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

 Remember My Information



=>

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

So about Polish elections.

Almost everyone familiar with the endless discussions on HBD/Hajnal Line would be familiar with this basic electoral map of Poland.

Basically, the parts in the former German Empire tend to vote for liberal/progressive parties, while the parts belonging to the former Russian and Austrian Empires tend to vote for conservative parties.

But one specific thing about Polish history is that the majority of the people in the western areas are descendants of people resettled from the east, in areas that now belong to Belarus and the Ukraine. This goes against Hajnal fundamentalism because to those people the more eastwards you are, the more “backwards” you are supposed to be.

(1) This suggests that the impact of being “derooted” from one’s soil is much more significant than Hajnal considerations, at least as they pertain to Eastern Europe.

So we might expect western Poland, relative to the east, to be:

  • Richer
  • More urbanized
  • More sexually liberal
  • More crime

All of this happens to be correct.

AIDS map.

Crime map.

Remind one of anything? Recent discussions in the comments here should give one a clue. The Donbass with respect to the Ukraine – which also has a far higher share of transplants, and which is more derooted from a real historical identity.

(2) Is this purported West/East division even valid at all, even just within Poland?

The Hajnal fundamentalist would say yes. But as I covered in this post, historical “Poland-East” (later Russian) actually had comparable if not higher human capital than “Poland-West” (19C Austria/Prussia) through to at least the late 18th century.

So it would not automatically mean that they would adopt political positions more frequently associated with more “backwards” people.

And it is also worth noting that Belorussia is more atheist than the Ukraine, and significantly more socially liberal than either Russia or the Ukraine (e.g. support for gay marriage ~20%, vs. <10% in the latter). So there’s no reason to think that Poles living in the areas of what is now Belarus would have been “imprinted” with a penchant for conservative politics anyway.

It’s probably well past time time to retire the Hajnal concept as something that explains anything about Eastern Europe. And if it can’t explain EE, one must begin to question its usefulness as pertains to other regions as well. IMO most likely there’s nothing particularly Hajnal – as opposed to deeper HBD differences that were remarked upon by Tacitus, and even earlier by the Greeks – about personality differences between Northern Europe and the Mediterranean either.

 
• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Hajnal line, Human Biodiversity, Poland 
Hide 278 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Please keep off topic posts to the current Open Thread.

    If you are new to my work, start here.

  2. The original work by John Hajnal dealt with marriage patterns in the late 16th and early 17th centuries (at which point Poland was a commonwealth of some sorts with Lithuania and in a position to threaten Russia) and it was on the basis of that data that he drew his famous Hajnal Line(s). Marriage patterns explain a lot but not everything, and trying to fit all sorts of social and political phenomena to the Hajnal Line doesn’t make much sense, especially within a country itself, and now after some significant migrations.

    It rather reminds me of attempts to explain 21st Century American electoral politics by reference to colonial settlements in the 17th and 18th centuries–the explanation goes only so far.

    How similar are voting patterns in western Poland to those in eastern Germany, where the AfD is strongest?

  3. According to this source, the majority were from Central Poland:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recovered_Territories#Origin_of_the_post-war_population_according_to_1950_census

    Not counting those from elsewhere, 51% were from central Poland, 28% were from the fromer East, and 20% were natives.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    Yeah, this is the impression that I had about this as well. It's worth noting that central Poland might have been relatively overpopulated back in 1945 and thus a sizable number of central Poles (especially in absolute terms) moved further west in the hopes of a better life and in search of what one can call El Dorado. There were presumably a lot of abandoned properties in these territories back then, so it made sense for ambitious Poles to try grabbing a slice of the pie. Maybe it was the more socially liberal Poles who moved westward after 1945?

    As a side note, as the various maps of the former West Germany versus the former East Germany show, culture could leave a lasting imprint on a population for decades or even longer. Basically, on various maps, there's a stark difference that is visible whether one looks at the former dividing line between East Germany and West Germany. For instance, here is a map of AFD support in Germany:

    https://i.redd.it/0dojjgygcc131.jpg

    Here's a map of Die Linke support in Germany:

    https://external-preview.redd.it/h0ZlcnQcLpWLK5evKrl7oc6vn9PLBvPStD0sv1PNO7o.png?auto=webp&s=11d997b64d6d2d00b8b40cadc4582cd29744eef0

    And from the Washington Post:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/10/31/the-berlin-wall-fell-25-years-ago-but-germany-is-still-divided/

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/10/03/germany-reunified-26-years-ago-but-some-divisions-are-still-strong/
    , @Alexander Turok
    It may be due to historic fear of Germany reclaiming the territory leading to more support for the communist authorities. The Western areas were more supportive of the post-communist party in the 1990s, before switching to liberalism around 2005.
  4. I don’t follow, what looks like the Donbass, western Poland or eastern and southern Poland?

    I can’t imagine the suggestion is that the poz is caused by uprootedness, because no one can claim Swedes (et al. in western Europe) are uprooted from their land and history and yet they are as pozzed as anyone.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    He's arguing that West Poland, is analogous to East Ukraine.

    Before the war, East Ukraine is the richer, more successful part of Ukraine, being more economically developed and more educated than West Ukraine. (However, with higher crime rates compared to West Ukraine according to the map from Wikipedia).

    West Ukraine is the center of nationalist and rightist politics in Ukraine, which corresponds intuitively with its lower economic development level.

    -

    However, generally richer regions are both more liberal politically (except in relation to tax) and also have lower crime rates. So if East Ukraine has higher crime rates than West Ukraine, that is already an unusual and weird paradox, so I don't see how you can use it as an example for generalizing about other countries like Poland (it's the opposite of the usual rules).

  5. Neither Donbass Russians, nor Western Poles had been “derooted from a real historical identity.” They just moved to a different place.

    • Replies: @AP
    In Donbas (and presumably in western Poland after World War II) this moving was accompanied by aggressive acculturation into a Soviet/Communist identity that was rather alien to the original one. Accompanying this, in both Donbas and western Poland, was mixture of different peoples.
  6. IIRC, commenter Utu was the one to first suggest western Poland’s rootlessness as the cause of its non-traditionalism and pro-Western orientation.

    Belarus is fairly rootless because much of its population was wiped out during World War II and its society was remade along Soviet lines.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    I wouldn't call Belarus particularly derooted. It didn't lose much more of its population than did occupied Ukraine (and perhaps 30%-40% of those it did lose must have been Jews), and they didn't particularly suffer from any of the collectivization famines.

    The replacement of the Belarusian language with Russia was a phenomenon that did not meet with resistance as in the case of the Ukraine. In fact, there was resistance to teaching it in schools during korenizatsiya in the 1920s (I had quotes about that in some old comments). So, not a sign of de-rootedness either.
  7. If more conservative and more rooted means a lower crime rate then Russia and Ukraine should have the lowest crime rates of all, yet in reality they have by far the highest rates of violence in Europe by a large margin.

    So what ever is going on in Poland that makes the East more civilised than the West does not seem to apply to Russia and Ukraine.

    • Agree: Thulean Friend
    • Replies: @Bies Podkrakowski
    But are Russia and Ukraine truly rooted? Both countries societes' were completely reconstructed along Soviet lines, moved en masse from the villages to the cities, they had their old elites destroyed and new ones created to serve "workers paradise".

    One Polish commentator said that Polish contemporary society is composed from people that were trying to move from a village to a city, but the city was burned down before they got there and the village ceased to exists. I imagine the same is with Ukrainians and Russians only more so.
    , @AP

    If more conservative and more rooted means a lower crime rate then Russia and Ukraine should have the lowest crime rates of all
     
    Ukraine's highest crime rates are in its rootless Sovietized eastern parts. Rootlessness was achieved by population transfers and mixing/resettlement (in industrialized places like Donbas) and by mass starvation and destruction of traditional agricultural communities through forced collectivization in rural areas.

    Ukraine's far west, the least touched by Bolshevism and the most traditional rooted part, has the lowest crime rate in the country.

    Here is a map of assaults per capita in Ukraine:

    https://i.imgur.com/9EswwPC.png

    A map of population decline through starvation in Ukraine:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/90/Ukraine_famine_map.png/1920px-Ukraine_famine_map.png

    Not a perfect match, but a close one.
    , @Anatoly Karlin

    If more conservative and more rooted means a lower crime rate then Russia and Ukraine should have the lowest crime rates of all...
     
    The f.USSR had an alcoholization epidemic on a scale that that makes such comparisons useless: http://www.unz.com/akarlin/russia-homicides/

    http://www.unz.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/russia-homicide-rate-1875-2018-compared.png

    Also applies to internal dynamics within Russia. On most measures, the Russian North is more "civilized" than the South - more urbanized, slightly higher IQ, significantly less corruption and electoral fraud - but also generally higher murder and suicide rates, as well as more deaths from alcohol poisoning (speculatively, a result of Finno-Ugric admixture).

    So what ever is going on in Poland that makes the East more civilised than the West does not seem to apply to Russia and Ukraine.
     
    I am not claiming the Polish East is more civilized (or vice versa).
    , @Der Mann ohne Eigenschaften
    Get a life, man. The discussion around this topic (pathetic Poland and Poles) is just pretentious academic chitchats - full of sound and fury, signifying nothing
  8. @inertial
    Neither Donbass Russians, nor Western Poles had been "derooted from a real historical identity." They just moved to a different place.

    In Donbas (and presumably in western Poland after World War II) this moving was accompanied by aggressive acculturation into a Soviet/Communist identity that was rather alien to the original one. Accompanying this, in both Donbas and western Poland, was mixture of different peoples.

  9. I want to live in a backward, very traditional society and culture, where the women wear dresses over their knees and have 3 or more children, and love their role. I want the great majority to be Indo-European, Eastern Orthodox or any Oriental religion, but no Western Christian religion allowed.

    Anything outside of normal heterosexual relations will not be permitted to be exposed publicly. Homosexuals will live a closeted life. Transgender surgery will be illegal. Transvestites prohibited from public display. Culturally, piercings, tattoos, etc., will be considered repugnant and ejectable from any establishment. Property and business owners can fire and hire anyone they desire. A few excellent Asians and Hindus will be OK, but carefully vetted. Any citizen, who is deemed unfit to live within, will be exposed to revocation of citizenship and expelled permanently, after a careful and deliberative process.

    Rather than laws exclusively, the citizens will be educated in retro-conservative traditional mores and norms. Capital punishment will mirror that of Southeast Asian countries. All drug offenses will be mandatory death penalty. The guillotine will be the instrument. Public flogging will be legal and usual for all offenses, many times in lieu of time served in prison. Violent rape of any person is a mandatory death sentence.

    Honor, both personal and familial, will be paramount in importance.

    That’s where I want to live.

    • Replies: @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    A few excellent Asians and Hindus will be OK, but carefully vetted.

     

    Cuck!

    ;)
  10. @Alexander Turok
    According to this source, the majority were from Central Poland:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recovered_Territories#Origin_of_the_post-war_population_according_to_1950_census

    Not counting those from elsewhere, 51% were from central Poland, 28% were from the fromer East, and 20% were natives.

    Yeah, this is the impression that I had about this as well. It’s worth noting that central Poland might have been relatively overpopulated back in 1945 and thus a sizable number of central Poles (especially in absolute terms) moved further west in the hopes of a better life and in search of what one can call El Dorado. There were presumably a lot of abandoned properties in these territories back then, so it made sense for ambitious Poles to try grabbing a slice of the pie. Maybe it was the more socially liberal Poles who moved westward after 1945?

    As a side note, as the various maps of the former West Germany versus the former East Germany show, culture could leave a lasting imprint on a population for decades or even longer. Basically, on various maps, there’s a stark difference that is visible whether one looks at the former dividing line between East Germany and West Germany. For instance, here is a map of AFD support in Germany:

    Here’s a map of Die Linke support in Germany:

    And from the Washington Post:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/10/31/the-berlin-wall-fell-25-years-ago-but-germany-is-still-divided/

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/10/03/germany-reunified-26-years-ago-but-some-divisions-are-still-strong/

  11. @Poupon Marx
    I want to live in a backward, very traditional society and culture, where the women wear dresses over their knees and have 3 or more children, and love their role. I want the great majority to be Indo-European, Eastern Orthodox or any Oriental religion, but no Western Christian religion allowed.

    Anything outside of normal heterosexual relations will not be permitted to be exposed publicly. Homosexuals will live a closeted life. Transgender surgery will be illegal. Transvestites prohibited from public display. Culturally, piercings, tattoos, etc., will be considered repugnant and ejectable from any establishment. Property and business owners can fire and hire anyone they desire. A few excellent Asians and Hindus will be OK, but carefully vetted. Any citizen, who is deemed unfit to live within, will be exposed to revocation of citizenship and expelled permanently, after a careful and deliberative process.

    Rather than laws exclusively, the citizens will be educated in retro-conservative traditional mores and norms. Capital punishment will mirror that of Southeast Asian countries. All drug offenses will be mandatory death penalty. The guillotine will be the instrument. Public flogging will be legal and usual for all offenses, many times in lieu of time served in prison. Violent rape of any person is a mandatory death sentence.

    Honor, both personal and familial, will be paramount in importance.

    That's where I want to live.

    A few excellent Asians and Hindus will be OK, but carefully vetted.

    Cuck!

    😉

    • LOL: Poupon Marx
  12. @Europe natonalist
    If more conservative and more rooted means a lower crime rate then Russia and Ukraine should have the lowest crime rates of all, yet in reality they have by far the highest rates of violence in Europe by a large margin.

    So what ever is going on in Poland that makes the East more civilised than the West does not seem to apply to Russia and Ukraine.

    But are Russia and Ukraine truly rooted? Both countries societes’ were completely reconstructed along Soviet lines, moved en masse from the villages to the cities, they had their old elites destroyed and new ones created to serve “workers paradise”.

    One Polish commentator said that Polish contemporary society is composed from people that were trying to move from a village to a city, but the city was burned down before they got there and the village ceased to exists. I imagine the same is with Ukrainians and Russians only more so.

    • Replies: @AP
    See my previous comment. Western and west-central Ukraine are fairly rooted. The brunt of social engineering occurred in the 1920s and 1930s. The parts that were annexed later underwent a process not much different from the the one in eastern and southern Poland.
  13. @Europe natonalist
    If more conservative and more rooted means a lower crime rate then Russia and Ukraine should have the lowest crime rates of all, yet in reality they have by far the highest rates of violence in Europe by a large margin.

    So what ever is going on in Poland that makes the East more civilised than the West does not seem to apply to Russia and Ukraine.

    If more conservative and more rooted means a lower crime rate then Russia and Ukraine should have the lowest crime rates of all

    Ukraine’s highest crime rates are in its rootless Sovietized eastern parts. Rootlessness was achieved by population transfers and mixing/resettlement (in industrialized places like Donbas) and by mass starvation and destruction of traditional agricultural communities through forced collectivization in rural areas.

    Ukraine’s far west, the least touched by Bolshevism and the most traditional rooted part, has the lowest crime rate in the country.

    Here is a map of assaults per capita in Ukraine:

    A map of population decline through starvation in Ukraine:

    Not a perfect match, but a close one.

  14. @Bies Podkrakowski
    But are Russia and Ukraine truly rooted? Both countries societes' were completely reconstructed along Soviet lines, moved en masse from the villages to the cities, they had their old elites destroyed and new ones created to serve "workers paradise".

    One Polish commentator said that Polish contemporary society is composed from people that were trying to move from a village to a city, but the city was burned down before they got there and the village ceased to exists. I imagine the same is with Ukrainians and Russians only more so.

    See my previous comment. Western and west-central Ukraine are fairly rooted. The brunt of social engineering occurred in the 1920s and 1930s. The parts that were annexed later underwent a process not much different from the the one in eastern and southern Poland.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    Do you think that western Ukraine would be much more of a dump right now had the Bolsheviks conquered it in 1920-1921?

    Also, as a side question, do you think that much more of western Ukraine's Jewish population would have survived the Holocaust in this scenario?
  15. @Europe natonalist
    If more conservative and more rooted means a lower crime rate then Russia and Ukraine should have the lowest crime rates of all, yet in reality they have by far the highest rates of violence in Europe by a large margin.

    So what ever is going on in Poland that makes the East more civilised than the West does not seem to apply to Russia and Ukraine.

    If more conservative and more rooted means a lower crime rate then Russia and Ukraine should have the lowest crime rates of all…

    The f.USSR had an alcoholization epidemic on a scale that that makes such comparisons useless: http://www.unz.com/akarlin/russia-homicides/

    Also applies to internal dynamics within Russia. On most measures, the Russian North is more “civilized” than the South – more urbanized, slightly higher IQ, significantly less corruption and electoral fraud – but also generally higher murder and suicide rates, as well as more deaths from alcohol poisoning (speculatively, a result of Finno-Ugric admixture).

    So what ever is going on in Poland that makes the East more civilised than the West does not seem to apply to Russia and Ukraine.

    I am not claiming the Polish East is more civilized (or vice versa).

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    But richer and more liberal areas, are usually lower crime.


    -


    And HIV rates cannot be inverse proxy for sexual liberalism, as countries with the lowest HIV in the world include some of the most sexually liberal (e.g. Netherlands and Sweden are two of the lowest HIV countries in the world).

  16. @AP
    IIRC, commenter Utu was the one to first suggest western Poland's rootlessness as the cause of its non-traditionalism and pro-Western orientation.

    Belarus is fairly rootless because much of its population was wiped out during World War II and its society was remade along Soviet lines.

    I wouldn’t call Belarus particularly derooted. It didn’t lose much more of its population than did occupied Ukraine (and perhaps 30%-40% of those it did lose must have been Jews), and they didn’t particularly suffer from any of the collectivization famines.

    The replacement of the Belarusian language with Russia was a phenomenon that did not meet with resistance as in the case of the Ukraine. In fact, there was resistance to teaching it in schools during korenizatsiya in the 1920s (I had quotes about that in some old comments). So, not a sign of de-rootedness either.

    • Replies: @AP

    I wouldn’t call Belarus particularly derooted. It didn’t lose much more of its population than did occupied Ukraine (and perhaps 30%-40% of those it did lose must have been Jews)
     
    I could be wrong, but I thought that Belarus was hit much harder during World War II than was Ukraine or any other country. The partisans very skillfully provoked the Germans into mass murdering Belarusian peasants. These compensated for Belarus not having been hit as hard by the 1930s famine as was Ukraine. So Belarus was sort of remade in a Soviet image after the war. (I'm not sticking too hard to this, my source is Belarussians from the western part of the country, I haven't digged around into this)
  17. @Anatoly Karlin
    I wouldn't call Belarus particularly derooted. It didn't lose much more of its population than did occupied Ukraine (and perhaps 30%-40% of those it did lose must have been Jews), and they didn't particularly suffer from any of the collectivization famines.

    The replacement of the Belarusian language with Russia was a phenomenon that did not meet with resistance as in the case of the Ukraine. In fact, there was resistance to teaching it in schools during korenizatsiya in the 1920s (I had quotes about that in some old comments). So, not a sign of de-rootedness either.

    I wouldn’t call Belarus particularly derooted. It didn’t lose much more of its population than did occupied Ukraine (and perhaps 30%-40% of those it did lose must have been Jews)

    I could be wrong, but I thought that Belarus was hit much harder during World War II than was Ukraine or any other country. The partisans very skillfully provoked the Germans into mass murdering Belarusian peasants. These compensated for Belarus not having been hit as hard by the 1930s famine as was Ukraine. So Belarus was sort of remade in a Soviet image after the war. (I’m not sticking too hard to this, my source is Belarussians from the western part of the country, I haven’t digged around into this)

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    The population change for each of the following in their current borders between 1913/14 and 1945/46 was about as follows:

    Russia - 92M/97M
    Ukraine - 35M/34M
    Belarus - 7.5M/7.7M

    So, no major difference.
    , @Denis
    Does Belarus show any particular "symptoms" of rootlessness i.e. high HIV rates, high crime, etc.? From what I know, Belarus was/is a fairly conservative society, as much as any post-Soviet country could be anyways. I had also been under the impression that Belarus was particularly badly damaged by the war.
  18. @AP

    I wouldn’t call Belarus particularly derooted. It didn’t lose much more of its population than did occupied Ukraine (and perhaps 30%-40% of those it did lose must have been Jews)
     
    I could be wrong, but I thought that Belarus was hit much harder during World War II than was Ukraine or any other country. The partisans very skillfully provoked the Germans into mass murdering Belarusian peasants. These compensated for Belarus not having been hit as hard by the 1930s famine as was Ukraine. So Belarus was sort of remade in a Soviet image after the war. (I'm not sticking too hard to this, my source is Belarussians from the western part of the country, I haven't digged around into this)

    The population change for each of the following in their current borders between 1913/14 and 1945/46 was about as follows:

    Russia – 92M/97M
    Ukraine – 35M/34M
    Belarus – 7.5M/7.7M

    So, no major difference.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    No growth between 1913 and 1946. Imagine that! That really does show the devastating demographic effect that WWI and especially the Russian Civil War, Bolshevik terror and forced collectivization, and WWII (including the Holocaust, though its effect was not that large in an overall sense since Jews weren't 10% of the total population even in Ukraine and Belarus) had on the East Slavic countries/SSRs during these 33 years! :(

    BTW, where'd you get your data from? It does look about right, but I want to know the exact source for it.
  19. @Alexander Turok
    According to this source, the majority were from Central Poland:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recovered_Territories#Origin_of_the_post-war_population_according_to_1950_census

    Not counting those from elsewhere, 51% were from central Poland, 28% were from the fromer East, and 20% were natives.

    It may be due to historic fear of Germany reclaiming the territory leading to more support for the communist authorities. The Western areas were more supportive of the post-communist party in the 1990s, before switching to liberalism around 2005.

  20. @Anatoly Karlin

    If more conservative and more rooted means a lower crime rate then Russia and Ukraine should have the lowest crime rates of all...
     
    The f.USSR had an alcoholization epidemic on a scale that that makes such comparisons useless: http://www.unz.com/akarlin/russia-homicides/

    http://www.unz.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/russia-homicide-rate-1875-2018-compared.png

    Also applies to internal dynamics within Russia. On most measures, the Russian North is more "civilized" than the South - more urbanized, slightly higher IQ, significantly less corruption and electoral fraud - but also generally higher murder and suicide rates, as well as more deaths from alcohol poisoning (speculatively, a result of Finno-Ugric admixture).

    So what ever is going on in Poland that makes the East more civilised than the West does not seem to apply to Russia and Ukraine.
     
    I am not claiming the Polish East is more civilized (or vice versa).

    But richer and more liberal areas, are usually lower crime.

    And HIV rates cannot be inverse proxy for sexual liberalism, as countries with the lowest HIV in the world include some of the most sexually liberal (e.g. Netherlands and Sweden are two of the lowest HIV countries in the world).

  21. First we retire hajnal, then we retire IQ, then HBD 🙂

    Step by step.

    Intelligence wins in the end.

    • Replies: @iffen
    Intelligence wins in the end.

    Since when are you a fan of intelligence?

    I thought your shtick was always the latest voodoo fad.
    , @anonymous coward

    First we retire hajnal, then we retire IQ, then HBD
     
    There's really nothing to retire. Don't take it so seriously; "HBD" is just the dogwhistle version of the phrase "niggers are dumb".

    (Shocking and unexpected idea, I know.)
  22. @AaronB
    First we retire hajnal, then we retire IQ, then HBD :)

    Step by step.

    Intelligence wins in the end.

    Intelligence wins in the end.

    Since when are you a fan of intelligence?

    I thought your shtick was always the latest voodoo fad.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    What you are witnessing, dear iffen, is the slow collapse of the "strong" HBD paradigm.

    The massive and astonishing underperformance of China relative to the supposed intelligence of its population is putting increasing strain on IQ theory, and more and more people are abandoning it.

