash feminism, libertarian individualism, and elitism that looks down on labor as ‘dirty, dangerous, and demeaning’. One good thing about communism was all labor was seen as dignified. That must be regained. Unless organicist view shapes overall policy, civilization is dead.

    Blurb for my upcoming Notes Towards a New Way of Life in America:

    “In this 21st century capitalist utopia, Luke Lea explores a world of New Country Towns in which the people work part-time outside the home, and in their free time help build their own houses, cultivate gardens, cook and care for their children and grandchildren, and pursue hobbies and other outside interests. They live on small family homesteads grouped around neighborhood greens and get around town in glorified golf-carts. So thoroughly are work and leisure integrated into the fabric of their everyday lives that they don’t feel much need to retire, and they die at home in their beds as a rule, surrounded by loved ones.

    For those who would like to move to this world he provides a map with some directions for how to get there from here.”

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

    Putin was useful at bringing Russia back to its feet and defying the West, but now it’s the time for him to go. One thing I have noticed from many readings about Russia is, despite the flood of Central Asians and Caucasians, your average russian doesn’t give much space for them to get used as it was a second home. Like news of russian regions banning the employment of foreigners or people denying renting houses to them. Even politicians that don’t promote their nationalism too much are keen on bashing them and wanting a solution to keep them away. Even fellow muslims like Tatars or Bashkirs want them far away. I really don’t know much of russian politics to say if there’s someone who can replace Putin without much problems arising, but I believe the tendency is more nationalist types with more ethnic concerns to rise after him.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  37. Zzz says:

    American brend of rasism is irrelvant in Russia. It has different story. American racists exist in Russia, as well as wannabe negro rappers from Tula or ninjas but as fringe groups

    Russia is not about religion, american religiosity for russian sounds as allah akbar muslims for americans

    European brand of rasism didn’t even consider russians white so such constructons must be irelevant for the Right to begin with. (and last time all sorts of russian untermensch kicked european white ass out)

    Overborder miragration trends do nothing with what Putin want or not, and beside Moscow which сloaca anyway is not important. Muslim(or buddists) population of Russia live here longer than USA exist and not need to integrate somehow.

    Navalny is celebrity and sometimes have cool events but politically irrelevant.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  38. @Whiskey
    Yes, the opposition to Putin is not internationalist liberal. It is explicitly nationalist and anti-Muslim, and very Orthodox Christian. Putin has attempted to coopt this movement to a degree, and offers "victories" such as Crimea and Eastern Ukraine while allowing Muslims to flood into Russia to keep his mini-Me version of the USSR alive.

    After Putin, the probable leader will be far more nationalist and likely engage in a series of active wars within Russia which now has almost defacto Islamic Republics and and without; such as Central Asia. Lacking natural land barriers the Central Asians will either once again rule Russia as conquerors or be conquered, there is no other way.

    Just as Sweden, Britain, France, Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain etc. will face constant warfare from conquering Muslims demanding ever more territory in their Islamic Republics.

    Britain and France need to get rid of their nukes now, like the Boers did in South Africa before turning power over to the democratic majority.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
    Much more importantly, America needs to have its nuclear weapons removed ASAP. When the US collapses economically later this decade, it will collapse politically and be partitioned. The thought of California's mestizos controlling the state's nukes is not a happy one. The thought of Neocon groups with their own personal nuclear weapons is horrifying. Think: Zuckerberg with his own nuclear missile station next to his ranch in Hawaii. Or his and her nukes - for Kagan and Nuland.
    Fortunately, Russia will disarm these bandits. It will become the most powerful military power in the world, but will not act as a unipower. It will look after its vital interests, as will China.
    European countries will formulate sensible policies on borders, immigration and trade and will recover. Even White Americans will recover slowly, albeit in several partitioned states and from a low standard of living, like present day's Ukraine.
    God Bless Vladimir Vladimirovich
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. @newrouter
    The West AND Russia solidarity here:


    The Nicene Creed

    I believe in one God,
    the Father almighty,
    maker of heaven and earth,
    of all things visible and invisible.

    I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
    the Only Begotten Son of God,
    born of the Father before all ages.
    God from God, Light from Light,
    true God from true God,
    begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
    through him all things were made.
    For us men and for our salvation
    he came down from heaven,
    and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
    and became man.
    For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
    he suffered death and was buried,
    and rose again on the third day
    in accordance with the Scriptures.
    He ascended into heaven
    and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
    He will come again in glory
    to judge the living and the dead
    and his kingdom will have no end.

    I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
    who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
    who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
    who has spoken through the prophets.

    I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
    I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
    and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
    and the life of the world to come. Amen.

    The Eastern and Western Churches split over your version of the Creed. There were other causes, but the filioque is a very big deal. Did you not know this?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. Owen says:
    @Anon 2
    19th century optimism and faith in progress are not
    coming back. We know too much now. First the
    optimism was shattered by WW I and produced the
    Lost Generation (Hemingway, etc). Then any remaining
    optimism was shattered once again by WW II and produced
    the Beat Generation (i.e., beaten by life - Kerouac, etc) and
    the postwar preoccupation with existentialism, particularly
    in Europe (Sartre, Camus, ...). Then came the 1960s and the
    massive abandonment of mainline Christian denominations
    in the U.S. to the extent that Rod Dreher in his blog and in his
    latest book The Benedictine Option speaks of post-Christian
    America, and he is not the only one among Christians. We are
    disillusioned because we live in an unimpressive universe. The
    Age of Genius is gone because the brightest among us are no
    longer impressed by the Universe or by human nature.

    Many people draw the conclusion that we need to reject the
    claim that the Universe was created by God, made by the Book
    of Genesis, and go back to the ancient Greek philosophers who
    laughed at the Jewish claim that the world was created by the
    Supreme Being. After Darwin and the Two World Wars, fewer
    and fewer people are willing to accept that the world was created
    by God. This eliminates not only traditional Christianity but all
    Abrahamic religions.

    But there is a new movement that sees our disillusionment as the
    necessary part of growing up. Buddhism, for example, doesn't require
    a creator God. A Course in Miracles (1976), all 1250 pages of it, is another
    example of a modified Christianity which retains the idea of God but
    says that ultimately the world is an illusion, and was not created by God.
    Physics, in fact, is moving in the direction of the Universe as an illusion,
    as virtual reality of sort in which space and time are seen not as
    fundamental but as emergent qualities that our mind creates for our
    amusement. Immanuel Kant was already hinting at this in his system

    I’m afraid you are objectively wrong about Kerouac and the beat poets. Kerouac chose the name “beat” from “beatus” the Latin for blessed (it’s not widely reported by Kerouac identified as Catholic almost all his life). If anything, the beats were “Whitman’s wild children” to quote one article I recall from College; staring wide eyed at the stars, jazz, and sex. In the US at least, the post-WWII era was one of optimism, though Europe certainly felt differently (because they had experience such direct damage to their cities).

    I would also object to claims that it’s becoming harder to believe in a creator God. More and more scientific findings have clarified just how unlikely a planet capable of supporting life really is (witness how recent frenzy over newly discovered Trappist I planets quieted down once it became clear they too were likely not habitable and much of the “earth-like” descriptions derived from an overly-enthusiastic artist’s rendering). The only way to dodge the seeming “fine-tuning” of the universe is to postulate a multi-verse; for which there is no evidence or justification except that it avoids bringing God into the equation.

    Likewise, the “modified” Christianity you speak of sounds indistinguishable from Gnosticism, which has been tried and failed so to speak since it never created a successful civilization but only small cult-like enclaves. The traditional Theravada Buddhism is a religion of despair honestly, with no hope except release from life and the endless cycles of birth.

