The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Who Said "Who? Whom?" Lenin, Trotsky, or Stalin?
🔊 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

I’ve long argued that the underlying trend in the modern world is the long downfall from the belief in objective principles for determining winners and losers to the subjective belief that all that matters is that there are Good Guys and Bad Guys (increasingly whomever hasn’t yet engaged in Flight from White: i.e., currently cishet white males, but no doubt in the future the phrase will be even longer) and that the Good Guys must win, by hook or by crook.

Back in the old days, the Marxists made complicated efforts to prove that they were the Good Guys according to their conception of an objective science of history, but once their Good Guyness was proven to their satisfaction, their being the Subjects of History entitled them to perpetrate upon the Bad Guy Objects of History whatever transitive verbs they felt like.

Hayek attributed the saying “Who? Whom?” to Lenin; but according to Wikipedia the evolution of that phrase seems to have involved all three of the most famous Bolsheviks.

Lenin is supposed to have stated at the second All-Russian Congress of Political Education Departments, on 17 October 1921,

Весь вопрос — кто кого опередит?
“The whole question is — who will overtake whom?”

In 1925 Trotsky reminded listeners that Lenin was speaking of socialism vs. capitalism:

the historical question was formulated by Lenin in two pronouns – “who whom?”

During the mid-1920s, Stalin successfully argued that Trotsky’s anti-peasant radicalism was too dangerous, but as soon as he had defeated Trotsky, Stalin appropriated Trotsky’s disastrous program of collectivizing agriculture, which led to the famine in the Ukraine in the early 1930s. From The Cambridge History of Russia:

“Stalin presented the mass collectivisation of 1929-30 as the triumphal outcome of Lenin’s kto-kogo scenario. Kto-kogo acquired its aura of hard-line coercion from Stalin’s use of it during this period: ‘we live by the formula of Lenin – kto-kovo: will we knock them, the capitalists, flat and give them (as Lenin expresses it) the final, decisive battle, or will they knock us flat?’ Yet Stalin’s claim to embody the original spirit of kto-kogo contains some paradoxes. Lenin and the Bolshevik leaders who picked up on his phrase had used kto-kogo to justify an economic competition with the Nepmen who dominated trade activities – a competition that would result in new forms of agricultural production only after an extremely high level of industrial technology was available. Stalin used kto-kogo to justify a policy of mass coercion against peasant kulaks to implant collective farms long before industry reached a high level.”

So, it was Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin, with Stalin stripping away the semi-euphemistic facade to make clear the underlying meaning.

 
Hide 108 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. guest says:

    Lying behind the who/whom question there’s a sense of “we better win, because if the other guy wins he’ll have us in the gulag/concentration camp.” Which is weird, because in all the recent Current Years of American history there’s been little threat of mass purges to the losing side of political contests. But it makes more sense in the Bolshevik context, as they ended up fighting actual wars to take and maintain control of countries. Who knows what the Whites would’ve done had they won instead.

    Except we know what the Tsar did. The Bolsheviks were outlaws frequently arrested in the days before the October Coups. Political criminals were subject to torture and execution, but Lenin and his buddies most often got exile or banishment to remote villages where they could study the arch of history and hobnob with peasants. Not exactly a Whom horror story.

    Which makes me wonder whence all the breathless Whom fear derives. Projection, obviously. They knew what they’d do with power. Maybe also the specter of the pogrom for Jewish bolshies. Yet another of their contributions to modern paranoia?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Lenin's older brother was executed by the Tsar on dubious charges when he was a young man.
    , @Bill

    Except we know what the Tsar did.
     
    We know he did not remotely enough. This is a theme of the right over the last few centuries. When it has power, it is too squeamish to destroy its enemies.
    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/who-said-who-whom-lenin-trotsky-or-stalin/#comment-1909685
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Stalin successfully argued that Trotsky’s anti-peasant radicalism was too dangerous, but as soon as he had defeated Trotsky, Stalin appropriated Trotsky’s disastrous program of collectivizing agriculture, which led to the famine in the Ukraine in the early 1930s.

    So even though the Jew did not do it, the Jew gets blamed.

    Read More
    • Agree: (((Owen)))
    • Replies: @mukat
    Oh? Who wrote Stalin's speeches and who ran his security services?
    , @Jenner Ickham Errican
    It seems “the Jew” would have done it, but got personally pwned first. Possibly some other Jews were involved with the Ultra SlimFast affair. I believe one of them comments here at Unz.

    BTW no one extols Stalin as being some innocent guy—quite the opposite.
    , @Cagey Beast
    "Aren't we amazing??" "Aren't we blameless??" "Aren't we at the centre of the Universe??" "Isn't it shameful how you people blame us for everything??" All rhetorical questions, by the way.
    , @27 year old
    >So even though the Jew did not do it, the Jew gets blamed.


    Let me go up on the roof and play the worlds smallest fiddle
    , @guest
    A. Trotsky was not the only Jew involved.

    B. He did his share of evil when he had the chance, and would've gladly done worse.
    , @fnn
    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3342999,00.html

    And us, the Jews? An Israeli student finishes high school without ever hearing the name "Genrikh Yagoda," the greatest Jewish murderer of the 20th Century, the GPU's deputy commander and the founder and commander of the NKVD. Yagoda diligently implemented Stalin's collectivization orders and is responsible for the deaths of at least 10 million people. His Jewish deputies established and managed the Gulag system.
     

    Stalin's close associates and loyalists included member of the Central Committee and Politburo Lazar Kaganovich. Montefiore characterizes him as the "first Stalinist" and adds that those starving to death in Ukraine, an unparalleled tragedy in the history of human kind aside from the Nazi horrors and Mao's terror in China, did not move Kaganovich.

    Many Jews sold their soul to the devil of the Communist revolution and have blood on their hands for eternity. We'll mention just one more: Leonid Reichman, head of the NKVD's special department and the organization's chief interrogator, who was a particularly cruel sadist.

    In 1934, according to published statistics, 38.5 percent of those holding the most senior posts in the Soviet security apparatuses were of Jewish origin. They too, of course, were gradually eliminated in the next purges. In a fascinating lecture at a Tel Aviv University convention this week, Dr. Halfin described the waves of soviet terror as a "carnival of mass murder," "fantasy of purges", and "messianism of evil."
     
    , @Bill
    Trotsky: less murderous than Stalin
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. mobi says:

    The trouble with objective principles for determining winners and losers is that there will be losers, and losing in the status competition game is serious business.

    And since we are inevitably a mix of individual and group interests, both equally valid, it will always be in the interests of the losers to gain strength of numbers by embracing whatever group affiliations are not available to the winners, and using them to try to overturn the objective verdict by the only realistic means of victory ever available to losers – a fist in the face.

    Of course, being losers, the odds tend to be against them, but every now and then, history has a way of disrupting the stability of the status quo – often exogenously – and the loser-groups may indeed succeed, at least for a while, in ‘decapitating’ the society.

    See – the Bolsheviks, the Khmer Rouge, the Red Guards, the Jacobins, etc.

    This is why a fixed, unwavering devotion to objective principles is not only naive, it will, with some predictability, at some point become deadly.

    It must stem from the aforementioned fact that, in the eyes of natural selection, we are not merely independent and principled individuals, we are members of groups, and while there may be no group selection, there most certainly is a major group contribution to individual reproductive fitness.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius

    This is why a fixed, unwavering devotion to objective principles is not only naive, it will, with some predictability, at some point become deadly.
     
    As if there were no correlation between group cohesion and shared devotion to objective principle. It's not the only source of such cohesion, but it's the dominant one in the long run.
    , @Moshe
    Finally an excellent and worthwhile comment in this forum that doesn't whine on about supposedly "moral" principles that - imagine the coincidence! - would , at least on theory, happen to benefit them over their evolutionary competitors.

    As for ourselves, Razib Khan recently came out as declaring himself an idiot for having argued for reason, skepticism, evidence and a search for truth instead of being a good member of the tribe (which to him appears to have meant some tribe of Conservative, including possibly moving to China or India [a bad idea]).

    If it's true for Razib it's true for me.

    The problem however is that people like Razib, myself, OBVIOUSLY Steve and probably a fair handful of other non-crotchety people here is that we have a damn difficult time keeping up the charade.

    I know both Mormons and Ultra-Orthodox Jews who entirely and absolutely disbelieve in the tenets of the faith they dress like, practice in public and around their kin and, in some cases, even teach in schools.

    They benefit from strong social cohesion, the liklihood of marrying a pleasant disease-free girl, having friends whom yoh care about and whi catr about you - for life, not ending up homeless and probably having a bunch of kids that family and friends will help you raise.

    Short of being a Mongolian that's about as pretty good a deal as you can get, both for reproductive posterity and for yourself in your own life.

    But these people (as many fortunate folk here) appear to have some sort of mental distinction that allows them to be freethinkers without being freespeakers.

    For those of us who enjoy communicating however and enjoy rhe company of people and frank and friendly conversations with them about intellectual matters this is tougher to do.

    Yes we can benefit from a tribe.

    No, I don't see us getting one.

    We can join alt right inc. but, as with all tribes, that only works for those tribally inclined and thus easily able to commit to whatever direction this tribe takes, so, even if you agree with every catechism of spencer's (has he manifesto'd yet?) you're just setting yourself up for excommunication in the future.

    So is therr any possible chance of...

    wait, what am I talking about? I jusst congratulated you for a post that eschews nonaense about Right v Wrong precisely BECAUSE it's so uncommon among the commentariot. So who am I even talking to here?

    The commentariot would be wise to join Spencer when his movement appears tenable and also not economic suicide and freethinkers will remain out in the cold.

    Question: Was there ever a time where a couple of thousand Freethinkers grouped together and had each others' backs in a manner that improved their safety, happiness and reproductive success?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. “Do not look in the file of incriminating evidence to see whether or not the accused rose up against the Soviets with arms or words. Ask him instead to which class he belongs, what is his background, his education, his profession. These are the questions that will determine the fate of the accused. That is the meaning and essence of the Red Terror.” (Martin Latsis, head of Ukrainian Cheka)

    Marat said similar things during the French Revolution.

    Then there was Simon Bolivar’s “War to the Death”. Venezualan Royalists, not matter how egregious their crimes, were to be spared. Spaniards, on the other hand, were to be killed without mercy, even if they were neutral.

    The words “class enemy” summarize the history of the left.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ivy
    Some Americans, among others, seem to have trouble grasping the notion that other people think differently. Those differences can be life-threatening, and otherwise detrimental to what we have thought of as civilization.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. @guest
    Lying behind the who/whom question there's a sense of "we better win, because if the other guy wins he'll have us in the gulag/concentration camp." Which is weird, because in all the recent Current Years of American history there's been little threat of mass purges to the losing side of political contests. But it makes more sense in the Bolshevik context, as they ended up fighting actual wars to take and maintain control of countries. Who knows what the Whites would've done had they won instead.

    Except we know what the Tsar did. The Bolsheviks were outlaws frequently arrested in the days before the October Coups. Political criminals were subject to torture and execution, but Lenin and his buddies most often got exile or banishment to remote villages where they could study the arch of history and hobnob with peasants. Not exactly a Whom horror story.

    Which makes me wonder whence all the breathless Whom fear derives. Projection, obviously. They knew what they'd do with power. Maybe also the specter of the pogrom for Jewish bolshies. Yet another of their contributions to modern paranoia?

    Lenin’s older brother was executed by the Tsar on dubious charges when he was a young man.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Gringo
    Lenin’s older brother was executed by the Tsar on dubious charges when he was a young man.

    Not so dubious charges at all: a botched assassination attempt on the Tsar. Socialist Review: Review of Lenin's Brother.


    This is an interesting and readable account of what led to the assassination attempt on Tsar Alexander III in St Petersburg, in which Alexander Ulyanov was centrally involved and for which he was hanged. He was the elder brother of Vladimir Ulyanov (Lenin). The attempt to kill the Tsar would be on the sixth anniversary of the assassination of Tsar Alexander II on 1 March 1887.

    Pomper argues that the influence of background, reading, upbringing, exclusion from political activity through democratic means and group dynamics played the key roles that drew Alexander into the ideas of Narodism. The father of Alexander and Vladimir Ulyanov was Director of Public Schools for Simbirsk and well placed in society. Pomper's contention is that the mixed ethnic background of the family made them to some extent outsiders.
     

    By all accounts, the hanging of his brother played a large role in Lenin's deciding to become a revolutionary. But most people who try to assassinate the Head of State, and fail, get executed. Moreover, it is rather obvious that an assassination attempt made on the anniversary of a successful assassination will be severely dealt with. Nothing dubious at all about that.
    , @Hippopotamusdrome


    Lenin’s older brother was executed by the Tsar on dubious charges

     

    You believe he wasn't involved in building a bomb to assassinate the Tsar?

    You believe he wasn't a member of Narodnaya Volya the organization that assassinated Tsar Alexander II?
    , @nebulafox
    If the left-wing terrorists of late 19th Century Russia wanted a nicer, more democratic environment to operate in, then maybe killing Tsar Alexander II (the guy who liberated the serfs) right as he was about to make major changes to Russia's autocratic government wasn't a really bright move. The intent was to intimidate the Romanovs into making reforms and lessening their power, the practical outcome was precisely the opposite, to the surprise of nobody familiar with the tendencies of that particular dynasty. The last two Tsars of Russia, his son Alexander and grandson Nicholas, both witnessed his assassination and swore that the same thing wouldn't happen to them... because they'd have the Okhrana get the radicals before the radicals got them.

    As was mentioned above, the execution of Lenin's brother sent Lenin's on his path.

    , @guest
    Were the charges dubious? I think it's well agreed-upon that Alexander Ulyanov not only was politically active in the group that conspired to assassinate Alexander III, but also actually worked on the bombs.

    Like I said, the Tsars executed political criminals. But the Bolsheviks generally got off lightly. Not that they were caught conspiring assassination. But Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Bakunin, Molotov, all those guys got exiled, and not even hard labor. These would-be Who's didn't get a millionth of the Whom treatment from the Who of the time as they'd dish out when they got to be Who's.

    They probably saw comrades get shot down for striking and rioting, I guess, which is something.

    , @Anonymous
    The charge was conspiring to overthrow the government by force and violence. It wasn't the Tsar, it was the prosecutor who convicted Lenin and the judge who imposed the sentence of execution.

    Too bad the younger Lenin wasn't executed as well. The entire revolutionary movement in the late 19th century was college professors and upper and middle class students. Sound familiar?

    Lenin's father was a radical as well. He was the superintendent of the schools of an entire province. He was similar to the radicals in the US department of education and the teachers unions.
    , @Desiderius
    The point was that Lenin had valid reason to fear for his life beyond mere projection. As for whether the charges were actually dubious rather than believed to be so by Lenin (the point), I'd say that's the way to bet when it comes to the Okhrana in most matters.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    I find it interesting that in those days a person seeking political asylum could go to Mexico. How come we can’t have that today?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Because he was communist (4th International) and they were communist-lite, but neither were Stalinist.

    Had Franco lost he would not have found refuge in Mexico.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. @mobi
    The trouble with objective principles for determining winners and losers is that there will be losers, and losing in the status competition game is serious business.

    And since we are inevitably a mix of individual and group interests, both equally valid, it will always be in the interests of the losers to gain strength of numbers by embracing whatever group affiliations are not available to the winners, and using them to try to overturn the objective verdict by the only realistic means of victory ever available to losers - a fist in the face.

    Of course, being losers, the odds tend to be against them, but every now and then, history has a way of disrupting the stability of the status quo - often exogenously - and the loser-groups may indeed succeed, at least for a while, in 'decapitating' the society.

    See - the Bolsheviks, the Khmer Rouge, the Red Guards, the Jacobins, etc.

    This is why a fixed, unwavering devotion to objective principles is not only naive, it will, with some predictability, at some point become deadly.

    It must stem from the aforementioned fact that, in the eyes of natural selection, we are not merely independent and principled individuals, we are members of groups, and while there may be no group selection, there most certainly is a major group contribution to individual reproductive fitness.

    This is why a fixed, unwavering devotion to objective principles is not only naive, it will, with some predictability, at some point become deadly.

    As if there were no correlation between group cohesion and shared devotion to objective principle. It’s not the only source of such cohesion, but it’s the dominant one in the long run.