    The glaring discrepancy in Hajnal theory - which I have been noting for ages - is leading to defections on this HBD front.

    You are privileged, iffen, in the last years of your old age, to witness the collapse of a sterile and outworn paradigm. Aren't you lucky you are still clinging to life.

  23. Are the people in the west still mostly transplants (or descendants of transplants) from places like Lvov?

    People have had 70 years to move around, and the economic pull of being near Berlin must have an effect.

    Any similar data on Kaliningrad?

  24. Well, there goes my hopes for “Belarus or Bust”

  25. @iffen
    Intelligence wins in the end.

    Since when are you a fan of intelligence?

    I thought your shtick was always the latest voodoo fad.

    What you are witnessing, dear iffen, is the slow collapse of the “strong” HBD paradigm.

    The massive and astonishing underperformance of China relative to the supposed intelligence of its population is putting increasing strain on IQ theory, and more and more people are abandoning it.

    The glaring discrepancy in Hajnal theory – which I have been noting for ages – is leading to defections on this HBD front.

    You are privileged, iffen, in the last years of your old age, to witness the collapse of a sterile and outworn paradigm. Aren’t you lucky you are still clinging to life.

    • Replies: @SFG
    Does anyone think genetically determined IQ explains *everything*? The big insight of HBD is that it's important at all, not that it's some magic key that unlocks all mysteries. Of course culture matters too.
    , @Dreadilk
    How is China under performing. They were a super power for most of human history and it is rapidly returning that status today. Read less Western propoganda.
    , @iffen
    Aren’t you lucky you are still clinging to life.

    Sorry you appear so disappointed. Sweetest revenge possible; just outlive them.

    I am no authority such as yourself, so I was unaware that the Hajnal theory was a critical part of HBD.

    I do see scientific work (almost weekly, if not more often) that supports HBD. Perhaps your vision has been impaired by all those wasted hours staring at the moonbeams in your jar.
  26. @AaronB
    What you are witnessing, dear iffen, is the slow collapse of the "strong" HBD paradigm.

    The massive and astonishing underperformance of China relative to the supposed intelligence of its population is putting increasing strain on IQ theory, and more and more people are abandoning it.

    The glaring discrepancy in Hajnal theory - which I have been noting for ages - is leading to defections on this HBD front.

    You are privileged, iffen, in the last years of your old age, to witness the collapse of a sterile and outworn paradigm. Aren't you lucky you are still clinging to life.

    Does anyone think genetically determined IQ explains *everything*? The big insight of HBD is that it’s important at all, not that it’s some magic key that unlocks all mysteries. Of course culture matters too.

    • Agree: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @Thomm

    Does anyone think genetically determined IQ explains *everything*?
     
    Of course not. It determines about 30-50% of outcome, but not more.

    For example, IQ tests were force-fitted to ensure that the average IQ of women does not get published as lower than men, otherwise all hell would break loose. Women have a lower standard deviation than men, but the averages are the same.

    Yet, almost 100% of all scientific and technological innovation is by men (and not just 140+ IQ men). Clearly, average IQ does not predict this, otherwise women would have somewhat better representation than under 1%.
    , @AaronB
    Well, many people claim to not think that, but then literally use it to explain everything as if they really did believe just that.

    So in practice, lots of people do think genes literally explain everything. They just won't admit to it, because it sounds silly. But they'll act as if its the truth. Some people even do admit to it. JayMan, for instance.

    Anyways, in hindsight HBD was the last development of the classic materialist hypothesis that began in the 18th century.

    Materialism was a very bold and daring hypothesis that seized control of the best minds for several centuries. It was so daring and bold because in a way everyone knew it was absurd. But there was this sense that lets make this extreme statement that humanity has always known to be false and follow it as far as we can go. Let's see where we end up. Lets pretend.

    It was really the same spirit of adventure that carried Columbus over the ocean.

    Its just that this particular adventure is winding down now and there is nowhere else for it to take us. We gave to find new adventures now, and they will be very different.
  27. @Lars Porsena
    I don't follow, what looks like the Donbass, western Poland or eastern and southern Poland?

    I can't imagine the suggestion is that the poz is caused by uprootedness, because no one can claim Swedes (et al. in western Europe) are uprooted from their land and history and yet they are as pozzed as anyone.

    He’s arguing that West Poland, is analogous to East Ukraine.

    Before the war, East Ukraine is the richer, more successful part of Ukraine, being more economically developed and more educated than West Ukraine. (However, with higher crime rates compared to West Ukraine according to the map from Wikipedia).

    West Ukraine is the center of nationalist and rightist politics in Ukraine, which corresponds intuitively with its lower economic development level.

    However, generally richer regions are both more liberal politically (except in relation to tax) and also have lower crime rates. So if East Ukraine has higher crime rates than West Ukraine, that is already an unusual and weird paradox, so I don’t see how you can use it as an example for generalizing about other countries like Poland (it’s the opposite of the usual rules).

    • Replies: @AP

    Before the war, East Ukraine is the richer, more successful part of Ukraine, being more economically developed and more educated than West Ukraine. (However, with higher crime rates compared to West Ukraine according to the map from Wikipedia).
     
    With regards to Donbas - also lower Human Development Index, lower life expectancy, and higher rates of things like HIV.

    Higher income was an artifact of the fact that Donbas contained Ukraine's best sources of foreign $$$ - coal and steel.

    Kharkiv was a different story. It was settled much earlier.

    :::::::::::::

    As for education in West Ukraine. Western Ukraine consists of 4 historical regions that all have in common the fact that they missed the most destructive and disruptive of the Sovok experience - the 1920s and 1930s. Otherwise they are much less rootless than the rest of Ukraine. But they are still very different from each other.

    Galicia (Lviv and Ivano-Frankivsk oblasts) achieved mass literacy a generation earlier than did any other Ukrainian region and earlier than did most of Russia. Lviv oblast has the highest % of people with tertiary education in the country, after Kiev City and Kharkiv oblast. It is above average in wealth. OTOH, Volyn and Transcarpathia are the poorest and least educated regions in Ukraine. Educated, less-poor Lviv is a lot more nationalistic than uneducated, dirt-poor Volyn and Transcarpathia.

    :::::::::::::

    BTW, here is HIV rate in Poland*:

    http://i.wp.pl/a/f/jpeg/28080/hiv_polska.jpeg

    Yes, western Poland is analogous to Sovok Ukraine:

    https://i.imgur.com/ZCDdYEr.png

    (of course Poland's rate is much lower everywhere)

    *Mazovia is an outlier but otherwise HIV follows the electoral map.
  28. @SFG
    Does anyone think genetically determined IQ explains *everything*? The big insight of HBD is that it's important at all, not that it's some magic key that unlocks all mysteries. Of course culture matters too.

    Does anyone think genetically determined IQ explains *everything*?

    Of course not. It determines about 30-50% of outcome, but not more.

    For example, IQ tests were force-fitted to ensure that the average IQ of women does not get published as lower than men, otherwise all hell would break loose. Women have a lower standard deviation than men, but the averages are the same.

    Yet, almost 100% of all scientific and technological innovation is by men (and not just 140+ IQ men). Clearly, average IQ does not predict this, otherwise women would have somewhat better representation than under 1%.

    • Replies: @JFlag

    Yet, almost 100% of all scientific and technological innovation is by men (and not just 140+ IQ men). Clearly, average IQ does not predict this, otherwise women would have somewhat better representation than under 1%.
     
    Peak white male. I sometimes wonder what will happen when this country (U.S.) no longer has a large number of blue-collar white males available to keep the infrastructure going. In my line of work I have a lot of interaction with middle-aged white guys with no college education working in the electrical and construction trades. These guys have innate smarts, are good at what they do, and are natural problem solvers. While they are the segment of the population most overlooked and underappreciated they are also the most important segment of the population when it comes to keeping things running. You have a situation where peoples from temperate climates and third-world standards are repopulating large territories of cold weather lands which are inhospitable for 4-5 months out of the year. From the upper Midwest to the Northeast. And in these same areas (e.g., Northeast) resources are spent on giving 6-figure gov’t administrative jobs to recent immigrants from Jamaica or the Dominican Republic rather than make life easier for the blue-collar white male (the backbone of America). Peak white male. We’re doomed.
  29. @SFG
    Does anyone think genetically determined IQ explains *everything*? The big insight of HBD is that it's important at all, not that it's some magic key that unlocks all mysteries. Of course culture matters too.

    Well, many people claim to not think that, but then literally use it to explain everything as if they really did believe just that.

    So in practice, lots of people do think genes literally explain everything. They just won’t admit to it, because it sounds silly. But they’ll act as if its the truth. Some people even do admit to it. JayMan, for instance.

    Anyways, in hindsight HBD was the last development of the classic materialist hypothesis that began in the 18th century.

    Materialism was a very bold and daring hypothesis that seized control of the best minds for several centuries. It was so daring and bold because in a way everyone knew it was absurd. But there was this sense that lets make this extreme statement that humanity has always known to be false and follow it as far as we can go. Let’s see where we end up. Lets pretend.

    It was really the same spirit of adventure that carried Columbus over the ocean.

    Its just that this particular adventure is winding down now and there is nowhere else for it to take us. We gave to find new adventures now, and they will be very different.

  30. @AaronB
    What you are witnessing, dear iffen, is the slow collapse of the "strong" HBD paradigm.

    The massive and astonishing underperformance of China relative to the supposed intelligence of its population is putting increasing strain on IQ theory, and more and more people are abandoning it.

    The glaring discrepancy in Hajnal theory - which I have been noting for ages - is leading to defections on this HBD front.

    You are privileged, iffen, in the last years of your old age, to witness the collapse of a sterile and outworn paradigm. Aren't you lucky you are still clinging to life.

    How is China under performing. They were a super power for most of human history and it is rapidly returning that status today. Read less Western propoganda.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    Recent studies have shown their best engineering students perform worse than our average ones. Google it.

    This is a country of a billion plus people of supposedly higher intelligence yet the best experts in every field continue to be white. In the past 100 years they should have been producing the best theoretical mathematicians, yet they have all been white. They can't make a good commercial jet engine. The new joint Russian-Chinese airplane will do all its heavy brain work in Moscow. Only labor intensive production will be in China.

    Face it, the verdict is in. The "strong" IQ theory has failed (it was supposed to only weed out retarded people. The attempt to make it do more has not stood the rest of time). In 30 years from now superior Asian intelligence will be seen as a peculiar myth of the turn of the century zeitgeist.

    The Chinese advantage is in social organization and the ability to underlive others.
    , @Alden
    China was never a super power. It didn’t conquer Manchuria and Mongolia, those countries conquered China It couldn’t conquer Vietnam and Japan although China tried often enough.

    Chinese culture spread throughout E Asia but not by conquest. The Chinese rulers appear to have realized that by 3,000 years ago they had big enough territory, big enough population. enough variations in climate agriculture rivers coastal harbors boat builders construction people artists farmers trades men big and small merchants local and long distance traders , plains hills mountains every kind of resources from jade and gold to iron and copper.

    China has everything it needed. Why rampage all over Asia like the mongols.?

    Or all over the world as America does?
  31. @AP

    I wouldn’t call Belarus particularly derooted. It didn’t lose much more of its population than did occupied Ukraine (and perhaps 30%-40% of those it did lose must have been Jews)
     
    I could be wrong, but I thought that Belarus was hit much harder during World War II than was Ukraine or any other country. The partisans very skillfully provoked the Germans into mass murdering Belarusian peasants. These compensated for Belarus not having been hit as hard by the 1930s famine as was Ukraine. So Belarus was sort of remade in a Soviet image after the war. (I'm not sticking too hard to this, my source is Belarussians from the western part of the country, I haven't digged around into this)

    Does Belarus show any particular “symptoms” of rootlessness i.e. high HIV rates, high crime, etc.? From what I know, Belarus was/is a fairly conservative society, as much as any post-Soviet country could be anyways. I had also been under the impression that Belarus was particularly badly damaged by the war.

    • Replies: @AP

    Does Belarus show any particular “symptoms” of rootlessness i.e. high HIV rates, high crime, etc.?
     
    I'm going to walk back my comment of rootlessness in Belarus (which I admitted I was not certain about when I made it).
    , @Dmitry
    HIV is not a symptom of "rootlessness".

    It's pretty irrelevant to that concept (high HIV rate is more a symptom of incompetent healthcare systems and poor control of epidemics).

    As for Belarus - the rate of new diagnosis is currently lower than Ukraine, but much higher than Poland.

    https://i.imgur.com/iY6UJtV.png


    Generally, for HIV - East Europe is high, while Centre Europe (including Poland) and West Europe is low.

    https://i.imgur.com/ZnlCWh9.jpg

    , @Swedish Family

    Does Belarus show any particular “symptoms” of rootlessness i.e. high HIV rates, high crime, etc.? From what I know, Belarus was/is a fairly conservative society, as much as any post-Soviet country could be anyways.
     
    From what I hear, and my own experience (although I've only hung around Belarusian transplants in the EU and Ukraine), this remains true. Among Westerners, the common view of the Eastern-Slavonic states is that Belarusians are the most conservative and least outgoing, with Russians on the other end and Ukrainians in between.
  32. @Dreadilk
    How is China under performing. They were a super power for most of human history and it is rapidly returning that status today. Read less Western propoganda.

    Recent studies have shown their best engineering students perform worse than our average ones. Google it.

    This is a country of a billion plus people of supposedly higher intelligence yet the best experts in every field continue to be white. In the past 100 years they should have been producing the best theoretical mathematicians, yet they have all been white. They can’t make a good commercial jet engine. The new joint Russian-Chinese airplane will do all its heavy brain work in Moscow. Only labor intensive production will be in China.

    Face it, the verdict is in. The “strong” IQ theory has failed (it was supposed to only weed out retarded people. The attempt to make it do more has not stood the rest of time). In 30 years from now superior Asian intelligence will be seen as a peculiar myth of the turn of the century zeitgeist.

    The Chinese advantage is in social organization and the ability to underlive others.

    • Disagree: Blinky Bill
    • Replies: @Dreadilk
    Maybe their high IQ people are concentrating on other things. Like being able to spit out capital ships by the dozen and keep their economy growing?
  33. @Denis
    Does Belarus show any particular "symptoms" of rootlessness i.e. high HIV rates, high crime, etc.? From what I know, Belarus was/is a fairly conservative society, as much as any post-Soviet country could be anyways. I had also been under the impression that Belarus was particularly badly damaged by the war.

    Does Belarus show any particular “symptoms” of rootlessness i.e. high HIV rates, high crime, etc.?

    I’m going to walk back my comment of rootlessness in Belarus (which I admitted I was not certain about when I made it).

  34. @Dmitry
    He's arguing that West Poland, is analogous to East Ukraine.

    Before the war, East Ukraine is the richer, more successful part of Ukraine, being more economically developed and more educated than West Ukraine. (However, with higher crime rates compared to West Ukraine according to the map from Wikipedia).

    West Ukraine is the center of nationalist and rightist politics in Ukraine, which corresponds intuitively with its lower economic development level.

    -

    However, generally richer regions are both more liberal politically (except in relation to tax) and also have lower crime rates. So if East Ukraine has higher crime rates than West Ukraine, that is already an unusual and weird paradox, so I don't see how you can use it as an example for generalizing about other countries like Poland (it's the opposite of the usual rules).

    Before the war, East Ukraine is the richer, more successful part of Ukraine, being more economically developed and more educated than West Ukraine. (However, with higher crime rates compared to West Ukraine according to the map from Wikipedia).

    With regards to Donbas – also lower Human Development Index, lower life expectancy, and higher rates of things like HIV.

    Higher income was an artifact of the fact that Donbas contained Ukraine’s best sources of foreign $$$ – coal and steel.

    Kharkiv was a different story. It was settled much earlier.

    :::::::::::::

    As for education in West Ukraine. Western Ukraine consists of 4 historical regions that all have in common the fact that they missed the most destructive and disruptive of the Sovok experience – the 1920s and 1930s. Otherwise they are much less rootless than the rest of Ukraine. But they are still very different from each other.

    Galicia (Lviv and Ivano-Frankivsk oblasts) achieved mass literacy a generation earlier than did any other Ukrainian region and earlier than did most of Russia. Lviv oblast has the highest % of people with tertiary education in the country, after Kiev City and Kharkiv oblast. It is above average in wealth. OTOH, Volyn and Transcarpathia are the poorest and least educated regions in Ukraine. Educated, less-poor Lviv is a lot more nationalistic than uneducated, dirt-poor Volyn and Transcarpathia.

    :::::::::::::

    BTW, here is HIV rate in Poland*:

    Yes, western Poland is analogous to Sovok Ukraine:

    (of course Poland’s rate is much lower everywhere)

    *Mazovia is an outlier but otherwise HIV follows the electoral map.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    Educated, less-poor Lviv is a lot more nationalistic than uneducated, dirt-poor Volyn and Transcarpathia.
     
    Volhynia is actually fairly nationalistic. It was one of the few regions of Ukraine that voted against the Communists back in 1998:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Ukrainian_parliamentary_election

    Support for Ukrainian independence in December 1991 there was only slightly lower than in Galicia:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Ukrainian_independence_referendum

    , @Dmitry

    much less rootless than the rest of Ukraine.

     

    In terms of national identity? Lvov was a majority Polish/Jewish city before the Second World War. You cannot deny Ukrainian nationalism in Lvov today is partly explained by the fact it is only an accidentally majority Ukrainian city today. (If it was not for Hitler, and then Stalin, the city would be majority Polish and Jewish today).

    Higher income was an artifact of the fact that Donbas contained Ukraine’s best sources of foreign $$$ – coal
     
    In general, the wealth of Ukraine is highest of course in Kiev, but then following Kiev, the richest cities are all Eastern cities - Dnepropetrovsk, Kharkov and Donetsk (before the war).

    Lviv oblast... It is above average in wealth.
     
    But it's on the median for income in Ukraine.
  35. @Denis
    Does Belarus show any particular "symptoms" of rootlessness i.e. high HIV rates, high crime, etc.? From what I know, Belarus was/is a fairly conservative society, as much as any post-Soviet country could be anyways. I had also been under the impression that Belarus was particularly badly damaged by the war.

    HIV is not a symptom of “rootlessness”.

    It’s pretty irrelevant to that concept (high HIV rate is more a symptom of incompetent healthcare systems and poor control of epidemics).

    As for Belarus – the rate of new diagnosis is currently lower than Ukraine, but much higher than Poland.

    Generally, for HIV – East Europe is high, while Centre Europe (including Poland) and West Europe is low.

    • Replies: @AP

    HIV is not a symptom of “rootlessness”.

    It’s pretty irrelevant for that kind of thing (it is more a symptom of incompetent healthcare systems and control of epidemics).
     
    You are one of the more intelligent commenters here, but for some reason you cannot see that something can reflect more than one phenomenon.

    HIV is both a symptom of rootlessness/immorality/etc. and affected by healthcare systems, control of epidemics, etc.
    , @Denis
    From the map that you posted, it seems that most of eastern Europe is significantly less HIV infested than western Europe.

    HIV is not a symptom of “rootlessness”.

    It’s pretty irrelevant to that concept (high HIV rate is more a symptom of incompetent healthcare systems and poor control of epidemics).

    As for Belarus – the rate of new diagnosis is currently lower than Ukraine, but much higher than Poland.
     

    Although I would generally agree that the high rates of HIV in the FSU are more reflective of the collapsed health infrastructure than anything else, they are also a symptom of the great increase in drug use and prostitution that the healthcare system (and legal system) would normally have addressed. The differences in HIV rates can also be used to compare different countries and regions.

    For example, Bosnia was split between several different governments during a civil war that killed, maimed, and displaced a significant chunk of the population, a perfect recipe for a spike in social dysfunction and the resulting negative outcomes, yet it's rates of HIV are substantially lower than those of Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus.

  36. @Anatoly Karlin
    The population change for each of the following in their current borders between 1913/14 and 1945/46 was about as follows:

    Russia - 92M/97M
    Ukraine - 35M/34M
    Belarus - 7.5M/7.7M

    So, no major difference.

    No growth between 1913 and 1946. Imagine that! That really does show the devastating demographic effect that WWI and especially the Russian Civil War, Bolshevik terror and forced collectivization, and WWII (including the Holocaust, though its effect was not that large in an overall sense since Jews weren’t 10% of the total population even in Ukraine and Belarus) had on the East Slavic countries/SSRs during these 33 years! 🙁

    BTW, where’d you get your data from? It does look about right, but I want to know the exact source for it.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    They are culled from different sources, I am not aware of a unified one. That is indeed correct, the thirty years between 1917 and 1947 cut the population of the East Slavic states by half of what they "should have" been.
  37. @AP

    Before the war, East Ukraine is the richer, more successful part of Ukraine, being more economically developed and more educated than West Ukraine. (However, with higher crime rates compared to West Ukraine according to the map from Wikipedia).
     
    With regards to Donbas - also lower Human Development Index, lower life expectancy, and higher rates of things like HIV.

    Higher income was an artifact of the fact that Donbas contained Ukraine's best sources of foreign $$$ - coal and steel.

    Kharkiv was a different story. It was settled much earlier.

    :::::::::::::

    As for education in West Ukraine. Western Ukraine consists of 4 historical regions that all have in common the fact that they missed the most destructive and disruptive of the Sovok experience - the 1920s and 1930s. Otherwise they are much less rootless than the rest of Ukraine. But they are still very different from each other.

    Galicia (Lviv and Ivano-Frankivsk oblasts) achieved mass literacy a generation earlier than did any other Ukrainian region and earlier than did most of Russia. Lviv oblast has the highest % of people with tertiary education in the country, after Kiev City and Kharkiv oblast. It is above average in wealth. OTOH, Volyn and Transcarpathia are the poorest and least educated regions in Ukraine. Educated, less-poor Lviv is a lot more nationalistic than uneducated, dirt-poor Volyn and Transcarpathia.

    :::::::::::::

    BTW, here is HIV rate in Poland*:

    http://i.wp.pl/a/f/jpeg/28080/hiv_polska.jpeg

    Yes, western Poland is analogous to Sovok Ukraine:

    https://i.imgur.com/ZCDdYEr.png

    (of course Poland's rate is much lower everywhere)

    *Mazovia is an outlier but otherwise HIV follows the electoral map.

    Educated, less-poor Lviv is a lot more nationalistic than uneducated, dirt-poor Volyn and Transcarpathia.

    Volhynia is actually fairly nationalistic. It was one of the few regions of Ukraine that voted against the Communists back in 1998:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Ukrainian_parliamentary_election

    Support for Ukrainian independence in December 1991 there was only slightly lower than in Galicia:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Ukrainian_independence_referendum

    • Replies: @AP

    Volhynia is actually fairly nationalistic.
     
    Yes, but much less so than Galicia. Here is support for the far right nationalist Svoboda party in Ukraine:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/Svoboda-2012.png

    In 2019, Poroshenko's party ran on a more nationalistic platform (not say that Zelensky didn't run as nationalist either).

    His party's results:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1f/%D0%95%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%BF%D1%96%D0%B4%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%82%D1%96%D1%97_%D0%84%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B9%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%A1%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%96%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BD%D1%96%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%9F%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%82%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%85_%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%85_%D0%B2_%D0%A3%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%97%D0%BD%D1%96_2019_%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BA%D1%83.svg/1024px-thumbnail.svg.png

    Among Western Ukrainian regions, the most well-educated and wealthiest is also the most nationalistic.
  38. @Dmitry
    HIV is not a symptom of "rootlessness".

    It's pretty irrelevant to that concept (high HIV rate is more a symptom of incompetent healthcare systems and poor control of epidemics).