    Look at the religion that is now most successful, Islam, and you find none of these things. Instead you see a religion that gives a good-evil narrative, belief in the goodness of the physical, a rigid set of guidelines to guide society and behavior, and absolute faith in the rightness of their beliefs. I would argue Christianity provides a better version of this narrative, but something like it seems the way forward, not the despairing faith you describe.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hector_St_Clare
    Um, no. The most successful Gnostic-Christian "heresy", the Manichaeans, lasted for a thousand years and was the state religion of the Uighur Kingdom. Various other Gnostic-Christian sects in the middle ages were dominant in Bulgaria, southern France and possibly Bosnia. They were far from 'small cult like enclaves'. The problem is that they were enough of a theological challenge to orthodox Christianity (and in the case of manichaeanism to Zoroastrianism as well: the Manichaeans borrowed from Zoroastrianism and Buddhism as well as Christianity) that they were wiped out by violence.

    I would agree with Anon 2 that one of the problem in orthodox Christianity and Islam both is precisely the creation myth, and that something closer to Gnosticism is more likely to be correct. We know too much about nature now to believe that the created world is inherently good, and the gnostics had (unlike either Islam or orthodox Christianity) a convincing solution to the problem of evil.
    , @Anon 2
    My treatment of Kerouac was very brief. I love the Beat writers,
    and I'm very aware that Kerouac was a Catholic and sometimes
    explained the word Beat as being derived from 'beatific.'
    Nevertheless, life in the 1950s which I clearly remember, was not as
    carefree as commonly described. There were constant atmospheric
    nuclear tests, nuclear attack drills in schools, fallout shelters everywhere,
    and no certainty that humanity would survive. People lived in the
    shadow of the mushroom cloud, and sensitive artistic people like the
    Beats were certainly very aware of various Doomsday scenarios.
    Granted, the sense of foreboding was stronger in Europe which was
    still rebuilding itself after the war.

    The percentage of people who identify as Christian in the U.S. is dropping from
    year to year, and I'm not particularly happy about that. One reason is that the
    number of Asians (typically non-Christian) is growing exponentially.
    , @Dan Hayes
    Owen:

    I agree with you regarding Kerouac's Catholicism. I remember that he was brandishing rosary beads in an interview near the end of his life (probably induced by alcoholism). I happened to be in his native Lowell, Massachusetts at the time of his death and his funeral in a local Catholic church. I happened to meet a young Lowell man about this time who was so proud of being distantly related to Kerouac.

    Fred Hoyle at the end of his life was struck by the "fine tuning" of the universe. As you pointed out, the only way around this fact are to postulate multiple universes.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. @Whiskey
    Yes, the opposition to Putin is not internationalist liberal. It is explicitly nationalist and anti-Muslim, and very Orthodox Christian. Putin has attempted to coopt this movement to a degree, and offers "victories" such as Crimea and Eastern Ukraine while allowing Muslims to flood into Russia to keep his mini-Me version of the USSR alive.

    After Putin, the probable leader will be far more nationalist and likely engage in a series of active wars within Russia which now has almost defacto Islamic Republics and and without; such as Central Asia. Lacking natural land barriers the Central Asians will either once again rule Russia as conquerors or be conquered, there is no other way.

    Just as Sweden, Britain, France, Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain etc. will face constant warfare from conquering Muslims demanding ever more territory in their Islamic Republics.

    This is only half right.

    Most of the opposition to Putin (and you know, the median Russian voter) is more nationalist than he is, and more opposed to Islam (and this goes for the Left, i.e. the Communists, as much as the Right), but they aren’t necessarily more Orthodox Christian. One needs to distinguish between two different kinds of cultural conservatism here, and here the Inglehart-Welzel cultural map of the world is helpful. The Inglehart model distinguishes two axes of cultural values: “traditional vs. secular” and “group survival vs. individual self expression”. The first axis correlates with religiosity, the second correlates with ethnocentricity. Russia scores very high on the secularism axis (it’s a less religious society than America by most measures, and more accepting of things like premarital and extramaritial sex), but also very low on the “individualism” axis. The Russian hostility to mass migration is more about ethnicity than religion per se.

    It’s also worth bearing in mind that while public opinion is much more ethnic-nationalist than Putin, it’s also much further to the left on economics. In Russia today more than half of people tell the public-opinion surveys that they prefer an economy based on “central planning and distribution” to one based on market capitalism, and likewise more than half of people wish they had communism back. The Russian communists (still the largest opposition party, though they’re barely ahead of the far right) is playing this smartly and have embraced the anti-immigration cause, stating (correctly) that mass immigration is the fault of capitalism and of economic inequality between countries.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. @newrouter
    The West AND Russia solidarity here:


    The Nicene Creed

    I believe in one God,
    the Father almighty,
    maker of heaven and earth,
    of all things visible and invisible.

    I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
    the Only Begotten Son of God,
    born of the Father before all ages.
    God from God, Light from Light,
    true God from true God,
    begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
    through him all things were made.
    For us men and for our salvation
    he came down from heaven,
    and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
    and became man.
    For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
    he suffered death and was buried,
    and rose again on the third day
    in accordance with the Scriptures.
    He ascended into heaven
    and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
    He will come again in glory
    to judge the living and the dead
    and his kingdom will have no end.

    I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
    who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
    who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
    who has spoken through the prophets.

    I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
    I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
    and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
    and the life of the world to come. Amen.

    Yes except neither Russia nor America is that traditionally religious a society any more. Russia even less so than America. How many Russians attend church weekly?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Owen says:
    @Anon
    Fair enough. I don't like Islam. But Christianity failed to stop homomania. It has proven to be weak.

    Because Christianity is a pacifist religion, it can only survive with a pact with the Power. Christianity is cult of powerlessness wedded to Power. It's been so since the era of Emperor Constantine. If Christianity is followed to the letter, it is a death suicide cult.

    As the Power, economic and military, of the West has gone over to Jews, globalists, and homos, the result is Christianity no longer has a direct line to the Power. It is turning sappy. What is Christianity about today? It's about cuckish men adopting mulatto kids of white women who go black. I see it all around. No one respects this sappy cult anymore. Do-goodiness without spine and muscle get no respect.

    It still has some power in Russia cuz it's wedded to the Power. The state.

    Islam, in contrast, can survive on its own because it is combination of spiritual prophecy and warrior cult. The will to power is written into its very DNA.

    Christianity says "don't fight, turn the other cheek, and feel holier than thou"... and rely on warriors to kick butt for you and protect you. As long as this arrangement was kept, it thrived. But once it was cut off from the Power(that is now more invested in Zionism, homomania, afromania, and MLK cult and Mandela cult and pop culture), Christianity in the West is dying fast. Today's kids worship Oprah more than Jesus.

    In contrast, Islam says, "pray when you have to, fight when you have to." It is a total package.
    Problem is it has too many dumb laws and customs.

    What Christianity needs to do is gain warrior cult. So far, it forged an alliance with warrior cult while maintaining its creed as pacifist. This only opened it to accusations of hypocrisy.

    What Islam needs is to lose it so many archaic laws and food, dress, and no beer. Who needs all that baggage?

    Is Chrislam the answer?

    I think the best solution is Covenantism. Let each people become like the Jews. They should arrive at their own covenant with God, the higher being, the ultimate power, or etc.

    So, far the three options have been possible (1) Jews got Covenant with God (2) all of humanity are same under God (3) paganism that rejects the notion of One God.

    Fourth option: How about "each people should have their own special and unique covenant with God?" Who says there can be only ONE covenant? There is only one sun, but each nation has its own unique relation to it. Sweden gets sun differently from Mexico, and etc.

    Anyway, while I don't like Islam, I don't see it as worse than the total filth that has become modern culture. We went from John Ford and Akira Kurosawa to Bruce Caitlyn Jenner and George Takei. Why should we take advice from Bruce and George? What makes them such fountains of wisdom? Bruce thinks he's a gal and George wants to play wifey. I don't mind there being trannies and homos. They've always existed, and they contributed stuff to humanity tool But why put such stuff at the CENTER or CORE of civilization? Homomania has made 'gay worship' the core tenet of 'western values'.