    Read More
    • Replies: @mobi

    As if there were no correlation between group cohesion and shared devotion to objective principle. It’s not the only source of such cohesion, but it’s the dominant one in the long run.
     
    Men do not, as a rule, 'go over the top' out of shared devotion to objective principle, no.

    So, no, it's most certainly not the dominant source of group cohesion in the long run.

    And

    "As if there were no correlation between group cohesion and shared devotion to objective principle."

    is a straw man.

    , @Anonymous
    Right, because if our high Who class are, thanks to their own intellectual and cultural gifts, naturally ascendant winners on an objective principle, why do they have a compulsion to break the principle and add the low to the Who to crush the middle Whom?
    , @Moshe
    Correct, I don't think he disagreed with that. It seems to me that what his original comment said was that these objective principles are definitively useful when they benefit you. Should these objective principles however cease to be of value to your community, it will lead to the disappearance of the community if someone doesn't modify them and spread the new ideas. It is particularly helpful to claim that your ideas are not new, and that you are only carrying out the vision of the admired earlier leaders, but if your principles do not benefit your community, you'd best change them, techniques aside.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. mobi says:
    @Desiderius

    This is why a fixed, unwavering devotion to objective principles is not only naive, it will, with some predictability, at some point become deadly.
     
    As if there were no correlation between group cohesion and shared devotion to objective principle. It's not the only source of such cohesion, but it's the dominant one in the long run.

    As if there were no correlation between group cohesion and shared devotion to objective principle. It’s not the only source of such cohesion, but it’s the dominant one in the long run.

    Men do not, as a rule, ‘go over the top’ out of shared devotion to objective principle, no.

    So, no, it’s most certainly not the dominant source of group cohesion in the long run.

    And

    “As if there were no correlation between group cohesion and shared devotion to objective principle.”

    is a straw man.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius

    Men do not, as a rule, ‘go over the top’ out of shared devotion to objective principle, no.

    So, no, it’s most certainly not the dominant source of group cohesion in the long run.
     
    No, it is (see the historical record) because the other ones lack a stopping principle.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. Ivy says:
    @John Gruskos
    "Do not look in the file of incriminating evidence to see whether or not the accused rose up against the Soviets with arms or words. Ask him instead to which class he belongs, what is his background, his education, his profession. These are the questions that will determine the fate of the accused. That is the meaning and essence of the Red Terror." (Martin Latsis, head of Ukrainian Cheka)

    Marat said similar things during the French Revolution.

    Then there was Simon Bolivar's "War to the Death". Venezualan Royalists, not matter how egregious their crimes, were to be spared. Spaniards, on the other hand, were to be killed without mercy, even if they were neutral.

    The words "class enemy" summarize the history of the left.

    Some Americans, among others, seem to have trouble grasping the notion that other people think differently. Those differences can be life-threatening, and otherwise detrimental to what we have thought of as civilization.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. mukat says:
    @Charles Erwin Wilson

    Stalin successfully argued that Trotsky’s anti-peasant radicalism was too dangerous, but as soon as he had defeated Trotsky, Stalin appropriated Trotsky’s disastrous program of collectivizing agriculture, which led to the famine in the Ukraine in the early 1930s.
     
    So even though the Jew did not do it, the Jew gets blamed.

    Oh? Who wrote Stalin’s speeches and who ran his security services?

    Read More
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    Initially, the largely Jewish intelligentsia that came into power with Lenin. But Stalin's purges in the late 1930s drastically changed the demographics of the Chekists. By the late 1940s and early 1950s, it was dominated by ethnic Russians and Caucasians (whom Stalin relatively "trusted" among ethnic minorities, as far as he was capable of trust, being Georgian himself), and had become quite anti-Semitic, too.

    A direct result of this demographic makeover was that the KGB, far from being the vanguard of the revolution, would eventually develop into arguably the *least* ideologically Communist place in the whole Soviet Union by the 1970s. Already in the 1950s, Beria was advocating the restoration of private property before his downfall in the post-Stalin power struggles.

    , @Moshe
    Is your name related to "muqata"? You seem lots of like Jews much does that have to do with your experiences or thoughts about Israel / Palestine?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. Stalin’s anti-Gordian “who/whom” is better than “Who? Whom?” The former discards good-versus-bad false piety and focuses on identity and action.

    Also:

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clyde
    Peak DeNiro was Heat and Casino////all else that follows was commentary..
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. Whaaat? I thought this was your bit, Steve. I’ve been attributing “who, whom” to Steve Sailer, 101 Rodeo Drive, Hollywood, Californ-eye-ay.

    Wait, tell me you’re not a Communist to boot, please …

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    OK, I just read the post too quick.

    I see you were writing about who came up with "Who?, Whom?".


    I had read it as who came up with "Hey, What (the fuck)?".


    ;-}

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. @Achmed E. Newman
    Whaaat? I thought this was your bit, Steve. I've been attributing "who, whom" to Steve Sailer, 101 Rodeo Drive, Hollywood, Californ-eye-ay.

    Wait, tell me you're not a Communist to boot, please ...

    OK, I just read the post too quick.

    I see you were writing about who came up with “Who?, Whom?”.

    I had read it as who came up with “Hey, What (the fuck)?”.

    ;-}

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Gringo says:
    @Desiderius
    Lenin's older brother was executed by the Tsar on dubious charges when he was a young man.

    Lenin’s older brother was executed by the Tsar on dubious charges when he was a young man.

    Not so dubious charges at all: a botched assassination attempt on the Tsar. Socialist Review: Review of Lenin’s Brother.

    This is an interesting and readable account of what led to the assassination attempt on Tsar Alexander III in St Petersburg, in which Alexander Ulyanov was centrally involved and for which he was hanged. He was the elder brother of Vladimir Ulyanov (Lenin). The attempt to kill the Tsar would be on the sixth anniversary of the assassination of Tsar Alexander II on 1 March 1887.

    Pomper argues that the influence of background, reading, upbringing, exclusion from political activity through democratic means and group dynamics played the key roles that drew Alexander into the ideas of Narodism. The father of Alexander and Vladimir Ulyanov was Director of Public Schools for Simbirsk and well placed in society. Pomper’s contention is that the mixed ethnic background of the family made them to some extent outsiders.

    By all accounts, the hanging of his brother played a large role in Lenin’s deciding to become a revolutionary. But most people who try to assassinate the Head of State, and fail, get executed. Moreover, it is rather obvious that an assassination attempt made on the anniversary of a successful assassination will be severely dealt with. Nothing dubious at all about that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. @Desiderius
    Lenin's older brother was executed by the Tsar on dubious charges when he was a young man.

    Lenin’s older brother was executed by the Tsar on dubious charges

    You believe he wasn’t involved in building a bomb to assassinate the Tsar?

    You believe he wasn’t a member of Narodnaya Volya the organization that assassinated Tsar Alexander II?

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

    This is why a fixed, unwavering devotion to objective principles is not only naive, it will, with some predictability, at some point become deadly.
     
    As if there were no correlation between group cohesion and shared devotion to objective principle. It's not the only source of such cohesion, but it's the dominant one in the long run.

    Right, because if our high Who class are, thanks to their own intellectual and cultural gifts, naturally ascendant winners on an objective principle, why do they have a compulsion to break the principle and add the low to the Who to crush the middle Whom?

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist

    Right, because if our high Who class are, thanks to their own intellectual and cultural gifts, naturally ascendant winners on an objective principle, why do they have a compulsion to break the principle and add the low to the Who to crush the middle Whom?

     

    It's because the 'high Who class' doesn't see the Low as fully human, i.e. as having agency and being responsible for their own lives; they're just pawns/stage props the Who can make use of in their battle against the Whom.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. nebulafox says:
    @Desiderius
    Lenin's older brother was executed by the Tsar on dubious charges when he was a young man.

    If the left-wing terrorists of late 19th Century Russia wanted a nicer, more democratic environment to operate in, then maybe killing Tsar Alexander II (the guy who liberated the serfs) right as he was about to make major changes to Russia’s autocratic government wasn’t a really bright move. The intent was to intimidate the Romanovs into making reforms and lessening their power, the practical outcome was precisely the opposite, to the surprise of nobody familiar with the tendencies of that particular dynasty. The last two Tsars of Russia, his son Alexander and grandson Nicholas, both witnessed his assassination and swore that the same thing wouldn’t happen to them… because they’d have the Okhrana get the radicals before the radicals got them.

    As was mentioned above, the execution of Lenin’s brother sent Lenin’s on his path.

    Read More
    • Agree: Desiderius
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Coemgen says:

    “…objective principles for determining winners and losers…”

    For some reason I’m reminded of the old impolitic joke whose punchline involves throwing a basketball to five “gentlemen” of a certain demographic.

    Anyhow, isn’t “goodish” good enough?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  19. Trotsky wasn’t all that enthusiastic about collectivisation. He is supposed to have said that: “total collectivisation means total weeds in the fields”.

    Very unusually for a Jew, his father was a Kulak.

    Yevgeni Preobrazhensky was a more likely candidate for the originator of the collectivisation plan (or at least the plan to extract a huge surplus from the agricultural sector to invest in heavy industry).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome


    “total collectivisation means total weeds in the fields”

     

    Thats a feature, not a bug.


    likely candidate for the originator of the collectivisation plan
     
    Collectivisation is inherent in the concept of Communism.

    Phalanstère
    Paris Commune
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. @Charles Erwin Wilson

    Stalin successfully argued that Trotsky’s anti-peasant radicalism was too dangerous, but as soon as he had defeated Trotsky, Stalin appropriated Trotsky’s disastrous program of collectivizing agriculture, which led to the famine in the Ukraine in the early 1930s.
     
    So even though the Jew did not do it, the Jew gets blamed.

    It seems “the Jew” would have done it, but got personally pwned first. Possibly some other Jews were involved with the Ultra SlimFast affair. I believe one of them comments here at Unz.

    BTW no one extols Stalin as being some innocent guy—quite the opposite.

    Read More
    • Replies: @kaganovitch
    I used to think we were not related but I was told by relatives that we are really distant cousins .
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. Is this concept not an expression of, and pre-dated by, the age-old, “Is it good for the Jews?”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  22. J.Ross says: • Website

    This phrase is a kind of tldr of the famous passage from Engels in which he says that individual free will does not exist and all decisions are stochastically determined by upstream economics, which is itself a distilling and application of Rousseau’s Tabula Rasa.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  23. Clyde says:
    @Jenner Ickham Errican
    Stalin’s anti-Gordian “who/whom” is better than “Who? Whom?” The former discards good-versus-bad false piety and focuses on identity and action.

    Also:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFC0Il7-QK4

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heqcZCIm9CU

    Peak DeNiro was Heat and Casino////all else that follows was commentary..

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. Cagey Beast says: • Website
    @Charles Erwin Wilson

    Stalin successfully argued that Trotsky’s anti-peasant radicalism was too dangerous, but as soon as he had defeated Trotsky, Stalin appropriated Trotsky’s disastrous program of collectivizing agriculture, which led to the famine in the Ukraine in the early 1930s.
     
    So even though the Jew did not do it, the Jew gets blamed.

    “Aren’t we amazing??” “Aren’t we blameless??” “Aren’t we at the centre of the Universe??” “Isn’t it shameful how you people blame us for everything??” All rhetorical questions, by the way.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Moshe
    Look, Jews have their annoyances (what secularism has done to their formerly marriagable women aint great) but boy are they a superior class of homo sapien than most other such groups.

    Obviously not on every metric but have you ever noticed how downright BORING most goyim are after a couple of hours? Yeah, most Jews are dullards too but your odds of picking an interesting one are better.

    Easy collectivist abilities are a beautiful and pleasant trait, such as Mormons have (Jews are imagined to have it but such claims are, unfortunately for them, rather exaggerated). But yes, a trait rhat is good in every way I admire.

    And it should go without saying that full blown black males are God's True Chosen People.

    But yeah, Jews definitely got their benefits. A lack of moral inclination isn't generally one of those benefits unfortunately. I'm not saying that their morality based actions are necessarily either wise or logical but they do hapoen to be way to moral a lot.

    I know you'll think the "is it good for the jews" thing is evidence against such outward caring. And while others may deny the existence of such a term or concept (perhaps because they didn't grow up very religious or whatever) I'll note my disagreement. It's definitely a Yiddishism ans was definitely taken seriously by certain semites at certain times. What it exclusively meant however was, "they want to killbus or at least ruin or exile us, how dare tbat m*therf*cker bronstein go and do all these dangerous things that aren't good for the jews!" IOW, it was and is only and always a defensive motto (even if it retained that defensiveness wherenit is irrational like in the usa). "Good for the jews" was never understood to mean, "at someone else's expense".

    I'm sure ronald macdonald has cherry picked dubious quotes to the contrary (i haven't checked but his and his sorts' version of "scholarship" makes me think that he, or perhaps a commentator here, must).

    And you know I'm not disembling (I'm not sure how to spell it because I don't read much antisem literature) because I OPPOSE this defensive way of thinking as both disgusting and...well, my kther lengthy comment here on a non-judaic subject spells it out sufficiently.

    The results may be better things for the jews - in the opinion of some though i'm rather certain they Do Not, except by exempting jews from white guilt which is pretty cool but is weinstein'ing apart lately. But that certainly was never the intent of its perpetually "proud to be losers" people. I am not mentioning this to disagree with how others' may think it was intended, only to share my learned opinion on the subject as one who isn't fully a member of the aforementioned group and who opposes the defensive cowardice of a people that could and (after I rejoin) should conquer the world.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. @Charles Erwin Wilson

    Stalin successfully argued that Trotsky’s anti-peasant radicalism was too dangerous, but as soon as he had defeated Trotsky, Stalin appropriated Trotsky’s disastrous program of collectivizing agriculture, which led to the famine in the Ukraine in the early 1930s.
     
    So even though the Jew did not do it, the Jew gets blamed.

    >So even though the Jew did not do it, the Jew gets blamed.

    Let me go up on the roof and play the worlds smallest fiddle

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. So, Russoglots, why is kogo pronounced “kah-VOH”?

    The first syllable is weirdly American, but what’s with the G-to-V shift?

    On the other hand, TH in English is always unvoiced at the beginning of a word (whether as TH or T), except tn the most common words of all– the, that, they, there, etc.

    We’re guiltier than most languages, so take my question as curiosity, not criticism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kubiak
    The -go and -vo are actually unrelated, -go is taken from earlier literary language, Church Slavonic while -vo is a later development perhaps related to patronymic -ov (or -off as sometimes romanized).
    , @J.Ross
    This does not help you but there is a verse in Katyusha with three pairs of words together that do that (it's the second one), because it shows up as an adjectival ending in a language with full agreement.
    To answer your question, I think it's a Russian deference to Greek, an equivalent of the old English idea that English just ought to behave more like Latin.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Trotsky for decades was the anti-Stalinist Left’s counter-factual fall back guy — If Trotsky had succeeded Lenin instead of Stalin, Soviet communism would have been wonderful.
    See:

    http://fosterspeak.blogspot.com/2011/10/stalinism-utopian-wager.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    If Trotsky had his way, the Soviet Union's attempts at world revolution would have inevitably frightened pissed off the entire world, otherwise sympathizers included, much like Cultural Revolution era China did in the 1960s-but this would be before nukes. Most likely, Trotsky would eventually try to invade Poland again to link up to the German Communist Party, as they tried in 1919-1920, setting off a general conflict.

    Stalin was many things, a brutal, genocidal sociopath among them, but two things he was not was an ideological wet-dreamer, or an ignoramus when it came to practical politics and strategy. Stalin pretty much ensured that the Soviet system survived through socialism in one country. Not least by erasing Lenin-style social engineering, which helped reconcile a lot of Russians to the regime. He turned the USSR into a shockingly socially conservative place that encouraged the youth to respect their elders and marry and have kids, canonized old Russian leaders like Alexander Nevsky and Ivan the Terrible along with Marx and Engels, and the Red Army had already returned to Tsarist style ranks and insignia by the time the purges came. And, being a failed Orthodox seminary himself, he knew the value of a tightly controlled, NKVD intertwined Church...

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

    The Moors (Black People of Color) taught Europeans how to bathe

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    So the Moors were black people of color? As opposed to white people of color? I thought black was the absence of color and it was wrong to call black people colored?

    Anyway, Moors are what we would call Moroccan or North African today - people of mixed Berber and Arab blood. They are in no sense black and don't like actual black people (sub-Saharan Africans). They did like selling them into slavery though.