    As for Belarus - the rate of new diagnosis is currently lower than Ukraine, but much higher than Poland.

    https://i.imgur.com/iY6UJtV.png


    Generally, for HIV - East Europe is high, while Centre Europe (including Poland) and West Europe is low.

    https://i.imgur.com/ZnlCWh9.jpg

    HIV is not a symptom of “rootlessness”.

    It’s pretty irrelevant for that kind of thing (it is more a symptom of incompetent healthcare systems and control of epidemics).

    You are one of the more intelligent commenters here, but for some reason you cannot see that something can reflect more than one phenomenon.

    HIV is both a symptom of rootlessness/immorality/etc. and affected by healthcare systems, control of epidemics, etc.

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    Adding this concept of "rooted" does not make the HIV discussion we were having before more plausible, but less plausible.

    Apart from the Russia,* the countries with the highest HIV rates in the world are mostly very "rooted" African countries, where people still catch the fish they will eat for dinner with a spear in the morning, and remember their ancestors' tribal dances.

    On the other hand, many of the least "rooted" populations like Australia (where populations have travelled to the wrong side of the world from their roots), have the lowest HIV rates in the world.

    Of course, inability to control disease epidemics is more common in countries with low levels of technological development, and low level of technological development also correlates with greater geographical and culturaly immobility (i.e. lower degrees of "rootlessness" in the population).


    -

    *Which perhaps is an exception, for the intentional and high incompetence of the authorities.

  39. @AP
    See my previous comment. Western and west-central Ukraine are fairly rooted. The brunt of social engineering occurred in the 1920s and 1930s. The parts that were annexed later underwent a process not much different from the the one in eastern and southern Poland.

    Do you think that western Ukraine would be much more of a dump right now had the Bolsheviks conquered it in 1920-1921?

    Also, as a side question, do you think that much more of western Ukraine’s Jewish population would have survived the Holocaust in this scenario?

    • Replies: @AP

    Do you think that western Ukraine would be much more of a dump right now had the Bolsheviks conquered it in 1920-1921?
     
    It's not really a dump now, but yes, it would have been similar, at least to central Ukraine (not as bad as a totally Sovietized place like Donetsk).

    A good comparison point is Rivne oblast and Zhytomir oblast. Both were part of the same Volhynia governate under the tsars, but in 1920 Riven became part of Poland (thus missing the 20s and 30s Soviet experience) while Zhytomir became part of the USSR.

    Rivne has a little more than half the HIV rate of Zhytomir. It also has about half the rate of assault:

    https://i.imgur.com/9EswwPC.png

    Also, as a side question, do you think that much more of western Ukraine’s Jewish population would have survived the Holocaust in this scenario?
     
    Not if the timeline for the German invasion was the same.
  40. @Mr. XYZ

    Educated, less-poor Lviv is a lot more nationalistic than uneducated, dirt-poor Volyn and Transcarpathia.
     
    Volhynia is actually fairly nationalistic. It was one of the few regions of Ukraine that voted against the Communists back in 1998:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Ukrainian_parliamentary_election

    Support for Ukrainian independence in December 1991 there was only slightly lower than in Galicia:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Ukrainian_independence_referendum

    Volhynia is actually fairly nationalistic.

    Yes, but much less so than Galicia. Here is support for the far right nationalist Svoboda party in Ukraine:

    In 2019, Poroshenko’s party ran on a more nationalistic platform (not say that Zelensky didn’t run as nationalist either).

    His party’s results:

    Among Western Ukrainian regions, the most well-educated and wealthiest is also the most nationalistic.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    Is it safe to say that Volhynia is about as nationalistic as Kiev is?
  41. @Mr. XYZ
    Do you think that western Ukraine would be much more of a dump right now had the Bolsheviks conquered it in 1920-1921?

    Also, as a side question, do you think that much more of western Ukraine's Jewish population would have survived the Holocaust in this scenario?

    Do you think that western Ukraine would be much more of a dump right now had the Bolsheviks conquered it in 1920-1921?

    It’s not really a dump now, but yes, it would have been similar, at least to central Ukraine (not as bad as a totally Sovietized place like Donetsk).

    A good comparison point is Rivne oblast and Zhytomir oblast. Both were part of the same Volhynia governate under the tsars, but in 1920 Riven became part of Poland (thus missing the 20s and 30s Soviet experience) while Zhytomir became part of the USSR.

    Rivne has a little more than half the HIV rate of Zhytomir. It also has about half the rate of assault:

    Also, as a side question, do you think that much more of western Ukraine’s Jewish population would have survived the Holocaust in this scenario?

    Not if the timeline for the German invasion was the same.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    It’s not really a dump now, but yes, it would have been similar, at least to central Ukraine (not as bad as a totally Sovietized place like Donetsk).

    A good comparison point is Rivne oblast and Zhytomir oblast. Both were part of the same Volhynia governate under the tsars, but in 1920 Riven became part of Poland (thus missing the 20s and 30s Soviet experience) while Zhytomir became part of the USSR.

    Rivne has a little more than half the HIV rate of Zhytomir. It also has about half the rate of assault:
     
    Thanks; that makes sense.

    Not if the timeline for the German invasion was the same.
     
    Honestly, I'm wondering just how many Jews in western Ukraine were prevented from fleeing the Nazis by the border controls that the Soviets installed between their pre-1939 territory and their 1939-1940 territorial acquisitions. The Nazi invasion of the USSR was very quick and western Ukraine was quickly conquered, but still, I wonder if more lives could have been saved.

    Also, how many western Ukrainian Jews do you think would have moved further east between 1920 and 1941 in this scenario? I know that Russia proper saw a huge increase in its Jewish population from 1897 to 1939--most likely primarily from 1917 to 1939. This increase occurred as a result of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian and Belarusian Jews moving to Russia between 1917 and 1939. Moscow and St. Pete's had small Jewish communities in 1897 but much larger ones in 1939. Thus, I'm wondering just how many western Ukrainian Jews would have followed in their footsteps and moved to Russia--or, alternatively, to either Central Asia, the Caucasus, or eastern Ukraine--between 1920 and 1941 in this scenario.

    BTW, interesting fact--my own Jewish ancestors (on the patrilineal line) were from Rivne Oblast--specifically from Sarny. Most of them were murdered in the Holocaust but a few of them survived as a result of them fleeing to the interior of the USSR in time or emigrating early enough. My own Jewish great-grandfather was apparently captured by the Bolsheviks during the Polish-Soviet War in 1920-1921 as they retreated from Rivne Oblast. Apparently they saw value in him because he was literate. Anyway, he subsequently settled in Vinnytsia where he married and had a family. All of them fled to the interior of the USSR in 1941--initially settling in Stalingrad and then fleeing from there to Samara Oblast in 1942 once the Nazis were about to conquer Stalingrad. My great-grandfather and his wife died in Samara Oblast in the mid-1980s.
  42. @AP

    Before the war, East Ukraine is the richer, more successful part of Ukraine, being more economically developed and more educated than West Ukraine. (However, with higher crime rates compared to West Ukraine according to the map from Wikipedia).
     
    With regards to Donbas - also lower Human Development Index, lower life expectancy, and higher rates of things like HIV.

    Higher income was an artifact of the fact that Donbas contained Ukraine's best sources of foreign $$$ - coal and steel.

    Kharkiv was a different story. It was settled much earlier.

    :::::::::::::

    As for education in West Ukraine. Western Ukraine consists of 4 historical regions that all have in common the fact that they missed the most destructive and disruptive of the Sovok experience - the 1920s and 1930s. Otherwise they are much less rootless than the rest of Ukraine. But they are still very different from each other.

    Galicia (Lviv and Ivano-Frankivsk oblasts) achieved mass literacy a generation earlier than did any other Ukrainian region and earlier than did most of Russia. Lviv oblast has the highest % of people with tertiary education in the country, after Kiev City and Kharkiv oblast. It is above average in wealth. OTOH, Volyn and Transcarpathia are the poorest and least educated regions in Ukraine. Educated, less-poor Lviv is a lot more nationalistic than uneducated, dirt-poor Volyn and Transcarpathia.

    :::::::::::::

    BTW, here is HIV rate in Poland*:

    http://i.wp.pl/a/f/jpeg/28080/hiv_polska.jpeg

    Yes, western Poland is analogous to Sovok Ukraine:

    https://i.imgur.com/ZCDdYEr.png

    (of course Poland's rate is much lower everywhere)

    *Mazovia is an outlier but otherwise HIV follows the electoral map.

    much less rootless than the rest of Ukraine.

    In terms of national identity? Lvov was a majority Polish/Jewish city before the Second World War. You cannot deny Ukrainian nationalism in Lvov today is partly explained by the fact it is only an accidentally majority Ukrainian city today. (If it was not for Hitler, and then Stalin, the city would be majority Polish and Jewish today).

    Higher income was an artifact of the fact that Donbas contained Ukraine’s best sources of foreign $$$ – coal

    In general, the wealth of Ukraine is highest of course in Kiev, but then following Kiev, the richest cities are all Eastern cities – Dnepropetrovsk, Kharkov and Donetsk (before the war).

    Lviv oblast… It is above average in wealth.

    But it’s on the median for income in Ukraine.

    • Replies: @AP

    In terms of national identity? Lvov was a majority Polish/Jewish city before the Second World War. You cannot deny Ukrainian nationalism in Lvov today is partly explained by the fact it is only an accidentally majority Ukrainian city today. (If it was not for Hitler, and then Stalin, the city would be majority Polish and Jewish today).
     
    Doubtful. Unless Lviv remained a small city of 300,000 people. With urbanization local Ukrainians from neighboring villages moved in, a process that was similar to Prague becoming a Czech rather than a German city. The new city-dwellers were close to their ancestral communities, their cousins and grandparents. And the pre-war city had been about 18% Ukrainian so there was some continuity.

    It is not like people were moved there, primarily, from all over the USSR (this occurred to an extent, Lviv is still about 10% Russian, but it didn't dominate the picture). And surrounding towns were rather similar. So no, the area is not very rootless, compared to western Poland or Donbas.

    Lviv oblast… It is above average in wealth.

    But it’s on the median for income in Ukraine.
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ukrainian_oblasts_and_territories_by_salary

    Before Maidan, yes. It was in the middle, while the poorest were other Western regions.

    In 2017 Lviv was 9th out of 25. It has improved its position further since then. In 2019 it was in third place (can't find the link quickly now, though).
  43. as opposed to deeper HBD differences that were remarked upon by Tacitus, and even earlier by the Greeks – about personality differences between Northern Europe and the Mediterranean either.

    For the ancient Romans, Northern Europeans were Gauls and Germans, for the ancient Greeks (mainly) – Iranian-speaking Scythians. The closest modern relatives of the Scythians are Ossetians not norteners at all

    The ancient description of “Northern Europeans” as noble savages has nothing to do with HBD – in ancient literature there are similar idealized descriptions of Ethiopians.

    • Replies: @AP
    Greeks described Scythians as red-haired and green-eyed. They probably looked like this Persian:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/68/Mohammad_Ali_Ramin.jpg/200px-Mohammad_Ali_Ramin.jpg

    or Tajik:

    https://c8.alamy.com/comp/D9KEJF/portrait-of-curious-tajik-girl-with-red-hair-tajikistan-central-asia-D9KEJF.jpg
  44. Population density might affect voting behavior. High and low density areas might be more likely to vote left, while medium density areas vote right.

    In Sweden, parts of big cities, and low density rural areas vote for the left; medium density areas, like certain suburbs, and small and medium-sized towns vote for the right.

    • Replies: @Thulean Friend
    Part of the reason why people in low density rural areas vote for the left in Sweden is because the distances really are huge in many of these places, particularly in the north. I've heard scare stories that some people live 200-300 km away from the nearest hospital and the like. Voting for the left = more public resources for these people.

    There's also another, perhaps more demographic relic, to this voting pattern. The north, at least the rural north, is almost entirely white so voting right-wing because of diversity doesn't really apply there. Your more pressing concerns tend to be wolves and wild animals running around on your property.

    However, there is a north-south split here. Rural voters in Skåne and Blekinge vote for SD much more than rural voters in Norrland. My guess is that rural voters in Skåne, even if living outside the cities, can't really escape diversity due to much higher population density and the fact that Norrland has nothing like Malmö, or even anything close to it in terms of crime/diversity/general chaos. So it is easier to be in a buble in the rural north than rural south.

  45. It would be interesting to look more broadly into correlation between uprootedness and wealth, urbanization, sexual immorality, and crime. It could be interesting to do such comparisons on American blacks, for example. To do this, however, you need some kind of measure of uprootedness. Very roughly, you would expect blacks in the deep south to be more rooted than those in industrial cities of north. On the other hand, you might expect industrial cities of the north to have better functioning institutions. Sounds like a problem that le Griffe du Lion might have considered?

  46. @AP

    Volhynia is actually fairly nationalistic.
     
    Yes, but much less so than Galicia. Here is support for the far right nationalist Svoboda party in Ukraine:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/Svoboda-2012.png

    In 2019, Poroshenko's party ran on a more nationalistic platform (not say that Zelensky didn't run as nationalist either).

    His party's results:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1f/%D0%95%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%BF%D1%96%D0%B4%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%82%D1%96%D1%97_%D0%84%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B9%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%A1%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%96%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BD%D1%96%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%9F%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%82%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%85_%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%85_%D0%B2_%D0%A3%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%97%D0%BD%D1%96_2019_%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BA%D1%83.svg/1024px-thumbnail.svg.png

    Among Western Ukrainian regions, the most well-educated and wealthiest is also the most nationalistic.

    Is it safe to say that Volhynia is about as nationalistic as Kiev is?

  47. @AP

    Do you think that western Ukraine would be much more of a dump right now had the Bolsheviks conquered it in 1920-1921?
     
    It's not really a dump now, but yes, it would have been similar, at least to central Ukraine (not as bad as a totally Sovietized place like Donetsk).

    A good comparison point is Rivne oblast and Zhytomir oblast. Both were part of the same Volhynia governate under the tsars, but in 1920 Riven became part of Poland (thus missing the 20s and 30s Soviet experience) while Zhytomir became part of the USSR.

    Rivne has a little more than half the HIV rate of Zhytomir. It also has about half the rate of assault:

    https://i.imgur.com/9EswwPC.png

    Also, as a side question, do you think that much more of western Ukraine’s Jewish population would have survived the Holocaust in this scenario?
     
    Not if the timeline for the German invasion was the same.

    It’s not really a dump now, but yes, it would have been similar, at least to central Ukraine (not as bad as a totally Sovietized place like Donetsk).

    A good comparison point is Rivne oblast and Zhytomir oblast. Both were part of the same Volhynia governate under the tsars, but in 1920 Riven became part of Poland (thus missing the 20s and 30s Soviet experience) while Zhytomir became part of the USSR.

    Rivne has a little more than half the HIV rate of Zhytomir. It also has about half the rate of assault:

    Thanks; that makes sense.

    Not if the timeline for the German invasion was the same.

    Honestly, I’m wondering just how many Jews in western Ukraine were prevented from fleeing the Nazis by the border controls that the Soviets installed between their pre-1939 territory and their 1939-1940 territorial acquisitions. The Nazi invasion of the USSR was very quick and western Ukraine was quickly conquered, but still, I wonder if more lives could have been saved.

    Also, how many western Ukrainian Jews do you think would have moved further east between 1920 and 1941 in this scenario? I know that Russia proper saw a huge increase in its Jewish population from 1897 to 1939–most likely primarily from 1917 to 1939. This increase occurred as a result of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian and Belarusian Jews moving to Russia between 1917 and 1939. Moscow and St. Pete’s had small Jewish communities in 1897 but much larger ones in 1939. Thus, I’m wondering just how many western Ukrainian Jews would have followed in their footsteps and moved to Russia–or, alternatively, to either Central Asia, the Caucasus, or eastern Ukraine–between 1920 and 1941 in this scenario.

    BTW, interesting fact–my own Jewish ancestors (on the patrilineal line) were from Rivne Oblast–specifically from Sarny. Most of them were murdered in the Holocaust but a few of them survived as a result of them fleeing to the interior of the USSR in time or emigrating early enough. My own Jewish great-grandfather was apparently captured by the Bolsheviks during the Polish-Soviet War in 1920-1921 as they retreated from Rivne Oblast. Apparently they saw value in him because he was literate. Anyway, he subsequently settled in Vinnytsia where he married and had a family. All of them fled to the interior of the USSR in 1941–initially settling in Stalingrad and then fleeing from there to Samara Oblast in 1942 once the Nazis were about to conquer Stalingrad. My great-grandfather and his wife died in Samara Oblast in the mid-1980s.

    • Replies: @AP

    I’m wondering just how many Jews in western Ukraine were prevented from fleeing the Nazis by the border controls that the Soviets installed between their pre-1939 territory and their 1939-1940 territorial acquisitions. The Nazi invasion of the USSR was very quick and western Ukraine was quickly conquered, but still, I wonder if more lives could have been saved.
     
    One of my grandparents arrived in Lviv from Kharkiv in 1939 (student transferred from an academic institute). I was told that the Jewish classmates who also came along were all quickly evacuated. The ones who stayed were local Jews with no ties to areas further east. They probably would not have left either way, they might not have expected extermination, this was their home, etc.
  48. @Not Raul
    Population density might affect voting behavior. High and low density areas might be more likely to vote left, while medium density areas vote right.

    In Sweden, parts of big cities, and low density rural areas vote for the left; medium density areas, like certain suburbs, and small and medium-sized towns vote for the right.

    Part of the reason why people in low density rural areas vote for the left in Sweden is because the distances really are huge in many of these places, particularly in the north. I’ve heard scare stories that some people live 200-300 km away from the nearest hospital and the like. Voting for the left = more public resources for these people.

    There’s also another, perhaps more demographic relic, to this voting pattern. The north, at least the rural north, is almost entirely white so voting right-wing because of diversity doesn’t really apply there. Your more pressing concerns tend to be wolves and wild animals running around on your property.

    However, there is a north-south split here. Rural voters in Skåne and Blekinge vote for SD much more than rural voters in Norrland. My guess is that rural voters in Skåne, even if living outside the cities, can’t really escape diversity due to much higher population density and the fact that Norrland has nothing like Malmö, or even anything close to it in terms of crime/diversity/general chaos. So it is easier to be in a buble in the rural north than rural south.

    • Replies: @Cicerone
    I guess you also need to take into account the different rural structure in northern and southern Sweden. The southern parts are classical rural, with a strong agricultural history. The north on the other hand is not suitable for agriculture, and industry has been more prevalent, meaning that from their heritage, northern rural folks are more workers, while southern rural people are more of the farmer kind.
  49. @AaronB
    First we retire hajnal, then we retire IQ, then HBD :)

    Step by step.

    Intelligence wins in the end.

    First we retire hajnal, then we retire IQ, then HBD

    There’s really nothing to retire. Don’t take it so seriously; “HBD” is just the dogwhistle version of the phrase “niggers are dumb”.

    (Shocking and unexpected idea, I know.)

    • Replies: @neutral

    “niggers are dumb”
     
    Well they are, the convoluted liberal arguments why sub Saharan Africa (and basically any city with too many blacks) are always dumps are simply ridiculous. The idea that all races have the same average IQ is simply ridiculous. The idea that a black planet will be great is ridiculous.
  50. As pointed out many times on this blog, Poland has much lower
    rates of social dysfunction than just about anybody, incl. Russia,
    Ukraine or Belarus. By that I mean rates of murder, suicide, abortion,
    HIV, drug addiction, corruption (much lower than Eastern Europe),
    homelessness, divorce, single motherhood, mass shootings, and
    terrorism. Poland actually has lower murder rates than Germany,
    France, Britain or Israel. This has given rise to the Holy Poland
    meme, and indeed, as Catholicism is still strong in Poland,
    the goal of achieving personal holiness is still widespread in the
    country.

    While everybody in Europe is aware of the Polish Romantic
    tradition, very few outside observers know about Polish Messianism.
    The latter was born after the Partitions of Poland, in the early
    19th century, and was personified by Adam Mickiewicz, Poland’s
    main bard, and his concept of Poland as the crucified Christ of Nations.
    The more Poland was oppressed by Russia and Germany, the more
    it was seen as Christlike. And just as Christ’s resurrection took place
    2000 years ago, so Poland’s resurrection was equally certain. So when
    Poland regained independence in 1918, that was widely seen as the
    fulfillment of the scriptures (i.e., Mickiewicz’s prophecies). This view
    of Poland as having a special role in God’s Plan for Salvation was reinforced
    in the 1920s-30s when Sister Faustina, a Polish nun, began to have visions
    of Christ visiting her convent cell in the flesh. She received many special
    revelations which she recorded in her diary. The Diary of Sister Faustina
    Kowalska in English translation is the biggest selling Polish book in the
    world, and she herself became canonized as a saint. According to Sister
    Faustina, Christ told her that Poland indeed has indeed been chosen by
    God to have a special role, and that role is to bring Europe back to God,
    but first Poland must suffer in order to purify itself, apparently predicting
    the coming of WW II. I don’t doubt that Polish Messianism, the claim
    that the Poles are now God’s Chosen People, is partly responsible for Poland’s
    low rates of social dysfunction.

    • Replies: @Shera
    Sounds patently gay. Your first prince abandoned like a dozen pagan wives for a christian thot, Faggotry of that caliber will always be punished by the Gods.

    Have with the Pajeets & Pinoys you're importing potato man.
  51. @Mr. XYZ
    No growth between 1913 and 1946. Imagine that! That really does show the devastating demographic effect that WWI and especially the Russian Civil War, Bolshevik terror and forced collectivization, and WWII (including the Holocaust, though its effect was not that large in an overall sense since Jews weren't 10% of the total population even in Ukraine and Belarus) had on the East Slavic countries/SSRs during these 33 years! :(

    BTW, where'd you get your data from? It does look about right, but I want to know the exact source for it.

    They are culled from different sources, I am not aware of a unified one. That is indeed correct, the thirty years between 1917 and 1947 cut the population of the East Slavic states by half of what they “should have” been.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    What about Kazakhstan? According to Wikipedia, there were less Kazakhs in 1959 than there were in 1897--though this was compensated by large numbers of Slavic immigration into Kazakhstan between 1897 and 1959:

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

    Do you have population data for Kazakhstan in 1913-1914 and in 1945-1946?

    Also, if it makes you feel any better, it's worth noting that, percentage-wise, the Jews in the post-WWII territory of the former USSR suffered much more heavily between 1914 and 1945 than Eastern Slavs did. At least Eastern Slavs were able to keep their numbers steady whereas the number of Jews in the post-WWII territory of the former USSR probably fell by around half between 1914 and 1945. (If one uses 1938 Soviet territory, then the drop was more along the lines of 30%, but please remember that the Soviet Union expanded a lot in 1939-1940 and thus got a lot of additional Jews.)
  52. @Thulean Friend
    Part of the reason why people in low density rural areas vote for the left in Sweden is because the distances really are huge in many of these places, particularly in the north. I've heard scare stories that some people live 200-300 km away from the nearest hospital and the like. Voting for the left = more public resources for these people.

    There's also another, perhaps more demographic relic, to this voting pattern. The north, at least the rural north, is almost entirely white so voting right-wing because of diversity doesn't really apply there. Your more pressing concerns tend to be wolves and wild animals running around on your property.

    However, there is a north-south split here. Rural voters in Skåne and Blekinge vote for SD much more than rural voters in Norrland. My guess is that rural voters in Skåne, even if living outside the cities, can't really escape diversity due to much higher population density and the fact that Norrland has nothing like Malmö, or even anything close to it in terms of crime/diversity/general chaos. So it is easier to be in a buble in the rural north than rural south.

    I guess you also need to take into account the different rural structure in northern and southern Sweden. The southern parts are classical rural, with a strong agricultural history. The north on the other hand is not suitable for agriculture, and industry has been more prevalent, meaning that from their heritage, northern rural folks are more workers, while southern rural people are more of the farmer kind.