    Islam is tyranny and no freedom. Current West is freedom turned into decadent dementia.

    The New Testament itself doesn’t advocate pacifism and very few Christian groups embraced pacifism until the Quakers (witness Constantine, the crusades, participation in the 100 years war, Civil War, WWII etc). Even Francis of Assisi, often held up as a “hippie Christian” ideal fully supported the crusades.

    I’m at work, so I can’t dig up references, but I recall the scholar N.T. Wright offering evidence that the phrase “turn the other cheek” referred specifically to insults on one’s honor rather than threats to one’s safety (ie someone slapping your face with the back of their hand because they think they’re better than you, not someone trying to cut you with a knife).

    This makes sense, since Christ himself embraced violence to overturn the moneychanger’s tables. If you want to dig even further, I can quote you Orthodox theologians who would argue that the phrase “love your enemies” referred only to loving personal enemies rather than the enemies of God (ie love your annoying neighbor who looks down on you, not the hordes of angry muslims who want to kill you). But Catholicism has had different interpretations.

    I certainly agree that modern Christianity has embraced a warped, self-destructive version of these verses and a downright suicidal form of “love” than involves never saying a mean thing to anyone. However, that is not what historic Christianity practiced, nor what Christ himself actually did.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. @Owen
    I'm afraid you are objectively wrong about Kerouac and the beat poets. Kerouac chose the name "beat" from "beatus" the Latin for blessed (it's not widely reported by Kerouac identified as Catholic almost all his life). If anything, the beats were "Whitman's wild children" to quote one article I recall from College; staring wide eyed at the stars, jazz, and sex. In the US at least, the post-WWII era was one of optimism, though Europe certainly felt differently (because they had experience such direct damage to their cities).

    I would also object to claims that it's becoming harder to believe in a creator God. More and more scientific findings have clarified just how unlikely a planet capable of supporting life really is (witness how recent frenzy over newly discovered Trappist I planets quieted down once it became clear they too were likely not habitable and much of the "earth-like" descriptions derived from an overly-enthusiastic artist's rendering). The only way to dodge the seeming "fine-tuning" of the universe is to postulate a multi-verse; for which there is no evidence or justification except that it avoids bringing God into the equation.

    Likewise, the "modified" Christianity you speak of sounds indistinguishable from Gnosticism, which has been tried and failed so to speak since it never created a successful civilization but only small cult-like enclaves. The traditional Theravada Buddhism is a religion of despair honestly, with no hope except release from life and the endless cycles of birth.

    Look at the religion that is now most successful, Islam, and you find none of these things. Instead you see a religion that gives a good-evil narrative, belief in the goodness of the physical, a rigid set of guidelines to guide society and behavior, and absolute faith in the rightness of their beliefs. I would argue Christianity provides a better version of this narrative, but something like it seems the way forward, not the despairing faith you describe.

    Um, no. The most successful Gnostic-Christian “heresy”, the Manichaeans, lasted for a thousand years and was the state religion of the Uighur Kingdom. Various other Gnostic-Christian sects in the middle ages were dominant in Bulgaria, southern France and possibly Bosnia. They were far from ‘small cult like enclaves’. The problem is that they were enough of a theological challenge to orthodox Christianity (and in the case of manichaeanism to Zoroastrianism as well: the Manichaeans borrowed from Zoroastrianism and Buddhism as well as Christianity) that they were wiped out by violence.

    I would agree with Anon 2 that one of the problem in orthodox Christianity and Islam both is precisely the creation myth, and that something closer to Gnosticism is more likely to be correct. We know too much about nature now to believe that the created world is inherently good, and the gnostics had (unlike either Islam or orthodox Christianity) a convincing solution to the problem of evil.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. @Anonymous
    If making children just for the sake of being a blessing or whatever was fine and dandy was truly the best way to develop a society, African countries or even more "stable" less developed countries wouldn't have problems with so much poor people, violence and unemployment.
    It's better to be picky and have less children for it than letting just one more person be to the world and become an illiterate welfare leecher or a criminal. Latin American countries and similar places elsewhere has people with mentality just like that.
    Population naturally balances itself and might have growing birth rates even in developed countries depending on certain situations.
    The problem nowadays isn't refraining oneself to less children because of higher costs, it's refraining to have children at all because of liberal/defeatist nonsense about the harshness of this world and acceptance to be step parents to already born children from the farthest reaches of the planet.

    Priss Factor’s point is simply this, I believe:

    Massively increasing population might not be a winning strategy for welfare in a country, but it is the successful winning strategy for a democracy. Even the Amish are demonstrating more political influence simply by having more babies.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. @Sid
    Part of what makes Putin a dangerous SOB is that he will endorse two conflicting philosophies, according to what best suits him.

    One of the reasons why Putin has such a infamous reputation as a nationalist on the left (and a glowing one for that reason on the alt-right) is that he annexed Crimea on the grounds that ethnic Russians live there, and the Russian ethnicity has been artificially separated across numerous borders.

    On the other hand, the reason why he annexed Crimea is that Ukraine didn't want to join his big, multiethnic, increasingly Muslim empire.

    That's ultimately why so few world leaders can get along with Putin. He endorses contradictory philosophies and picks and chooses from them according to his immediate interests. Maybe we do that too, but he does it so brazenly and unabashedly that he's a wild card.

    It’s not contradiction, it’s opportunism. If you saw that “Byzantium” documentary some years ago, narrated by Putin’s confessor Tikhon Shevkunov, the strategy was laid out pretty plainly.
    “Russia must use the west against the east, and use the east against the west.”

    From the point of view of a neo-Byzantinist like Shevkunov, both Islam and the West are twin enemies of the Third Rome, and neither is a friend: they’re to be used against each other as the opportunity present itself.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    He would seem to be right that the West and Islam are both enemies of Russia.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. @Anon
    Fair enough. I don't like Islam. But Christianity failed to stop homomania. It has proven to be weak.

    Because Christianity is a pacifist religion, it can only survive with a pact with the Power. Christianity is cult of powerlessness wedded to Power. It's been so since the era of Emperor Constantine. If Christianity is followed to the letter, it is a death suicide cult.

    As the Power, economic and military, of the West has gone over to Jews, globalists, and homos, the result is Christianity no longer has a direct line to the Power. It is turning sappy. What is Christianity about today? It's about cuckish men adopting mulatto kids of white women who go black. I see it all around. No one respects this sappy cult anymore. Do-goodiness without spine and muscle get no respect.

    It still has some power in Russia cuz it's wedded to the Power. The state.

    Islam, in contrast, can survive on its own because it is combination of spiritual prophecy and warrior cult. The will to power is written into its very DNA.

    Christianity says "don't fight, turn the other cheek, and feel holier than thou"... and rely on warriors to kick butt for you and protect you. As long as this arrangement was kept, it thrived. But once it was cut off from the Power(that is now more invested in Zionism, homomania, afromania, and MLK cult and Mandela cult and pop culture), Christianity in the West is dying fast. Today's kids worship Oprah more than Jesus.

    In contrast, Islam says, "pray when you have to, fight when you have to." It is a total package.
    Problem is it has too many dumb laws and customs.

    What Christianity needs to do is gain warrior cult. So far, it forged an alliance with warrior cult while maintaining its creed as pacifist. This only opened it to accusations of hypocrisy.

    What Islam needs is to lose it so many archaic laws and food, dress, and no beer. Who needs all that baggage?

    Is Chrislam the answer?

    I think the best solution is Covenantism. Let each people become like the Jews. They should arrive at their own covenant with God, the higher being, the ultimate power, or etc.

    So, far the three options have been possible (1) Jews got Covenant with God (2) all of humanity are same under God (3) paganism that rejects the notion of One God.