    Oh, and the Moors copied their baths from the Romans.

    , @Moshe
    I can't stand it how downright stupid people are to think that TD showed up here as a legitimate leftist.

    He called hinself TINY DICK for godsakes!

    Yet, tons of morons think he's a legit leftist.

    He may be by now once he's seen the credulous stupidity of so so many people but I doubt it. Either way, he definitely showed up here to sarcastically mock leftists and i've said it here again and again to no avail. No choice here but to add him to my do not disturb list. Not because i dont enjoy his humor but because, as a great admirer of Steve's it annoys me to see how many mentally inept commentors he has.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. Kubiak says:
    @Reg Cæsar
    So, Russoglots, why is kogo pronounced "kah-VOH"?

    The first syllable is weirdly American, but what's with the G-to-V shift?

    On the other hand, TH in English is always unvoiced at the beginning of a word (whether as TH or T), except tn the most common words of all-- the, that, they, there, etc.

    We're guiltier than most languages, so take my question as curiosity, not criticism.

    The -go and -vo are actually unrelated, -go is taken from earlier literary language, Church Slavonic while -vo is a later development perhaps related to patronymic -ov (or -off as sometimes romanized).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. J.Ross says: • Website
    @Reg Cæsar
    So, Russoglots, why is kogo pronounced "kah-VOH"?

    The first syllable is weirdly American, but what's with the G-to-V shift?

    On the other hand, TH in English is always unvoiced at the beginning of a word (whether as TH or T), except tn the most common words of all-- the, that, they, there, etc.

    We're guiltier than most languages, so take my question as curiosity, not criticism.

    This does not help you but there is a verse in Katyusha with three pairs of words together that do that (it’s the second one), because it shows up as an adjectival ending in a language with full agreement.
    To answer your question, I think it’s a Russian deference to Greek, an equivalent of the old English idea that English just ought to behave more like Latin.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Glaivester says: • Website

    Speaking of who, whom, who is the who and who the whom when an illegal alien kills a Muslim teenager?

    http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/19/authorities-refuse-to-disclose-immigration-status-of-el-salvadoran-immigrant-who-murdered-muslim-teen/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Despite opening their report with the police so far calling it road rage, the NYT seems pretty sure it's a hate crime, citing the virtue signals of nice white ladies on Twitter, and connecting it to London:

    The news reports of her murder surfaced as the authorities in Britain were investigating an early morning attack near a mosque in London as a possible act of terrorism, amid fears of retaliation for several recent assaults in the country attributed to Islamist extremists.
     
    Zero mention of immigration status.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. Jack D says:
    @Tiny Duck
    The Moors (Black People of Color) taught Europeans how to bathe

    So the Moors were black people of color? As opposed to white people of color? I thought black was the absence of color and it was wrong to call black people colored?

    Anyway, Moors are what we would call Moroccan or North African today – people of mixed Berber and Arab blood. They are in no sense black and don’t like actual black people (sub-Saharan Africans). They did like selling them into slavery though.

    Oh, and the Moors copied their baths from the Romans.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. The most perfect description of “Who, Whom?” was formulated before those three legendary commies appropriated it by Whig historian (among other things) Thomas Macaulay:

    “The doctrine which, from the very first origin of religious dissensions, has been held by bigots of all sects, when condensed into a few words and stripped of rhetorical disguise, is simply this: I am in the right, and you are in the wrong. When you are the stronger, you ought to tolerate me, for it is your duty to tolerate truth; but when I am the stronger, I shall persecute you, for it is my duty to persecute error.”

    That is “Who/Whom” distilled to its essence.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  34. Jack D says:

    Lenin and the Bolshevik leaders who picked up on his phrase had used kto-kogo to justify an economic competition with the Nepmen who dominated trade activities – a competition that would result in new forms of agricultural production only after an extremely high level of industrial technology was available. Stalin used kto-kogo to justify a policy of mass coercion against peasant kulaks to implant collective farms long before industry reached a high level.

    So what happened was that at first (actually, at 2nd – at first Lenin had nationalized EVERYTHING and that caused starvation, so he relented and allowed limited capitalist activity – the so-called Nep (New Economic Policy) men) Lenin allowed Communist structures to exist along side capitalist ones – kto-kogo meant in effect, “May the best man win!” (Although one can question whether Lenin was really sincere about this – more likely he was confident that his side were the “best men” who would win thru scientific socialism which is so much better than inefficient capitalism).

    But then Stalin realized that the Communists weren’t winning in a fair competition, so he said , “The hell with that – kto -kogo means “We will win no matter what!”.

    This follows the Hillary Democrat/Trump narrative. First they wanted to have a (somewhat, except for the usual level of big city voter fraud) fair election because they were sure they were going to win, and then when that didn’t actually result in a Hillary win by Constitutional measurements, they decided that they are going to take over somehow anyway.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    Yeah, one gets the impression that Steve is using the phrase in a different sense from how it was used by those figures.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Glaivester
    Speaking of who, whom, who is the who and who the whom when an illegal alien kills a Muslim teenager?
    http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/19/authorities-refuse-to-disclose-immigration-status-of-el-salvadoran-immigrant-who-murdered-muslim-teen/

    Despite opening their report with the police so far calling it road rage, the NYT seems pretty sure it’s a hate crime, citing the virtue signals of nice white ladies on Twitter, and connecting it to London:

    The news reports of her murder surfaced as the authorities in Britain were investigating an early morning attack near a mosque in London as a possible act of terrorism, amid fears of retaliation for several recent assaults in the country attributed to Islamist extremists.

    Zero mention of immigration status.

    Read More
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    Let's face it: the SJWs basically ARE the church ladies of the 21st Century United States! I mean, think about it. Postmodern "liberalism" in the US, as espoused by our gentry class, has increasingly become a religion that brooks no dissent and admits no error. If our media and our Ivory Tower play the role of the First Estate, the oligarchs and the like the Second...

    This is why O'Reilly style "papa bear" figures are on their way out. Part of this is ideological-the new Right MUST be more economically populist to get anywhere. But also, now that they are the countercultural figures and the cultural Left the Establishment (which is being far more shrill/square in handling dissent than the 60s Establishment ever was), it is best to have a Voltaire style gadfly appeal, even a somewhat "punkish" feel, if you will. Show visibly how silly they are, not you. Very different vibe is needed from the bombastic, moralistic FOX sphere to appeal to the new generation of those living with the practical consequences of the irresponsibility of our cultural and economic elite.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. @Jenner Ickham Errican
    It seems “the Jew” would have done it, but got personally pwned first. Possibly some other Jews were involved with the Ultra SlimFast affair. I believe one of them comments here at Unz.

    BTW no one extols Stalin as being some innocent guy—quite the opposite.

    I used to think we were not related but I was told by relatives that we are really distant cousins .

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
    Ha! You saw my nod. Not bagging on you personally, of course.
    , @Moshe
    Kogan and Kagan and Kaganovitch are simply the Russian way of spelling "Cohen".

    I know half a dozen Americans with that last name and, to a man, they claim to be related - through unspecified and unprovable channels.

    Such rumors arise because it's cool to be related to famous notorious people.

    That's it. My apologies for taking that away from you :(

    On thr plus side, being Jewish doesn't mean you have to lack famous relations. I mean famous outside of the ultra-orthodox world.

    I have a friend whose father is a direct descendantsl of James Buchanan (though, upon becoming orthodox he took his jewish mothers' last name kagan) and another friend who is the great grandson of William Howard Taft. And who kept the last name.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. Lagertha says:

    All I have ever been brought up to believe in (Steve’s Russo salad) is: Stalin was the worst.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  38. nebulafox says:
    @Stephen Paul Foster
    Trotsky for decades was the anti-Stalinist Left's counter-factual fall back guy -- If Trotsky had succeeded Lenin instead of Stalin, Soviet communism would have been wonderful.
    See:

    http://fosterspeak.blogspot.com/2011/10/stalinism-utopian-wager.html

    If Trotsky had his way, the Soviet Union’s attempts at world revolution would have inevitably frightened pissed off the entire world, otherwise sympathizers included, much like Cultural Revolution era China did in the 1960s-but this would be before nukes. Most likely, Trotsky would eventually try to invade Poland again to link up to the German Communist Party, as they tried in 1919-1920, setting off a general conflict.

    Stalin was many things, a brutal, genocidal sociopath among them, but two things he was not was an ideological wet-dreamer, or an ignoramus when it came to practical politics and strategy. Stalin pretty much ensured that the Soviet system survived through socialism in one country. Not least by erasing Lenin-style social engineering, which helped reconcile a lot of Russians to the regime. He turned the USSR into a shockingly socially conservative place that encouraged the youth to respect their elders and marry and have kids, canonized old Russian leaders like Alexander Nevsky and Ivan the Terrible along with Marx and Engels, and the Red Army had already returned to Tsarist style ranks and insignia by the time the purges came. And, being a failed Orthodox seminary himself, he knew the value of a tightly controlled, NKVD intertwined Church…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lagertha
    exactly. Stalin was really, kinda' conservative and old fashioned. Psychopathic instincts must take a back seat, so to speak.
    , @CK
    In 1925, the Japanese were the last of the invading nations to leave the USSR. ( The USA left in 1920).
    From 29 July to 11 August 1938, and then again from 11 May to 15 September 1939, the Japanese armies in northern China and Manchuria attacked the forces of the USSR first at
    Lake Khasan and then at Khalkhin Gol. The result of these aggressions was that Japan suffered decisive military defeats. ( Georgy Zhukov was the commander at Khalkhin Gol ).
    So decisive were these defeats that the Japanese signed on to the Soviet-Japanese neutrality pact. (April 13, 1941)
    Of all the major nations that fought in WWII, the USSR was the only nation that fought only a one front war. Even after Germany declared war on the USSR (22, June 1941), Germany's ally Japan failed to follow suit. (Unlike when Japan went to war with the USA and Germany did follow suit within two days).
    From 22 June of 1941 until 9 May of 1945, the USSR was able to concentrate its forces against one enemy and to completely defeat that enemy. One can attribute this success to brilliance, dumb luck, Japanese perfidy however one wishes, the result is that Stalin and the USSR won WWII in the West.
    The USA, at the Yalta conference in Feb of 1945, gave Stalin an ultimatum. Enter the war against Japan within 90 days of the defeat of Germany or the USSR would have no voice in he partitioning of Asia after the defeat of Japan.
    The Germans surrendered on 9 May ( Moscow Time ), the USSR informed Japan that the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality pact was not longer operative on 8 August 1945 and commenced the largest double envelopment operation; the invasion of Manchuria and the destruction of the Japanese armies there on 9 August ( 89 or 90 days subsequent to the German surrender depending on the time zone used).
    Hiroshima was 6 August, Nagasaki was 9 August.
    August 15, Hirohito tries to surrender and botches the job.
    August 18, the USSR does three amphibious landings in the Northern half of the Korean peninsula, one amphibious landing in Sakhalin Island and one in the Kuril islands ( the later two effectively reversing the Portsmouth Treaty of 1905.)
    The official cease fire on 22 August 1945 precluded the last planned amphibious invasion which was to have been Hokkaido Island.
    Again one can attribute this success to Brilliance, dumb luck, the communist infestation of the American delegation at Yalta and their brilliance in convincing FDR that the Russian army and the Russian logistics infrastructure could not attack Eastward within the 90 day limit, or the phases of the Japanese moon.
    The result was that Russia and Communist China dominated northern Asia then and still do today.
    The past is not History indeed it is not even the past.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. nebulafox says:
    @mukat
    Oh? Who wrote Stalin's speeches and who ran his security services?

    Initially, the largely Jewish intelligentsia that came into power with Lenin. But Stalin’s purges in the late 1930s drastically changed the demographics of the Chekists. By the late 1940s and early 1950s, it was dominated by ethnic Russians and Caucasians (whom Stalin relatively “trusted” among ethnic minorities, as far as he was capable of trust, being Georgian himself), and had become quite anti-Semitic, too.

    A direct result of this demographic makeover was that the KGB, far from being the vanguard of the revolution, would eventually develop into arguably the *least* ideologically Communist place in the whole Soviet Union by the 1970s. Already in the 1950s, Beria was advocating the restoration of private property before his downfall in the post-Stalin power struggles.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. Lagertha says:
    @nebulafox
    If Trotsky had his way, the Soviet Union's attempts at world revolution would have inevitably frightened pissed off the entire world, otherwise sympathizers included, much like Cultural Revolution era China did in the 1960s-but this would be before nukes. Most likely, Trotsky would eventually try to invade Poland again to link up to the German Communist Party, as they tried in 1919-1920, setting off a general conflict.

    Stalin was many things, a brutal, genocidal sociopath among them, but two things he was not was an ideological wet-dreamer, or an ignoramus when it came to practical politics and strategy. Stalin pretty much ensured that the Soviet system survived through socialism in one country. Not least by erasing Lenin-style social engineering, which helped reconcile a lot of Russians to the regime. He turned the USSR into a shockingly socially conservative place that encouraged the youth to respect their elders and marry and have kids, canonized old Russian leaders like Alexander Nevsky and Ivan the Terrible along with Marx and Engels, and the Red Army had already returned to Tsarist style ranks and insignia by the time the purges came. And, being a failed Orthodox seminary himself, he knew the value of a tightly controlled, NKVD intertwined Church...

    exactly. Stalin was really, kinda’ conservative and old fashioned. Psychopathic instincts must take a back seat, so to speak.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. nebulafox says:
    @Anonymous
    Despite opening their report with the police so far calling it road rage, the NYT seems pretty sure it's a hate crime, citing the virtue signals of nice white ladies on Twitter, and connecting it to London:

    The news reports of her murder surfaced as the authorities in Britain were investigating an early morning attack near a mosque in London as a possible act of terrorism, amid fears of retaliation for several recent assaults in the country attributed to Islamist extremists.
     
    Zero mention of immigration status.

    Let’s face it: the SJWs basically ARE the church ladies of the 21st Century United States! I mean, think about it. Postmodern “liberalism” in the US, as espoused by our gentry class, has increasingly become a religion that brooks no dissent and admits no error. If our media and our Ivory Tower play the role of the First Estate, the oligarchs and the like the Second…

    This is why O’Reilly style “papa bear” figures are on their way out. Part of this is ideological-the new Right MUST be more economically populist to get anywhere. But also, now that they are the countercultural figures and the cultural Left the Establishment (which is being far more shrill/square in handling dissent than the 60s Establishment ever was), it is best to have a Voltaire style gadfly appeal, even a somewhat “punkish” feel, if you will. Show visibly how silly they are, not you. Very different vibe is needed from the bombastic, moralistic FOX sphere to appeal to the new generation of those living with the practical consequences of the irresponsibility of our cultural and economic elite.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. @Anonymous
    Right, because if our high Who class are, thanks to their own intellectual and cultural gifts, naturally ascendant winners on an objective principle, why do they have a compulsion to break the principle and add the low to the Who to crush the middle Whom?

    Right, because if our high Who class are, thanks to their own intellectual and cultural gifts, naturally ascendant winners on an objective principle, why do they have a compulsion to break the principle and add the low to the Who to crush the middle Whom?

    It’s because the ‘high Who class’ doesn’t see the Low as fully human, i.e. as having agency and being responsible for their own lives; they’re just pawns/stage props the Who can make use of in their battle against the Whom.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    It's because there's not much actually high about them, and everybody knows it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Moshe says:
    @mobi
    The trouble with objective principles for determining winners and losers is that there will be losers, and losing in the status competition game is serious business.

    And since we are inevitably a mix of individual and group interests, both equally valid, it will always be in the interests of the losers to gain strength of numbers by embracing whatever group affiliations are not available to the winners, and using them to try to overturn the objective verdict by the only realistic means of victory ever available to losers - a fist in the face.

    Of course, being losers, the odds tend to be against them, but every now and then, history has a way of disrupting the stability of the status quo - often exogenously - and the loser-groups may indeed succeed, at least for a while, in 'decapitating' the society.

    See - the Bolsheviks, the Khmer Rouge, the Red Guards, the Jacobins, etc.

    This is why a fixed, unwavering devotion to objective principles is not only naive, it will, with some predictability, at some point become deadly.

    It must stem from the aforementioned fact that, in the eyes of natural selection, we are not merely independent and principled individuals, we are members of groups, and while there may be no group selection, there most certainly is a major group contribution to individual reproductive fitness.