    • Replies: @Thulean Friend
    I do not see why people tilling the land(south) turn into right-wingers whereas people working the mines or in the woods(north) become lefties. I find the density+diversity argument to be more persuasive, although I am open to more theories.
    , @Swedish Family

    I guess you also need to take into account the different rural structure in northern and southern Sweden. The southern parts are classical rural, with a strong agricultural history. The north on the other hand is not suitable for agriculture, and industry has been more prevalent, meaning that from their heritage, northern rural folks are more workers, while southern rural people are more of the farmer kind.
     
    No, Thulean Friend is right. It's mostly about proximity. Northern Sweden had basically no immigrants before the 2010s, so people there went on giving their votes to the Social Democrats or the Communists (their traditional parties of choice). But since the election last fall, support there for the Sweden Democrats is near the national average. The true outlier is the city of Stockholm ("Stockholms kommun") at 9.84% support for the Sweden Democrats (against 17.53% countrywide).

    One sometimes hears the argument that people in immigrant-heavy areas tend not to vote for the Sweden Democrats and that this somehow suggests that people who live near immigrants "know better" than the countryside yokels who do, but this is a sleight of hand. Look at the voting patterns of ethnic Swedes who live near immigrant-heavy areas, and you will see very strong support for the Sweden Democrats.
  53. @AaronB
    What you are witnessing, dear iffen, is the slow collapse of the "strong" HBD paradigm.

    The massive and astonishing underperformance of China relative to the supposed intelligence of its population is putting increasing strain on IQ theory, and more and more people are abandoning it.

    The glaring discrepancy in Hajnal theory - which I have been noting for ages - is leading to defections on this HBD front.

    You are privileged, iffen, in the last years of your old age, to witness the collapse of a sterile and outworn paradigm. Aren't you lucky you are still clinging to life.

    Aren’t you lucky you are still clinging to life.

    Sorry you appear so disappointed. Sweetest revenge possible; just outlive them.

    I am no authority such as yourself, so I was unaware that the Hajnal theory was a critical part of HBD.

    I do see scientific work (almost weekly, if not more often) that supports HBD. Perhaps your vision has been impaired by all those wasted hours staring at the moonbeams in your jar.

  54. @anonymous coward

    First we retire hajnal, then we retire IQ, then HBD
     
    There's really nothing to retire. Don't take it so seriously; "HBD" is just the dogwhistle version of the phrase "niggers are dumb".

    (Shocking and unexpected idea, I know.)

    “niggers are dumb”

    Well they are, the convoluted liberal arguments why sub Saharan Africa (and basically any city with too many blacks) are always dumps are simply ridiculous. The idea that all races have the same average IQ is simply ridiculous. The idea that a black planet will be great is ridiculous.

    • Replies: @anonymous coward
    You're stating the obvious here.

    Digging a deeper hole and inventing some pseudoscience theory to skirt around the topic of the naked Emperor's clothes will only make you less legitimate in the end.
  55. @neutral

    “niggers are dumb”
     
    Well they are, the convoluted liberal arguments why sub Saharan Africa (and basically any city with too many blacks) are always dumps are simply ridiculous. The idea that all races have the same average IQ is simply ridiculous. The idea that a black planet will be great is ridiculous.

    You’re stating the obvious here.

    Digging a deeper hole and inventing some pseudoscience theory to skirt around the topic of the naked Emperor’s clothes will only make you less legitimate in the end.

    • Replies: @neutral
    The people asked what evidence there is that blacks are dumb, they were given it. Since this does not conform to their ideology they resorted to calling is pseudoscience, trying to ban all talk of it and destroying anyone who dares tell the truth. That does not make it any less legitimate, it just proves that it is 100% correct.
  56. @anonymous coward
    You're stating the obvious here.

    Digging a deeper hole and inventing some pseudoscience theory to skirt around the topic of the naked Emperor's clothes will only make you less legitimate in the end.

    The people asked what evidence there is that blacks are dumb, they were given it. Since this does not conform to their ideology they resorted to calling is pseudoscience, trying to ban all talk of it and destroying anyone who dares tell the truth. That does not make it any less legitimate, it just proves that it is 100% correct.

    • Replies: @JFlag

    The people asked what evidence there is that blacks are dumb, they were given it. Since this does not conform to their ideology they resorted to calling is pseudoscience, trying to ban all talk of it and destroying anyone who dares tell the truth. That does not make it any less legitimate, it just proves that it is 100% correct.

     

    Yeah, and it was disappointing and pathetic to see Nassim Taleb go all cuck on HBD. But I guess it was equally pathetic and cuck for his largely white male followers to hold this rug merchant in such high esteem when they knew full well that practically all of higher mathematics and science is a European thing.
    , @anonymous coward

    The people asked what evidence there is that blacks are dumb
     
    No, they didn't. It's a self-evident fact that everyone acknowledges, liberals and blacks themselves included.

    That you feel the need to invent some sort of quack theory to justify this self-evident fact just because you're so scared of being called a 'racist' shows just how much you're losing.

    P.S. Being smart is not all that. Smarts + lack of morality = moar damage inflicted. It's not the dumb blacks that invented gay 'pride' and Epstein's pedophile island.
  57. So, if 20% of western Poland today are native western Polacks, and native western Polacks are “Hajnal people”, then you’d expect western Poland to have a mild case of Hajnal charactheristics, no?

    Did those western Polacks live under Hajnal conditions, bipartite manorialism or whatever? Or perhaps that was just the Germans living in today’s western Poland? I don’t know the history of the area.

  58. @Thomm

    Does anyone think genetically determined IQ explains *everything*?
     
    Of course not. It determines about 30-50% of outcome, but not more.

    For example, IQ tests were force-fitted to ensure that the average IQ of women does not get published as lower than men, otherwise all hell would break loose. Women have a lower standard deviation than men, but the averages are the same.

    Yet, almost 100% of all scientific and technological innovation is by men (and not just 140+ IQ men). Clearly, average IQ does not predict this, otherwise women would have somewhat better representation than under 1%.

    Yet, almost 100% of all scientific and technological innovation is by men (and not just 140+ IQ men). Clearly, average IQ does not predict this, otherwise women would have somewhat better representation than under 1%.

    Peak white male. I sometimes wonder what will happen when this country (U.S.) no longer has a large number of blue-collar white males available to keep the infrastructure going. In my line of work I have a lot of interaction with middle-aged white guys with no college education working in the electrical and construction trades. These guys have innate smarts, are good at what they do, and are natural problem solvers. While they are the segment of the population most overlooked and underappreciated they are also the most important segment of the population when it comes to keeping things running. You have a situation where peoples from temperate climates and third-world standards are repopulating large territories of cold weather lands which are inhospitable for 4-5 months out of the year. From the upper Midwest to the Northeast. And in these same areas (e.g., Northeast) resources are spent on giving 6-figure gov’t administrative jobs to recent immigrants from Jamaica or the Dominican Republic rather than make life easier for the blue-collar white male (the backbone of America). Peak white male. We’re doomed.

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
  59. @neutral
    The people asked what evidence there is that blacks are dumb, they were given it. Since this does not conform to their ideology they resorted to calling is pseudoscience, trying to ban all talk of it and destroying anyone who dares tell the truth. That does not make it any less legitimate, it just proves that it is 100% correct.

    The people asked what evidence there is that blacks are dumb, they were given it. Since this does not conform to their ideology they resorted to calling is pseudoscience, trying to ban all talk of it and destroying anyone who dares tell the truth. That does not make it any less legitimate, it just proves that it is 100% correct.

    Yeah, and it was disappointing and pathetic to see Nassim Taleb go all cuck on HBD. But I guess it was equally pathetic and cuck for his largely white male followers to hold this rug merchant in such high esteem when they knew full well that practically all of higher mathematics and science is a European thing.

  60. @Dmitry

    much less rootless than the rest of Ukraine.

     

    In terms of national identity? Lvov was a majority Polish/Jewish city before the Second World War. You cannot deny Ukrainian nationalism in Lvov today is partly explained by the fact it is only an accidentally majority Ukrainian city today. (If it was not for Hitler, and then Stalin, the city would be majority Polish and Jewish today).

    Higher income was an artifact of the fact that Donbas contained Ukraine’s best sources of foreign $$$ – coal
     
    In general, the wealth of Ukraine is highest of course in Kiev, but then following Kiev, the richest cities are all Eastern cities - Dnepropetrovsk, Kharkov and Donetsk (before the war).

    Lviv oblast... It is above average in wealth.
     
    But it's on the median for income in Ukraine.

    In terms of national identity? Lvov was a majority Polish/Jewish city before the Second World War. You cannot deny Ukrainian nationalism in Lvov today is partly explained by the fact it is only an accidentally majority Ukrainian city today. (If it was not for Hitler, and then Stalin, the city would be majority Polish and Jewish today).

    Doubtful. Unless Lviv remained a small city of 300,000 people. With urbanization local Ukrainians from neighboring villages moved in, a process that was similar to Prague becoming a Czech rather than a German city. The new city-dwellers were close to their ancestral communities, their cousins and grandparents. And the pre-war city had been about 18% Ukrainian so there was some continuity.

    It is not like people were moved there, primarily, from all over the USSR (this occurred to an extent, Lviv is still about 10% Russian, but it didn’t dominate the picture). And surrounding towns were rather similar. So no, the area is not very rootless, compared to western Poland or Donbas.

    Lviv oblast… It is above average in wealth.

    But it’s on the median for income in Ukraine.

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

    Before Maidan, yes. It was in the middle, while the poorest were other Western regions.

    In 2017 Lviv was 9th out of 25. It has improved its position further since then. In 2019 it was in third place (can’t find the link quickly now, though).

    • Replies: @Denis

    Doubtful. Unless Lviv remained a small city of 300,000 people. With urbanization local Ukrainians from neighboring villages moved in, a process that was similar to Prague becoming a Czech rather than a German city. The new city-dwellers were close to their ancestral communities, their cousins and grandparents. And the pre-war city had been about 18% Ukrainian so there was some continuity.
     
    Apparently, Lwow Voivodeship was majority Polish during the interwar period, with Ukrainians making up only a 3rd of the population. So, to adjust Dmitry's statement a little bit, it is likely that if it were not for the massacre of Poles by the nationalists, the deportations under Stalin, Hitler's massacres, and finally, the transfer of the eastern half of the province to the USSR and the accompanying population transfers, then not only the city, but the entire region would be mostly Polish (and Jewish) today.

    Also, Germans were violently removed from Czechia, so this doesn't really back up your point well, IMO.
  61. @melanf

    as opposed to deeper HBD differences that were remarked upon by Tacitus, and even earlier by the Greeks – about personality differences between Northern Europe and the Mediterranean either.
     
    For the ancient Romans, Northern Europeans were Gauls and Germans, for the ancient Greeks (mainly) - Iranian-speaking Scythians. The closest modern relatives of the Scythians are Ossetians not norteners at all

    http://top-antropos.com/images/23/%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%20%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%B0%20%D0%90%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%B0%20%D0%93%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B0%20%D1%84%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BE%20(2).jpg

    The ancient description of "Northern Europeans" as noble savages has nothing to do with HBD - in ancient literature there are similar idealized descriptions of Ethiopians.

    Greeks described Scythians as red-haired and green-eyed. They probably looked like this Persian:

    or Tajik:

    • Replies: @melanf

    Greeks described Scythians as red-haired and green-eyed
     
    There are studies of Scythian skulls-anthropologically, the Scythians were clearly closer to southern Europeans. That is, the description of the "Northern barbarians" (Germans, Scythians, Thracians) in ancient authors (brave, love freedom, are not corrupted by civilization) has no relation to hereditary qualities, but simply is a description of warlike barbarians.

    Among Ossetians by the way are also red haired

    http://s018.radikal.ru/i508/1401/9e/3b62891cc6f6.jpg

    http://i052.radikal.ru/1105/2f/3b237e26ef52.jpg
  62. This seems interesting, if we accept that university students matter much more for the political direction of a country.

    In Sweden, SD gets something like 10%-15% of university students’ voting sympathies in the recent surveys I have seen, and that party is significantly more liberal today than even 5-6 years ago.

    • Replies: @Swedish Family

    This seems interesting, if we accept that university students matter much more for the political direction of a country.

    [...]

    In Sweden, SD gets something like 10%-15% of university students’ voting sympathies in the recent surveys I have seen, and that party is significantly more liberal today than even 5-6 years ago.
     
    Doesn't surprise me at all. Can't think of a single college-grad Eastern European I've ever met who had a good word for mass immigration. And they are right, of course. This fantasy is ours, and ours alone.
  63. @Europe natonalist
    If more conservative and more rooted means a lower crime rate then Russia and Ukraine should have the lowest crime rates of all, yet in reality they have by far the highest rates of violence in Europe by a large margin.

    So what ever is going on in Poland that makes the East more civilised than the West does not seem to apply to Russia and Ukraine.

    Get a life, man. The discussion around this topic (pathetic Poland and Poles) is just pretentious academic chitchats – full of sound and fury, signifying nothing

    • Replies: @Swedish Family

    Get a life, man. The discussion around this topic (pathetic Poland and Poles) is just pretentious academic chitchats – full of sound and fury, signifying nothing
     
    That's a very French thing to say for a German. :)
  64. @Mr. XYZ

    It’s not really a dump now, but yes, it would have been similar, at least to central Ukraine (not as bad as a totally Sovietized place like Donetsk).

    A good comparison point is Rivne oblast and Zhytomir oblast. Both were part of the same Volhynia governate under the tsars, but in 1920 Riven became part of Poland (thus missing the 20s and 30s Soviet experience) while Zhytomir became part of the USSR.

    Rivne has a little more than half the HIV rate of Zhytomir. It also has about half the rate of assault:
     
    Thanks; that makes sense.

    Not if the timeline for the German invasion was the same.
     
    Honestly, I'm wondering just how many Jews in western Ukraine were prevented from fleeing the Nazis by the border controls that the Soviets installed between their pre-1939 territory and their 1939-1940 territorial acquisitions. The Nazi invasion of the USSR was very quick and western Ukraine was quickly conquered, but still, I wonder if more lives could have been saved.

    Also, how many western Ukrainian Jews do you think would have moved further east between 1920 and 1941 in this scenario? I know that Russia proper saw a huge increase in its Jewish population from 1897 to 1939--most likely primarily from 1917 to 1939. This increase occurred as a result of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian and Belarusian Jews moving to Russia between 1917 and 1939. Moscow and St. Pete's had small Jewish communities in 1897 but much larger ones in 1939. Thus, I'm wondering just how many western Ukrainian Jews would have followed in their footsteps and moved to Russia--or, alternatively, to either Central Asia, the Caucasus, or eastern Ukraine--between 1920 and 1941 in this scenario.

    BTW, interesting fact--my own Jewish ancestors (on the patrilineal line) were from Rivne Oblast--specifically from Sarny. Most of them were murdered in the Holocaust but a few of them survived as a result of them fleeing to the interior of the USSR in time or emigrating early enough. My own Jewish great-grandfather was apparently captured by the Bolsheviks during the Polish-Soviet War in 1920-1921 as they retreated from Rivne Oblast. Apparently they saw value in him because he was literate. Anyway, he subsequently settled in Vinnytsia where he married and had a family. All of them fled to the interior of the USSR in 1941--initially settling in Stalingrad and then fleeing from there to Samara Oblast in 1942 once the Nazis were about to conquer Stalingrad. My great-grandfather and his wife died in Samara Oblast in the mid-1980s.

    I’m wondering just how many Jews in western Ukraine were prevented from fleeing the Nazis by the border controls that the Soviets installed between their pre-1939 territory and their 1939-1940 territorial acquisitions. The Nazi invasion of the USSR was very quick and western Ukraine was quickly conquered, but still, I wonder if more lives could have been saved.

    One of my grandparents arrived in Lviv from Kharkiv in 1939 (student transferred from an academic institute). I was told that the Jewish classmates who also came along were all quickly evacuated. The ones who stayed were local Jews with no ties to areas further east. They probably would not have left either way, they might not have expected extermination, this was their home, etc.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    One of my grandparents arrived in Lviv from Kharkiv in 1939 (student transferred from an academic institute). I was told that the Jewish classmates who also came along were all quickly evacuated.
     
    In June 1941?

    The ones who stayed were local Jews with no ties to areas further east. They probably would not have left either way, they might not have expected extermination, this was their home, etc.
     
    Interesting point--though it's worth noting that AFAIK a large number of Galician Jews did, in fact, leave Galicia and move to the West between the 1880s and 1920s even though they weren't actually threatened with genocide back then.

    Also, what motivated hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian and Belarusian Jews to settle in Russia between 1917 and June 1941?
  65. @Cicerone
    I guess you also need to take into account the different rural structure in northern and southern Sweden. The southern parts are classical rural, with a strong agricultural history. The north on the other hand is not suitable for agriculture, and industry has been more prevalent, meaning that from their heritage, northern rural folks are more workers, while southern rural people are more of the farmer kind.

    I do not see why people tilling the land(south) turn into right-wingers whereas people working the mines or in the woods(north) become lefties. I find the density+diversity argument to be more persuasive, although I am open to more theories.

    • Replies: @AP
    In Ontario the mining areas of the far north voted for the NDP (leftist socialists) as did working-class urban areas and rich liberal and immigrant central Toronto, while the farming communities and suburbs voted for the conservatives:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/73/Ontario_general_election_2018_-_Results_by_Riding.svg/1024px-Ontario_general_election_2018_-_Results_by_Riding.svg.png
    , @Lars Porsena
    Well that's basically true globally. Although the Swedish industrial worker is probably a couple decades late in abandoning the new cultural-marxist left.

    In the US and in the UK, southern agrarians tended toward the traditional right while northern industrialists all went for working class socialism, unionism and labor protections. Sort of like Trump socialism which is why he did well in the rust belt.
  66. @Thulean Friend
    I do not see why people tilling the land(south) turn into right-wingers whereas people working the mines or in the woods(north) become lefties. I find the density+diversity argument to be more persuasive, although I am open to more theories.

    In Ontario the mining areas of the far north voted for the NDP (leftist socialists) as did working-class urban areas and rich liberal and immigrant central Toronto, while the farming communities and suburbs voted for the conservatives:

    • Replies: @Lars Porsena
    In 2018, stunning. Are they a bunch of SJW miners or is Prime Minister Zoolander somehow bad for the environment and good for mining?

    Or are they (like a lot of populations) just 30 years behind the curve and think they're voting for Truman?

    , @Thulean Friend
    Suburbs are not representative of the working-classes. It is more middle-class, or perhaps lower-middle class at worst. As for farmers, what percentage of the Canadian workforce are farmers these days? 2-3%? At best. In post-industrial countries, farming is so mechanised and automated with generally large plots that the people involved in it are often not your small family-type plot of land the way it was in the past. Many of them are quite large scale and run fairly large businessess. That is the kind of people who want lower taxes and fewer regulations, for selfish monetary reasons. Such an economic policy is not "right-wing" as much as it is neoliberal.

    Overall, the problem with the left-right spectrum in Anglo countries as it that is primarily seen through the prism of economics, because there is no real right-wing alternative on social/cultural issues. It all boils down to "we'd do everything that the other guys do, but just a bit slower". That is moderation , or small-l liberalism. It isn't right-wing.

    I don't doubt that many of these farmers may hold socially conservative views, but I doubt their economic views are neoliberal because they are farming, other than that many of them run large farms these days and make much more money than the average farmer back 100 years ago.

    I still haven't seen conclusive evidence that farmering is inherently "right-wing" and that woodworkers/mine workers are "left-wing". Particularly on social issues, where I doubt there is a split when you adjust for income.

  67. @Thulean Friend
    I do not see why people tilling the land(south) turn into right-wingers whereas people working the mines or in the woods(north) become lefties. I find the density+diversity argument to be more persuasive, although I am open to more theories.

    Well that’s basically true globally. Although the Swedish industrial worker is probably a couple decades late in abandoning the new cultural-marxist left.

    In the US and in the UK, southern agrarians tended toward the traditional right while northern industrialists all went for working class socialism, unionism and labor protections. Sort of like Trump socialism which is why he did well in the rust belt.

    • Replies: @Thulean Friend

    In the US and in the UK, southern agrarians tended toward the traditional right while northern industrialists all went for working class socialism, unionism and labor protections.
     
    In the US at least, southern rightwingers were right only on social attitudes. The democrats was the party of the Deep South until FDR. So economically speaking, agrarian southerners were very much leftist. Northern industrialists were not representative of the working-class base that they exploited. Capitalist classes never are. I have seen no conclusive proof to show that northern working class voters in the US were particularly liberal on either social or especially economic issues. Most of the North's industrial and social policies were driven by urban elites. Even today, Trump has showed that it is possible to tap into northern working class voters if you are flexible on economics.

    Southern whites have been so brainwashed to vote GOP because of social issues. They had no difficulty voting for Trump's more left-leaning platform (in the election, post-election is another matter) for a GOP contender, which surprised many. Trump's position on many issues was starkly protectionist and against GOP dogma. I don't buy this hypothesis.

  68. @AP
    In Ontario the mining areas of the far north voted for the NDP (leftist socialists) as did working-class urban areas and rich liberal and immigrant central Toronto, while the farming communities and suburbs voted for the conservatives:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/73/Ontario_general_election_2018_-_Results_by_Riding.svg/1024px-Ontario_general_election_2018_-_Results_by_Riding.svg.png

    In 2018, stunning. Are they a bunch of SJW miners or is Prime Minister Zoolander somehow bad for the environment and good for mining?

    Or are they (like a lot of populations) just 30 years behind the curve and think they’re voting for Truman?

    • Replies: @Not Raul
    Miners tend to belong to unions. In many countries, miners tend to vote for pro-union parties.
    , @AP
    They voted for NDP which is to the left of Trudeau’s party.
  69. @Lars Porsena
    Well that's basically true globally. Although the Swedish industrial worker is probably a couple decades late in abandoning the new cultural-marxist left.

    In the US and in the UK, southern agrarians tended toward the traditional right while northern industrialists all went for working class socialism, unionism and labor protections. Sort of like Trump socialism which is why he did well in the rust belt.

    In the US and in the UK, southern agrarians tended toward the traditional right while northern industrialists all went for working class socialism, unionism and labor protections.

    In the US at least, southern rightwingers were right only on social attitudes. The democrats was the party of the Deep South until FDR. So economically speaking, agrarian southerners were very much leftist. Northern industrialists were not representative of the working-class base that they exploited. Capitalist classes never are. I have seen no conclusive proof to show that northern working class voters in the US were particularly liberal on either social or especially economic issues. Most of the North’s industrial and social policies were driven by urban elites. Even today, Trump has showed that it is possible to tap into northern working class voters if you are flexible on economics.

    Southern whites have been so brainwashed to vote GOP because of social issues. They had no difficulty voting for Trump’s more left-leaning platform (in the election, post-election is another matter) for a GOP contender, which surprised many. Trump’s position on many issues was starkly protectionist and against GOP dogma. I don’t buy this hypothesis.

    • Replies: @Lars Porsena
    The south being democrat is largely an artifact of civil war history which predates the early 20th century union-man leftism I'm talking about. There is a hell of a lot of inertia in these things, as some parts of the south are still voting democrat as they historically always have been, but that is almost completely gone now and the (white) south has flipped republican. But that's a process that only totally completed within the last 10-20 years despite being probably at least 50-100 years out of date.

    But back then, the democrats were actually the conservative party on most issues. The agrarian south I do not think you can really describe as being actually leftist on anything. They were the social conservatives with regard to slavery and southern aristocracy. The political positions of the parties have changed and are still changing. The Old Left turn of the Democrat party was early 20th century, FDR style progressivism.