    Fourth option: How about "each people should have their own special and unique covenant with God?" Who says there can be only ONE covenant? There is only one sun, but each nation has its own unique relation to it. Sweden gets sun differently from Mexico, and etc.

    Anyway, while I don't like Islam, I don't see it as worse than the total filth that has become modern culture. We went from John Ford and Akira Kurosawa to Bruce Caitlyn Jenner and George Takei. Why should we take advice from Bruce and George? What makes them such fountains of wisdom? Bruce thinks he's a gal and George wants to play wifey. I don't mind there being trannies and homos. They've always existed, and they contributed stuff to humanity tool But why put such stuff at the CENTER or CORE of civilization? Homomania has made 'gay worship' the core tenet of 'western values'.

    Islam is tyranny and no freedom. Current West is freedom turned into decadent dementia.

    I agree we’re in a decadent society.

    Civilizations come and go. We’ve had a long run.

    Another thing to note is that in Muslim countries, many of citizens don’t want to ruled as if it was still 7th century.

    The Egyptians rejected the Muslim Brotherhood, asking the military to oust them.

    True, there are Christians in Egypt, but they’re a small minority (no one knows for sure how many there are). So that means that being born Muslim doesn’t guarantee that you’ll like sharia.

    But it’s also true that the conflict between the seculars and fanatic Muslims can’t be easily solved. It seems to require an authoritarian government.

    We already see some loss of freedom of speech in countries like the U.K.

    And Canada just passed a bill committing the government to act against “Islamophobia.”

    Note that post-Charlie Hebdo no one in France will satirize Islam or Muslims.

    Their willingness to resort to violence is highly effective. That’s in contrast to idiotic Western politicians saying “we won’t let terror win.”

    They’ve already let it win in some areas.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. Sid says:
    @Opinionator
    If only he would stake out a consistently explicit pro-ethnic Russian position and close Russia's borders to Muslims, surely then world leaders would embrace him.

    No, but he’d be more predictable, which is what world leaders ultimate like in one another. The EU and the media might hiss at Orban, but they rarely say he’s “Literally Hitler” as they do with Trump and Putin.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    Just why should the citizens of Yiddishstan decide who the Russians choose?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. Anon 2 says:
    @Owen
    I'm afraid you are objectively wrong about Kerouac and the beat poets. Kerouac chose the name "beat" from "beatus" the Latin for blessed (it's not widely reported by Kerouac identified as Catholic almost all his life). If anything, the beats were "Whitman's wild children" to quote one article I recall from College; staring wide eyed at the stars, jazz, and sex. In the US at least, the post-WWII era was one of optimism, though Europe certainly felt differently (because they had experience such direct damage to their cities).

    I would also object to claims that it's becoming harder to believe in a creator God. More and more scientific findings have clarified just how unlikely a planet capable of supporting life really is (witness how recent frenzy over newly discovered Trappist I planets quieted down once it became clear they too were likely not habitable and much of the "earth-like" descriptions derived from an overly-enthusiastic artist's rendering). The only way to dodge the seeming "fine-tuning" of the universe is to postulate a multi-verse; for which there is no evidence or justification except that it avoids bringing God into the equation.

    Likewise, the "modified" Christianity you speak of sounds indistinguishable from Gnosticism, which has been tried and failed so to speak since it never created a successful civilization but only small cult-like enclaves. The traditional Theravada Buddhism is a religion of despair honestly, with no hope except release from life and the endless cycles of birth.

    Look at the religion that is now most successful, Islam, and you find none of these things. Instead you see a religion that gives a good-evil narrative, belief in the goodness of the physical, a rigid set of guidelines to guide society and behavior, and absolute faith in the rightness of their beliefs. I would argue Christianity provides a better version of this narrative, but something like it seems the way forward, not the despairing faith you describe.

    My treatment of Kerouac was very brief. I love the Beat writers,
    and I’m very aware that Kerouac was a Catholic and sometimes
    explained the word Beat as being derived from ‘beatific.’
    Nevertheless, life in the 1950s which I clearly remember, was not as
    carefree as commonly described. There were constant atmospheric
    nuclear tests, nuclear attack drills in schools, fallout shelters everywhere,
    and no certainty that humanity would survive. People lived in the
    shadow of the mushroom cloud, and sensitive artistic people like the
    Beats were certainly very aware of various Doomsday scenarios.
    Granted, the sense of foreboding was stronger in Europe which was
    still rebuilding itself after the war.

    The percentage of people who identify as Christian in the U.S. is dropping from
    year to year, and I’m not particularly happy about that. One reason is that the
    number of Asians (typically non-Christian) is growing exponentially.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. Sid says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    In short, you’ve torn up the kind of big, multiethnic empire Putin has been trying to build in this century, you’re left with a “Little Russia” nation-state.
     
    This "multinational empire" trope is overdone. Russia is 83% Slavic, which is considerably more than the US is non-Hispanic White.

    Only a relatively small subsection of "liberal nationalists" such as Navalny want a "Little Russia."

    Most of the rest, including Solzhenitsyn and Ilyin, have supported and continue to support the return of territories of the triune Russian nation (Ukraine, Belorussia, North Kazakhstan), which amongst other things would raise the Slavic percentage to close to 90%.

    The Russian Federation today is not a multiethnic empire, so much as a very large state with numerous ethnic minorities.

    What I would say that is that Putin’s policies are meant to make it easier for economic migrants from throughout the former Soviet Union, including Islamic ones, to work in Russia. Russia in return exerts influence over former Soviet states. This is largely the purpose of the Eurasian Economic Union, and what Putin has been working towards.

    Yes, most Russian nationalists do wish that parts of the states you mentioned would be incorporated into Russia. So far it looks like the Kremlin has been willing to let those states hold onto those territories, so long as they show enough deference to Russian interests.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. Sid says:
    @Anon

    One of the reasons why Putin has such a infamous reputation as a nationalist on the left (and a glowing one for that reason on the alt-right) is that he annexed Crimea on the grounds that ethnic Russians live there, and the Russian ethnicity has been artificially separated across numerous borders.

    On the other hand, the reason why he annexed Crimea is that Ukraine didn’t want to join his big, multiethnic, increasingly Muslim empire.
     
    Both projected motivations are wrong.

    That’s cool if you disagree with me, but you haven’t given me much of anything to argue with.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. Nico says:
    @Whiskey
    Yes, the opposition to Putin is not internationalist liberal. It is explicitly nationalist and anti-Muslim, and very Orthodox Christian. Putin has attempted to coopt this movement to a degree, and offers "victories" such as Crimea and Eastern Ukraine while allowing Muslims to flood into Russia to keep his mini-Me version of the USSR alive.

    After Putin, the probable leader will be far more nationalist and likely engage in a series of active wars within Russia which now has almost defacto Islamic Republics and and without; such as Central Asia. Lacking natural land barriers the Central Asians will either once again rule Russia as conquerors or be conquered, there is no other way.

    Just as Sweden, Britain, France, Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain etc. will face constant warfare from conquering Muslims demanding ever more territory in their Islamic Republics.

    The news coming out of Chechnya this morning only underscores this point. Putin’s lip service to Orthodox Christianity help pacify and co-opt (for a short time at least) restless Orthodox, and his green light to Kadyrov’s intense Islamization in Chechnya weakens (but does not eliminste) the Jihadist argument for separatism down there. A more convincing Russian nationalist/imperialist would have aimed for conversion and Russification of the Caucasus.

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

    In short, you’ve torn up the kind of big, multiethnic empire Putin has been trying to build in this century, you’re left with a “Little Russia” nation-state.
     
    This "multinational empire" trope is overdone. Russia is 83% Slavic, which is considerably more than the US is non-Hispanic White.

    Only a relatively small subsection of "liberal nationalists" such as Navalny want a "Little Russia."

    Most of the rest, including Solzhenitsyn and Ilyin, have supported and continue to support the return of territories of the triune Russian nation (Ukraine, Belorussia, North Kazakhstan), which amongst other things would raise the Slavic percentage to close to 90%.