    Finally an excellent and worthwhile comment in this forum that doesn’t whine on about supposedly “moral” principles that – imagine the coincidence! – would , at least on theory, happen to benefit them over their evolutionary competitors.

    As for ourselves, Razib Khan recently came out as declaring himself an idiot for having argued for reason, skepticism, evidence and a search for truth instead of being a good member of the tribe (which to him appears to have meant some tribe of Conservative, including possibly moving to China or India [a bad idea]).

    If it’s true for Razib it’s true for me.

    The problem however is that people like Razib, myself, OBVIOUSLY Steve and probably a fair handful of other non-crotchety people here is that we have a damn difficult time keeping up the charade.

    I know both Mormons and Ultra-Orthodox Jews who entirely and absolutely disbelieve in the tenets of the faith they dress like, practice in public and around their kin and, in some cases, even teach in schools.

    They benefit from strong social cohesion, the liklihood of marrying a pleasant disease-free girl, having friends whom yoh care about and whi catr about you – for life, not ending up homeless and probably having a bunch of kids that family and friends will help you raise.

    Short of being a Mongolian that’s about as pretty good a deal as you can get, both for reproductive posterity and for yourself in your own life.

    But these people (as many fortunate folk here) appear to have some sort of mental distinction that allows them to be freethinkers without being freespeakers.

    For those of us who enjoy communicating however and enjoy rhe company of people and frank and friendly conversations with them about intellectual matters this is tougher to do.

    Yes we can benefit from a tribe.

    No, I don’t see us getting one.

    We can join alt right inc. but, as with all tribes, that only works for those tribally inclined and thus easily able to commit to whatever direction this tribe takes, so, even if you agree with every catechism of spencer’s (has he manifesto’d yet?) you’re just setting yourself up for excommunication in the future.

    So is therr any possible chance of…

    wait, what am I talking about? I jusst congratulated you for a post that eschews nonaense about Right v Wrong precisely BECAUSE it’s so uncommon among the commentariot. So who am I even talking to here?

    The commentariot would be wise to join Spencer when his movement appears tenable and also not economic suicide and freethinkers will remain out in the cold.

    Question: Was there ever a time where a couple of thousand Freethinkers grouped together and had each others’ backs in a manner that improved their safety, happiness and reproductive success?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius

    Question: Was there ever a time where a couple of thousand Freethinkers grouped together and had each others’ backs in a manner that improved their safety, happiness and reproductive success?
     
    Philadelphia, 1776 is close enough for me. That tribe carries on still, freethinking away.
    , @Anonymous
    I agree with you about the Mormons and orthodox. I live about a mile east of a huge ultra orthodox (chabads, hasids and even a Rabbi Schnnerson colony) neighborhood . It's wonderful seeing young mothers of about 30 with 4 kids who are allowed to stay home and take care of their children instead of being railroaded into some horrible job.

    The Mormon life seems ideal except for the bible study. I wouldn't mind going to services, but discussing the bible; I don't know if I could cope. And Mormons are an incredibly good looking people.
    , @Bill
    Shorter Moshe: Freemasonry is less fun in Fremasonstan
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. @Jack D

    Lenin and the Bolshevik leaders who picked up on his phrase had used kto-kogo to justify an economic competition with the Nepmen who dominated trade activities – a competition that would result in new forms of agricultural production only after an extremely high level of industrial technology was available. Stalin used kto-kogo to justify a policy of mass coercion against peasant kulaks to implant collective farms long before industry reached a high level.
     
    So what happened was that at first (actually, at 2nd - at first Lenin had nationalized EVERYTHING and that caused starvation, so he relented and allowed limited capitalist activity - the so-called Nep (New Economic Policy) men) Lenin allowed Communist structures to exist along side capitalist ones - kto-kogo meant in effect, "May the best man win!" (Although one can question whether Lenin was really sincere about this - more likely he was confident that his side were the "best men" who would win thru scientific socialism which is so much better than inefficient capitalism).

    But then Stalin realized that the Communists weren't winning in a fair competition, so he said , "The hell with that - kto -kogo means "We will win no matter what!".

    This follows the Hillary Democrat/Trump narrative. First they wanted to have a (somewhat, except for the usual level of big city voter fraud) fair election because they were sure they were going to win, and then when that didn't actually result in a Hillary win by Constitutional measurements, they decided that they are going to take over somehow anyway.

    Yeah, one gets the impression that Steve is using the phrase in a different sense from how it was used by those figures.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. Moshe says:
    @Desiderius

    This is why a fixed, unwavering devotion to objective principles is not only naive, it will, with some predictability, at some point become deadly.
     
    As if there were no correlation between group cohesion and shared devotion to objective principle. It's not the only source of such cohesion, but it's the dominant one in the long run.

    Correct, I don’t think he disagreed with that. It seems to me that what his original comment said was that these objective principles are definitively useful when they benefit you. Should these objective principles however cease to be of value to your community, it will lead to the disappearance of the community if someone doesn’t modify them and spread the new ideas. It is particularly helpful to claim that your ideas are not new, and that you are only carrying out the vision of the admired earlier leaders, but if your principles do not benefit your community, you’d best change them, techniques aside.

    Read More
    • Agree: Desiderius
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    You may want to be sure that you are not mistaking a failure to apply objective principles for the useless of such principles.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. Moshe says:
    @mukat
    Oh? Who wrote Stalin's speeches and who ran his security services?

    Is your name related to “muqata”? You seem lots of like Jews much does that have to do with your experiences or thoughts about Israel / Palestine?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. @kaganovitch
    I used to think we were not related but I was told by relatives that we are really distant cousins .

    Ha! You saw my nod. Not bagging on you personally, of course.

    Read More
    • Replies: @kaganovitch
    I think I've mentioned before... It never ceases to amaze me that Iron Lazar lived out his days unmolested in the middle of Moscow (he died in the Nineties), when there were literally hundreds of thousands of people who had both reason and desire to kill him.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. @Moshe
    Correct, I don't think he disagreed with that. It seems to me that what his original comment said was that these objective principles are definitively useful when they benefit you. Should these objective principles however cease to be of value to your community, it will lead to the disappearance of the community if someone doesn't modify them and spread the new ideas. It is particularly helpful to claim that your ideas are not new, and that you are only carrying out the vision of the admired earlier leaders, but if your principles do not benefit your community, you'd best change them, techniques aside.

    You may want to be sure that you are not mistaking a failure to apply objective principles for the useless of such principles.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. guest says:
    @Desiderius
    Lenin's older brother was executed by the Tsar on dubious charges when he was a young man.

    Were the charges dubious? I think it’s well agreed-upon that Alexander Ulyanov not only was politically active in the group that conspired to assassinate Alexander III, but also actually worked on the bombs.

    Like I said, the Tsars executed political criminals. But the Bolsheviks generally got off lightly. Not that they were caught conspiring assassination. But Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Bakunin, Molotov, all those guys got exiled, and not even hard labor. These would-be Who’s didn’t get a millionth of the Whom treatment from the Who of the time as they’d dish out when they got to be Who’s.

    They probably saw comrades get shot down for striking and rioting, I guess, which is something.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. @Jenner Ickham Errican
    Ha! You saw my nod. Not bagging on you personally, of course.

    I think I’ve mentioned before… It never ceases to amaze me that Iron Lazar lived out his days unmolested in the middle of Moscow (he died in the Nineties), when there were literally hundreds of thousands of people who had both reason and desire to kill him.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. guest says:
    @Charles Erwin Wilson

    Stalin successfully argued that Trotsky’s anti-peasant radicalism was too dangerous, but as soon as he had defeated Trotsky, Stalin appropriated Trotsky’s disastrous program of collectivizing agriculture, which led to the famine in the Ukraine in the early 1930s.
     
    So even though the Jew did not do it, the Jew gets blamed.

    A. Trotsky was not the only Jew involved.

    B. He did his share of evil when he had the chance, and would’ve gladly done worse.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. Moshe says:
    @Cagey Beast
    "Aren't we amazing??" "Aren't we blameless??" "Aren't we at the centre of the Universe??" "Isn't it shameful how you people blame us for everything??" All rhetorical questions, by the way.

    Look, Jews have their annoyances (what secularism has done to their formerly marriagable women aint great) but boy are they a superior class of homo sapien than most other such groups.

    Obviously not on every metric but have you ever noticed how downright BORING most goyim are after a couple of hours? Yeah, most Jews are dullards too but your odds of picking an interesting one are better.

    Easy collectivist abilities are a beautiful and pleasant trait, such as Mormons have (Jews are imagined to have it but such claims are, unfortunately for them, rather exaggerated). But yes, a trait rhat is good in every way I admire.

    And it should go without saying that full blown black males are God’s True Chosen People.

    But yeah, Jews definitely got their benefits. A lack of moral inclination isn’t generally one of those benefits unfortunately. I’m not saying that their morality based actions are necessarily either wise or logical but they do hapoen to be way to moral a lot.

    I know you’ll think the “is it good for the jews” thing is evidence against such outward caring. And while others may deny the existence of such a term or concept (perhaps because they didn’t grow up very religious or whatever) I’ll note my disagreement. It’s definitely a Yiddishism ans was definitely taken seriously by certain semites at certain times. What it exclusively meant however was, “they want to killbus or at least ruin or exile us, how dare tbat m*therf*cker bronstein go and do all these dangerous things that aren’t good for the jews!” IOW, it was and is only and always a defensive motto (even if it retained that defensiveness wherenit is irrational like in the usa). “Good for the jews” was never understood to mean, “at someone else’s expense”.

    I’m sure ronald macdonald has cherry picked dubious quotes to the contrary (i haven’t checked but his and his sorts’ version of “scholarship” makes me think that he, or perhaps a commentator here, must).

    And you know I’m not disembling (I’m not sure how to spell it because I don’t read much antisem literature) because I OPPOSE this defensive way of thinking as both disgusting and…well, my kther lengthy comment here on a non-judaic subject spells it out sufficiently.

    The results may be better things for the jews – in the opinion of some though i’m rather certain they Do Not, except by exempting jews from white guilt which is pretty cool but is weinstein’ing apart lately. But that certainly was never the intent of its perpetually “proud to be losers” people. I am not mentioning this to disagree with how others’ may think it was intended, only to share my learned opinion on the subject as one who isn’t fully a member of the aforementioned group and who opposes the defensive cowardice of a people that could and (after I rejoin) should conquer the world.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thea
    The problem isn't the "is it good for my people?" ethos. In fact, wish my people had such cohesion. Nor is Israeli nationalism bad. I wish my people had that love of their historic soil.

    Look, the problem is that this ethos has been twisted into "western civilization is bad for the Jews so we must eradicate whites from self determination. " Sure, lots of Jews don't share this view. But those with the megaphone and power certainly do.

    It seems too much of a coincidence that Soros, Zuckerberg, most of Hollywood and the media all promote an agenda that absolutely will end with the death of millions of whites and the end of their self determination in their lands.

    How did so many Jews arrive at this same point if it's not an organized effort within that community?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. @mobi

    As if there were no correlation between group cohesion and shared devotion to objective principle. It’s not the only source of such cohesion, but it’s the dominant one in the long run.
     
    Men do not, as a rule, 'go over the top' out of shared devotion to objective principle, no.

    So, no, it's most certainly not the dominant source of group cohesion in the long run.

    And

    "As if there were no correlation between group cohesion and shared devotion to objective principle."

    is a straw man.

    Men do not, as a rule, ‘go over the top’ out of shared devotion to objective principle, no.

    So, no, it’s most certainly not the dominant source of group cohesion in the long run.

    No, it is (see the historical record) because the other ones lack a stopping principle.

    Read More
    • Replies: @mobi

    No, it is (see the historical record) because the other ones lack a stopping principle.
     
    No, the historical record shows almost the very opposite.

    The more pressing and existential the threat, the sooner appeals to high-minded objective principles are jettisoned, in favour of much more primal, and powerful, appeals to group bonds - family, clan, tribe, gang, ethnic group, squad, etc.

    There's an abundance of evidence documenting exactly this fact - men under the most dire of duress in combat do not, as I put it, 'go over the top' in the name of any objective principles they were ostensibly sent on behalf of. They go, on behalf of their sense of group bond with their buddies to the left and right of them.

    Little or nothing else.

    Do objective principles have no role to play in defining such bonds? I've never made that point, but I might as well - they're among the weakest sources of them, and among the first to fail when it matters most.

    Facing the very real threat of imminent annihilation, the Soviet High Command understood this - hence, exhortations on behalf of 'victory of the proletariat', or the superiority of Soviet socialism gave way to much more tribal appeals to 'fight for Mother Russia' ('Fight for your mother! Who's Russian!). Did it work? Maybe the timing's just a co-incidence.

    When it seemed in the early days that the Imperial Japanese Army might actually be unbeatable, high-minded principles of 'freedom and democracy' yield to 'kill the treacherous Jap monkeys'.

    And while you're at it, round up the ones among you, just in case - including all the ones who share your devotion to 'objective principles'.

    Chinese communists and their ideological polar opposites - Nationalist/Capitalists - put aside their differences, only in the face of impending enslavement, and only on behalf of their shared Chineseness. Nothing else was strong enough - before, or after.

    (It's even strong enough to put a Jew at the head of the Aryan Brotherhood! If it's strong enough to force Nazis and Jews to recognize their deeper similarities, that's some damn strong shit!)

    As for the lack of what you call a stopping principle - although it's only one example, it's probably the biggest one ever - what objective principles did Stalinist Soviet Union, Maoist China, Capitalist/Democratic USA, have in common when they all, simultaneously, 'stopped' in August, 1945?

    Some combination of total victory, and balance of power, is all I can come up with. Clearly, it was enough, though. Maybe it usually is.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. @Moshe
    Finally an excellent and worthwhile comment in this forum that doesn't whine on about supposedly "moral" principles that - imagine the coincidence! - would , at least on theory, happen to benefit them over their evolutionary competitors.

    As for ourselves, Razib Khan recently came out as declaring himself an idiot for having argued for reason, skepticism, evidence and a search for truth instead of being a good member of the tribe (which to him appears to have meant some tribe of Conservative, including possibly moving to China or India [a bad idea]).

    If it's true for Razib it's true for me.

    The problem however is that people like Razib, myself, OBVIOUSLY Steve and probably a fair handful of other non-crotchety people here is that we have a damn difficult time keeping up the charade.

    I know both Mormons and Ultra-Orthodox Jews who entirely and absolutely disbelieve in the tenets of the faith they dress like, practice in public and around their kin and, in some cases, even teach in schools.

    They benefit from strong social cohesion, the liklihood of marrying a pleasant disease-free girl, having friends whom yoh care about and whi catr about you - for life, not ending up homeless and probably having a bunch of kids that family and friends will help you raise.

    Short of being a Mongolian that's about as pretty good a deal as you can get, both for reproductive posterity and for yourself in your own life.

    But these people (as many fortunate folk here) appear to have some sort of mental distinction that allows them to be freethinkers without being freespeakers.

    For those of us who enjoy communicating however and enjoy rhe company of people and frank and friendly conversations with them about intellectual matters this is tougher to do.

    Yes we can benefit from a tribe.

    No, I don't see us getting one.

    We can join alt right inc. but, as with all tribes, that only works for those tribally inclined and thus easily able to commit to whatever direction this tribe takes, so, even if you agree with every catechism of spencer's (has he manifesto'd yet?) you're just setting yourself up for excommunication in the future.

    So is therr any possible chance of...

    wait, what am I talking about? I jusst congratulated you for a post that eschews nonaense about Right v Wrong precisely BECAUSE it's so uncommon among the commentariot. So who am I even talking to here?

    The commentariot would be wise to join Spencer when his movement appears tenable and also not economic suicide and freethinkers will remain out in the cold.

    Question: Was there ever a time where a couple of thousand Freethinkers grouped together and had each others' backs in a manner that improved their safety, happiness and reproductive success?

    Question: Was there ever a time where a couple of thousand Freethinkers grouped together and had each others’ backs in a manner that improved their safety, happiness and reproductive success?

    Philadelphia, 1776 is close enough for me. That tribe carries on still, freethinking away.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. @The Last Real Calvinist

    Right, because if our high Who class are, thanks to their own intellectual and cultural gifts, naturally ascendant winners on an objective principle, why do they have a compulsion to break the principle and add the low to the Who to crush the middle Whom?