    But that populistic, economically left FDR program was what started making the north Democrat and the south Republican, prior to the civil rights movement accelerating it.

    But there has always been a clear economic policy divide between the industrial north and agrarian south (and one that goes back to before the Civil War). The northern industrial cities pioneered US trade unionism whereas the southern states all repressed unionism. The northern states favored trade protections and socialism while the southern states favored free trade and meritocracy (and aristocracy).

    Same thing in the UK. Northern England was it's industrial heartland and the industrial workers in the north were the foundation of the old Labor party and the trade unions, not the southern agricultural and service workers which have long been more Tory.

    In the US, it was states like Wisconsin, Michigan and Minnesota pioneering the old socialist trade movements.

    I have seen no conclusive proof to show that northern working class voters in the US were particularly liberal on either social or especially economic issues.
     
    I'm not suggesting they were, unless you consider trade protectionism and (early 20th century) unionization liberal. Trumpian, sure. You could look at it as being more left wing or more traditionally mercantilist. Or Populist. Not really liberal. Laissez-faire Capitalism is pretty economically liberal in the historical sense of the term and is what the oligarchs wanted.

    Obviously both sides were reactionary racist homophobic hatemongers compared to the New Left, but the New Left didn't even exist back then. The country didn't have our cultural marxist social-issue split, none of them wanted gay marriage or to tear down the patriarchy.

    Northern industrialists were not representative of the working-class base that they exploited.
     
    That's it. Northern industrialists had a harder time of it because in the north the working classes were organized along union class-warfare lines, as they saw it, to stand up for the working man against the capitalist fatcat oligarchs. It wasn't the capitalist class that built the northern socialist and protectionist leaning trade movements it was the industrial workers. The aspect of northern economies wasn't being driven by the elite.

    Back when the south was Democrat, the Democrats were free trade (which is liberalish) and the Republican party was the party of trade protections and free government gibs, including free land and government development of industry with subsidies (which was left-ish). And the Republicans were the progressive party while the Democrats were conservative. Republicans are a literal outgrowth of the Whig party which is the full blown progressive liberal party of it's day. Democrats were the common man's (populist) party of Jefferson and Jackson that wanted to kill all the bankers along with the indians.

    It doesn't line up neatly exactly, but before the 20th century and FDR, the south and the democrats were more economically liberal and I guess socially (for the social issues of the day) conservative. And the north and the republicans were more economically leftist and socially liberal.

    The industrialists oligarchs of the north mainly wanted the same thing the aristocrats of the south wanted - cheap labor immigration, lack of regulations and labor protections, lack of unions etc. But the north (in the US and UK) was more old school Labor (which is kind of Marxian) in it's politics.

    Mind you that was then and not now. 50 years or less on from FDR the unions were incredibly corrupt and in bed with the oligarchs in the north (as well as the Italian mob). The south never had unions. Same in the UK, by the 1980's even northerners were voting for Thatcher to reign in the out of control unions who were greatly exacerbating the economic decline of the industrial north which was already beginning. Nowadays in the US even the northern states like Wisconsin are going Right to Work (anti-union) which the south always was. Unionism is not the same thing anymore, the biggest unions around now are the government employee and service unions. Most of the working class tradesmen have long since abandoned their own trade unions.
  70. While on the topic of Eastern Europe, it is good to see the news about Bulgarian fans making fun of the African team that is supposed to represent England. Based Bulgaria!

    • Replies: @Matra
    Final score: Bulgaria 0 England 6. Based Bulgaria indeed.
  71. @AP
    In Ontario the mining areas of the far north voted for the NDP (leftist socialists) as did working-class urban areas and rich liberal and immigrant central Toronto, while the farming communities and suburbs voted for the conservatives:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/73/Ontario_general_election_2018_-_Results_by_Riding.svg/1024px-Ontario_general_election_2018_-_Results_by_Riding.svg.png

    Suburbs are not representative of the working-classes. It is more middle-class, or perhaps lower-middle class at worst. As for farmers, what percentage of the Canadian workforce are farmers these days? 2-3%? At best. In post-industrial countries, farming is so mechanised and automated with generally large plots that the people involved in it are often not your small family-type plot of land the way it was in the past. Many of them are quite large scale and run fairly large businessess. That is the kind of people who want lower taxes and fewer regulations, for selfish monetary reasons. Such an economic policy is not “right-wing” as much as it is neoliberal.

    Overall, the problem with the left-right spectrum in Anglo countries as it that is primarily seen through the prism of economics, because there is no real right-wing alternative on social/cultural issues. It all boils down to “we’d do everything that the other guys do, but just a bit slower”. That is moderation , or small-l liberalism. It isn’t right-wing.

    I don’t doubt that many of these farmers may hold socially conservative views, but I doubt their economic views are neoliberal because they are farming, other than that many of them run large farms these days and make much more money than the average farmer back 100 years ago.

    I still haven’t seen conclusive evidence that farmering is inherently “right-wing” and that woodworkers/mine workers are “left-wing”. Particularly on social issues, where I doubt there is a split when you adjust for income.

  72. @Anon 2
    As pointed out many times on this blog, Poland has much lower
    rates of social dysfunction than just about anybody, incl. Russia,
    Ukraine or Belarus. By that I mean rates of murder, suicide, abortion,
    HIV, drug addiction, corruption (much lower than Eastern Europe),
    homelessness, divorce, single motherhood, mass shootings, and
    terrorism. Poland actually has lower murder rates than Germany,
    France, Britain or Israel. This has given rise to the Holy Poland
    meme, and indeed, as Catholicism is still strong in Poland,
    the goal of achieving personal holiness is still widespread in the
    country.

    While everybody in Europe is aware of the Polish Romantic
    tradition, very few outside observers know about Polish Messianism.
    The latter was born after the Partitions of Poland, in the early
    19th century, and was personified by Adam Mickiewicz, Poland’s
    main bard, and his concept of Poland as the crucified Christ of Nations.
    The more Poland was oppressed by Russia and Germany, the more
    it was seen as Christlike. And just as Christ’s resurrection took place
    2000 years ago, so Poland’s resurrection was equally certain. So when
    Poland regained independence in 1918, that was widely seen as the
    fulfillment of the scriptures (i.e., Mickiewicz’s prophecies). This view
    of Poland as having a special role in God’s Plan for Salvation was reinforced
    in the 1920s-30s when Sister Faustina, a Polish nun, began to have visions
    of Christ visiting her convent cell in the flesh. She received many special
    revelations which she recorded in her diary. The Diary of Sister Faustina
    Kowalska in English translation is the biggest selling Polish book in the
    world, and she herself became canonized as a saint. According to Sister
    Faustina, Christ told her that Poland indeed has indeed been chosen by
    God to have a special role, and that role is to bring Europe back to God,
    but first Poland must suffer in order to purify itself, apparently predicting
    the coming of WW II. I don’t doubt that Polish Messianism, the claim
    that the Poles are now God’s Chosen People, is partly responsible for Poland’s
    low rates of social dysfunction.

    Sounds patently gay. Your first prince abandoned like a dozen pagan wives for a christian thot, Faggotry of that caliber will always be punished by the Gods.

    Have with the Pajeets & Pinoys you’re importing potato man.

  73. In terms of the directional analysis I agree that the “rootlessness” is a source of the evil/voting for left but in this particular situation the reasons for rootlessness vary betweeen different parts of Poland that used to be parts of Prussia/Germany.
    – the territories acquired after 1945 were to large extent repopulated with Polese from other parts of prewar/Poland, many of the worked in large state-owned farms. Communists actively worked against the Catholic Church acquiring post-German churches here, hence religiosity in those territories is lower than in the pre-war Poland, big cities excluding
    -the terrritories which were in Poland before 1945 had during the interbellum a very strong right-eaning, especially in Greater Poland/Wielkopolska, where National Democracy was the leading political party. So the “rootlessness” in that region was probably caused more by other factors, maybe like mass murder of ND activists during the war.

    You can see the generci voing pattern using the link below. Marcin Palade is specialising in voring geography.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/MarcinPalade/status/1183027710794354690/photo/1
    (Blue – Right, Yellow – Center, Red – Left, Violet – National minorities)

  74. @AaronB
    Recent studies have shown their best engineering students perform worse than our average ones. Google it.

    This is a country of a billion plus people of supposedly higher intelligence yet the best experts in every field continue to be white. In the past 100 years they should have been producing the best theoretical mathematicians, yet they have all been white. They can't make a good commercial jet engine. The new joint Russian-Chinese airplane will do all its heavy brain work in Moscow. Only labor intensive production will be in China.

    Face it, the verdict is in. The "strong" IQ theory has failed (it was supposed to only weed out retarded people. The attempt to make it do more has not stood the rest of time). In 30 years from now superior Asian intelligence will be seen as a peculiar myth of the turn of the century zeitgeist.

    The Chinese advantage is in social organization and the ability to underlive others.

    Maybe their high IQ people are concentrating on other things. Like being able to spit out capital ships by the dozen and keep their economy growing?

  75. @Thulean Friend

    In the US and in the UK, southern agrarians tended toward the traditional right while northern industrialists all went for working class socialism, unionism and labor protections.
     
    In the US at least, southern rightwingers were right only on social attitudes. The democrats was the party of the Deep South until FDR. So economically speaking, agrarian southerners were very much leftist. Northern industrialists were not representative of the working-class base that they exploited. Capitalist classes never are. I have seen no conclusive proof to show that northern working class voters in the US were particularly liberal on either social or especially economic issues. Most of the North's industrial and social policies were driven by urban elites. Even today, Trump has showed that it is possible to tap into northern working class voters if you are flexible on economics.

    Southern whites have been so brainwashed to vote GOP because of social issues. They had no difficulty voting for Trump's more left-leaning platform (in the election, post-election is another matter) for a GOP contender, which surprised many. Trump's position on many issues was starkly protectionist and against GOP dogma. I don't buy this hypothesis.

    The south being democrat is largely an artifact of civil war history which predates the early 20th century union-man leftism I’m talking about. There is a hell of a lot of inertia in these things, as some parts of the south are still voting democrat as they historically always have been, but that is almost completely gone now and the (white) south has flipped republican. But that’s a process that only totally completed within the last 10-20 years despite being probably at least 50-100 years out of date.

    But back then, the democrats were actually the conservative party on most issues. The agrarian south I do not think you can really describe as being actually leftist on anything. They were the social conservatives with regard to slavery and southern aristocracy. The political positions of the parties have changed and are still changing. The Old Left turn of the Democrat party was early 20th century, FDR style progressivism.

    But that populistic, economically left FDR program was what started making the north Democrat and the south Republican, prior to the civil rights movement accelerating it.

    But there has always been a clear economic policy divide between the industrial north and agrarian south (and one that goes back to before the Civil War). The northern industrial cities pioneered US trade unionism whereas the southern states all repressed unionism. The northern states favored trade protections and socialism while the southern states favored free trade and meritocracy (and aristocracy).

    Same thing in the UK. Northern England was it’s industrial heartland and the industrial workers in the north were the foundation of the old Labor party and the trade unions, not the southern agricultural and service workers which have long been more Tory.

    In the US, it was states like Wisconsin, Michigan and Minnesota pioneering the old socialist trade movements.

    I have seen no conclusive proof to show that northern working class voters in the US were particularly liberal on either social or especially economic issues.

    I’m not suggesting they were, unless you consider trade protectionism and (early 20th century) unionization liberal. Trumpian, sure. You could look at it as being more left wing or more traditionally mercantilist. Or Populist. Not really liberal. Laissez-faire Capitalism is pretty economically liberal in the historical sense of the term and is what the oligarchs wanted.

    Obviously both sides were reactionary racist homophobic hatemongers compared to the New Left, but the New Left didn’t even exist back then. The country didn’t have our cultural marxist social-issue split, none of them wanted gay marriage or to tear down the patriarchy.

    Northern industrialists were not representative of the working-class base that they exploited.

    That’s it. Northern industrialists had a harder time of it because in the north the working classes were organized along union class-warfare lines, as they saw it, to stand up for the working man against the capitalist fatcat oligarchs. It wasn’t the capitalist class that built the northern socialist and protectionist leaning trade movements it was the industrial workers. The aspect of northern economies wasn’t being driven by the elite.

    Back when the south was Democrat, the Democrats were free trade (which is liberalish) and the Republican party was the party of trade protections and free government gibs, including free land and government development of industry with subsidies (which was left-ish). And the Republicans were the progressive party while the Democrats were conservative. Republicans are a literal outgrowth of the Whig party which is the full blown progressive liberal party of it’s day. Democrats were the common man’s (populist) party of Jefferson and Jackson that wanted to kill all the bankers along with the indians.

    It doesn’t line up neatly exactly, but before the 20th century and FDR, the south and the democrats were more economically liberal and I guess socially (for the social issues of the day) conservative. And the north and the republicans were more economically leftist and socially liberal.

    The industrialists oligarchs of the north mainly wanted the same thing the aristocrats of the south wanted – cheap labor immigration, lack of regulations and labor protections, lack of unions etc. But the north (in the US and UK) was more old school Labor (which is kind of Marxian) in it’s politics.

    Mind you that was then and not now. 50 years or less on from FDR the unions were incredibly corrupt and in bed with the oligarchs in the north (as well as the Italian mob). The south never had unions. Same in the UK, by the 1980’s even northerners were voting for Thatcher to reign in the out of control unions who were greatly exacerbating the economic decline of the industrial north which was already beginning. Nowadays in the US even the northern states like Wisconsin are going Right to Work (anti-union) which the south always was. Unionism is not the same thing anymore, the biggest unions around now are the government employee and service unions. Most of the working class tradesmen have long since abandoned their own trade unions.

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    The political divide is all explained in Albion's Seed. It is a bit confusing as the two parties swapped regions in the sixties. Also the old Puritan areas strongly opposed FDR and the Republicans were the restrictionists in the twenties.

    Simple explanations have some basis but populations have changed much due to immigration.
    , @EldnahYm
    The South was actually quite supportive of FDR's domestic interventionist policies, many of which were targeted to fix the backwardness of that region. The strongest ideological opposition to the New Deal and other such policies actually came from New Englanders(as LondonBob points out). The South's turn away from the Democrats nationally shows itself with the LBJ election later, largely due to its integrationist policies.

    The South was also most supportive of FDR getting the U.S. into World War II, while isolationist sentiments were stronger elsewhere, including New England. This pattern continues to this day, southerners tend to support any war U.S. presidents blunder into.
    , @Thulean Friend

    But back then, the democrats were actually the conservative party on most issues
     
    Yes - except on economics, which was my point. The rural southern agrarians were voting for an economically leftist party compared to the GOP (which has always been the party of big business).

    Hence the "farmer = conservative" stereotype is untrue from an economic PoV. You're correct about the focus on social issues also. That was also my complimentary challenge: prove to me that Northern white working class voters were liberals during this epoch on social issues. I doubt it. The liberal attitudes we associate with the North was mostly a product of a small elite of the New England industrialised class and its coterie of liberal thinkers. Northern proles did what they were told in their factories and elsewhere, but I doubt they shared the ideological proclivities to any great extent and much more likely had far more in common with rural southern whites in social views.

    Bringing this to Sweden, there is no reason to think that woodworkers in the North are any different in their conservatism on social issues from rural people in the South. The main difference was simply a combination of proximity to diversity as well as much lower density in the north, which necessitates a far greater role of public investments. But this shouldn't be seen that these voters are ideological leftists. They vote left-wing for pragmatic economic reasons.

    But as Swedish Family pointed out, even this is slowly changing with only Stockholm as the sole outlier left in Sweden, where the local and international elite congregate and where the riff-raff get purged. I read an amusing story the other day in a local Stockholm paper of Solna kommun sending their welfare recipients to rural counties. Most of them are asylum seekers. This is how it is done, under the radar and with the mask of progressivism.

  76. @AP
    Greeks described Scythians as red-haired and green-eyed. They probably looked like this Persian:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/68/Mohammad_Ali_Ramin.jpg/200px-Mohammad_Ali_Ramin.jpg

    or Tajik:

    https://c8.alamy.com/comp/D9KEJF/portrait-of-curious-tajik-girl-with-red-hair-tajikistan-central-asia-D9KEJF.jpg

    Greeks described Scythians as red-haired and green-eyed

    There are studies of Scythian skulls-anthropologically, the Scythians were clearly closer to southern Europeans. That is, the description of the “Northern barbarians” (Germans, Scythians, Thracians) in ancient authors (brave, love freedom, are not corrupted by civilization) has no relation to hereditary qualities, but simply is a description of warlike barbarians.

    Among Ossetians by the way are also red haired

  77. A Polish perspective on these population transfers (from Adam Zamoyski’s Poland: A History):

    In September 1944, after it had been occupied by the Soviets, a huge operation was put in train to remove all Poles and Jews from territory east of the new Polish frontier and resettle them in Poland, and to uproot all Ukrainians living to the west of it and transplant them to Soviet Ukraine. Virtually the entire population of the city of Lwów would eventually be moved into the ruins of the former German city of Breslau (now Wrocław). In all some 780,000 Poles and Jews were moved in this way, a trip which sometimes involved weeks in cattle trucks which were shunted onto sidings and repeatedly redirected before they were allowed to spill their human loads in some depopulated area. Those who did not register for ‘repatriation’, feeling no great national loyalty and wishing only to remain where they had always lived, were harassed by the NKVD or attacked by UPA fighters. Similar arrangements with regard to Lithuania and Belorussia yielded comparable numbers, most of whom were resettled in Pomerania or the areas newly acquired from Germany. Not surprisingly, since the area taken over by the Soviet Union amounted to 47 per cent of Poland’s pre-war territory, the 1,500,000-odd resettled in Poland did not account for the whole Polish population of the area, and at least as many remained behind.

    […]

    The massive scale on which people were being shunted about and resettled, a process which normally involved brutality at the outset, followed by rape and pillage by bandits of one sort or another along the way, and hostility from the host community at the other end, had a profoundly traumatic effect on all those involved. Communities which had been uprooted and split up lost their sense of identity and disintegrated into embattled family groups. Resettled on farms or in houses that had belonged to others who had been murdered or deported, they felt no empathy with the alien landscape and no real sense of ownership, only a fear of potential consequences. With no local leadership of any kind (surviving landowners were not allowed to come within fifty kilometres of their former estates) and a constant prey to lawless militia, soldiers and criminal gangs, they did not constitute communities, only masses of fearful families and individuals.

    This seems to lend credence to Anatoly’s idea that the uprootedness of western Poles lead to lasting differences.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    If you want to look at characteristics of "rooted" populations, compared to "rootless" populations (with "rootless" in this literal sense, rather than Stalin's phrase of "rootless cosmopolitans" which referred mainly to Jews), then you would compare;

    e.g.
    English compared to Australians of English descent.
    Europeans compared to Americans of European ancestry.
    Japanese compared to Japanese Brazilians.
    French compared to French-Canadians.
    Indians in India, compared to Indian Singaporeans.
    etc.


    While the Polish history is interesting, the overall population of Western Poland will be vastly less "rootless" (geographically and culturally) - including those who were forced to move to new cities - than what happens to populations established in new continents, languages, cultures, etc from their ancestors.

    -

    As for common characteristics of rootless populations, I'm sure there most be some interesting ones. I doubt that, HIV rate is one of these though (rootless Australians have lower HIV rates than the rooted English they descend from, even though they were often from criminal ancestry).

  78. This suggests that the impact of being “derooted” from one’s soil is much more significant than Hajnal considerations, at least as they pertain to Eastern Europe.

    unless they’re different aspects of the same thing – relatedness

    i don’t know if you’ve ever done any materials science but the differences in the lattice of molecules inside for example iron or steel determines their properties and i think relatedness has a similar effect on human societies

    so if marriage patterns inside the hajnal line led to people being less related to their neighbors then the same might be true of uprooted populations (and urban vs rural populations generally)

    for example, familial vs universal morality – in an environment comprised of clusters of close kin then maybe familial morality is optimal but in an environment of individuals familial morality doesn’t work so for cooperation to occur people have to come up with something based more on individually reciprocity.

    (i think this is the link with Protestantism, liberalism etc)

    so for me the only surprising thing about this post would be the apparent speed – i was thinking the hajnal setting created conditions where WEIRD traits were selected for over generations but if a rural clannish population could become WEIRD just by moving them and splitting them up that would refute the selection part.

    however even that would depend on who exactly moved – were they actually a rural clannish population? how urban/rural were they before the move? were there religious or other differences which had already made them more or less outbred before they moved than the people they’re being compared with afterwards?

    etc

    in particular i think the hajnal thing has a strong connection to the geography of the north european plain…

    heavy soils, left forested cos light plows no good
    -> heavy plow invented
    -> new settlements cut out of virgin forest
    -> initial settlers mostly unrelated
    -> (magnified by manorial / religious coercion effect in some regions)

    … which includes Poland (bigly Protestant at one point but they got whacked for some reason i’ve forgotten) so maybe the hajnal line would extend to Poland if that hadn’t happened i.e. maybe the root causes are more north vs south than east vs west or more a function of multiple geographical overlays e.g. an overlay of the north european plain and some east-west line related to the gulf stream effect?

    It’s probably well past time time to retire the Hajnal concept as something that explains anything about Eastern Europe. And if it can’t explain EE, one must begin to question its usefulness as pertains to other regions as well.

    disagree cos i think it’s connected to relatedness and there’s many things which can effect relatedness and the hajnal line is just a particularly clue-laden example of a general phenomenon i.e. imo we can predict the segment of a close cousin marrying population from a fertile plain with large villages will be more outbred (and therefore more “liberal”) than their slightly more inbred neighbors in the hills and we may see examples of this all the time in the recurring urban/rural conflicts both now and in the past.

    • Replies: @Lars Porsena
    The last paragraph reminds me of Ibn Khaldun.

    https://www.mindattic.org/muqaddimah/
  79. another thought on this

    say

    1) rural clannish populations -> familial morality with inter-clan conflict restrained by clan-based eye for an eye (vendetta law)

    2) hajnal populations ->outbred slowly over generations so individualism restrained by evolved alternative morality (guilt?)

    3) uprooted rural clannish population -> familial morality but no familia (clan) -> individualistic with no restraints e.g. north Africans in France

  80. In Sunday’s Polish election, tho the far-right Konfederacja (Confederation) Party won 6.8%, amongst youth ages 18-29 ‘BASED’ support for the far-right was over 20%

    From an article on the weekend’s events in Poland:

    A few days before the Polish national election Sunday, the main Polish national public television channel, TVP 1 Polonia, released an investigative show, ‘Invasion’.

    Using hidden cameras & microphones, ‘Invasion’ reveals that LGBT & gay pride street demonstrations throughout Poland are being funded by political manipulators. The paid ‘Pride’ participants bussed into various cities and towns … the same LGBT characters, continually appearing at the different events across Poland

    ‘Invasion’ on YouTube with English subtitles, 24 minutes

    In the Polish elections, the ruling PiS (Law & Justice) party retained power on a strong limiting-LGBT platform … The coalition even further far-right, Konfederacja, broke through the 5% barrier to enter the Polish Parliament for the first time.

    The same article speaks of how Polish politics are also getting very heated about Jewish demands on Poland:

    Jewish groups are asking for as much as $300 billion in new reparations for World War 2 crimes – half of Poland’s annual GDP – a sum that would essentially bankrupt still-economically-fragile Poland … Language such as the “Holocaust Corporation” – the notion that the Jewish community tries to profit from 20th-century mass killings … in the ranks of PiS, Konfederacja, and the All-Polish Youth.

    Konfederacja co-leader Janusz Korwin-Mikke said that Jonny Daniels, the Israeli-British founder of the Holocaust commemoration group From the Depths, was a foreign agent “sent here to spy, perhaps working for Freemasons.”