    As you’ve written a number of times, AK, Putin’s policies are a balancing act. The main consideration is not to do anything that might enable his enemies to promote unrest and undermine the state.
    Given the overwhelming hostility of the US to Russia throughout this century, given the US promotion of Colour Coded Revolutions in Eastern Europe and elsewhere, that is a very sensible policy.
    There will be, there can only be, changes to this policy when the US finally implodes economically sometime later this decade. The Neocon threat will vanish. Also the deteriorating economic situation elsewhere will result in more forceful policies, not only in Russia but in European countries too.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. Dan Hayes says:
    @Owen
    I'm afraid you are objectively wrong about Kerouac and the beat poets. Kerouac chose the name "beat" from "beatus" the Latin for blessed (it's not widely reported by Kerouac identified as Catholic almost all his life). If anything, the beats were "Whitman's wild children" to quote one article I recall from College; staring wide eyed at the stars, jazz, and sex. In the US at least, the post-WWII era was one of optimism, though Europe certainly felt differently (because they had experience such direct damage to their cities).

    I would also object to claims that it's becoming harder to believe in a creator God. More and more scientific findings have clarified just how unlikely a planet capable of supporting life really is (witness how recent frenzy over newly discovered Trappist I planets quieted down once it became clear they too were likely not habitable and much of the "earth-like" descriptions derived from an overly-enthusiastic artist's rendering). The only way to dodge the seeming "fine-tuning" of the universe is to postulate a multi-verse; for which there is no evidence or justification except that it avoids bringing God into the equation.

    Likewise, the "modified" Christianity you speak of sounds indistinguishable from Gnosticism, which has been tried and failed so to speak since it never created a successful civilization but only small cult-like enclaves. The traditional Theravada Buddhism is a religion of despair honestly, with no hope except release from life and the endless cycles of birth.

    Look at the religion that is now most successful, Islam, and you find none of these things. Instead you see a religion that gives a good-evil narrative, belief in the goodness of the physical, a rigid set of guidelines to guide society and behavior, and absolute faith in the rightness of their beliefs. I would argue Christianity provides a better version of this narrative, but something like it seems the way forward, not the despairing faith you describe.

    Owen:

    I agree with you regarding Kerouac’s Catholicism. I remember that he was brandishing rosary beads in an interview near the end of his life (probably induced by alcoholism). I happened to be in his native Lowell, Massachusetts at the time of his death and his funeral in a local Catholic church. I happened to meet a young Lowell man about this time who was so proud of being distantly related to Kerouac.

    Fred Hoyle at the end of his life was struck by the “fine tuning” of the universe. As you pointed out, the only way around this fact are to postulate multiple universes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon 2
    Kerouac basically drank himself to death and
    died at 47, and neither his flirtation with Buddhism
    in the 1950s, nor his return to Catholicism after
    a traumatic experience at Big Sur in 1960, helped
    him. Neal Cassady, hero of On the Road, died at 41,
    and weeeks or months before he died, he said, "Don't live
    like I did." I don't think traditional Christianity, Catholic,
    Protestant, or Orthodox is working for people anymore,
    but I remain optimistic in that I think modified forms of
    Christianity that emphasize spiritual practice like meditation,
    contemplation, or affirmations, will survive and continue into
    the foreseeable future.

    As the Harvard theologian Harvey Cox argued in his book Turning
    East, people today want results, and meditation, etc give you
    immediate results, so people will gravitate to those forms of
    Christianity that emphasize contemplative practice. Of course,
    many people will resist this trend
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. AP says:
    @bored identity
    It's geography,stupid.


    But, then again, you are American Pole, aren't you?

    It’s geography,stupid.

    Ukraine indeed borders Poland and its capital is closer to Warsaw than it is to Moscow. So?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. AP says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    This (ethnic/Muslim considerations) is like the 17th most important reason for the Maidan.

    For instance, this is what the Maidan elites would love to do:

    http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2015/11/06/light-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel-resettle-syrian-refugees-in-ukraine/

    The only thing stopping them, of course, is that Afghans and Somalis have zero desire to live in Ukraine.

    This (ethnic/Muslim considerations) is like the 17th most important reason for the Maidan.

    Specifically that aspect – yes. But choosing Europe vs. Eurasia was close to the top. Ukrainian nationalists like to use a term for Eurasia that is a bit different – Azyopa.

    For instance, this is what the Maidan elites would love to do:

    http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2015/11/06/light-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel-resettle-syrian-refugees-in-ukraine/

    I couldn’t get through the paywall to read the article, but the author wasn’t a known person of any consequence.

    Some Ukrainians have a soft spot for Crimean Tatars but they are not really crazy about Caucasians, Central Asians, or other Muslims. They are basically no different from Poles.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon 2
    I noticed some Ukrainians have recently posted on Facebook: Dochekalis'
    Bezvizu! (Finally visa-free travel!) referring to the recent EU vote to
    give visa-waiver status to Ukrainians visiting the EU as tourists (without
    the ability to work). This will probably be approved by a general EU vote
    in June. I know that the Polish EU M.P. Saryusz Wolski has been
    indefatigable in his support for Ukraine, including the question of visas.

    Poland is currently hosting over a million Ukrainian workers and students,
    and growing numbers of Belarusians and Russians. There are some cynics
    in Poland who say that it's all a question of self-interest - that the Ukrainians
    would rather work in Germany, France or Britain, and as soon as visa-free
    travel is approved, the Ukrainians will simply move to W. Europe and work
    there as illegals in the underground economy. On the other hand, Poland which
    has a severe labor shortage would like as many Polanders as possible to come
    home - even 100,000 would be nice.

    What is your sense as to what is going to happen after visa-free travel is approved?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. I have written a guide to Russian nationalism:

    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/russian-nationalism-101/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sid
    To clarify, Russia is a massive, massive country, so the "Little Russia" remark is tongue-in-cheek.

    Even so, if you were to incorporate predominately ethnic Russian regions within the former Soviet Union into the Russian Federation, you'd still have a significantly smaller country than the Soviet Union, especially when you consider what fell within its sphere of influence, such as the Warsaw Pact countries and great swathes of China the USSR dominated before and after WWII, such as Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia. Let's not even talk about the size of the Russian Empire.

    So ultimately, any effort to reconstitute a "Russian nation" will amount to less territory than one to rebuild the Russian Empire or USSR. Again, it'd still be a massive country, but not as great as the multiethnic polities.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. “Putin Sponsors Muslim Migration”

    Excuse me? I know for a fact this headline is factually incorrect. Russian state doesn’t sponsor Muslim immigration. There is no welfare, government-subsidised housing and other programs to accomodate the migrants. While Russia has visa-free regime with Central Asia, there is nothing like US diversity visa lottery, when non-white people are encouraged to move to the country solely on the basis of being non-white.

    As a Russian, I reject the moral equivalence between Western and Russian regimes. While Vladimir Putin is not an ethnic nationalist, he is not actively at war with his people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Russian state doesn’t sponsor Muslim immigration. There is no welfare, government-subsidised housing and other programs to accomodate the migrants.
     
    On the other hand, Chechens enjoy special status.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. @The Anti-Gnostic
    Britain and France need to get rid of their nukes now, like the Boers did in South Africa before turning power over to the democratic majority.

    Much more importantly, America needs to have its nuclear weapons removed ASAP. When the US collapses economically later this decade, it will collapse politically and be partitioned. The thought of California’s mestizos controlling the state’s nukes is not a happy one. The thought of Neocon groups with their own personal nuclear weapons is horrifying. Think: Zuckerberg with his own nuclear missile station next to his ranch in Hawaii. Or his and her nukes – for Kagan and Nuland.
    Fortunately, Russia will disarm these bandits. It will become the most powerful military power in the world, but will not act as a unipower. It will look after its vital interests, as will China.
    European countries will formulate sensible policies on borders, immigration and trade and will recover. Even White Americans will recover slowly, albeit in several partitioned states and from a low standard of living, like present day’s Ukraine.
    God Bless Vladimir Vladimirovich

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "When the US collapses economically later this decade, it will collapse politically and be partitioned."