     

    It's because the 'high Who class' doesn't see the Low as fully human, i.e. as having agency and being responsible for their own lives; they're just pawns/stage props the Who can make use of in their battle against the Whom.

    It’s because there’s not much actually high about them, and everybody knows it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. Moshe says:
    @Tiny Duck
    The Moors (Black People of Color) taught Europeans how to bathe

    I can’t stand it how downright stupid people are to think that TD showed up here as a legitimate leftist.

    He called hinself TINY DICK for godsakes!

    Yet, tons of morons think he’s a legit leftist.

    He may be by now once he’s seen the credulous stupidity of so so many people but I doubt it. Either way, he definitely showed up here to sarcastically mock leftists and i’ve said it here again and again to no avail. No choice here but to add him to my do not disturb list. Not because i dont enjoy his humor but because, as a great admirer of Steve’s it annoys me to see how many mentally inept commentors he has.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome


    Yet, tons of morons think he’s a legit leftist.

     

    Give them a break, no real leftist would dare come here to get crushed in a debate, so we have to make do.
    , @Tiny Duck
    Give them a break.

    Most of the people here are childless single men who are old as dirt.

    There minds cannot understand certain things
    , @Anonymous
    Come on, haven't you realized by now that TD is Steve messing with us?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. “So, it was Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin, with Stalin stripping away the semi-euphemistic facade to make clear the underlying meaning.”

    With regards to power and amassing as much of it as he possibly could, didn’t Stalin always make clear his meaning?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  58. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Desiderius
    Lenin's older brother was executed by the Tsar on dubious charges when he was a young man.

    The charge was conspiring to overthrow the government by force and violence. It wasn’t the Tsar, it was the prosecutor who convicted Lenin and the judge who imposed the sentence of execution.

    Too bad the younger Lenin wasn’t executed as well. The entire revolutionary movement in the late 19th century was college professors and upper and middle class students. Sound familiar?

    Lenin’s father was a radical as well. He was the superintendent of the schools of an entire province. He was similar to the radicals in the US department of education and the teachers unions.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    It doesn't do much good to glom them all together like that.

    It's akin to executing Glenn Greenwald for the Scalise shootings.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. @Desiderius
    Lenin's older brother was executed by the Tsar on dubious charges when he was a young man.

    The point was that Lenin had valid reason to fear for his life beyond mere projection. As for whether the charges were actually dubious rather than believed to be so by Lenin (the point), I’d say that’s the way to bet when it comes to the Okhrana in most matters.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    "Lenin had valid reason to fear for his life beyond mere projection"

    So do you, if you commit certain acts. Ask Tim McVeigh.

    Obviously, if Lenin had been caught actually carrying out armed revolution, he would have reason to fear death. But short of that, Tsarist and later authorities showed not a whisper of a shadow of a hint of a long-forgotten memory of the Who zeal demonstrated by the Bolsheviks when they took power. Their fear of the other side getting the upper hand was entirely out of proportion to reality.
    , @Hippopotamusdrome


    The point was that Lenin had valid reason to fear for his life

     

    Lenin was actually arrested once. Here is what happened:


    Vladimir Lenin
    ... he was sentenced without trial to three years exile in eastern Siberia ... to a peasant's hut in Shushenskoye ... where he was kept under police surveillance; he was nevertheless able to correspond with other revolutionaries, many of whom visited him, and permitted to go on trips to swim in the Yenisei River and to hunt duck and snipe. ... In May 1898, Nadya joined him in exile, having been arrested in August 1896 for organising a strike. ... the couple translated English socialist literature into Russian. ... Keen to keep up with developments in German Marxism – where there had been an ideological split, with revisionists like Eduard Bernstein advocating a peaceful, electoral path to socialism – Lenin remained devoted to violent revolution, attacking revisionist arguments in A Protest by Russian Social-Democrats.

     

    Three years of exile, not even prison. He plotted with his fellow revolutionaries who were allowed to visit and he wrote a book advocating overthrow of the government with a Communist dictatorship. This is what he had to fear.


    Capital punishment in Russia
    Perhaps the first public statement on the matter ... came from Catherine II (Catherine the Great), whose liberal views were consistent with her acceptance of the Enlightenment. ... the empress expressed a disdain for the death penalty, considering it to be improper, adding: "In the usual state of the society, death penalty is neither useful nor needed." ... Consistent with Catherine's stance, the next several decades marked a shift of public perception against the death penalty. In 1824, the very existence of such a punishment was among the reasons for legislature's refusal to approve a new version of the Penal Code. Just one year later, the Decembrist revolt failed, and a court sentenced 36 of the rebels to death. Nicholas I's decision to commute all but five of the sentences was highly unusual for the time. ... By the late 1890s, capital punishment for murder was virtually never carried out, but substituted with 10 to 15 years imprisonment with hard labor, although it still was carried out for treason... . However, in 1910, capital punishment was reintroduced and expanded, although still very seldom used.

     

    , @Bill
    Exactly. Killing your enemies a little bit is stupid.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. Moshe says:
    @kaganovitch
    I used to think we were not related but I was told by relatives that we are really distant cousins .

    Kogan and Kagan and Kaganovitch are simply the Russian way of spelling “Cohen”.

    I know half a dozen Americans with that last name and, to a man, they claim to be related – through unspecified and unprovable channels.

    Such rumors arise because it’s cool to be related to famous notorious people.

    That’s it. My apologies for taking that away from you :(

    On thr plus side, being Jewish doesn’t mean you have to lack famous relations. I mean famous outside of the ultra-orthodox world.

    I have a friend whose father is a direct descendantsl of James Buchanan (though, upon becoming orthodox he took his jewish mothers’ last name kagan) and another friend who is the great grandson of William Howard Taft. And who kept the last name.

    Read More
    • Replies: @kaganovitch
    I'm well aware that it's Russified Cohen. As I said, I never thought we were related until told by older relatives. Believe me I have no desire to be related to L.K., it's like being related to Himmler.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Moshe
    Finally an excellent and worthwhile comment in this forum that doesn't whine on about supposedly "moral" principles that - imagine the coincidence! - would , at least on theory, happen to benefit them over their evolutionary competitors.

    As for ourselves, Razib Khan recently came out as declaring himself an idiot for having argued for reason, skepticism, evidence and a search for truth instead of being a good member of the tribe (which to him appears to have meant some tribe of Conservative, including possibly moving to China or India [a bad idea]).

    If it's true for Razib it's true for me.

    The problem however is that people like Razib, myself, OBVIOUSLY Steve and probably a fair handful of other non-crotchety people here is that we have a damn difficult time keeping up the charade.

    I know both Mormons and Ultra-Orthodox Jews who entirely and absolutely disbelieve in the tenets of the faith they dress like, practice in public and around their kin and, in some cases, even teach in schools.

    They benefit from strong social cohesion, the liklihood of marrying a pleasant disease-free girl, having friends whom yoh care about and whi catr about you - for life, not ending up homeless and probably having a bunch of kids that family and friends will help you raise.

    Short of being a Mongolian that's about as pretty good a deal as you can get, both for reproductive posterity and for yourself in your own life.

    But these people (as many fortunate folk here) appear to have some sort of mental distinction that allows them to be freethinkers without being freespeakers.

    For those of us who enjoy communicating however and enjoy rhe company of people and frank and friendly conversations with them about intellectual matters this is tougher to do.

    Yes we can benefit from a tribe.

    No, I don't see us getting one.

    We can join alt right inc. but, as with all tribes, that only works for those tribally inclined and thus easily able to commit to whatever direction this tribe takes, so, even if you agree with every catechism of spencer's (has he manifesto'd yet?) you're just setting yourself up for excommunication in the future.

    So is therr any possible chance of...

    wait, what am I talking about? I jusst congratulated you for a post that eschews nonaense about Right v Wrong precisely BECAUSE it's so uncommon among the commentariot. So who am I even talking to here?

    The commentariot would be wise to join Spencer when his movement appears tenable and also not economic suicide and freethinkers will remain out in the cold.

    Question: Was there ever a time where a couple of thousand Freethinkers grouped together and had each others' backs in a manner that improved their safety, happiness and reproductive success?

    I agree with you about the Mormons and orthodox. I live about a mile east of a huge ultra orthodox (chabads, hasids and even a Rabbi Schnnerson colony) neighborhood . It’s wonderful seeing young mothers of about 30 with 4 kids who are allowed to stay home and take care of their children instead of being railroaded into some horrible job.

    The Mormon life seems ideal except for the bible study. I wouldn’t mind going to services, but discussing the bible; I don’t know if I could cope. And Mormons are an incredibly good looking people.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. The German high command gave something of the order of $4bn (todays money) to Lenin and cronies to commit the revolution. You can commit a lot of revolution with that amount of money when a country is crumbling.
    The other 2 Lobbies that played a significant role in the Russian revolution were wall street who wanted the resources that Russia had available (at the time Russia was the main competitor to the USA in oil production) and the Elite Jewish lobby Schiff, warburgs et al who wanted lebensraum for the Jews and just hated orthodox Christianity.
    (See wall street and the bolsheviks Sutton. The Warburgs Chernow, My Manipulated father in Law Dall?)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  63. Siimon says:

    >>> I’ve long argued that the underlying trend in the modern world is the long downfall from the belief in objective principles for determining winners and losers to the subjective belief that all that matters is that there are Good Guys and Bad Guys (increasingly whomever hasn’t yet engaged in Flight from White. <<<

    "Whoever," not "whomever." Jeez!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  64. guest says:
    @Desiderius
    The point was that Lenin had valid reason to fear for his life beyond mere projection. As for whether the charges were actually dubious rather than believed to be so by Lenin (the point), I'd say that's the way to bet when it comes to the Okhrana in most matters.

    “Lenin had valid reason to fear for his life beyond mere projection”

    So do you, if you commit certain acts. Ask Tim McVeigh.

    Obviously, if Lenin had been caught actually carrying out armed revolution, he would have reason to fear death. But short of that, Tsarist and later authorities showed not a whisper of a shadow of a hint of a long-forgotten memory of the Who zeal demonstrated by the Bolsheviks when they took power. Their fear of the other side getting the upper hand was entirely out of proportion to reality.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    He believed his brother was unjustly executed and it radicalized him. Not that complicated.

    Stalin was rotten from an early age, coming from an entirely different milieu, for instance.

    And, no, there has never been a Russian government as gentle as you're imagining, nor is there likely to ever be one. Ineffectual at best.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. @Anonymous
    The charge was conspiring to overthrow the government by force and violence. It wasn't the Tsar, it was the prosecutor who convicted Lenin and the judge who imposed the sentence of execution.

    Too bad the younger Lenin wasn't executed as well. The entire revolutionary movement in the late 19th century was college professors and upper and middle class students. Sound familiar?

    Lenin's father was a radical as well. He was the superintendent of the schools of an entire province. He was similar to the radicals in the US department of education and the teachers unions.

    It doesn’t do much good to glom them all together like that.

    It’s akin to executing Glenn Greenwald for the Scalise shootings.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sparkon
    It doesn't do any good either, to glom onto a word, and then misuse it. In this case, it's a bit like mistaking sticky fingers for glue. You can trying singing this to the old Bardahl jingle:

    Are sticky fingers glomming onto your stuff tonight?

    I suppose you meant to say something like "it doesn't do much good to lump them all together like that," but fingering academia alone doesn't sound to me much like lumping, or mixing together a bunch of disparate interests into a hodge-podge, if that's what you were trying to say.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. @guest
    "Lenin had valid reason to fear for his life beyond mere projection"

    So do you, if you commit certain acts. Ask Tim McVeigh.

    Obviously, if Lenin had been caught actually carrying out armed revolution, he would have reason to fear death. But short of that, Tsarist and later authorities showed not a whisper of a shadow of a hint of a long-forgotten memory of the Who zeal demonstrated by the Bolsheviks when they took power. Their fear of the other side getting the upper hand was entirely out of proportion to reality.

    He believed his brother was unjustly executed and it radicalized him. Not that complicated.

    Stalin was rotten from an early age, coming from an entirely different milieu, for instance.

    And, no, there has never been a Russian government as gentle as you’re imagining, nor is there likely to ever be one. Ineffectual at best.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome


    He believed his brother was unjustly executed

     

    Source?

    Leftist friendly Wikipedia believes him to have been guilty.


    Aleksandr Ulyanov
    ... three of them ... were arrested in the Nevsky Prospekt, where they were going to throw their bombs into the Emperor's carriage (he always visited churches that day to pay tribute to his assassinated father).

     

    Stay classy, Communists.


    Later Ulyanov, who was both the main ideologist of the group and the chemist preparing bombs

     

    Has any historian, including Communist historians denied this?


    All the conspirators were initially sentenced to death, but only five of them were not pardoned by Alexander III

     

    , @nebulafox
    >Stalin was rotten from an early age, coming from an entirely different milieu, for instance.

    At the end of the day, the strong mutual dislike between Trotsky and Stalin stemmed from their fundamentally opposite backgrounds. Stalin was a highly intelligent man by any fair metric-the underestimation of his intelligence, the dismissal of him as a plodding bureaucrat, by his rivals in the 1920s was a fatal mistake. But his background was very provincial compared to guys like Trotsky, and he remained something of a ruffian/proletarian when it came to personal tastes, compared to much of the Bolshevik elite. His parents were liberated serfs, he didn't begin to learn Russian until he was 8 or 9, and he would forever speak with a rough Georgian accent. He grew up in a very different environment than bourgeois intellectuals like Trotsky. After he was expelled from the seminary, he essentially paid his dues for the Bolsheviks as a terrorist, robbing banks: a rather different background from Trotsky.

    They didn't like each other from start: their own recollections are very telling. Trotsky viewed Stalin as the epitome of "the log cabin", the old, backward, vulgar Russia that Trotsky disdained, probably secretly pathologically feared as a Jew, and felt was the epitome of what needed to be eliminated for the Revolution to succeed. Trotsky's account, from the first time he encountered Stalin in Vienna:

    "When suddenly, without knocking at the door, there entered a man into the room of middle height, with a swarthy, grayish face, showing the marks of smallpox. Dim, but not commonplace appearance... his yellow, hostile eyes showed no signs of friendliness..." Stalin went over to the samovar, gutter ally grunted to them, filled the glass with tea, and left without another word. The encounter made Trotsky uneasy.

    As for Stalin, one commonality he shared with other famous leaders from humble backgrounds (Adolf Hitler was the same. In the US, LBJ and Nixon were classic examples) was an immediate upsurge of psychological defensive complexes when dealing with people of superior birth and education, and a strong ability to quickly detect when contempt for him was based on this. Stalin's assessment of, and contempt for, Trotsky was briefer: he thought of Trotsky as "pretty, but useless", and an effete, preening "noisy champion with fake muscles". Says it all.

    , @guest
    "He believed his brother was unjustly executed and it radicalized him. Not that complicated"

    Not really the point, either. If Tim McVeigh had a brother and somehow he came into power through revolution and coup, and he wanted to torture and kill, I don't know, let's say hundreds of thousands of people lest his followers go on to be ground to dust by the Man, would one thing really follow from the other? Or would that be projection? Especially if, in the meantime, despite having been arrested, none of Brother McVeigh's comrades were ever put to death or even given hard sentences.

    I think you're missing the point. For Lenin was o throw all bourgeois morality out the window and embrace terror on a grand scale because the previous order had lost all legitimacy for killing his brother, okay that's one thing. But what we're talking about is who/whom anxiety. The spirit of "either our side wins or we're finished, so no mercy! Eat their livers, rape their wives and slit their babies' throats!"

    , @guest
    "Amd, no, there has never been a Russian government as gentle as you're imagining"

    What? I said they executed and tortured political prisoners. The fact remains that all the prominent Bolsheviks were arrested at one point or another, I think, and none of them were even given hard labor, let alone executed, justly or unjustly. They were given short prison sentences or exiled. In retrospect, the authorities should've been much tougher. They had Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Bakunin, Molotov, Kamenev, and others in their hands and didn't crush them.

    All regimes will defend themselves, within and without the law, and some are fiercer and less scrupulous than others. My point is the commies' historically unique lack of scruples, which were in part motivated by their fear of being on the losing side,were all out of proportion to reality.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. @Moshe
    Kogan and Kagan and Kaganovitch are simply the Russian way of spelling "Cohen".

    I know half a dozen Americans with that last name and, to a man, they claim to be related - through unspecified and unprovable channels.