    In a televised debate, Polish Konfederacja politician Konrad Berkowicz, snuck up behind his opponent and held a kippah over her head, to lampoon her pro-Jewish-reparations positioning

    • Replies: @Not Raul
    It’s almost as if cosmopolitans are trying to drive Polish youth to the right.
  81. @neutral
    While on the topic of Eastern Europe, it is good to see the news about Bulgarian fans making fun of the African team that is supposed to represent England. Based Bulgaria!

    Final score: Bulgaria 0 England 6. Based Bulgaria indeed.

    • Replies: @Spisarevski
    Another victory for tolerance and diversity.

    https://i.imgur.com/gQEEJJv.jpg
    https://i.imgur.com/bSOQOR2.jpg

    At least we beat up the English fans in the center of town which is what really matters.
  82. @Denis
    Does Belarus show any particular "symptoms" of rootlessness i.e. high HIV rates, high crime, etc.? From what I know, Belarus was/is a fairly conservative society, as much as any post-Soviet country could be anyways. I had also been under the impression that Belarus was particularly badly damaged by the war.

    Does Belarus show any particular “symptoms” of rootlessness i.e. high HIV rates, high crime, etc.? From what I know, Belarus was/is a fairly conservative society, as much as any post-Soviet country could be anyways.

    From what I hear, and my own experience (although I’ve only hung around Belarusian transplants in the EU and Ukraine), this remains true. Among Westerners, the common view of the Eastern-Slavonic states is that Belarusians are the most conservative and least outgoing, with Russians on the other end and Ukrainians in between.

    • Replies: @Denis

    Among Westerners, the common view of the Eastern-Slavonic states is that Belarusians are the most conservative and least outgoing, with Russians on the other end and Ukrainians in between.
     
    This also corresponds to my experience, though I would reverse the position of Russians and Ukrainians, with many of the Ukrainians I know being rambunctious and expressive compared to the others. The few Belarussians that I have met tend to be rather religious and quiet. Very kind and polite people, too. Though Russians and Ukrainians tend to be very friendly as well.
  83. @Cicerone
    I guess you also need to take into account the different rural structure in northern and southern Sweden. The southern parts are classical rural, with a strong agricultural history. The north on the other hand is not suitable for agriculture, and industry has been more prevalent, meaning that from their heritage, northern rural folks are more workers, while southern rural people are more of the farmer kind.

    I guess you also need to take into account the different rural structure in northern and southern Sweden. The southern parts are classical rural, with a strong agricultural history. The north on the other hand is not suitable for agriculture, and industry has been more prevalent, meaning that from their heritage, northern rural folks are more workers, while southern rural people are more of the farmer kind.

    No, Thulean Friend is right. It’s mostly about proximity. Northern Sweden had basically no immigrants before the 2010s, so people there went on giving their votes to the Social Democrats or the Communists (their traditional parties of choice). But since the election last fall, support there for the Sweden Democrats is near the national average. The true outlier is the city of Stockholm (“Stockholms kommun”) at 9.84% support for the Sweden Democrats (against 17.53% countrywide).

    One sometimes hears the argument that people in immigrant-heavy areas tend not to vote for the Sweden Democrats and that this somehow suggests that people who live near immigrants “know better” than the countryside yokels who do, but this is a sleight of hand. Look at the voting patterns of ethnic Swedes who live near immigrant-heavy areas, and you will see very strong support for the Sweden Democrats.

    • Agree: Thulean Friend
    • Replies: @Denis

    One sometimes hears the argument that people in immigrant-heavy areas tend not to vote for the Sweden Democrats and that this somehow suggests that people who live near immigrants “know better” than the countryside yokels who do, but this is a sleight of hand. Look at the voting patterns of ethnic Swedes who live near immigrant-heavy areas, and you will see very strong support for the Sweden Democrats.
     
    That silly argument is repeated everywhere there is a reaction against immigration. In Sweden's case, it is all the more blatantly false given that the Sweden Democrats won handily in 2018 in many southern regions nearby Malmo.
  84. @notanon

    This suggests that the impact of being “derooted” from one’s soil is much more significant than Hajnal considerations, at least as they pertain to Eastern Europe.

     

    unless they're different aspects of the same thing - relatedness

    i don't know if you've ever done any materials science but the differences in the lattice of molecules inside for example iron or steel determines their properties and i think relatedness has a similar effect on human societies

    so if marriage patterns inside the hajnal line led to people being less related to their neighbors then the same might be true of uprooted populations (and urban vs rural populations generally)

    for example, familial vs universal morality - in an environment comprised of clusters of close kin then maybe familial morality is optimal but in an environment of individuals familial morality doesn't work so for cooperation to occur people have to come up with something based more on individually reciprocity.

    (i think this is the link with Protestantism, liberalism etc)

    so for me the only surprising thing about this post would be the apparent speed - i was thinking the hajnal setting created conditions where WEIRD traits were selected for over generations but if a rural clannish population could become WEIRD just by moving them and splitting them up that would refute the selection part.

    however even that would depend on who exactly moved - were they actually a rural clannish population? how urban/rural were they before the move? were there religious or other differences which had already made them more or less outbred before they moved than the people they're being compared with afterwards?

    etc

    in particular i think the hajnal thing has a strong connection to the geography of the north european plain...

    heavy soils, left forested cos light plows no good
    -> heavy plow invented
    -> new settlements cut out of virgin forest
    -> initial settlers mostly unrelated
    -> (magnified by manorial / religious coercion effect in some regions)

    ... which includes Poland (bigly Protestant at one point but they got whacked for some reason i've forgotten) so maybe the hajnal line would extend to Poland if that hadn't happened i.e. maybe the root causes are more north vs south than east vs west or more a function of multiple geographical overlays e.g. an overlay of the north european plain and some east-west line related to the gulf stream effect?

    It’s probably well past time time to retire the Hajnal concept as something that explains anything about Eastern Europe. And if it can’t explain EE, one must begin to question its usefulness as pertains to other regions as well.
     
    disagree cos i think it's connected to relatedness and there's many things which can effect relatedness and the hajnal line is just a particularly clue-laden example of a general phenomenon i.e. imo we can predict the segment of a close cousin marrying population from a fertile plain with large villages will be more outbred (and therefore more "liberal") than their slightly more inbred neighbors in the hills and we may see examples of this all the time in the recurring urban/rural conflicts both now and in the past.

    The last paragraph reminds me of Ibn Khaldun.

    https://www.mindattic.org/muqaddimah/

    • Replies: @notanon
    yes, i think there's a tie-in with assabiyah somewhere
  85. For a “rootless” country Poland’s economy, without oil or gas, is growing at
    an astounding rate. Here are the latest stats:

    In terms of GDP(PPP) per capita:

    Poland $33,700
    Russia. $30,284
    Belarus $20,800
    Ukraine $9,700

    Corruption Perceptions Index ranking

    Poland 36 (low corruption)
    Ukraine 120 (v. high corruption)
    Russia 138 (v. high corruption)

    • Replies: @AP
    Only the western part of Poland, taken from Germany, is rootless, not all of it.
  86. @neutral
    The people asked what evidence there is that blacks are dumb, they were given it. Since this does not conform to their ideology they resorted to calling is pseudoscience, trying to ban all talk of it and destroying anyone who dares tell the truth. That does not make it any less legitimate, it just proves that it is 100% correct.

    The people asked what evidence there is that blacks are dumb

    No, they didn’t. It’s a self-evident fact that everyone acknowledges, liberals and blacks themselves included.

    That you feel the need to invent some sort of quack theory to justify this self-evident fact just because you’re so scared of being called a ‘racist’ shows just how much you’re losing.

    P.S. Being smart is not all that. Smarts + lack of morality = moar damage inflicted. It’s not the dumb blacks that invented gay ‘pride’ and Epstein’s pedophile island.

  87. @Thulean Friend
    This seems interesting, if we accept that university students matter much more for the political direction of a country.

    https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1183525037833424896

    In Sweden, SD gets something like 10%-15% of university students' voting sympathies in the recent surveys I have seen, and that party is significantly more liberal today than even 5-6 years ago.

    This seems interesting, if we accept that university students matter much more for the political direction of a country.

    […]

    In Sweden, SD gets something like 10%-15% of university students’ voting sympathies in the recent surveys I have seen, and that party is significantly more liberal today than even 5-6 years ago.

    Doesn’t surprise me at all. Can’t think of a single college-grad Eastern European I’ve ever met who had a good word for mass immigration. And they are right, of course. This fantasy is ours, and ours alone.

  88. @Der Mann ohne Eigenschaften
    Get a life, man. The discussion around this topic (pathetic Poland and Poles) is just pretentious academic chitchats - full of sound and fury, signifying nothing

    Get a life, man. The discussion around this topic (pathetic Poland and Poles) is just pretentious academic chitchats – full of sound and fury, signifying nothing

    That’s a very French thing to say for a German. 🙂

  89. @Lars Porsena
    In 2018, stunning. Are they a bunch of SJW miners or is Prime Minister Zoolander somehow bad for the environment and good for mining?

    Or are they (like a lot of populations) just 30 years behind the curve and think they're voting for Truman?

    Miners tend to belong to unions. In many countries, miners tend to vote for pro-union parties.

    • Replies: @Lars Porsena
    So 1 vote for old left hold-overs who haven't realized it's not 1979 anymore.

    I think you're probably right. It might take them 10 or 20 more years to figure it out and migrate politically. I would be really shocked if Zoolander ends up being good for mining though, because mining is bad for the environment.

    Whatever union those miners are a part of, my guess is the union is using all their dues money to support politicians that want want to destroy their culture, their values, AND their industry.
  90. @Anon 2
    For a “rootless” country Poland’s economy, without oil or gas, is growing at
    an astounding rate. Here are the latest stats:

    In terms of GDP(PPP) per capita:

    Poland $33,700
    Russia. $30,284
    Belarus $20,800
    Ukraine $9,700

    Corruption Perceptions Index ranking

    Poland 36 (low corruption)
    Ukraine 120 (v. high corruption)
    Russia 138 (v. high corruption)

    Only the western part of Poland, taken from Germany, is rootless, not all of it.

    • Replies: @Anon 2
    Actually I have close relatives who live in the western part of Poland,
    and, to me, they are not rootless at all. Poland at this point is
    a very unified country, all speaking the same language, with
    only minor accent differences, and practicing the same
    religion. It’s not at all like Russia or Ukraine which each
    effectively consist of several different countries with different
    histories, languages, and traditions.

    Moreover, mostly it’s the southwestern part of Poland whose
    population was replaced. Genetic studies indicate that the
    ancient central parts of Poland, technically western, including Poznan,
    Kalisz (the oldest city in Poland going back to Roman times), and
    Gniezno (where Poland was born) have had the same population
    for at least 1100-1200 years.
  91. @Not Raul
    Miners tend to belong to unions. In many countries, miners tend to vote for pro-union parties.

    So 1 vote for old left hold-overs who haven’t realized it’s not 1979 anymore.

    I think you’re probably right. It might take them 10 or 20 more years to figure it out and migrate politically. I would be really shocked if Zoolander ends up being good for mining though, because mining is bad for the environment.

    Whatever union those miners are a part of, my guess is the union is using all their dues money to support politicians that want want to destroy their culture, their values, AND their industry.

  92. @Lars Porsena
    In 2018, stunning. Are they a bunch of SJW miners or is Prime Minister Zoolander somehow bad for the environment and good for mining?

    Or are they (like a lot of populations) just 30 years behind the curve and think they're voting for Truman?

    They voted for NDP which is to the left of Trudeau’s party.

    • Replies: @Not Raul
    The miners up in northern Canada know what they’re doing. Mining in such a remote area wouldn’t be economically viable without government-funded infrastructure, and it wouldn’t be medically viable without enforcement of safety regulations.

    It’s criminal what coal mining companies get away with in the USA. Too many miners die due to accidents, black lung, etc.
  93. @Brabantian
    In Sunday's Polish election, tho the far-right Konfederacja (Confederation) Party won 6.8%, amongst youth ages 18-29 'BASED' support for the far-right was over 20%
    https://i.ibb.co/MZnVzX6/poland-far-right-youth-support-20-per-cent.png

    From an article on the weekend's events in Poland:

    A few days before the Polish national election Sunday, the main Polish national public television channel, TVP 1 Polonia, released an investigative show, 'Invasion'.

    Using hidden cameras & microphones, 'Invasion' reveals that LGBT & gay pride street demonstrations throughout Poland are being funded by political manipulators. The paid 'Pride' participants bussed into various cities and towns ... the same LGBT characters, continually appearing at the different events across Poland
     
    'Invasion' on YouTube with English subtitles, 24 minutes
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4upaGbA1Ek

    In the Polish elections, the ruling PiS (Law & Justice) party retained power on a strong limiting-LGBT platform ... The coalition even further far-right, Konfederacja, broke through the 5% barrier to enter the Polish Parliament for the first time.
     
    The same article speaks of how Polish politics are also getting very heated about Jewish demands on Poland:

    Jewish groups are asking for as much as $300 billion in new reparations for World War 2 crimes - half of Poland's annual GDP - a sum that would essentially bankrupt still-economically-fragile Poland ... Language such as the "Holocaust Corporation" - the notion that the Jewish community tries to profit from 20th-century mass killings ... in the ranks of PiS, Konfederacja, and the All-Polish Youth.

    Konfederacja co-leader Janusz Korwin-Mikke said that Jonny Daniels, the Israeli-British founder of the Holocaust commemoration group From the Depths, was a foreign agent "sent here to spy, perhaps working for Freemasons."

    In a televised debate, Polish Konfederacja politician Konrad Berkowicz, snuck up behind his opponent and held a kippah over her head, to lampoon her pro-Jewish-reparations positioning
     
    https://www.henrymakow.com/upload_images/kipa.jpg

    It’s almost as if cosmopolitans are trying to drive Polish youth to the right.

  94. On the eve of Brexit there seems to be a major shift taking place in the
    relationship between Poland and Germany. With Britain leaving the EU
    the two countries are being pushed into each other’s arms. A recent
    article in Politico.eu described Germany and Poland as bff’s (best friends
    forever). For example, in recent months Poland moved ahead of U.K.,
    and became Germany’s biggest trading partner. The economies of
    Poland and Germany are intertwined about as close as is possible. With
    Britain gone, who is going to run the E.U.? Only France, Germany,
    and Poland are left – Spain and Italy are too peripheral, and the Netherlands,
    Belgium, Austria, etc are too small.

    It seems that Germany and Poland could not improve their relationship
    in the last 200 years or so partly because of the extremely heavy Jewish
    presence (~10%) in Poland and the standard Jewish tactic of divide et
    impera. For example, Germany would not accept doctoral students
    from Poland until 1939 because it was afraid of being flooded with Jewish
    students. Nowadays with the Jews largely gone, nothing stands in the way
    of Germany and Poland recognizing each other as fellow Western Christian
    countries and doing a “reset” of their relationship. You can’t do this
    with France because France is largely atheist. Christendom doesn’t need
    Jews or Muslims to thrive, and is doing very well without them.

    It was striking to watch Poland’s recent Nobel laureate, Olga Tokarczuk,
    do a press conference in Germany last week (she was caught on the road
    in Germany when the Prize was announced. Perhaps because of her
    style which is mythical, Jungian, and suffused with magical realism, she
    has been very popular in Germany for quite some time now). The German
    audience was enthusiastic, and it was impressive to see how her German
    interlocutors could quickly translate Tokarczuk’s statements into German.
    As the Polish philosopher Leszek Kołakowski once said, it’s so easy to
    translate from Polish to German that Polish and German are effectively
    the same language. Olga Tokarczuk lives 200 meters from the Czech border
    and not that far from the German border. If she wants to visit Berlin, she
    hops in her car and drives, without any checkpoints, a couple of hundred
    kilometers, and she is there. This kind of geographical closeness brings
    people together. I hope that Poland and Germany will get even closer
    in the coming years.

    • Replies: @Matra
    With Britain gone, who is going to run the E.U.? Only France, Germany,
    and Poland are left – Spain and Italy are too peripheral, and the Netherlands,
    Belgium, Austria, etc are too small.


    That's an incredibly optimistic statement from a Polish point of view. Don't get your hopes up.

    AP: They voted for NDP which is to the left of Trudeau’s party.

    On traditional economic issues, the environment, and to some extent foreign policy. On most social issues though Trudeau's Liberal Party has been more 'progressive' - at least in its public emphasis on gays, abortion, and immigrants - than the NDP, which still mostly talks about unions, housing costs, free dental care, rural issues, etc. In the past when the NDP still got a lot of rural votes some of their MPs would oppose gun control. However, the NDP has been speedily turning into a university faculty lounge party as it becomes more urban in its outlook. It's current leader is a Sikh.

    If Trudeau loses expect Ukrainian diaspora nationalist Chrystia Freeland to challenge for the Liberal Party leadership.
  95. @AP
    Only the western part of Poland, taken from Germany, is rootless, not all of it.

    Actually I have close relatives who live in the western part of Poland,
    and, to me, they are not rootless at all. Poland at this point is
    a very unified country, all speaking the same language, with
    only minor accent differences, and practicing the same
    religion. It’s not at all like Russia or Ukraine which each
    effectively consist of several different countries with different
    histories, languages, and traditions.

    Moreover, mostly it’s the southwestern part of Poland whose
    population was replaced. Genetic studies indicate that the
    ancient central parts of Poland, technically western, including Poznan,
    Kalisz (the oldest city in Poland going back to Roman times), and
    Gniezno (where Poland was born) have had the same population
    for at least 1100-1200 years.

  96. @Matra
    Final score: Bulgaria 0 England 6. Based Bulgaria indeed.

    Another victory for tolerance and diversity.

    At least we beat up the English fans in the center of town which is what really matters.

    • Replies: @Europe Nationalist
    Bulgarians don't do themselves any favours with this sort of thing. Attacking white English fans just there to watch the match and shouting racist chants in the stadium for the sake of it plays right into the hands of the multiculturalists and makes Bulgarians just look like a bunch of moronic thugs.

    You talk as if you are proud that Bulgarian thugs attacked English fans, most of whom are not hooligans. All Bulgaria has done is made itself look really nasty and stupid.
    , @Matra
    To normies and the media alike it looked like a multiracial England went to Sofia and humiliated the hapless homogenous Bulgarian side, whose fans reacted with the kind of racism one expects from backward losers. Bulgarian football has deteriorated from the time you made it to the WC SF in 1994. Maybe you need some diversity to catch up?

    I just finished watching Switzerland, or rather 'Switzerland' given its majority non-Swiss side, defeating the 10 whites and one mixed race Irish squad. To me it doesn't seem like much of a victory for Switzerland but the cheering Swiss fans clearly disagree with me. So the same template that worked in America is now working in Western Europe. The EU-worshipping Eastern Europeans will eventually knuckle under too.
  97. @AP

    HIV is not a symptom of “rootlessness”.

    It’s pretty irrelevant for that kind of thing (it is more a symptom of incompetent healthcare systems and control of epidemics).
     
    You are one of the more intelligent commenters here, but for some reason you cannot see that something can reflect more than one phenomenon.

    HIV is both a symptom of rootlessness/immorality/etc. and affected by healthcare systems, control of epidemics, etc.

    Adding this concept of “rooted” does not make the HIV discussion we were having before more plausible, but less plausible.

    Apart from the Russia,* the countries with the highest HIV rates in the world are mostly very “rooted” African countries, where people still catch the fish they will eat for dinner with a spear in the morning, and remember their ancestors’ tribal dances.

    On the other hand, many of the least “rooted” populations like Australia (where populations have travelled to the wrong side of the world from their roots), have the lowest HIV rates in the world.

    Of course, inability to control disease epidemics is more common in countries with low levels of technological development, and low level of technological development also correlates with greater geographical and culturaly immobility (i.e. lower degrees of “rootlessness” in the population).

    *Which perhaps is an exception, for the intentional and high incompetence of the authorities.

    • Replies: @AP

    Adding this concept of “rooted” does not make the HIV discussion we were having before more plausible, but less plausible.

    Apart from the Russia,* the countries with the highest HIV rates in the world are mostly very “rooted” African countries, where people still catch the fish they will eat for dinner with a spear in the morning, and remember their ancestors’ tribal dances.
     
    That's because promiscuity is traditional for Africa, where it was customary for both females and males to have 3 or so regular sexual partners. This meant that a disease like HIV would spread rapidly.

    Interestingly, the Catholic Church condemned condoms but tried to impose traditional Western sexual practices on Africa. Their efforts were more successful in reducing HIV rates than were those of liberal post-Christian westerners who just distributed condoms.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2009/03/aids_expert_who_defended_the_p.html

    The pope was right about condoms, says Harvard HIV expert

    Of course, inability to control disease epidemics is more common in countries with low levels of technological development, and low level of technological development also correlates with greater geographical and culturaly immobility
     
    Your theory does not explain why rootless parts of countries like Donbas in Ukraine or former German western Poland have the highest HIV rates in those countries. You think it's a coincidence that rootless ones are also heroin distribution network hubs?
  98. @Anon 2
    On the eve of Brexit there seems to be a major shift taking place in the
    relationship between Poland and Germany. With Britain leaving the EU
    the two countries are being pushed into each other’s arms. A recent
    article in Politico.eu described Germany and Poland as bff’s (best friends
    forever). For example, in recent months Poland moved ahead of U.K.,
    and became Germany’s biggest trading partner. The economies of
    Poland and Germany are intertwined about as close as is possible. With
    Britain gone, who is going to run the E.U.? Only France, Germany,
    and Poland are left - Spain and Italy are too peripheral, and the Netherlands,
    Belgium, Austria, etc are too small.

    It seems that Germany and Poland could not improve their relationship
    in the last 200 years or so partly because of the extremely heavy Jewish
    presence (~10%) in Poland and the standard Jewish tactic of divide et
    impera. For example, Germany would not accept doctoral students
    from Poland until 1939 because it was afraid of being flooded with Jewish
    students. Nowadays with the Jews largely gone, nothing stands in the way
    of Germany and Poland recognizing each other as fellow Western Christian
    countries and doing a “reset” of their relationship. You can’t do this
    with France because France is largely atheist. Christendom doesn’t need
    Jews or Muslims to thrive, and is doing very well without them.

    It was striking to watch Poland’s recent Nobel laureate, Olga Tokarczuk,
    do a press conference in Germany last week (she was caught on the road
    in Germany when the Prize was announced. Perhaps because of her
    style which is mythical, Jungian, and suffused with magical realism, she
    has been very popular in Germany for quite some time now). The German
    audience was enthusiastic, and it was impressive to see how her German
    interlocutors could quickly translate Tokarczuk’s statements into German.
    As the Polish philosopher Leszek Kołakowski once said, it’s so easy to
    translate from Polish to German that Polish and German are effectively
    the same language. Olga Tokarczuk lives 200 meters from the Czech border
    and not that far from the German border. If she wants to visit Berlin, she
    hops in her car and drives, without any checkpoints, a couple of hundred
    kilometers, and she is there. This kind of geographical closeness brings
    people together. I hope that Poland and Germany will get even closer
    in the coming years.

    With Britain gone, who is going to run the E.U.? Only France, Germany,
    and Poland are left – Spain and Italy are too peripheral, and the Netherlands,
    Belgium, Austria, etc are too small.

    That’s an incredibly optimistic statement from a Polish point of view. Don’t get your hopes up.

    AP: They voted for NDP which is to the left of Trudeau’s party.

    On traditional economic issues, the environment, and to some extent foreign policy. On most social issues though Trudeau’s Liberal Party has been more ‘progressive’ – at least in its public emphasis on gays, abortion, and immigrants – than the NDP, which still mostly talks about unions, housing costs, free dental care, rural issues, etc. In the past when the NDP still got a lot of rural votes some of their MPs would oppose gun control. However, the NDP has been speedily turning into a university faculty lounge party as it becomes more urban in its outlook. It’s current leader is a Sikh.