    No. First, the elites have "In Case Of Emergency, Break Glass" contingency plans. Second, perhaps low-T white males will each transform into the Hulk if there is an epic political and economic collapse. And this partitioning fantasy is bedroom Alt-Right talk.

    "The thought of California’s mestizos controlling the state’s nukes is not a happy one."

    Rest assured, whites will still be in control of the codes. Now, if you are so scared of this prospect, perhaps you ought to join the military and ensure that this catastrophe fails to materialize.

    "The thought of Neocon groups with their own personal nuclear weapons is horrifying. Think: Zuckerberg with his own nuclear missile station next to his ranch in Hawaii. Or his and her nukes – for Kagan and Nuland."

    Yes, Jews and banksters have their own personal nuclear toys at their disposal. I suggest you submit your work to Castalia House.

    "Fortunately, Russia will disarm these bandits. It will become the most powerful military power in the world, but will not act as a unipower. It will look after its vital interests, as will China. European countries will formulate sensible policies on borders, immigration and trade and will recover. Even White Americans will recover slowly, albeit in several partitioned states and from a low standard of living, like present day’s Ukraine."

    Take another swig of Vodka.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. @Diversity Heretic
    Reading this poem sometimes cheers me up, particularly the third stanza. Unfortunately, I don't know the author of the poem, but I remember John Derbyshire citing it.

    Say not the struggle naught availeth,
    The labour and the wounds are vain,
    The enemy faints not, nor faileth,
    And as things have been they remain.

    If hopes were dupes, fears may be liars;
    It may be, in yon smoke conceal'd,
    Your comrades chase e'en now the fliers,
    And, but for you, possess the field.

    For while the tired waves, vainly breaking,
    Seem here no painful inch to gain,
    Far back, through creeks and inlets making,
    Comes silent, flooding in, the main.

    And not by eastern windows only,
    When daylight comes, comes in the light;
    In front the sun climbs slow, how slowly!
    But westward, look, the land is bright!

    Arthur Hugh Clough is the poet.

    See here for links to more information:

    https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems-and-poets/poems/detail/43959

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. Sid says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    I have written a guide to Russian nationalism:

    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/russian-nationalism-101/

    To clarify, Russia is a massive, massive country, so the “Little Russia” remark is tongue-in-cheek.

    Even so, if you were to incorporate predominately ethnic Russian regions within the former Soviet Union into the Russian Federation, you’d still have a significantly smaller country than the Soviet Union, especially when you consider what fell within its sphere of influence, such as the Warsaw Pact countries and great swathes of China the USSR dominated before and after WWII, such as Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia. Let’s not even talk about the size of the Russian Empire.

    So ultimately, any effort to reconstitute a “Russian nation” will amount to less territory than one to rebuild the Russian Empire or USSR. Again, it’d still be a massive country, but not as great as the multiethnic polities.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. AP says:
    @Felix Keverich
    "Putin Sponsors Muslim Migration"

    Excuse me? I know for a fact this headline is factually incorrect. Russian state doesn't sponsor Muslim immigration. There is no welfare, government-subsidised housing and other programs to accomodate the migrants. While Russia has visa-free regime with Central Asia, there is nothing like US diversity visa lottery, when non-white people are encouraged to move to the country solely on the basis of being non-white.

    As a Russian, I reject the moral equivalence between Western and Russian regimes. While Vladimir Putin is not an ethnic nationalist, he is not actively at war with his people.

    Russian state doesn’t sponsor Muslim immigration. There is no welfare, government-subsidised housing and other programs to accomodate the migrants.

    On the other hand, Chechens enjoy special status.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. @JohnnyD
    I never really understood why Putin gets so much praise from many white nationalists, or why he makes Jewish liberals so hysterical. He's actually pretty moderate when it comes to racial/ethnic issues. Also, Russia Today (RT) provides mostly a left-wing critique of America's foreign policy; it's hardly the alt-right propaganda network of Hillary's fevered imagination.

    He seems to be a pro-Christian nationalist with no pervert agenda.

    What’s not to like?

    As the Yiddites would say?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. @Sid
    No, but he'd be more predictable, which is what world leaders ultimate like in one another. The EU and the media might hiss at Orban, but they rarely say he's "Literally Hitler" as they do with Trump and Putin.

    Just why should the citizens of Yiddishstan decide who the Russians choose?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. @Anon 2
    19th century optimism and faith in progress are not
    coming back. We know too much now. First the
    optimism was shattered by WW I and produced the
    Lost Generation (Hemingway, etc). Then any remaining
    optimism was shattered once again by WW II and produced
    the Beat Generation (i.e., beaten by life - Kerouac, etc) and
    the postwar preoccupation with existentialism, particularly
    in Europe (Sartre, Camus, ...). Then came the 1960s and the
    massive abandonment of mainline Christian denominations
    in the U.S. to the extent that Rod Dreher in his blog and in his
    latest book The Benedictine Option speaks of post-Christian
    America, and he is not the only one among Christians. We are
    disillusioned because we live in an unimpressive universe. The
    Age of Genius is gone because the brightest among us are no
    longer impressed by the Universe or by human nature.

    Many people draw the conclusion that we need to reject the
    claim that the Universe was created by God, made by the Book
    of Genesis, and go back to the ancient Greek philosophers who
    laughed at the Jewish claim that the world was created by the
    Supreme Being. After Darwin and the Two World Wars, fewer
    and fewer people are willing to accept that the world was created
    by God. This eliminates not only traditional Christianity but all
    Abrahamic religions.

    But there is a new movement that sees our disillusionment as the
    necessary part of growing up. Buddhism, for example, doesn't require
    a creator God. A Course in Miracles (1976), all 1250 pages of it, is another
    example of a modified Christianity which retains the idea of God but
    says that ultimately the world is an illusion, and was not created by God.
    Physics, in fact, is moving in the direction of the Universe as an illusion,
    as virtual reality of sort in which space and time are seen not as
    fundamental but as emergent qualities that our mind creates for our
    amusement. Immanuel Kant was already hinting at this in his system

    What a tissue of lies you have issued. When you swim in the Lake, remember that you chose sides as an act of your will – and you have no excuse.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. @Hector_St_Clare
    It's not contradiction, it's opportunism. If you saw that "Byzantium" documentary some years ago, narrated by Putin's confessor Tikhon Shevkunov, the strategy was laid out pretty plainly.
    "Russia must use the west against the east, and use the east against the west."

    From the point of view of a neo-Byzantinist like Shevkunov, both Islam and the West are twin enemies of the Third Rome, and neither is a friend: they're to be used against each other as the opportunity present itself.

    He would seem to be right that the West and Islam are both enemies of Russia.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. @Anon
    Fair enough. I don't like Islam. But Christianity failed to stop homomania. It has proven to be weak.

    Because Christianity is a pacifist religion, it can only survive with a pact with the Power. Christianity is cult of powerlessness wedded to Power. It's been so since the era of Emperor Constantine. If Christianity is followed to the letter, it is a death suicide cult.

    As the Power, economic and military, of the West has gone over to Jews, globalists, and homos, the result is Christianity no longer has a direct line to the Power. It is turning sappy. What is Christianity about today? It's about cuckish men adopting mulatto kids of white women who go black. I see it all around. No one respects this sappy cult anymore. Do-goodiness without spine and muscle get no respect.

    It still has some power in Russia cuz it's wedded to the Power. The state.

    Islam, in contrast, can survive on its own because it is combination of spiritual prophecy and warrior cult. The will to power is written into its very DNA.