    Such rumors arise because it's cool to be related to famous notorious people.

    That's it. My apologies for taking that away from you :(

    On thr plus side, being Jewish doesn't mean you have to lack famous relations. I mean famous outside of the ultra-orthodox world.

    I have a friend whose father is a direct descendantsl of James Buchanan (though, upon becoming orthodox he took his jewish mothers' last name kagan) and another friend who is the great grandson of William Howard Taft. And who kept the last name.

    I’m well aware that it’s Russified Cohen. As I said, I never thought we were related until told by older relatives. Believe me I have no desire to be related to L.K., it’s like being related to Himmler.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. Sparkon says:
    @Desiderius
    It doesn't do much good to glom them all together like that.

    It's akin to executing Glenn Greenwald for the Scalise shootings.

    It doesn’t do any good either, to glom onto a word, and then misuse it. In this case, it’s a bit like mistaking sticky fingers for glue. You can trying singing this to the old Bardahl jingle:

    Are sticky fingers glomming onto your stuff tonight?

    I suppose you meant to say something like “it doesn’t do much good to lump them all together like that,” but fingering academia alone doesn’t sound to me much like lumping, or mixing together a bunch of disparate interests into a hodge-podge, if that’s what you were trying to say.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Lump it is then.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. @Desiderius
    The point was that Lenin had valid reason to fear for his life beyond mere projection. As for whether the charges were actually dubious rather than believed to be so by Lenin (the point), I'd say that's the way to bet when it comes to the Okhrana in most matters.

    The point was that Lenin had valid reason to fear for his life

    Lenin was actually arrested once. Here is what happened:

    Vladimir Lenin
    … he was sentenced without trial to three years exile in eastern Siberia … to a peasant’s hut in Shushenskoye … where he was kept under police surveillance; he was nevertheless able to correspond with other revolutionaries, many of whom visited him, and permitted to go on trips to swim in the Yenisei River and to hunt duck and snipe. … In May 1898, Nadya joined him in exile, having been arrested in August 1896 for organising a strike. … the couple translated English socialist literature into Russian. … Keen to keep up with developments in German Marxism – where there had been an ideological split, with revisionists like Eduard Bernstein advocating a peaceful, electoral path to socialism – Lenin remained devoted to violent revolution, attacking revisionist arguments in A Protest by Russian Social-Democrats.

    Three years of exile, not even prison. He plotted with his fellow revolutionaries who were allowed to visit and he wrote a book advocating overthrow of the government with a Communist dictatorship. This is what he had to fear.

    Capital punishment in Russia
    Perhaps the first public statement on the matter … came from Catherine II (Catherine the Great), whose liberal views were consistent with her acceptance of the Enlightenment. … the empress expressed a disdain for the death penalty, considering it to be improper, adding: “In the usual state of the society, death penalty is neither useful nor needed.” … Consistent with Catherine’s stance, the next several decades marked a shift of public perception against the death penalty. In 1824, the very existence of such a punishment was among the reasons for legislature’s refusal to approve a new version of the Penal Code. Just one year later, the Decembrist revolt failed, and a court sentenced 36 of the rebels to death. Nicholas I’s decision to commute all but five of the sentences was highly unusual for the time. … By the late 1890s, capital punishment for murder was virtually never carried out, but substituted with 10 to 15 years imprisonment with hard labor, although it still was carried out for treason… . However, in 1910, capital punishment was reintroduced and expanded, although still very seldom used.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. @Desiderius
    He believed his brother was unjustly executed and it radicalized him. Not that complicated.

    Stalin was rotten from an early age, coming from an entirely different milieu, for instance.

    And, no, there has never been a Russian government as gentle as you're imagining, nor is there likely to ever be one. Ineffectual at best.

    He believed his brother was unjustly executed

    Source?

    Leftist friendly Wikipedia believes him to have been guilty.

    Aleksandr Ulyanov
    … three of them … were arrested in the Nevsky Prospekt, where they were going to throw their bombs into the Emperor’s carriage (he always visited churches that day to pay tribute to his assassinated father).

    Stay classy, Communists.

    Later Ulyanov, who was both the main ideologist of the group and the chemist preparing bombs

    Has any historian, including Communist historians denied this?

    All the conspirators were initially sentenced to death, but only five of them were not pardoned by Alexander III

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. @Moshe
    I can't stand it how downright stupid people are to think that TD showed up here as a legitimate leftist.

    He called hinself TINY DICK for godsakes!

    Yet, tons of morons think he's a legit leftist.

    He may be by now once he's seen the credulous stupidity of so so many people but I doubt it. Either way, he definitely showed up here to sarcastically mock leftists and i've said it here again and again to no avail. No choice here but to add him to my do not disturb list. Not because i dont enjoy his humor but because, as a great admirer of Steve's it annoys me to see how many mentally inept commentors he has.

    Yet, tons of morons think he’s a legit leftist.

    Give them a break, no real leftist would dare come here to get crushed in a debate, so we have to make do.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Moshe
    Chuckled out loud :)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. Thea says:
    @Moshe
    Look, Jews have their annoyances (what secularism has done to their formerly marriagable women aint great) but boy are they a superior class of homo sapien than most other such groups.

    Obviously not on every metric but have you ever noticed how downright BORING most goyim are after a couple of hours? Yeah, most Jews are dullards too but your odds of picking an interesting one are better.

    Easy collectivist abilities are a beautiful and pleasant trait, such as Mormons have (Jews are imagined to have it but such claims are, unfortunately for them, rather exaggerated). But yes, a trait rhat is good in every way I admire.

    And it should go without saying that full blown black males are God's True Chosen People.

    But yeah, Jews definitely got their benefits. A lack of moral inclination isn't generally one of those benefits unfortunately. I'm not saying that their morality based actions are necessarily either wise or logical but they do hapoen to be way to moral a lot.

    I know you'll think the "is it good for the jews" thing is evidence against such outward caring. And while others may deny the existence of such a term or concept (perhaps because they didn't grow up very religious or whatever) I'll note my disagreement. It's definitely a Yiddishism ans was definitely taken seriously by certain semites at certain times. What it exclusively meant however was, "they want to killbus or at least ruin or exile us, how dare tbat m*therf*cker bronstein go and do all these dangerous things that aren't good for the jews!" IOW, it was and is only and always a defensive motto (even if it retained that defensiveness wherenit is irrational like in the usa). "Good for the jews" was never understood to mean, "at someone else's expense".

    I'm sure ronald macdonald has cherry picked dubious quotes to the contrary (i haven't checked but his and his sorts' version of "scholarship" makes me think that he, or perhaps a commentator here, must).

    And you know I'm not disembling (I'm not sure how to spell it because I don't read much antisem literature) because I OPPOSE this defensive way of thinking as both disgusting and...well, my kther lengthy comment here on a non-judaic subject spells it out sufficiently.

    The results may be better things for the jews - in the opinion of some though i'm rather certain they Do Not, except by exempting jews from white guilt which is pretty cool but is weinstein'ing apart lately. But that certainly was never the intent of its perpetually "proud to be losers" people. I am not mentioning this to disagree with how others' may think it was intended, only to share my learned opinion on the subject as one who isn't fully a member of the aforementioned group and who opposes the defensive cowardice of a people that could and (after I rejoin) should conquer the world.

    The problem isn’t the “is it good for my people?” ethos. In fact, wish my people had such cohesion. Nor is Israeli nationalism bad. I wish my people had that love of their historic soil.

    Look, the problem is that this ethos has been twisted into “western civilization is bad for the Jews so we must eradicate whites from self determination. ” Sure, lots of Jews don’t share this view. But those with the megaphone and power certainly do.

    It seems too much of a coincidence that Soros, Zuckerberg, most of Hollywood and the media all promote an agenda that absolutely will end with the death of millions of whites and the end of their self determination in their lands.

    How did so many Jews arrive at this same point if it’s not an organized effort within that community?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. nebulafox says:
    @Desiderius
    He believed his brother was unjustly executed and it radicalized him. Not that complicated.

    Stalin was rotten from an early age, coming from an entirely different milieu, for instance.

    And, no, there has never been a Russian government as gentle as you're imagining, nor is there likely to ever be one. Ineffectual at best.

    >Stalin was rotten from an early age, coming from an entirely different milieu, for instance.

    At the end of the day, the strong mutual dislike between Trotsky and Stalin stemmed from their fundamentally opposite backgrounds. Stalin was a highly intelligent man by any fair metric-the underestimation of his intelligence, the dismissal of him as a plodding bureaucrat, by his rivals in the 1920s was a fatal mistake. But his background was very provincial compared to guys like Trotsky, and he remained something of a ruffian/proletarian when it came to personal tastes, compared to much of the Bolshevik elite. His parents were liberated serfs, he didn’t begin to learn Russian until he was 8 or 9, and he would forever speak with a rough Georgian accent. He grew up in a very different environment than bourgeois intellectuals like Trotsky. After he was expelled from the seminary, he essentially paid his dues for the Bolsheviks as a terrorist, robbing banks: a rather different background from Trotsky.

    They didn’t like each other from start: their own recollections are very telling. Trotsky viewed Stalin as the epitome of “the log cabin”, the old, backward, vulgar Russia that Trotsky disdained, probably secretly pathologically feared as a Jew, and felt was the epitome of what needed to be eliminated for the Revolution to succeed. Trotsky’s account, from the first time he encountered Stalin in Vienna:

    “When suddenly, without knocking at the door, there entered a man into the room of middle height, with a swarthy, grayish face, showing the marks of smallpox. Dim, but not commonplace appearance… his yellow, hostile eyes showed no signs of friendliness…” Stalin went over to the samovar, gutter ally grunted to them, filled the glass with tea, and left without another word. The encounter made Trotsky uneasy.

    As for Stalin, one commonality he shared with other famous leaders from humble backgrounds (Adolf Hitler was the same. In the US, LBJ and Nixon were classic examples) was an immediate upsurge of psychological defensive complexes when dealing with people of superior birth and education, and a strong ability to quickly detect when contempt for him was based on this. Stalin’s assessment of, and contempt for, Trotsky was briefer: he thought of Trotsky as “pretty, but useless”, and an effete, preening “noisy champion with fake muscles”. Says it all.

    Read More
    • Agree: Desiderius
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. @jimmyriddle
    Trotsky wasn't all that enthusiastic about collectivisation. He is supposed to have said that: "total collectivisation means total weeds in the fields".

    Very unusually for a Jew, his father was a Kulak.

    Yevgeni Preobrazhensky was a more likely candidate for the originator of the collectivisation plan (or at least the plan to extract a huge surplus from the agricultural sector to invest in heavy industry).

    “total collectivisation means total weeds in the fields”

    Thats a feature, not a bug.

    likely candidate for the originator of the collectivisation plan

    Collectivisation is inherent in the concept of Communism.

    Phalanstère
    Paris Commune

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. fnn says:
    @Charles Erwin Wilson

    Stalin successfully argued that Trotsky’s anti-peasant radicalism was too dangerous, but as soon as he had defeated Trotsky, Stalin appropriated Trotsky’s disastrous program of collectivizing agriculture, which led to the famine in the Ukraine in the early 1930s.
     
    So even though the Jew did not do it, the Jew gets blamed.

    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3342999,00.html

    And us, the Jews? An Israeli student finishes high school without ever hearing the name “Genrikh Yagoda,” the greatest Jewish murderer of the 20th Century, the GPU’s deputy commander and the founder and commander of the NKVD. Yagoda diligently implemented Stalin’s collectivization orders and is responsible for the deaths of at least 10 million people. His Jewish deputies established and managed the Gulag system.

    Stalin’s close associates and loyalists included member of the Central Committee and Politburo Lazar Kaganovich. Montefiore characterizes him as the “first Stalinist” and adds that those starving to death in Ukraine, an unparalleled tragedy in the history of human kind aside from the Nazi horrors and Mao’s terror in China, did not move Kaganovich.

    Many Jews sold their soul to the devil of the Communist revolution and have blood on their hands for eternity. We’ll mention just one more: Leonid Reichman, head of the NKVD’s special department and the organization’s chief interrogator, who was a particularly cruel sadist.

    In 1934, according to published statistics, 38.5 percent of those holding the most senior posts in the Soviet security apparatuses were of Jewish origin. They too, of course, were gradually eliminated in the next purges. In a fascinating lecture at a Tel Aviv University convention this week, Dr. Halfin described the waves of soviet terror as a “carnival of mass murder,” “fantasy of purges”, and “messianism of evil.”

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

    Stalin had two quotes attributed to himthat work good if you like dark comedy: “one death is a tragedy, a million a statistic.”

    Then: “No man, no problem.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  77. CK says:
    @nebulafox
    If Trotsky had his way, the Soviet Union's attempts at world revolution would have inevitably frightened pissed off the entire world, otherwise sympathizers included, much like Cultural Revolution era China did in the 1960s-but this would be before nukes. Most likely, Trotsky would eventually try to invade Poland again to link up to the German Communist Party, as they tried in 1919-1920, setting off a general conflict.

    Stalin was many things, a brutal, genocidal sociopath among them, but two things he was not was an ideological wet-dreamer, or an ignoramus when it came to practical politics and strategy. Stalin pretty much ensured that the Soviet system survived through socialism in one country. Not least by erasing Lenin-style social engineering, which helped reconcile a lot of Russians to the regime. He turned the USSR into a shockingly socially conservative place that encouraged the youth to respect their elders and marry and have kids, canonized old Russian leaders like Alexander Nevsky and Ivan the Terrible along with Marx and Engels, and the Red Army had already returned to Tsarist style ranks and insignia by the time the purges came. And, being a failed Orthodox seminary himself, he knew the value of a tightly controlled, NKVD intertwined Church...

    In 1925, the Japanese were the last of the invading nations to leave the USSR. ( The USA left in 1920).
    From 29 July to 11 August 1938, and then again from 11 May to 15 September 1939, the Japanese armies in northern China and Manchuria attacked the forces of the USSR first at
    Lake Khasan and then at Khalkhin Gol. The result of these aggressions was that Japan suffered decisive military defeats. ( Georgy Zhukov was the commander at Khalkhin Gol ).
    So decisive were these defeats that the Japanese signed on to the Soviet-Japanese neutrality pact. (April 13, 1941)
    Of all the major nations that fought in WWII, the USSR was the only nation that fought only a one front war. Even after Germany declared war on the USSR (22, June 1941), Germany’s ally Japan failed to follow suit. (Unlike when Japan went to war with the USA and Germany did follow suit within two days).
    From 22 June of 1941 until 9 May of 1945, the USSR was able to concentrate its forces against one enemy and to completely defeat that enemy. One can attribute this success to brilliance, dumb luck, Japanese perfidy however one wishes, the result is that Stalin and the USSR won WWII in the West.
    The USA, at the Yalta conference in Feb of 1945, gave Stalin an ultimatum. Enter the war against Japan within 90 days of the defeat of Germany or the USSR would have no voice in he partitioning of Asia after the defeat of Japan.
    The Germans surrendered on 9 May ( Moscow Time ), the USSR informed Japan that the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality pact was not longer operative on 8 August 1945 and commenced the largest double envelopment operation; the invasion of Manchuria and the destruction of the Japanese armies there on 9 August ( 89 or 90 days subsequent to the German surrender depending on the time zone used).
    Hiroshima was 6 August, Nagasaki was 9 August.
    August 15, Hirohito tries to surrender and botches the job.
    August 18, the USSR does three amphibious landings in the Northern half of the Korean peninsula, one amphibious landing in Sakhalin Island and one in the Kuril islands ( the later two effectively reversing the Portsmouth Treaty of 1905.)
    The official cease fire on 22 August 1945 precluded the last planned amphibious invasion which was to have been Hokkaido Island.
    Again one can attribute this success to Brilliance, dumb luck, the communist infestation of the American delegation at Yalta and their brilliance in convincing FDR that the Russian army and the Russian logistics infrastructure could not attack Eastward within the 90 day limit, or the phases of the Japanese moon.
    The result was that Russia and Communist China dominated northern Asia then and still do today.
    The past is not History indeed it is not even the past.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The Japanese pact with Germany and Italy was defensive and did not obligate Japan to assist in Germany's invasion of the USSR. There was no Japanese perfidy.

    Germany was also not required to declare war on the U.S. after Pearl Harbor. Why Hitler did so is a mystery. Another of his many mistakes.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. Moshe says:
    @Hippopotamusdrome


    Yet, tons of morons think he’s a legit leftist.