    If Trudeau loses expect Ukrainian diaspora nationalist Chrystia Freeland to challenge for the Liberal Party leadership.

  99. Why is AIDS so prevalent in Russia and Ukraine? The levels are higher there than even some black African countries.

    I’ve also read that many believe that the real rate of AIDS in Russia is vastly underestimated due to the social stigma of being diagnosed and treated for it.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    Reason for the superelevated HIVs regions, is opium routes.

    For example, Ekaterinburg (where it's this year around 2% of the total population has HIV, and far higher in the age 20-40 demographic), is part of route that opium travels on the way to other cities.

    Here you can see the dark colour in 66 for 2016.
    https://i.imgur.com/PAJVcqm.jpg

    Opium is coming via air, roads (primarily) and railway (via Kyrgyzstan), from Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.


    But the reason for the overall high levels of HIV and epidemic, is incompetence in the authorities.

    This is especially when you realize that Russia has many more years to prepare for this, compared to Western Europe (where the state capacity in healthcare was able to control the issue quite easily during the 1990s years).

    There are academic articles published in the 1990s, explaining how Russia needs to prepare to prevent an HIV epidemic.


    When you look at the number of cases in the 1990s, you can see how much time there was to prepare for the epidemic compared to Western European countries.

    https://i.imgur.com/T1xAeGm.jpg

  100. @Spisarevski
    Another victory for tolerance and diversity.

    https://i.imgur.com/gQEEJJv.jpg
    https://i.imgur.com/bSOQOR2.jpg

    At least we beat up the English fans in the center of town which is what really matters.

    Bulgarians don’t do themselves any favours with this sort of thing. Attacking white English fans just there to watch the match and shouting racist chants in the stadium for the sake of it plays right into the hands of the multiculturalists and makes Bulgarians just look like a bunch of moronic thugs.

    You talk as if you are proud that Bulgarian thugs attacked English fans, most of whom are not hooligans. All Bulgaria has done is made itself look really nasty and stupid.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

    Attacking white English fans just there to watch the match and shouting racist chants in the stadium for the sake of it plays right into the hands of the multiculturalists and makes Bulgarians just look like a bunch of moronic thugs.
     
    The weak should fear the strong.

    https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/232/794/6a8.jpg
    , @Korenchkin
    >British
    >White
    , @Pericles
    Yeah, the headlines in the based UK papers must have been terrible.
  101. @Swedish Family
    A Polish perspective on these population transfers (from Adam Zamoyski's Poland: A History):

    In September 1944, after it had been occupied by the Soviets, a huge operation was put in train to remove all Poles and Jews from territory east of the new Polish frontier and resettle them in Poland, and to uproot all Ukrainians living to the west of it and transplant them to Soviet Ukraine. Virtually the entire population of the city of Lwów would eventually be moved into the ruins of the former German city of Breslau (now Wrocław). In all some 780,000 Poles and Jews were moved in this way, a trip which sometimes involved weeks in cattle trucks which were shunted onto sidings and repeatedly redirected before they were allowed to spill their human loads in some depopulated area. Those who did not register for ‘repatriation’, feeling no great national loyalty and wishing only to remain where they had always lived, were harassed by the NKVD or attacked by UPA fighters. Similar arrangements with regard to Lithuania and Belorussia yielded comparable numbers, most of whom were resettled in Pomerania or the areas newly acquired from Germany. Not surprisingly, since the area taken over by the Soviet Union amounted to 47 per cent of Poland’s pre-war territory, the 1,500,000-odd resettled in Poland did not account for the whole Polish population of the area, and at least as many remained behind.

    [...]

    The massive scale on which people were being shunted about and resettled, a process which normally involved brutality at the outset, followed by rape and pillage by bandits of one sort or another along the way, and hostility from the host community at the other end, had a profoundly traumatic effect on all those involved. Communities which had been uprooted and split up lost their sense of identity and disintegrated into embattled family groups. Resettled on farms or in houses that had belonged to others who had been murdered or deported, they felt no empathy with the alien landscape and no real sense of ownership, only a fear of potential consequences. With no local leadership of any kind (surviving landowners were not allowed to come within fifty kilometres of their former estates) and a constant prey to lawless militia, soldiers and criminal gangs, they did not constitute communities, only masses of fearful families and individuals.

     

    This seems to lend credence to Anatoly's idea that the uprootedness of western Poles lead to lasting differences.

    If you want to look at characteristics of “rooted” populations, compared to “rootless” populations (with “rootless” in this literal sense, rather than Stalin’s phrase of “rootless cosmopolitans” which referred mainly to Jews), then you would compare;

    e.g.
    English compared to Australians of English descent.
    Europeans compared to Americans of European ancestry.
    Japanese compared to Japanese Brazilians.
    French compared to French-Canadians.
    Indians in India, compared to Indian Singaporeans.
    etc.

    While the Polish history is interesting, the overall population of Western Poland will be vastly less “rootless” (geographically and culturally) – including those who were forced to move to new cities – than what happens to populations established in new continents, languages, cultures, etc from their ancestors.

    As for common characteristics of rootless populations, I’m sure there most be some interesting ones. I doubt that, HIV rate is one of these though (rootless Australians have lower HIV rates than the rooted English they descend from, even though they were often from criminal ancestry).

    • Replies: @Europe Nationalist
    White Australians certainly are rootless these days. In my experience most have no sense of English identity and would regard it as an insult to be referred to as "English". They are solely "Australian" which to them is something very different to being English.

    As for crime rate I'm not sure exactly how it compares to England although I know that there is quite a large criminal biker gang problem in Australia and they fight over the drug trade, etc. From what I've seen of Australian news in general there seems to be quite a lot of violence there. Obviously the crime figures are confused by high levels of non-white immigration in both places although if it were possible to statistically work out I suspect that white Australians are more violent than native English people, possibly significantly more so.
    , @Swedish Family

    While the Polish history is interesting, the overall population of Western Poland will be vastly less “rootless” (geographically and culturally) – including those who were forced to move to new cities – than what happens to populations established in new continents, languages, cultures, etc from their ancestors.
     
    I don't disagree with this at all. But there is truth to the assertion that -- all else equal -- uprootedness is a predictor of all kinds of social ills. If you search around, you will find plenty of data to back up this.
  102. @Europe Nationalist
    Bulgarians don't do themselves any favours with this sort of thing. Attacking white English fans just there to watch the match and shouting racist chants in the stadium for the sake of it plays right into the hands of the multiculturalists and makes Bulgarians just look like a bunch of moronic thugs.

    You talk as if you are proud that Bulgarian thugs attacked English fans, most of whom are not hooligans. All Bulgaria has done is made itself look really nasty and stupid.

    Attacking white English fans just there to watch the match and shouting racist chants in the stadium for the sake of it plays right into the hands of the multiculturalists and makes Bulgarians just look like a bunch of moronic thugs.

    The weak should fear the strong.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    BULGAROHUNK CRUSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    , @Not Raul
    Sam Hyde . . . but probably not at a soccer game.
  103. @Dmitry
    If you want to look at characteristics of "rooted" populations, compared to "rootless" populations (with "rootless" in this literal sense, rather than Stalin's phrase of "rootless cosmopolitans" which referred mainly to Jews), then you would compare;

    e.g.
    English compared to Australians of English descent.
    Europeans compared to Americans of European ancestry.
    Japanese compared to Japanese Brazilians.
    French compared to French-Canadians.
    Indians in India, compared to Indian Singaporeans.
    etc.


    While the Polish history is interesting, the overall population of Western Poland will be vastly less "rootless" (geographically and culturally) - including those who were forced to move to new cities - than what happens to populations established in new continents, languages, cultures, etc from their ancestors.

    -

    As for common characteristics of rootless populations, I'm sure there most be some interesting ones. I doubt that, HIV rate is one of these though (rootless Australians have lower HIV rates than the rooted English they descend from, even though they were often from criminal ancestry).

    White Australians certainly are rootless these days. In my experience most have no sense of English identity and would regard it as an insult to be referred to as “English”. They are solely “Australian” which to them is something very different to being English.

    As for crime rate I’m not sure exactly how it compares to England although I know that there is quite a large criminal biker gang problem in Australia and they fight over the drug trade, etc. From what I’ve seen of Australian news in general there seems to be quite a lot of violence there. Obviously the crime figures are confused by high levels of non-white immigration in both places although if it were possible to statistically work out I suspect that white Australians are more violent than native English people, possibly significantly more so.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    Australia has a large Irish Catholic population.
    , @LondonBob
    At the World Cup in Russia Australian fans were following England as well as Australia. Australia and Britain have very close ties, something I find others don't understand, all nourished by a healthy rivalry in sports and a great deal of travel and marriage between the two. Of course Australians have an Australian identity, why would they have anything else?
  104. @Spisarevski
    Another victory for tolerance and diversity.

    https://i.imgur.com/gQEEJJv.jpg
    https://i.imgur.com/bSOQOR2.jpg

    At least we beat up the English fans in the center of town which is what really matters.

    To normies and the media alike it looked like a multiracial England went to Sofia and humiliated the hapless homogenous Bulgarian side, whose fans reacted with the kind of racism one expects from backward losers. Bulgarian football has deteriorated from the time you made it to the WC SF in 1994. Maybe you need some diversity to catch up?

    I just finished watching Switzerland, or rather ‘Switzerland’ given its majority non-Swiss side, defeating the 10 whites and one mixed race Irish squad. To me it doesn’t seem like much of a victory for Switzerland but the cheering Swiss fans clearly disagree with me. So the same template that worked in America is now working in Western Europe. The EU-worshipping Eastern Europeans will eventually knuckle under too.

    • Agree: reiner Tor
  105. @Dmitry
    If you want to look at characteristics of "rooted" populations, compared to "rootless" populations (with "rootless" in this literal sense, rather than Stalin's phrase of "rootless cosmopolitans" which referred mainly to Jews), then you would compare;

    e.g.
    English compared to Australians of English descent.
    Europeans compared to Americans of European ancestry.
    Japanese compared to Japanese Brazilians.
    French compared to French-Canadians.
    Indians in India, compared to Indian Singaporeans.
    etc.


    While the Polish history is interesting, the overall population of Western Poland will be vastly less "rootless" (geographically and culturally) - including those who were forced to move to new cities - than what happens to populations established in new continents, languages, cultures, etc from their ancestors.

    -

    As for common characteristics of rootless populations, I'm sure there most be some interesting ones. I doubt that, HIV rate is one of these though (rootless Australians have lower HIV rates than the rooted English they descend from, even though they were often from criminal ancestry).

    While the Polish history is interesting, the overall population of Western Poland will be vastly less “rootless” (geographically and culturally) – including those who were forced to move to new cities – than what happens to populations established in new continents, languages, cultures, etc from their ancestors.

    I don’t disagree with this at all. But there is truth to the assertion that — all else equal — uprootedness is a predictor of all kinds of social ills. If you search around, you will find plenty of data to back up this.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    I agree that the effect of unrootedness on populations, is probably very significant (and its effects will be the usual mix of good and bad).

    But I doubt there will be any simple to define effects like HIV or crime rates.

    -

    If you look at Mormons of Utah. It's one of the most "unrooted populations". The largest component of their ancestors are anglosaxons (so they should be living in London or Coventry). But instead they venerate "Jesus in Space"

    https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/images/gospel-library/manual/09797/salt-lake-first-presidency-lds_159354_inl.jpg

    While living in a place which looks like Mars (it's not the countryside of Oxford)

    https://d36tnp772eyphs.cloudfront.net/blogs/1/2014/09/canyonlands2-1200x719.jpg

    Yet the murder rate of this very unrooted (both geographically and culturally) population, is one of the lowest in America.

    http://i.imgur.com/ll2jhJN.png

  106. @Anatoly Karlin

    Attacking white English fans just there to watch the match and shouting racist chants in the stadium for the sake of it plays right into the hands of the multiculturalists and makes Bulgarians just look like a bunch of moronic thugs.
     
    The weak should fear the strong.

    https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/232/794/6a8.jpg

    BULGAROHUNK CRUSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  107. @AP

    I’m wondering just how many Jews in western Ukraine were prevented from fleeing the Nazis by the border controls that the Soviets installed between their pre-1939 territory and their 1939-1940 territorial acquisitions. The Nazi invasion of the USSR was very quick and western Ukraine was quickly conquered, but still, I wonder if more lives could have been saved.
     
    One of my grandparents arrived in Lviv from Kharkiv in 1939 (student transferred from an academic institute). I was told that the Jewish classmates who also came along were all quickly evacuated. The ones who stayed were local Jews with no ties to areas further east. They probably would not have left either way, they might not have expected extermination, this was their home, etc.

    One of my grandparents arrived in Lviv from Kharkiv in 1939 (student transferred from an academic institute). I was told that the Jewish classmates who also came along were all quickly evacuated.

    In June 1941?

    The ones who stayed were local Jews with no ties to areas further east. They probably would not have left either way, they might not have expected extermination, this was their home, etc.

    Interesting point–though it’s worth noting that AFAIK a large number of Galician Jews did, in fact, leave Galicia and move to the West between the 1880s and 1920s even though they weren’t actually threatened with genocide back then.

    Also, what motivated hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian and Belarusian Jews to settle in Russia between 1917 and June 1941?

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

    Also, what motivated hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian and Belarusian Jews to settle in Russia between 1917 and June 1941?
     
    The capital and everything associated with that and they were hiring - and giving Jews preferential access relative to similarly or more qualified Russians (as many of those had belonged to so-called "exploiter" classes).
  108. @Mr. XYZ

    One of my grandparents arrived in Lviv from Kharkiv in 1939 (student transferred from an academic institute). I was told that the Jewish classmates who also came along were all quickly evacuated.
     
    In June 1941?

    The ones who stayed were local Jews with no ties to areas further east. They probably would not have left either way, they might not have expected extermination, this was their home, etc.
     
    Interesting point--though it's worth noting that AFAIK a large number of Galician Jews did, in fact, leave Galicia and move to the West between the 1880s and 1920s even though they weren't actually threatened with genocide back then.

    Also, what motivated hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian and Belarusian Jews to settle in Russia between 1917 and June 1941?

    Also, what motivated hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian and Belarusian Jews to settle in Russia between 1917 and June 1941?

    The capital and everything associated with that and they were hiring – and giving Jews preferential access relative to similarly or more qualified Russians (as many of those had belonged to so-called “exploiter” classes).

    • Replies: @Not Raul
    This is similar to what happened in pre-partition Poland. Magnates trusted Jews more than native peasants.
    , @Mr. XYZ

    The capital and everything associated with that and they were hiring
     
    I thought that capital didn't matter very much in a Communist country?

    Also, as a side note, why wasn't Jewish capital attractive enough to the Russian Tsars for them to allow large-scale Jewish migration out of the Pale of Settlement? Did they hope to keep Jews out of Russia's eastern territories so that they wouldn't compete with the non-Jewish businessmen there? In other words, a form of affirmative action for non-Jews--just like with the Jewish quotas during Tsarist rule.

    – and giving Jews preferential access relative to similarly or more qualified Russians (as many of those had belonged to so-called “exploiter” classes).
     
    That actually makes sense. Also, as a side note, I wonder just how much larger the Jewish population in Russia proper would have eventually become if it wasn't for the Holocaust wiping out most of the Pale of Settlement's Jewish population. In real life, it peaked at slightly over 900,000 in 1959 if one includes Crimea as part of Russia (and at about 891,000 without Crimea).

    BTW, one of the most deeply regretful things about the Soviet Union is that it didn't deport the entire Jewish population west of Moscow en masse further east in the months and year before Operation Barbarossa. About 1.0-1.5 million Soviet Jews did, in fact, manage to evacuate further eastward in 1941 but something like 2.5-2.7 million Soviet Jews stayed behind and thus perished under Nazi rule and the resulting Holocaust. Stalin really, really should have deported the entirety of the Jewish population of the former Pale of Settlement deep into the interior of the Soviet Union before Operation Barbarossa. That way, much more of them would have survived the Holocaust and World War II.
  109. @Europe Nationalist
    Why is AIDS so prevalent in Russia and Ukraine? The levels are higher there than even some black African countries.

    I've also read that many believe that the real rate of AIDS in Russia is vastly underestimated due to the social stigma of being diagnosed and treated for it.

    Reason for the superelevated HIVs regions, is opium routes.

    For example, Ekaterinburg (where it’s this year around 2% of the total population has HIV, and far higher in the age 20-40 demographic), is part of route that opium travels on the way to other cities.

    Here you can see the dark colour in 66 for 2016.
    Opium is coming via air, roads (primarily) and railway (via Kyrgyzstan), from Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.

    But the reason for the overall high levels of HIV and epidemic, is incompetence in the authorities.

    This is especially when you realize that Russia has many more years to prepare for this, compared to Western Europe (where the state capacity in healthcare was able to control the issue quite easily during the 1990s years).

    There are academic articles published in the 1990s, explaining how Russia needs to prepare to prevent an HIV epidemic.

    When you look at the number of cases in the 1990s, you can see how much time there was to prepare for the epidemic compared to Western European countries.

    • Replies: @Not Raul
    It appears that Castro dealt with AIDS better than Putin did.
  110. @AP

    In terms of national identity? Lvov was a majority Polish/Jewish city before the Second World War. You cannot deny Ukrainian nationalism in Lvov today is partly explained by the fact it is only an accidentally majority Ukrainian city today. (If it was not for Hitler, and then Stalin, the city would be majority Polish and Jewish today).
     
    Doubtful. Unless Lviv remained a small city of 300,000 people. With urbanization local Ukrainians from neighboring villages moved in, a process that was similar to Prague becoming a Czech rather than a German city. The new city-dwellers were close to their ancestral communities, their cousins and grandparents. And the pre-war city had been about 18% Ukrainian so there was some continuity.

    It is not like people were moved there, primarily, from all over the USSR (this occurred to an extent, Lviv is still about 10% Russian, but it didn't dominate the picture). And surrounding towns were rather similar. So no, the area is not very rootless, compared to western Poland or Donbas.

    Lviv oblast… It is above average in wealth.

    But it’s on the median for income in Ukraine.
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ukrainian_oblasts_and_territories_by_salary

    Before Maidan, yes. It was in the middle, while the poorest were other Western regions.

    In 2017 Lviv was 9th out of 25. It has improved its position further since then. In 2019 it was in third place (can't find the link quickly now, though).

    Doubtful. Unless Lviv remained a small city of 300,000 people. With urbanization local Ukrainians from neighboring villages moved in, a process that was similar to Prague becoming a Czech rather than a German city. The new city-dwellers were close to their ancestral communities, their cousins and grandparents. And the pre-war city had been about 18% Ukrainian so there was some continuity.

    Apparently, Lwow Voivodeship was majority Polish during the interwar period, with Ukrainians making up only a 3rd of the population. So, to adjust Dmitry’s statement a little bit, it is likely that if it were not for the massacre of Poles by the nationalists, the deportations under Stalin, Hitler’s massacres, and finally, the transfer of the eastern half of the province to the USSR and the accompanying population transfers, then not only the city, but the entire region would be mostly Polish (and Jewish) today.

    Also, Germans were violently removed from Czechia, so this doesn’t really back up your point well, IMO.

    • Replies: @AP

    Apparently, Lwow Voivodeship was majority Polish during the interwar period
     
    That's because the Polish government added a bunch of Polish lands to it (that are now part of Poland) that Ukrainians never claimed, in order to get that majority. Red line is the current border:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/15/Lwowskie.png/1024px-Lwowskie.png

    Current Galicia in Ukraine was about 62% Ukrainian, 10% Jewish, the rest Poles. Lwow was a barely-Polish "island" surrounded by Ukrainian villages.

    So, to adjust Dmitry’s statement a little bit, it is likely that if it were not for the massacre of Poles by the nationalists, the deportations under Stalin, Hitler’s massacres, and finally, the transfer of the eastern half of the province to the USSR and the accompanying population transfers, then not only the city, but the entire region would be mostly Polish (and Jewish) today.
     
    No, see my previous comment.
  111. @Swedish Family

    Does Belarus show any particular “symptoms” of rootlessness i.e. high HIV rates, high crime, etc.? From what I know, Belarus was/is a fairly conservative society, as much as any post-Soviet country could be anyways.
     
    From what I hear, and my own experience (although I've only hung around Belarusian transplants in the EU and Ukraine), this remains true. Among Westerners, the common view of the Eastern-Slavonic states is that Belarusians are the most conservative and least outgoing, with Russians on the other end and Ukrainians in between.

    Among Westerners, the common view of the Eastern-Slavonic states is that Belarusians are the most conservative and least outgoing, with Russians on the other end and Ukrainians in between.

    This also corresponds to my experience, though I would reverse the position of Russians and Ukrainians, with many of the Ukrainians I know being rambunctious and expressive compared to the others. The few Belarussians that I have met tend to be rather religious and quiet. Very kind and polite people, too. Though Russians and Ukrainians tend to be very friendly as well.

  112. @Swedish Family

    While the Polish history is interesting, the overall population of Western Poland will be vastly less “rootless” (geographically and culturally) – including those who were forced to move to new cities – than what happens to populations established in new continents, languages, cultures, etc from their ancestors.
     
    I don't disagree with this at all. But there is truth to the assertion that -- all else equal -- uprootedness is a predictor of all kinds of social ills. If you search around, you will find plenty of data to back up this.

    I agree that the effect of unrootedness on populations, is probably very significant (and its effects will be the usual mix of good and bad).

    But I doubt there will be any simple to define effects like HIV or crime rates.

    If you look at Mormons of Utah. It’s one of the most “unrooted populations”. The largest component of their ancestors are anglosaxons (so they should be living in London or Coventry). But instead they venerate “Jesus in Space”

    While living in a place which looks like Mars (it’s not the countryside of Oxford)

    Yet the murder rate of this very unrooted (both geographically and culturally) population, is one of the lowest in America.

    • Replies: @Swedish Family

    I agree that the effect of unrootedness on populations, is probably very significant (and its effects will be the usual mix of good and bad).

    But I doubt there will be any simple to define effects like HIV or crime rates.
     
    Yes, that's why I took the easy way out and wrote "all else equal."
    , @Athletic and Whitesplosive
    Seems silly to conflate the "rootless" Mormons whose families have a 150~ year (give or take) history in Utah with the modern deracinated city dweller. What does it matter if you're an Anglo-Saxon whose family was "rooted" in Britain when you move away from your hometown to a deracinated pozhole like London? 150 years is plenty of time to form organic communities (to an extent, I'll concede that a genuinely deep-rooted cultural and ethnic identity cultivated over centuries is obviously superior), so in my view the organic Mormon communities are vastly more rooted than the urbanites of Europe, since organic urban communities are largely destroyed by population churn before they form (and that's before even considering the effects of proximity to extremely alien foreign populations like africans). So they're certainly more rooted than the analogous American urbanites, who don't even have the very developed historical national identities to fall back on.

    I think it's a rather serious category error to say the Mormons with a 150 odd year history within their home region are less rooted than western poles who've been where they are for around half as long.

    And why shouldn't rootlessness correlate with HIV rates? General social ills correlate with self-identified homosexuality, which in turn correlates extremely strongly with HIV rates.

    As to rootlessness being a "mix of good and bad", I struggle to think of what the good might be? I suppose there might be a correlation with greater economic productivity, but it would be near impossible to disentangle rootlessness from the general economic advantage of urban areas over rural ones, and whether the greater wealth isn't what attracts the rootless in the first place. If some way were found to maintain modern urban economies while also stopping population churn and encouraging rooted communities to form, I suspect they would be superior to rootless cities in basically every way.
  113. @Lars Porsena
    The last paragraph reminds me of Ibn Khaldun.

    https://www.mindattic.org/muqaddimah/

    yes, i think there’s a tie-in with assabiyah somewhere

  114. @Dmitry
    HIV is not a symptom of "rootlessness".