    Christianity says "don't fight, turn the other cheek, and feel holier than thou"... and rely on warriors to kick butt for you and protect you. As long as this arrangement was kept, it thrived. But once it was cut off from the Power(that is now more invested in Zionism, homomania, afromania, and MLK cult and Mandela cult and pop culture), Christianity in the West is dying fast. Today's kids worship Oprah more than Jesus.

    In contrast, Islam says, "pray when you have to, fight when you have to." It is a total package.
    Problem is it has too many dumb laws and customs.

    What Christianity needs to do is gain warrior cult. So far, it forged an alliance with warrior cult while maintaining its creed as pacifist. This only opened it to accusations of hypocrisy.

    What Islam needs is to lose it so many archaic laws and food, dress, and no beer. Who needs all that baggage?

    Is Chrislam the answer?

    I think the best solution is Covenantism. Let each people become like the Jews. They should arrive at their own covenant with God, the higher being, the ultimate power, or etc.

    So, far the three options have been possible (1) Jews got Covenant with God (2) all of humanity are same under God (3) paganism that rejects the notion of One God.

    Fourth option: How about "each people should have their own special and unique covenant with God?" Who says there can be only ONE covenant? There is only one sun, but each nation has its own unique relation to it. Sweden gets sun differently from Mexico, and etc.

    Anyway, while I don't like Islam, I don't see it as worse than the total filth that has become modern culture. We went from John Ford and Akira Kurosawa to Bruce Caitlyn Jenner and George Takei. Why should we take advice from Bruce and George? What makes them such fountains of wisdom? Bruce thinks he's a gal and George wants to play wifey. I don't mind there being trannies and homos. They've always existed, and they contributed stuff to humanity tool But why put such stuff at the CENTER or CORE of civilization? Homomania has made 'gay worship' the core tenet of 'western values'.

    Islam is tyranny and no freedom. Current West is freedom turned into decadent dementia.

    If Christianity is followed to the letter, it is a death suicide cult.

    Your rigid fundamentalism is misguided. The kind of literalism you describe with a “followed to the letter” approach would have rendered all Christians bereft of eyes and hands. Hyperbole was the tool of instruction to a people that would not have made your mistake.

    Your misreading has skewed your perspective. Reject the pacifist heresies peddled by the Leftist “Christians” and adhere to the orthodox understanding of Christianity.

    Or, if you prefer, burn in Hell. After all, you earned it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. Anon 2 says:

    For those who want to get to know real Russia,
    and not the unrepresentative city-state like Moscow,
    I’d like to recommend a recent post on Return of Kings
    (Roosh V): “9 cultural elements to consider before traveling
    or moving to Russia” (March 30, 2017) by Jean Poqueliche.

    He noticed the usual things that Westerners notice after
    spending some time in Russia:

    - Corrupt cops: an encounter with a Russian cop in a bad mood
    can cost you $100-150 if you’re lucky;

    - Sons and daughters of oligarchs run over people while drunk
    with virtual impunity;

    - Everything (esp. sex) is for sale and everything is negotiable;

    - Extremely poor work ethic: drunk bus drivers, clerks asleep on
    the job, low-quality workmanship reflected in general shabbiness -
    buildings, roads, curbs, all tend to look shabby;

    - Rudeness – you don’t need to be polite to someone you don’t know;

    - Men start going to seed already in their 30s, and drink themselves to death
    at such staggering rates that millions of women are left without partners.

    Poqueliche is a Frenchman who moved permanently to Poland because
    he was impressed by the abundance of martial arts studios in Poland as
    compared to France, and by the general warrior spirit in Poland

    Read More
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    What are Ukrainians like?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. Hunsdon says:
    @Sid
    Part of what makes Putin a dangerous SOB is that he will endorse two conflicting philosophies, according to what best suits him.

    One of the reasons why Putin has such a infamous reputation as a nationalist on the left (and a glowing one for that reason on the alt-right) is that he annexed Crimea on the grounds that ethnic Russians live there, and the Russian ethnicity has been artificially separated across numerous borders.

    On the other hand, the reason why he annexed Crimea is that Ukraine didn't want to join his big, multiethnic, increasingly Muslim empire.

    That's ultimately why so few world leaders can get along with Putin. He endorses contradictory philosophies and picks and chooses from them according to his immediate interests. Maybe we do that too, but he does it so brazenly and unabashedly that he's a wild card.

    Also, Crimea is home to Black Sea Fleet. Somehow, everyone always skips over that little detail.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sid
    What makes the Russian Federation so special? If Ukrainian are Russians, and part of the Russian nation, why should affairs be directed from Moscow? Why not Kiev? Why do Putinists get to decide what goes where? Why not the Maidanists?

    Why are the Russian nationalists right and the Ukrainian nationalists wrong? If it's just a cynical manner of might makes right, then why shouldn't the U.S. support Ukrainians to keep the Russian nation weak and divided? Frankly, I like not having a rival to the U.S. the way the Soviet Union was.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. Anon 2 says:
    @AP

    This (ethnic/Muslim considerations) is like the 17th most important reason for the Maidan.
     
    Specifically that aspect - yes. But choosing Europe vs. Eurasia was close to the top. Ukrainian nationalists like to use a term for Eurasia that is a bit different - Azyopa.

    For instance, this is what the Maidan elites would love to do:

    http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2015/11/06/light-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel-resettle-syrian-refugees-in-ukraine/

     

    I couldn't get through the paywall to read the article, but the author wasn't a known person of any consequence.

    Some Ukrainians have a soft spot for Crimean Tatars but they are not really crazy about Caucasians, Central Asians, or other Muslims. They are basically no different from Poles.

    I noticed some Ukrainians have recently posted on Facebook: Dochekalis’
    Bezvizu! (Finally visa-free travel!) referring to the recent EU vote to
    give visa-waiver status to Ukrainians visiting the EU as tourists (without
    the ability to work). This will probably be approved by a general EU vote
    in June. I know that the Polish EU M.P. Saryusz Wolski has been
    indefatigable in his support for Ukraine, including the question of visas.

    Poland is currently hosting over a million Ukrainian workers and students,
    and growing numbers of Belarusians and Russians. There are some cynics
    in Poland who say that it’s all a question of self-interest – that the Ukrainians
    would rather work in Germany, France or Britain, and as soon as visa-free
    travel is approved, the Ukrainians will simply move to W. Europe and work
    there as illegals in the underground economy. On the other hand, Poland which
    has a severe labor shortage would like as many Polanders as possible to come
    home – even 100,000 would be nice.

    What is your sense as to what is going to happen after visa-free travel is approved?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. Anon 2 says:
    @Dan Hayes
    Owen:

    I agree with you regarding Kerouac's Catholicism. I remember that he was brandishing rosary beads in an interview near the end of his life (probably induced by alcoholism). I happened to be in his native Lowell, Massachusetts at the time of his death and his funeral in a local Catholic church. I happened to meet a young Lowell man about this time who was so proud of being distantly related to Kerouac.

    Fred Hoyle at the end of his life was struck by the "fine tuning" of the universe. As you pointed out, the only way around this fact are to postulate multiple universes.

    Kerouac basically drank himself to death and
    died at 47, and neither his flirtation with Buddhism
    in the 1950s, nor his return to Catholicism after
    a traumatic experience at Big Sur in 1960, helped
    him. Neal Cassady, hero of On the Road, died at 41,
    and weeeks or months before he died, he said, “Don’t live
    like I did.” I don’t think traditional Christianity, Catholic,
    Protestant, or Orthodox is working for people anymore,
    but I remain optimistic in that I think modified forms of
    Christianity that emphasize spiritual practice like meditation,
    contemplation, or affirmations, will survive and continue into
    the foreseeable future.

    As the Harvard theologian Harvey Cox argued in his book Turning
    East, people today want results, and meditation, etc give you
    immediate results, so people will gravitate to those forms of
    Christianity that emphasize contemplative practice. Of course,
    many people will resist this trend

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    Anon 2,

    Thank you for your thoughtful and well thought out response.