     

    Give them a break, no real leftist would dare come here to get crushed in a debate, so we have to make do.

    Chuckled out loud :)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. guest says:
    @Desiderius
    He believed his brother was unjustly executed and it radicalized him. Not that complicated.

    Stalin was rotten from an early age, coming from an entirely different milieu, for instance.

    And, no, there has never been a Russian government as gentle as you're imagining, nor is there likely to ever be one. Ineffectual at best.

    “He believed his brother was unjustly executed and it radicalized him. Not that complicated”

    Not really the point, either. If Tim McVeigh had a brother and somehow he came into power through revolution and coup, and he wanted to torture and kill, I don’t know, let’s say hundreds of thousands of people lest his followers go on to be ground to dust by the Man, would one thing really follow from the other? Or would that be projection? Especially if, in the meantime, despite having been arrested, none of Brother McVeigh’s comrades were ever put to death or even given hard sentences.

    I think you’re missing the point. For Lenin was o throw all bourgeois morality out the window and embrace terror on a grand scale because the previous order had lost all legitimacy for killing his brother, okay that’s one thing. But what we’re talking about is who/whom anxiety. The spirit of “either our side wins or we’re finished, so no mercy! Eat their livers, rape their wives and slit their babies’ throats!”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. Tiny Duck says:
    @Moshe
    I can't stand it how downright stupid people are to think that TD showed up here as a legitimate leftist.

    He called hinself TINY DICK for godsakes!

    Yet, tons of morons think he's a legit leftist.

    He may be by now once he's seen the credulous stupidity of so so many people but I doubt it. Either way, he definitely showed up here to sarcastically mock leftists and i've said it here again and again to no avail. No choice here but to add him to my do not disturb list. Not because i dont enjoy his humor but because, as a great admirer of Steve's it annoys me to see how many mentally inept commentors he has.

    Give them a break.

    Most of the people here are childless single men who are old as dirt.

    There minds cannot understand certain things

    Read More
    • Replies: @fish
    Yes…..there minds can't!


    - Leonard Pitts
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. guest says:
    @Desiderius
    He believed his brother was unjustly executed and it radicalized him. Not that complicated.

    Stalin was rotten from an early age, coming from an entirely different milieu, for instance.

    And, no, there has never been a Russian government as gentle as you're imagining, nor is there likely to ever be one. Ineffectual at best.

    “Amd, no, there has never been a Russian government as gentle as you’re imagining”

    What? I said they executed and tortured political prisoners. The fact remains that all the prominent Bolsheviks were arrested at one point or another, I think, and none of them were even given hard labor, let alone executed, justly or unjustly. They were given short prison sentences or exiled. In retrospect, the authorities should’ve been much tougher. They had Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Bakunin, Molotov, Kamenev, and others in their hands and didn’t crush them.

    All regimes will defend themselves, within and without the law, and some are fiercer and less scrupulous than others. My point is the commies’ historically unique lack of scruples, which were in part motivated by their fear of being on the losing side,were all out of proportion to reality.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Fair enough.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. mobi says:
    @Desiderius

    Men do not, as a rule, ‘go over the top’ out of shared devotion to objective principle, no.

    So, no, it’s most certainly not the dominant source of group cohesion in the long run.
     
    No, it is (see the historical record) because the other ones lack a stopping principle.

    No, it is (see the historical record) because the other ones lack a stopping principle.

    No, the historical record shows almost the very opposite.

    The more pressing and existential the threat, the sooner appeals to high-minded objective principles are jettisoned, in favour of much more primal, and powerful, appeals to group bonds – family, clan, tribe, gang, ethnic group, squad, etc.

    There’s an abundance of evidence documenting exactly this fact – men under the most dire of duress in combat do not, as I put it, ‘go over the top’ in the name of any objective principles they were ostensibly sent on behalf of. They go, on behalf of their sense of group bond with their buddies to the left and right of them.

    Little or nothing else.

    Do objective principles have no role to play in defining such bonds? I’ve never made that point, but I might as well – they’re among the weakest sources of them, and among the first to fail when it matters most.

    Facing the very real threat of imminent annihilation, the Soviet High Command understood this – hence, exhortations on behalf of ‘victory of the proletariat’, or the superiority of Soviet socialism gave way to much more tribal appeals to ‘fight for Mother Russia’ (‘Fight for your mother! Who’s Russian!). Did it work? Maybe the timing’s just a co-incidence.

    When it seemed in the early days that the Imperial Japanese Army might actually be unbeatable, high-minded principles of ‘freedom and democracy’ yield to ‘kill the treacherous Jap monkeys’.

    And while you’re at it, round up the ones among you, just in case – including all the ones who share your devotion to ‘objective principles’.

    Chinese communists and their ideological polar opposites – Nationalist/Capitalists – put aside their differences, only in the face of impending enslavement, and only on behalf of their shared Chineseness. Nothing else was strong enough – before, or after.

    (It’s even strong enough to put a Jew at the head of the Aryan Brotherhood! If it’s strong enough to force Nazis and Jews to recognize their deeper similarities, that’s some damn strong shit!)

    As for the lack of what you call a stopping principle – although it’s only one example, it’s probably the biggest one ever – what objective principles did Stalinist Soviet Union, Maoist China, Capitalist/Democratic USA, have in common when they all, simultaneously, ‘stopped’ in August, 1945?

    Some combination of total victory, and balance of power, is all I can come up with. Clearly, it was enough, though. Maybe it usually is.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius

    high-minded objective principles
     
    There is nothing high-minded about them. It's those with their heads in the clouds who are most likely to abandon them.

    Ask our liberal friends how abandoning objective principles is working out for them, as they're torn apart by swarms of their own progtards. Primal indeed! Cancerous cells no doubt outgrow and take over all around them - to what end?

    You'd be hard-pressed to find a more cohesive group than those men at Houston flight control, nor any more devoted to objective principle- undergirded of course by shared love of country and commitment to Christ. The three are far from mutually exclusive, whatever you've fooled yourself into thinking feeling.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. fish says:
    @Tiny Duck
    Give them a break.

    Most of the people here are childless single men who are old as dirt.

    There minds cannot understand certain things

    Yes…..there minds can’t!

    - Leonard Pitts

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. @Sparkon
    It doesn't do any good either, to glom onto a word, and then misuse it. In this case, it's a bit like mistaking sticky fingers for glue. You can trying singing this to the old Bardahl jingle:

    Are sticky fingers glomming onto your stuff tonight?

    I suppose you meant to say something like "it doesn't do much good to lump them all together like that," but fingering academia alone doesn't sound to me much like lumping, or mixing together a bunch of disparate interests into a hodge-podge, if that's what you were trying to say.

    Lump it is then.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. Glossy says: • Website

    Steve, are you reading the Cambridge History of Russia or did you find that quote through Google? Just curious.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Just following Wikipedia.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. @guest
    "Amd, no, there has never been a Russian government as gentle as you're imagining"

    What? I said they executed and tortured political prisoners. The fact remains that all the prominent Bolsheviks were arrested at one point or another, I think, and none of them were even given hard labor, let alone executed, justly or unjustly. They were given short prison sentences or exiled. In retrospect, the authorities should've been much tougher. They had Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Bakunin, Molotov, Kamenev, and others in their hands and didn't crush them.

    All regimes will defend themselves, within and without the law, and some are fiercer and less scrupulous than others. My point is the commies' historically unique lack of scruples, which were in part motivated by their fear of being on the losing side,were all out of proportion to reality.

    Fair enough.

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

    No, it is (see the historical record) because the other ones lack a stopping principle.
     
    No, the historical record shows almost the very opposite.

    The more pressing and existential the threat, the sooner appeals to high-minded objective principles are jettisoned, in favour of much more primal, and powerful, appeals to group bonds - family, clan, tribe, gang, ethnic group, squad, etc.

    There's an abundance of evidence documenting exactly this fact - men under the most dire of duress in combat do not, as I put it, 'go over the top' in the name of any objective principles they were ostensibly sent on behalf of. They go, on behalf of their sense of group bond with their buddies to the left and right of them.

    Little or nothing else.

    Do objective principles have no role to play in defining such bonds? I've never made that point, but I might as well - they're among the weakest sources of them, and among the first to fail when it matters most.

    Facing the very real threat of imminent annihilation, the Soviet High Command understood this - hence, exhortations on behalf of 'victory of the proletariat', or the superiority of Soviet socialism gave way to much more tribal appeals to 'fight for Mother Russia' ('Fight for your mother! Who's Russian!). Did it work? Maybe the timing's just a co-incidence.

    When it seemed in the early days that the Imperial Japanese Army might actually be unbeatable, high-minded principles of 'freedom and democracy' yield to 'kill the treacherous Jap monkeys'.

    And while you're at it, round up the ones among you, just in case - including all the ones who share your devotion to 'objective principles'.

    Chinese communists and their ideological polar opposites - Nationalist/Capitalists - put aside their differences, only in the face of impending enslavement, and only on behalf of their shared Chineseness. Nothing else was strong enough - before, or after.

    (It's even strong enough to put a Jew at the head of the Aryan Brotherhood! If it's strong enough to force Nazis and Jews to recognize their deeper similarities, that's some damn strong shit!)

    As for the lack of what you call a stopping principle - although it's only one example, it's probably the biggest one ever - what objective principles did Stalinist Soviet Union, Maoist China, Capitalist/Democratic USA, have in common when they all, simultaneously, 'stopped' in August, 1945?

    Some combination of total victory, and balance of power, is all I can come up with. Clearly, it was enough, though. Maybe it usually is.

    high-minded objective principles

    There is nothing high-minded about them. It’s those with their heads in the clouds who are most likely to abandon them.

    Ask our liberal friends how abandoning objective principles is working out for them, as they’re torn apart by swarms of their own progtards. Primal indeed! Cancerous cells no doubt outgrow and take over all around them – to what end?

    You’d be hard-pressed to find a more cohesive group than those men at Houston flight control, nor any more devoted to objective principle- undergirded of course by shared love of country and commitment to Christ. The three are far from mutually exclusive, whatever you’ve fooled yourself into thinking feeling.

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

    undergirded of course by shared love of country and commitment to Christ.

    Oh, goodness. And you accuse others of ‘fooling themselves’!

    But, of course you do.

    The good news is, as silly superstitions go, yours actually has a high adaptation value (which is why it exists).

    I halfway wish I could share it for that reason, but I outgrew it around 12 years old.

    The bad news is, you’re not going to think your way out of what’s coming as much as you might hope.

    We can agree that Ground Control, Houston, was a beautiful moment in time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Maybe you shouldn't have stopped at 12.
    , @HA
    "[commitment to Christ]...I outgrew it around 12 years old."

    Clearly, you were one precious and special little dude. But get back to us when you're adult enough to realize that whatever beliefs (or lack thereof) that you grew into when you discarded Christianity are ultimately just as ridiculous and weird as the ones you claim to have outgrown, the primary difference being that Christianity actually built a civilization (curiously, a civilization that is now being flooded by those who, like you, tell us it needs discarding, replacing, or outgrowing as the case may be -- weird how that works).

    That's assuming, of course, that you ever do grow up enough to admit any of that. I'm not holding my breath. But even in that case, you can take consolation in knowing that there are plenty of other people out there who have yet to realize that the I'm-too-cool-for-this mental tantrums they were throwing at age 12 are not something to be proud of.

    It might also behoove you to first sit down and improve upon Euler's formula, or knock out a grander version of the Pietà, or take a bullet for Vienna back in 1683 (all of which were accomplished by folks not quite up to the level of your 12-year-old self when it comes to outgrowing Christianity), and build up some cred that way. But speaking as someone who quite possibly has far more issues with Christianity than you do, I'd say you've got a ways to go.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @CK
    In 1925, the Japanese were the last of the invading nations to leave the USSR. ( The USA left in 1920).
    From 29 July to 11 August 1938, and then again from 11 May to 15 September 1939, the Japanese armies in northern China and Manchuria attacked the forces of the USSR first at
    Lake Khasan and then at Khalkhin Gol. The result of these aggressions was that Japan suffered decisive military defeats. ( Georgy Zhukov was the commander at Khalkhin Gol ).
    So decisive were these defeats that the Japanese signed on to the Soviet-Japanese neutrality pact. (April 13, 1941)
    Of all the major nations that fought in WWII, the USSR was the only nation that fought only a one front war. Even after Germany declared war on the USSR (22, June 1941), Germany's ally Japan failed to follow suit. (Unlike when Japan went to war with the USA and Germany did follow suit within two days).
    From 22 June of 1941 until 9 May of 1945, the USSR was able to concentrate its forces against one enemy and to completely defeat that enemy. One can attribute this success to brilliance, dumb luck, Japanese perfidy however one wishes, the result is that Stalin and the USSR won WWII in the West.
    The USA, at the Yalta conference in Feb of 1945, gave Stalin an ultimatum. Enter the war against Japan within 90 days of the defeat of Germany or the USSR would have no voice in he partitioning of Asia after the defeat of Japan.
    The Germans surrendered on 9 May ( Moscow Time ), the USSR informed Japan that the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality pact was not longer operative on 8 August 1945 and commenced the largest double envelopment operation; the invasion of Manchuria and the destruction of the Japanese armies there on 9 August ( 89 or 90 days subsequent to the German surrender depending on the time zone used).
    Hiroshima was 6 August, Nagasaki was 9 August.
    August 15, Hirohito tries to surrender and botches the job.
    August 18, the USSR does three amphibious landings in the Northern half of the Korean peninsula, one amphibious landing in Sakhalin Island and one in the Kuril islands ( the later two effectively reversing the Portsmouth Treaty of 1905.)
    The official cease fire on 22 August 1945 precluded the last planned amphibious invasion which was to have been Hokkaido Island.
    Again one can attribute this success to Brilliance, dumb luck, the communist infestation of the American delegation at Yalta and their brilliance in convincing FDR that the Russian army and the Russian logistics infrastructure could not attack Eastward within the 90 day limit, or the phases of the Japanese moon.
    The result was that Russia and Communist China dominated northern Asia then and still do today.
    The past is not History indeed it is not even the past.

    The Japanese pact with Germany and Italy was defensive and did not obligate Japan to assist in Germany’s invasion of the USSR. There was no Japanese perfidy.

    Germany was also not required to declare war on the U.S. after Pearl Harbor. Why Hitler did so is a mystery. Another of his many mistakes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome


    Germany was also not required to declare war on the U.S. after Pearl Harbor. Why Hitler did so is a mystery.

     

    Then again, Britain was not required to declare war on the Germany after Poland. Why Churchill did so is a mystery.
    , @nebulafox
    >Why Hitler did so is a mystery.

    Largely because Hitler had realized by November of 1941 that his Barbarossa gamble had failed and that the war was no longer winnable, or at least that he could no longer win it in the way he wanted. By this point, the US was on the side of the Allies in all but name, and on some deep, private level, Hitler knew how much of his success lay in always keeping the initiative. (Ever the propagandist, he also wanted to have something to report to the home front than the full on slaughter occurring on of the freezing plains surrounding Moscow.) Hitler then opted for the same strategy that Frederick the Great followed, to keep fighting hard until the coalition of enemies facing the Reich inevitably fell apart-which was a battle he was far less comfortable fighting.

    (As they eventually would-Hitler was basically correct in that the alliance between communists and capitalists was a very unnatural construct. What he was wildly incorrect on was his underestimating of the determination of the world to exterminate Nazism, once and for all, whatever else happened.)

    Tangential note: one of the reasons the Final Solution was launched around this time was because the Jews of continental Europe had lost their value as hostages upon America's entry into the war. The Einsatzgruppen had already been executing Soviet Jews in the hundreds of thousands by this point, to say nothing of the mass deportation of Jews in what were considered major "Reich cities" like Berlin, Vienna, Prague off to the East, but it was only around the fall of 1941 when the ideas that led to the Wannsee Conference began to come about.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Moshe
    I can't stand it how downright stupid people are to think that TD showed up here as a legitimate leftist.

    He called hinself TINY DICK for godsakes!

    Yet, tons of morons think he's a legit leftist.

    He may be by now once he's seen the credulous stupidity of so so many people but I doubt it. Either way, he definitely showed up here to sarcastically mock leftists and i've said it here again and again to no avail. No choice here but to add him to my do not disturb list. Not because i dont enjoy his humor but because, as a great admirer of Steve's it annoys me to see how many mentally inept commentors he has.