    I suppose I am one who resist the trend you so very well describe.

    BTW, Kerouac's Lowell funeral was a 4 star production being the headline of the day in the Lowell Sun!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. @Anon 2
    For those who want to get to know real Russia,
    and not the unrepresentative city-state like Moscow,
    I'd like to recommend a recent post on Return of Kings
    (Roosh V): "9 cultural elements to consider before traveling
    or moving to Russia" (March 30, 2017) by Jean Poqueliche.

    He noticed the usual things that Westerners notice after
    spending some time in Russia:

    - Corrupt cops: an encounter with a Russian cop in a bad mood
    can cost you $100-150 if you're lucky;

    - Sons and daughters of oligarchs run over people while drunk
    with virtual impunity;

    - Everything (esp. sex) is for sale and everything is negotiable;

    - Extremely poor work ethic: drunk bus drivers, clerks asleep on
    the job, low-quality workmanship reflected in general shabbiness -
    buildings, roads, curbs, all tend to look shabby;

    - Rudeness - you don't need to be polite to someone you don't know;

    - Men start going to seed already in their 30s, and drink themselves to death
    at such staggering rates that millions of women are left without partners.

    Poqueliche is a Frenchman who moved permanently to Poland because
    he was impressed by the abundance of martial arts studios in Poland as
    compared to France, and by the general warrior spirit in Poland

    What are Ukrainians like?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon 2
    I don't really know what the Ukrainians are like, I'm not Ukrainian
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. Corvinus says:
    @Verymuchalive
    Much more importantly, America needs to have its nuclear weapons removed ASAP. When the US collapses economically later this decade, it will collapse politically and be partitioned. The thought of California's mestizos controlling the state's nukes is not a happy one. The thought of Neocon groups with their own personal nuclear weapons is horrifying. Think: Zuckerberg with his own nuclear missile station next to his ranch in Hawaii. Or his and her nukes - for Kagan and Nuland.
    Fortunately, Russia will disarm these bandits. It will become the most powerful military power in the world, but will not act as a unipower. It will look after its vital interests, as will China.
    European countries will formulate sensible policies on borders, immigration and trade and will recover. Even White Americans will recover slowly, albeit in several partitioned states and from a low standard of living, like present day's Ukraine.
    God Bless Vladimir Vladimirovich

    “When the US collapses economically later this decade, it will collapse politically and be partitioned.”

    No. First, the elites have “In Case Of Emergency, Break Glass” contingency plans. Second, perhaps low-T white males will each transform into the Hulk if there is an epic political and economic collapse. And this partitioning fantasy is bedroom Alt-Right talk.

    “The thought of California’s mestizos controlling the state’s nukes is not a happy one.”

    Rest assured, whites will still be in control of the codes. Now, if you are so scared of this prospect, perhaps you ought to join the military and ensure that this catastrophe fails to materialize.

    “The thought of Neocon groups with their own personal nuclear weapons is horrifying. Think: Zuckerberg with his own nuclear missile station next to his ranch in Hawaii. Or his and her nukes – for Kagan and Nuland.”

    Yes, Jews and banksters have their own personal nuclear toys at their disposal. I suggest you submit your work to Castalia House.

    “Fortunately, Russia will disarm these bandits. It will become the most powerful military power in the world, but will not act as a unipower. It will look after its vital interests, as will China. European countries will formulate sensible policies on borders, immigration and trade and will recover. Even White Americans will recover slowly, albeit in several partitioned states and from a low standard of living, like present day’s Ukraine.”

    Take another swig of Vodka.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. Dan Hayes says:
    @Anon 2
    Kerouac basically drank himself to death and
    died at 47, and neither his flirtation with Buddhism
    in the 1950s, nor his return to Catholicism after
    a traumatic experience at Big Sur in 1960, helped
    him. Neal Cassady, hero of On the Road, died at 41,
    and weeeks or months before he died, he said, "Don't live
    like I did." I don't think traditional Christianity, Catholic,
    Protestant, or Orthodox is working for people anymore,
    but I remain optimistic in that I think modified forms of
    Christianity that emphasize spiritual practice like meditation,
    contemplation, or affirmations, will survive and continue into
    the foreseeable future.

    As the Harvard theologian Harvey Cox argued in his book Turning
    East, people today want results, and meditation, etc give you
    immediate results, so people will gravitate to those forms of
    Christianity that emphasize contemplative practice. Of course,
    many people will resist this trend

    Anon 2,

    Thank you for your thoughtful and well thought out response.

    I suppose I am one who resist the trend you so very well describe.

    BTW, Kerouac’s Lowell funeral was a 4 star production being the headline of the day in the Lowell Sun!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. Sid says:
    @Hunsdon
    Also, Crimea is home to Black Sea Fleet. Somehow, everyone always skips over that little detail.

    What makes the Russian Federation so special? If Ukrainian are Russians, and part of the Russian nation, why should affairs be directed from Moscow? Why not Kiev? Why do Putinists get to decide what goes where? Why not the Maidanists?

    Why are the Russian nationalists right and the Ukrainian nationalists wrong? If it’s just a cynical manner of might makes right, then why shouldn’t the U.S. support Ukrainians to keep the Russian nation weak and divided? Frankly, I like not having a rival to the U.S. the way the Soviet Union was.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic

    What makes the Russian Federation so special?
     
    Nukes, and they're smarter than Ukes.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. Anon 2 says:
    @Opinionator
    What are Ukrainians like?

    I don’t really know what the Ukrainians are like, I’m not Ukrainian

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. @Sid
    What makes the Russian Federation so special? If Ukrainian are Russians, and part of the Russian nation, why should affairs be directed from Moscow? Why not Kiev? Why do Putinists get to decide what goes where? Why not the Maidanists?

    Why are the Russian nationalists right and the Ukrainian nationalists wrong? If it's just a cynical manner of might makes right, then why shouldn't the U.S. support Ukrainians to keep the Russian nation weak and divided? Frankly, I like not having a rival to the U.S. the way the Soviet Union was.

    What makes the Russian Federation so special?

    Nukes, and they’re smarter than Ukes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sid
    The Russian Federation having nukes is just realpolitik. It doesn't make their territorial claims just or unjust.

    I can believe that Russians, in the aggregate, are marginally brighter than Ukrainians (Ukraine is practically dilapidated, so there's a huge brain drain; the people with the highest human capital had good reason to go to Moscow). That said, it's a far, far cry from, say, the Aussies pushing out the Aborigines and taking the best land in Australia, where Social Darwinism makes arguments your moral center doesn't want to hear.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. RexLex says:
    @JohnnyD
    I never really understood why Putin gets so much praise from many white nationalists, or why he makes Jewish liberals so hysterical. He's actually pretty moderate when it comes to racial/ethnic issues. Also, Russia Today (RT) provides mostly a left-wing critique of America's foreign policy; it's hardly the alt-right propaganda network of Hillary's fevered imagination.

    It’s because he isn’t into empire building. Russia learned its lesson from the USSR collapse. Empire ends badly and he has gone head to head with the country’s oligarchs, sometimes subduing them, sometimes befriending them, but always controlling them.

    America will figure this out in the next 40 years.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. Sid says:
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    What makes the Russian Federation so special?
     
    Nukes, and they're smarter than Ukes.

    The Russian Federation having nukes is just realpolitik. It doesn’t make their territorial claims just or unjust.

    I can believe that Russians, in the aggregate, are marginally brighter than Ukrainians (Ukraine is practically dilapidated, so there’s a huge brain drain; the people with the highest human capital had good reason to go to Moscow). That said, it’s a far, far cry from, say, the Aussies pushing out the Aborigines and taking the best land in Australia, where Social Darwinism makes arguments your moral center doesn’t want to hear.

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

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
A simple remedy for income stagnation