    Come on, haven’t you realized by now that TD is Steve messing with us?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. @Glossy
    Steve, are you reading the Cambridge History of Russia or did you find that quote through Google? Just curious.

    Just following Wikipedia.

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

    undergirded of course by shared love of country and commitment to Christ.
     
    Oh, goodness. And you accuse others of 'fooling themselves'!

    But, of course you do.

    The good news is, as silly superstitions go, yours actually has a high adaptation value (which is why it exists).

    I halfway wish I could share it for that reason, but I outgrew it around 12 years old.

    The bad news is, you're not going to think your way out of what's coming as much as you might hope.

    We can agree that Ground Control, Houston, was a beautiful moment in time.

    Maybe you shouldn’t have stopped at 12.

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

    In the modern vernacular, “кто кого” connotes who is screwing whom, either literally or figuratively. I haven’t considered its original source or context in ages, it’s funny to finally do so on an English language website.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    "screwing" in which sense?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. Bill says:
    @guest
    Lying behind the who/whom question there's a sense of "we better win, because if the other guy wins he'll have us in the gulag/concentration camp." Which is weird, because in all the recent Current Years of American history there's been little threat of mass purges to the losing side of political contests. But it makes more sense in the Bolshevik context, as they ended up fighting actual wars to take and maintain control of countries. Who knows what the Whites would've done had they won instead.

    Except we know what the Tsar did. The Bolsheviks were outlaws frequently arrested in the days before the October Coups. Political criminals were subject to torture and execution, but Lenin and his buddies most often got exile or banishment to remote villages where they could study the arch of history and hobnob with peasants. Not exactly a Whom horror story.

    Which makes me wonder whence all the breathless Whom fear derives. Projection, obviously. They knew what they'd do with power. Maybe also the specter of the pogrom for Jewish bolshies. Yet another of their contributions to modern paranoia?

    Except we know what the Tsar did.

    We know he did not remotely enough. This is a theme of the right over the last few centuries. When it has power, it is too squeamish to destroy its enemies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    I don't agree. There are indeed times in history where a ruler falls because he is too squeamish*, he dithers, and he is not willing to be hard to nip the rebels in the bud. But there are also cases where the opposite is the case, that a ruling dynasty falls because it is too inflexible and isn't willing to make the changes needed. Even if you survive in this fashion, your children might not-look at Oliver Cromwell, or Cesare Borgia. You can't let the dancing star of change run wild, as liberals want, but you can't be a foolish reactionary and try and suppress completely, either. I think if Alexander II had lived and reformed Russia's profoundly backward autocracy further, the chances of a Bolshevik Revolution-acting largely off of ideas inspired by the West-probably would have been lessened. Something had to give: in the world of the 1800s, the Tsars couldn't invoke the autocratic right like they used to thanks to contacts with the West. Alexander I already ran into that problem after the Napoleonic Wars when officers came home and wanted a constitution all of a sudden.

    *
    Examples: Louis XVI and the Shah of Iran are examples of this former tendency. Also, Hafez al-Assad faced a similar, Muslim Brotherhood inspired Sunni uprising in the early 1980s. Thanks to things like the Hama Massacre, unlike today's Syrian rebellion, it was crushed pretty quickly, and Syria didn't become a hellhole anarchic petri dish of terrorists. What you'll never get our ruling class to admit is that however horrific Hama was, the Syrian conflict today caused in part by Assad Junior's inability to crush the rebellion is over an order of magnitude worse, as well as play host to outcomes that could be far worse than Assad remaining in power.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. Bill says:
    @Charles Erwin Wilson

    Stalin successfully argued that Trotsky’s anti-peasant radicalism was too dangerous, but as soon as he had defeated Trotsky, Stalin appropriated Trotsky’s disastrous program of collectivizing agriculture, which led to the famine in the Ukraine in the early 1930s.
     
    So even though the Jew did not do it, the Jew gets blamed.

    Trotsky: less murderous than Stalin

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. Bill says:
    @Moshe
    Finally an excellent and worthwhile comment in this forum that doesn't whine on about supposedly "moral" principles that - imagine the coincidence! - would , at least on theory, happen to benefit them over their evolutionary competitors.

    As for ourselves, Razib Khan recently came out as declaring himself an idiot for having argued for reason, skepticism, evidence and a search for truth instead of being a good member of the tribe (which to him appears to have meant some tribe of Conservative, including possibly moving to China or India [a bad idea]).

    If it's true for Razib it's true for me.

    The problem however is that people like Razib, myself, OBVIOUSLY Steve and probably a fair handful of other non-crotchety people here is that we have a damn difficult time keeping up the charade.

    I know both Mormons and Ultra-Orthodox Jews who entirely and absolutely disbelieve in the tenets of the faith they dress like, practice in public and around their kin and, in some cases, even teach in schools.

    They benefit from strong social cohesion, the liklihood of marrying a pleasant disease-free girl, having friends whom yoh care about and whi catr about you - for life, not ending up homeless and probably having a bunch of kids that family and friends will help you raise.

    Short of being a Mongolian that's about as pretty good a deal as you can get, both for reproductive posterity and for yourself in your own life.

    But these people (as many fortunate folk here) appear to have some sort of mental distinction that allows them to be freethinkers without being freespeakers.

    For those of us who enjoy communicating however and enjoy rhe company of people and frank and friendly conversations with them about intellectual matters this is tougher to do.

    Yes we can benefit from a tribe.

    No, I don't see us getting one.

    We can join alt right inc. but, as with all tribes, that only works for those tribally inclined and thus easily able to commit to whatever direction this tribe takes, so, even if you agree with every catechism of spencer's (has he manifesto'd yet?) you're just setting yourself up for excommunication in the future.

    So is therr any possible chance of...

    wait, what am I talking about? I jusst congratulated you for a post that eschews nonaense about Right v Wrong precisely BECAUSE it's so uncommon among the commentariot. So who am I even talking to here?

    The commentariot would be wise to join Spencer when his movement appears tenable and also not economic suicide and freethinkers will remain out in the cold.

    Question: Was there ever a time where a couple of thousand Freethinkers grouped together and had each others' backs in a manner that improved their safety, happiness and reproductive success?

    Shorter Moshe: Freemasonry is less fun in Fremasonstan

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. Bill says:
    @Desiderius
    The point was that Lenin had valid reason to fear for his life beyond mere projection. As for whether the charges were actually dubious rather than believed to be so by Lenin (the point), I'd say that's the way to bet when it comes to the Okhrana in most matters.

    Exactly. Killing your enemies a little bit is stupid.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. @Anonymous
    The Japanese pact with Germany and Italy was defensive and did not obligate Japan to assist in Germany's invasion of the USSR. There was no Japanese perfidy.

    Germany was also not required to declare war on the U.S. after Pearl Harbor. Why Hitler did so is a mystery. Another of his many mistakes.

    Germany was also not required to declare war on the U.S. after Pearl Harbor. Why Hitler did so is a mystery.

    Then again, Britain was not required to declare war on the Germany after Poland. Why Churchill did so is a mystery.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. @JL
    In the modern vernacular, "кто кого" connotes who is screwing whom, either literally or figuratively. I haven't considered its original source or context in ages, it's funny to finally do so on an English language website.

    “screwing” in which sense?

    Read More
    • Replies: @JL
    As I wrote, either literally (as in actual sexual intercourse), or figuratively (as in screwing over, getting the best of by backhanded and dishonest means).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. nebulafox says:
    @Anonymous
    The Japanese pact with Germany and Italy was defensive and did not obligate Japan to assist in Germany's invasion of the USSR. There was no Japanese perfidy.

    Germany was also not required to declare war on the U.S. after Pearl Harbor. Why Hitler did so is a mystery. Another of his many mistakes.

    >Why Hitler did so is a mystery.

    Largely because Hitler had realized by November of 1941 that his Barbarossa gamble had failed and that the war was no longer winnable, or at least that he could no longer win it in the way he wanted. By this point, the US was on the side of the Allies in all but name, and on some deep, private level, Hitler knew how much of his success lay in always keeping the initiative. (Ever the propagandist, he also wanted to have something to report to the home front than the full on slaughter occurring on of the freezing plains surrounding Moscow.) Hitler then opted for the same strategy that Frederick the Great followed, to keep fighting hard until the coalition of enemies facing the Reich inevitably fell apart-which was a battle he was far less comfortable fighting.

    (As they eventually would-Hitler was basically correct in that the alliance between communists and capitalists was a very unnatural construct. What he was wildly incorrect on was his underestimating of the determination of the world to exterminate Nazism, once and for all, whatever else happened.)

    Tangential note: one of the reasons the Final Solution was launched around this time was because the Jews of continental Europe had lost their value as hostages upon America’s entry into the war. The Einsatzgruppen had already been executing Soviet Jews in the hundreds of thousands by this point, to say nothing of the mass deportation of Jews in what were considered major “Reich cities” like Berlin, Vienna, Prague off to the East, but it was only around the fall of 1941 when the ideas that led to the Wannsee Conference began to come about.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. nebulafox says:
    @Bill

    Except we know what the Tsar did.
     
    We know he did not remotely enough. This is a theme of the right over the last few centuries. When it has power, it is too squeamish to destroy its enemies.

    I don’t agree. There are indeed times in history where a ruler falls because he is too squeamish*, he dithers, and he is not willing to be hard to nip the rebels in the bud. But there are also cases where the opposite is the case, that a ruling dynasty falls because it is too inflexible and isn’t willing to make the changes needed. Even if you survive in this fashion, your children might not-look at Oliver Cromwell, or Cesare Borgia. You can’t let the dancing star of change run wild, as liberals want, but you can’t be a foolish reactionary and try and suppress completely, either. I think if Alexander II had lived and reformed Russia’s profoundly backward autocracy further, the chances of a Bolshevik Revolution-acting largely off of ideas inspired by the West-probably would have been lessened. Something had to give: in the world of the 1800s, the Tsars couldn’t invoke the autocratic right like they used to thanks to contacts with the West. Alexander I already ran into that problem after the Napoleonic Wars when officers came home and wanted a constitution all of a sudden.

    *
    Examples: Louis XVI and the Shah of Iran are examples of this former tendency. Also, Hafez al-Assad faced a similar, Muslim Brotherhood inspired Sunni uprising in the early 1980s. Thanks to things like the Hama Massacre, unlike today’s Syrian rebellion, it was crushed pretty quickly, and Syria didn’t become a hellhole anarchic petri dish of terrorists. What you’ll never get our ruling class to admit is that however horrific Hama was, the Syrian conflict today caused in part by Assad Junior’s inability to crush the rebellion is over an order of magnitude worse, as well as play host to outcomes that could be far worse than Assad remaining in power.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. HA says:
    @mobi

    undergirded of course by shared love of country and commitment to Christ.
     
    Oh, goodness. And you accuse others of 'fooling themselves'!

    But, of course you do.

    The good news is, as silly superstitions go, yours actually has a high adaptation value (which is why it exists).

    I halfway wish I could share it for that reason, but I outgrew it around 12 years old.

    The bad news is, you're not going to think your way out of what's coming as much as you might hope.

    We can agree that Ground Control, Houston, was a beautiful moment in time.

    “[commitment to Christ]…I outgrew it around 12 years old.”

    Clearly, you were one precious and special little dude. But get back to us when you’re adult enough to realize that whatever beliefs (or lack thereof) that you grew into when you discarded Christianity are ultimately just as ridiculous and weird as the ones you claim to have outgrown, the primary difference being that Christianity actually built a civilization (curiously, a civilization that is now being flooded by those who, like you, tell us it needs discarding, replacing, or outgrowing as the case may be — weird how that works).

    That’s assuming, of course, that you ever do grow up enough to admit any of that. I’m not holding my breath. But even in that case, you can take consolation in knowing that there are plenty of other people out there who have yet to realize that the I’m-too-cool-for-this mental tantrums they were throwing at age 12 are not something to be proud of.

    It might also behoove you to first sit down and improve upon Euler’s formula, or knock out a grander version of the Pietà, or take a bullet for Vienna back in 1683 (all of which were accomplished by folks not quite up to the level of your 12-year-old self when it comes to outgrowing Christianity), and build up some cred that way. But speaking as someone who quite possibly has far more issues with Christianity than you do, I’d say you’ve got a ways to go.

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

    I’m now in danger of being drawn into a shouting match over ‘faith vs rationality’!

    While the precious and special boy in me feels very up to it, the grown adult knows better.

    The topic was – ‘Is America turning from objective, universal principles, to Who-whom?’

    Yes, I think so. No, it isn’t as irrational as it might look. In fact, there may be stronger (Darwinian) logic behind it than there is behind faith in ‘objective, universal principles’.

    And if so, those who place their faith in the innate superiority of such principles, may be in greater danger than they assume.

    That’s it for me this time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @HA
    "...a shouting match over ‘faith vs rationality’!"

    No, you have as much faith as anyone here, one that is evidently as impassioned and as naive as that of any... well, let's say 11-year-old. Despite that, you continue to cling to the belief that you are the one on the side of rationality.

    Now, you can frame the argument as you see fit, but you'll be far more convincing the next time around if you use less straw when laying out the opposing side. Until then, you're free to go on clinging to that belief, Mr. Rationality, though, given your views on religion, it's kind of ironic that that is what you're left with. Those on the opposing side -- however you choose to characterize them -- will presumably continue clinging to their beliefs, too, though I'd hope they will be more upfront than you when it comes to admitting that that is what they're doing.

    , @Desiderius

    I’m now in danger of being drawn into a shouting match over ‘faith vs rationality’!
     
    If that's the battle you've chosen, you've already lost.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. HA says:
    @mobi
    I'm now in danger of being drawn into a shouting match over 'faith vs rationality'!

    While the precious and special boy in me feels very up to it, the grown adult knows better.

    The topic was - 'Is America turning from objective, universal principles, to Who-whom?'

    Yes, I think so. No, it isn't as irrational as it might look. In fact, there may be stronger (Darwinian) logic behind it than there is behind faith in 'objective, universal principles'.

    And if so, those who place their faith in the innate superiority of such principles, may be in greater danger than they assume.

    That's it for me this time.

    “…a shouting match over ‘faith vs rationality’!”

    No, you have as much faith as anyone here, one that is evidently as impassioned and as naive as that of any… well, let’s say 11-year-old. Despite that, you continue to cling to the belief that you are the one on the side of rationality.

    Now, you can frame the argument as you see fit, but you’ll be far more convincing the next time around if you use less straw when laying out the opposing side. Until then, you’re free to go on clinging to that belief, Mr. Rationality, though, given your views on religion, it’s kind of ironic that that is what you’re left with. Those on the opposing side — however you choose to characterize them — will presumably continue clinging to their beliefs, too, though I’d hope they will be more upfront than you when it comes to admitting that that is what they’re doing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Anon
    I find it interesting that in those days a person seeking political asylum could go to Mexico. How come we can't have that today?

    Because he was communist (4th International) and they were communist-lite, but neither were Stalinist.

    Had Franco lost he would not have found refuge in Mexico.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. JL says:
    @Opinionator
    "screwing" in which sense?

    As I wrote, either literally (as in actual sexual intercourse), or figuratively (as in screwing over, getting the best of by backhanded and dishonest means).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    Thanks. Potentially two very different meanings, one negative, one not necessarily so.

    And perhaps both are figurative?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. @mobi
    I'm now in danger of being drawn into a shouting match over 'faith vs rationality'!

    While the precious and special boy in me feels very up to it, the grown adult knows better.

    The topic was - 'Is America turning from objective, universal principles, to Who-whom?'

    Yes, I think so. No, it isn't as irrational as it might look. In fact, there may be stronger (Darwinian) logic behind it than there is behind faith in 'objective, universal principles'.

    And if so, those who place their faith in the innate superiority of such principles, may be in greater danger than they assume.

    That's it for me this time.

    I’m now in danger of being drawn into a shouting match over ‘faith vs rationality’!

    If that’s the battle you’ve chosen, you’ve already lost.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. @JL
    As I wrote, either literally (as in actual sexual intercourse), or figuratively (as in screwing over, getting the best of by backhanded and dishonest means).

    Thanks. Potentially two very different meanings, one negative, one not necessarily so.

    And perhaps both are figurative?

    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 evidence is clear — but often ignored
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?