    It's pretty irrelevant to that concept (high HIV rate is more a symptom of incompetent healthcare systems and poor control of epidemics).

    As for Belarus - the rate of new diagnosis is currently lower than Ukraine, but much higher than Poland.

    https://i.imgur.com/iY6UJtV.png


    Generally, for HIV - East Europe is high, while Centre Europe (including Poland) and West Europe is low.

    https://i.imgur.com/ZnlCWh9.jpg

    From the map that you posted, it seems that most of eastern Europe is significantly less HIV infested than western Europe.

    HIV is not a symptom of “rootlessness”.

    It’s pretty irrelevant to that concept (high HIV rate is more a symptom of incompetent healthcare systems and poor control of epidemics).

    As for Belarus – the rate of new diagnosis is currently lower than Ukraine, but much higher than Poland.

    Although I would generally agree that the high rates of HIV in the FSU are more reflective of the collapsed health infrastructure than anything else, they are also a symptom of the great increase in drug use and prostitution that the healthcare system (and legal system) would normally have addressed. The differences in HIV rates can also be used to compare different countries and regions.

    For example, Bosnia was split between several different governments during a civil war that killed, maimed, and displaced a significant chunk of the population, a perfect recipe for a spike in social dysfunction and the resulting negative outcomes, yet it’s rates of HIV are substantially lower than those of Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus.

    • Replies: @Dmitry

    most of eastern Europe is significantly less HIV
     
    In the WHO division of Europe - Central Europe and Scandinavia has the lowest HIV diagnosis, followed by Western Europe. While the highest rates, are Eastern Europe (which is East from Poland for them).
    https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/portal/files/documents/hiv-aids-surveillance-in-europe-2018.pdf

    they are also a symptom of the great increase in drug use and prostitution that the healthcare system (and legal system) would normally have addressed.
     
    It is true that Russia has far more of a culture of prostitution, in comparison to some Western European countries like UK, France or Scandinavia.

    But the culture of prostitution in Russia is not higher than in Spain, Netherlands, Germany. Yet countries like Netherlands has one of the lowest HIV rates in the world.

    So we need to look elsewhere (prostitution is not a very important vector for HIV transmission).


    a perfect recipe for a spike in social dysfunction and the resulting negative outcomes, yet it’s rates of HIV are substantially lower than those of Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus.
     
    Yes, as HIV rates (like any disease epidemic) does not crudely measure or correlate to concepts like "social dysfunction".

    In Russia, HIV rate can also be paradoxically an indicator of more economically successful regions.

    One of reasons Ekaterinburg is the centre of HIV in Russia, is because it has a resilient economy - which means that there were always large profits for drug dealers and the opium route views the city as very important, even during recessions.

    In more economically "shithole cities" in Russia, HIV rates can often be significantly lower than Ekaterinburg (as would be profits for drug dealers).

    Something similar could also possibly explain a situation in Ukraine, where Donetsk apparently had the highest rate of HIV. Donetsk was one of the most economically successful regions of Ukraine (e.g. second richest city in Ukraine, second most innovative region).

  115. @Swedish Family

    I guess you also need to take into account the different rural structure in northern and southern Sweden. The southern parts are classical rural, with a strong agricultural history. The north on the other hand is not suitable for agriculture, and industry has been more prevalent, meaning that from their heritage, northern rural folks are more workers, while southern rural people are more of the farmer kind.
     
    No, Thulean Friend is right. It's mostly about proximity. Northern Sweden had basically no immigrants before the 2010s, so people there went on giving their votes to the Social Democrats or the Communists (their traditional parties of choice). But since the election last fall, support there for the Sweden Democrats is near the national average. The true outlier is the city of Stockholm ("Stockholms kommun") at 9.84% support for the Sweden Democrats (against 17.53% countrywide).

    One sometimes hears the argument that people in immigrant-heavy areas tend not to vote for the Sweden Democrats and that this somehow suggests that people who live near immigrants "know better" than the countryside yokels who do, but this is a sleight of hand. Look at the voting patterns of ethnic Swedes who live near immigrant-heavy areas, and you will see very strong support for the Sweden Democrats.

    One sometimes hears the argument that people in immigrant-heavy areas tend not to vote for the Sweden Democrats and that this somehow suggests that people who live near immigrants “know better” than the countryside yokels who do, but this is a sleight of hand. Look at the voting patterns of ethnic Swedes who live near immigrant-heavy areas, and you will see very strong support for the Sweden Democrats.

    That silly argument is repeated everywhere there is a reaction against immigration. In Sweden’s case, it is all the more blatantly false given that the Sweden Democrats won handily in 2018 in many southern regions nearby Malmo.

  116. @Denis
    From the map that you posted, it seems that most of eastern Europe is significantly less HIV infested than western Europe.

    HIV is not a symptom of “rootlessness”.

    It’s pretty irrelevant to that concept (high HIV rate is more a symptom of incompetent healthcare systems and poor control of epidemics).

    As for Belarus – the rate of new diagnosis is currently lower than Ukraine, but much higher than Poland.
     

    Although I would generally agree that the high rates of HIV in the FSU are more reflective of the collapsed health infrastructure than anything else, they are also a symptom of the great increase in drug use and prostitution that the healthcare system (and legal system) would normally have addressed. The differences in HIV rates can also be used to compare different countries and regions.

    For example, Bosnia was split between several different governments during a civil war that killed, maimed, and displaced a significant chunk of the population, a perfect recipe for a spike in social dysfunction and the resulting negative outcomes, yet it's rates of HIV are substantially lower than those of Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus.

    most of eastern Europe is significantly less HIV

    In the WHO division of Europe – Central Europe and Scandinavia has the lowest HIV diagnosis, followed by Western Europe. While the highest rates, are Eastern Europe (which is East from Poland for them).
    https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/portal/files/documents/hiv-aids-surveillance-in-europe-2018.pdf

    they are also a symptom of the great increase in drug use and prostitution that the healthcare system (and legal system) would normally have addressed.

    It is true that Russia has far more of a culture of prostitution, in comparison to some Western European countries like UK, France or Scandinavia.

    But the culture of prostitution in Russia is not higher than in Spain, Netherlands, Germany. Yet countries like Netherlands has one of the lowest HIV rates in the world.

    So we need to look elsewhere (prostitution is not a very important vector for HIV transmission).

    a perfect recipe for a spike in social dysfunction and the resulting negative outcomes, yet it’s rates of HIV are substantially lower than those of Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus.

    Yes, as HIV rates (like any disease epidemic) does not crudely measure or correlate to concepts like “social dysfunction”.

    In Russia, HIV rate can also be paradoxically an indicator of more economically successful regions.

    One of reasons Ekaterinburg is the centre of HIV in Russia, is because it has a resilient economy – which means that there were always large profits for drug dealers and the opium route views the city as very important, even during recessions.

    In more economically “shithole cities” in Russia, HIV rates can often be significantly lower than Ekaterinburg (as would be profits for drug dealers).

    Something similar could also possibly explain a situation in Ukraine, where Donetsk apparently had the highest rate of HIV. Donetsk was one of the most economically successful regions of Ukraine (e.g. second richest city in Ukraine, second most innovative region).

    • Replies: @notanon

    In Russia, HIV rate can also be paradoxically an indicator of more economically successful regions.
     
    homosexuals from small towns move to the cities (local or national) - especially cities with a lot of media / entertainment jobs
  117. These maps pop up for so many variables from the Poland. I believe road quality is still higher in Polish-occupied Germany, not that it seems to help those people vote right. Could it have something to do with a self selection. Was identity somewhat fluid in the Belarus before the population transfers? I’m thinking of General Rokossovski, half Belarusian and half Pole, he had identity issues but sided with Russia. Conservative man. Perhaps the shitheels of the Belarus and the Ukraine disproportionately filtered to a Polish identity. genetically all these people are on top of each other on an autosomal PCA plot. Point is these are kind of fake pose identities, everyone here is unadmixed Slav, may not be random who went Uniate Eastern Rite in the Polish Lithuanian commonwealth and who went full-on papist, which determines who feels Belarusian/Ukrainian vs Polish 400 years later and gets to stay in 1949. Could be a kind of Jizya effect where the higher quality genetics get filtered into the oppressed religion. Staying Byzantine Rite may have entailed a cost only wealthier peasants could bear.

    The act of moving may itself have effects as suggested by Karlin. Rootless Western Americans legalized weed long before the equally lefty New England states. They’re sort of “wilder”, but again the migration was not random, restless, greedy cunts moved west, while the more cautious stayed back east. Would be interesting to see what happened to the displaced Germans for a truly non-random case. Few Germans could pass as Poles (a few hundred thousand) whereas I’m hypothesizing far more Poles could pass as Belarusian/Ukrainian, or perhaps this pattern already existed in the east.

    • Replies: @Swedish Family

    Was identity somewhat fluid in the Belarus before the population transfers? I’m thinking of General Rokossovski, half Belarusian and half Pole, he had identity issues but sided with Russia. Conservative man. Perhaps the shitheels of the Belarus and the Ukraine disproportionately filtered to a Polish identity.

     

    Poland between the wars was multicultural to the point of madness. From Norman Davies' Heart of Europe: The Past in Poland's Present:

    The task of integrating the peoples, institutions, and traditions of the country’s disparate elements was immense. In 1919-1920 there were six different currencies in circulation; five regions maintained separate administrations; there were four languages of command in the Army; three legal codes; and two incompatible railway gauges. Poles who had lived all their lives in Russia, Prussia, or Austria had developed quite distinct habits, and could not adapt to each other overnight. The apocryphal story of the ex-Austrian officer who had to consult his French Army manual before telling his ex-Russian infantrymen how to load their ex-English ammunition into their ex-German rifles had more than a grain of reality.
     
  118. @Denis

    Doubtful. Unless Lviv remained a small city of 300,000 people. With urbanization local Ukrainians from neighboring villages moved in, a process that was similar to Prague becoming a Czech rather than a German city. The new city-dwellers were close to their ancestral communities, their cousins and grandparents. And the pre-war city had been about 18% Ukrainian so there was some continuity.
     
    Apparently, Lwow Voivodeship was majority Polish during the interwar period, with Ukrainians making up only a 3rd of the population. So, to adjust Dmitry's statement a little bit, it is likely that if it were not for the massacre of Poles by the nationalists, the deportations under Stalin, Hitler's massacres, and finally, the transfer of the eastern half of the province to the USSR and the accompanying population transfers, then not only the city, but the entire region would be mostly Polish (and Jewish) today.

    Also, Germans were violently removed from Czechia, so this doesn't really back up your point well, IMO.

    Apparently, Lwow Voivodeship was majority Polish during the interwar period

    That’s because the Polish government added a bunch of Polish lands to it (that are now part of Poland) that Ukrainians never claimed, in order to get that majority. Red line is the current border:

    Current Galicia in Ukraine was about 62% Ukrainian, 10% Jewish, the rest Poles. Lwow was a barely-Polish “island” surrounded by Ukrainian villages.

    So, to adjust Dmitry’s statement a little bit, it is likely that if it were not for the massacre of Poles by the nationalists, the deportations under Stalin, Hitler’s massacres, and finally, the transfer of the eastern half of the province to the USSR and the accompanying population transfers, then not only the city, but the entire region would be mostly Polish (and Jewish) today.

    No, see my previous comment.

    • Replies: @Not Raul
    What a fantastic map! Thanks for sharing it.

    Now I have a better appreciation for why Lwów ended up on the USSR side of the border.

    Was the demographic data from the 1931 Polish Census?

    , @Philip Owen
    Galicians turn up at Celtic music festivals claiming to be Celts. That is what the name of the area says.
    , @Denis

    That’s because the Polish government added a bunch of Polish lands to it (that are now part of Poland) that Ukrainians never claimed
     
    So what?

    No, see my previous comment.
     
    I don't see how you are challenging my statement, or Dmitry's.
  119. @Dmitry
    Adding this concept of "rooted" does not make the HIV discussion we were having before more plausible, but less plausible.

    Apart from the Russia,* the countries with the highest HIV rates in the world are mostly very "rooted" African countries, where people still catch the fish they will eat for dinner with a spear in the morning, and remember their ancestors' tribal dances.

    On the other hand, many of the least "rooted" populations like Australia (where populations have travelled to the wrong side of the world from their roots), have the lowest HIV rates in the world.

    Of course, inability to control disease epidemics is more common in countries with low levels of technological development, and low level of technological development also correlates with greater geographical and culturaly immobility (i.e. lower degrees of "rootlessness" in the population).


    -

    *Which perhaps is an exception, for the intentional and high incompetence of the authorities.

    Adding this concept of “rooted” does not make the HIV discussion we were having before more plausible, but less plausible.

    Apart from the Russia,* the countries with the highest HIV rates in the world are mostly very “rooted” African countries, where people still catch the fish they will eat for dinner with a spear in the morning, and remember their ancestors’ tribal dances.

    That’s because promiscuity is traditional for Africa, where it was customary for both females and males to have 3 or so regular sexual partners. This meant that a disease like HIV would spread rapidly.

    Interestingly, the Catholic Church condemned condoms but tried to impose traditional Western sexual practices on Africa. Their efforts were more successful in reducing HIV rates than were those of liberal post-Christian westerners who just distributed condoms.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2009/03/aids_expert_who_defended_the_p.html

    The pope was right about condoms, says Harvard HIV expert

    Of course, inability to control disease epidemics is more common in countries with low levels of technological development, and low level of technological development also correlates with greater geographical and culturaly immobility

    Your theory does not explain why rootless parts of countries like Donbas in Ukraine or former German western Poland have the highest HIV rates in those countries. You think it’s a coincidence that rootless ones are also heroin distribution network hubs?

  120. @AP
    They voted for NDP which is to the left of Trudeau’s party.

    The miners up in northern Canada know what they’re doing. Mining in such a remote area wouldn’t be economically viable without government-funded infrastructure, and it wouldn’t be medically viable without enforcement of safety regulations.

    It’s criminal what coal mining companies get away with in the USA. Too many miners die due to accidents, black lung, etc.

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
  121. @AP

    Apparently, Lwow Voivodeship was majority Polish during the interwar period
     
    That's because the Polish government added a bunch of Polish lands to it (that are now part of Poland) that Ukrainians never claimed, in order to get that majority. Red line is the current border:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/15/Lwowskie.png/1024px-Lwowskie.png

    Current Galicia in Ukraine was about 62% Ukrainian, 10% Jewish, the rest Poles. Lwow was a barely-Polish "island" surrounded by Ukrainian villages.

    So, to adjust Dmitry’s statement a little bit, it is likely that if it were not for the massacre of Poles by the nationalists, the deportations under Stalin, Hitler’s massacres, and finally, the transfer of the eastern half of the province to the USSR and the accompanying population transfers, then not only the city, but the entire region would be mostly Polish (and Jewish) today.
     
    No, see my previous comment.

    What a fantastic map! Thanks for sharing it.

    Now I have a better appreciation for why Lwów ended up on the USSR side of the border.

    Was the demographic data from the 1931 Polish Census?

    • Replies: @AP

    Was the demographic data from the 1931 Polish Census?

     

    I think so.
  122. @Not Raul
    What a fantastic map! Thanks for sharing it.

    Now I have a better appreciation for why Lwów ended up on the USSR side of the border.

    Was the demographic data from the 1931 Polish Census?

    Was the demographic data from the 1931 Polish Census?

    I think so.

  123. @Dmitry
    Reason for the superelevated HIVs regions, is opium routes.

    For example, Ekaterinburg (where it's this year around 2% of the total population has HIV, and far higher in the age 20-40 demographic), is part of route that opium travels on the way to other cities.

    Here you can see the dark colour in 66 for 2016.
    https://i.imgur.com/PAJVcqm.jpg

    Opium is coming via air, roads (primarily) and railway (via Kyrgyzstan), from Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.


    But the reason for the overall high levels of HIV and epidemic, is incompetence in the authorities.

    This is especially when you realize that Russia has many more years to prepare for this, compared to Western Europe (where the state capacity in healthcare was able to control the issue quite easily during the 1990s years).

    There are academic articles published in the 1990s, explaining how Russia needs to prepare to prevent an HIV epidemic.


    When you look at the number of cases in the 1990s, you can see how much time there was to prepare for the epidemic compared to Western European countries.

    https://i.imgur.com/T1xAeGm.jpg

    It appears that Castro dealt with AIDS better than Putin did.

    • Replies: @anonymous coward
    Don't know how much this affects the stats, but Russia has mandatory (pretty much) AIDS testing.
  124. @Anatoly Karlin

    Also, what motivated hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian and Belarusian Jews to settle in Russia between 1917 and June 1941?
     
    The capital and everything associated with that and they were hiring - and giving Jews preferential access relative to similarly or more qualified Russians (as many of those had belonged to so-called "exploiter" classes).

    This is similar to what happened in pre-partition Poland. Magnates trusted Jews more than native peasants.

  125. @Anatoly Karlin

    Attacking white English fans just there to watch the match and shouting racist chants in the stadium for the sake of it plays right into the hands of the multiculturalists and makes Bulgarians just look like a bunch of moronic thugs.
     
    The weak should fear the strong.

    https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/232/794/6a8.jpg

    Sam Hyde . . . but probably not at a soccer game.

  126. @Anatoly Karlin

    Also, what motivated hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian and Belarusian Jews to settle in Russia between 1917 and June 1941?
     
    The capital and everything associated with that and they were hiring - and giving Jews preferential access relative to similarly or more qualified Russians (as many of those had belonged to so-called "exploiter" classes).

    The capital and everything associated with that and they were hiring

    I thought that capital didn’t matter very much in a Communist country?

    Also, as a side note, why wasn’t Jewish capital attractive enough to the Russian Tsars for them to allow large-scale Jewish migration out of the Pale of Settlement? Did they hope to keep Jews out of Russia’s eastern territories so that they wouldn’t compete with the non-Jewish businessmen there? In other words, a form of affirmative action for non-Jews–just like with the Jewish quotas during Tsarist rule.

    – and giving Jews preferential access relative to similarly or more qualified Russians (as many of those had belonged to so-called “exploiter” classes).

    That actually makes sense. Also, as a side note, I wonder just how much larger the Jewish population in Russia proper would have eventually become if it wasn’t for the Holocaust wiping out most of the Pale of Settlement’s Jewish population. In real life, it peaked at slightly over 900,000 in 1959 if one includes Crimea as part of Russia (and at about 891,000 without Crimea).

    BTW, one of the most deeply regretful things about the Soviet Union is that it didn’t deport the entire Jewish population west of Moscow en masse further east in the months and year before Operation Barbarossa. About 1.0-1.5 million Soviet Jews did, in fact, manage to evacuate further eastward in 1941 but something like 2.5-2.7 million Soviet Jews stayed behind and thus perished under Nazi rule and the resulting Holocaust. Stalin really, really should have deported the entirety of the Jewish population of the former Pale of Settlement deep into the interior of the Soviet Union before Operation Barbarossa. That way, much more of them would have survived the Holocaust and World War II.

    • Replies: @Not Raul
    So, Stalin didn't deport enough Jews to Siberia.

    Try explaining that to the boomers on Facebook.

    , @Anatoly Karlin
    I was referring to Moscow's status as the capital city.
    , @reiner Tor

    BTW, one of the most deeply regretful things about the Soviet Union is that it didn’t deport the entire Jewish population west of Moscow en masse further east in the months and year before Operation Barbarossa. About 1.0-1.5 million Soviet Jews did, in fact, manage to evacuate further eastward in 1941 but something like 2.5-2.7 million Soviet Jews stayed behind and thus perished under Nazi rule and the resulting Holocaust. Stalin really, really should have deported the entirety of the Jewish population of the former Pale of Settlement deep into the interior of the Soviet Union before Operation Barbarossa. That way, much more of them would have survived the Holocaust and World War II.
     
    So Stalin’s main goal should have been to save Jews, regardless of anything else, and he should have been a clairvoyant to be able to deport Jews before Barbarossa (and the Holocaust) even got started, to save them from these events (which were then still in the future).

    Then at least Jews would be able to claim further victim status for themselves, because they’d have gotten violently mass deported by Stalin, right before the Holocaust.

    By the way, since the death rates of Slavs in those regions were also exceptionally high, shouldn’t he have deported all Slavs as well? After all, if he already were in the business of saving lives through the combined employment of clairvoyance and brutal mass deportations...
    , @Thorfinnsson
    The only sensible conclusion one can draw from your post is that Stalin's greatest mistake was not to relocate all Soviet Jews to the German-Soviet border on June 21st, 1941.
  127. @Anatoly Karlin
    They are culled from different sources, I am not aware of a unified one. That is indeed correct, the thirty years between 1917 and 1947 cut the population of the East Slavic states by half of what they "should have" been.

    What about Kazakhstan? According to Wikipedia, there were less Kazakhs in 1959 than there were in 1897–though this was compensated by large numbers of Slavic immigration into Kazakhstan between 1897 and 1959:

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

    Do you have population data for Kazakhstan in 1913-1914 and in 1945-1946?

    Also, if it makes you feel any better, it’s worth noting that, percentage-wise, the Jews in the post-WWII territory of the former USSR suffered much more heavily between 1914 and 1945 than Eastern Slavs did. At least Eastern Slavs were able to keep their numbers steady whereas the number of Jews in the post-WWII territory of the former USSR probably fell by around half between 1914 and 1945. (If one uses 1938 Soviet territory, then the drop was more along the lines of 30%, but please remember that the Soviet Union expanded a lot in 1939-1940 and thus got a lot of additional Jews.)

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Not for those dates, no. I notice from Wikipedia that whereas the closely related Kyrgyz increased by a factor of 7x between 1926 and 2018/19, the Kazakhs only increased by a factor of 3.5x. This suggests that they too lost around half of their "potential" future population.

    They had much more per capita famine deaths, but they were not as advanced in their demographic transition as were Russians/Ukrainians during 1917-47 - the period when population growth was otherwise supposed to have maxed out - so the two effects must have canceled each other out.
  128. @Mr. XYZ

    The capital and everything associated with that and they were hiring
     
    I thought that capital didn't matter very much in a Communist country?

    Also, as a side note, why wasn't Jewish capital attractive enough to the Russian Tsars for them to allow large-scale Jewish migration out of the Pale of Settlement? Did they hope to keep Jews out of Russia's eastern territories so that they wouldn't compete with the non-Jewish businessmen there? In other words, a form of affirmative action for non-Jews--just like with the Jewish quotas during Tsarist rule.

    – and giving Jews preferential access relative to similarly or more qualified Russians (as many of those had belonged to so-called “exploiter” classes).
     
    That actually makes sense. Also, as a side note, I wonder just how much larger the Jewish population in Russia proper would have eventually become if it wasn't for the Holocaust wiping out most of the Pale of Settlement's Jewish population. In real life, it peaked at slightly over 900,000 in 1959 if one includes Crimea as part of Russia (and at about 891,000 without Crimea).

    BTW, one of the most deeply regretful things about the Soviet Union is that it didn't deport the entire Jewish population west of Moscow en masse further east in the months and year before Operation Barbarossa. About 1.0-1.5 million Soviet Jews did, in fact, manage to evacuate further eastward in 1941 but something like 2.5-2.7 million Soviet Jews stayed behind and thus perished under Nazi rule and the resulting Holocaust. Stalin really, really should have deported the entirety of the Jewish population of the former Pale of Settlement deep into the interior of the Soviet Union before Operation Barbarossa. That way, much more of them would have survived the Holocaust and World War II.

    So, Stalin didn’t deport enough Jews to Siberia.

    Try explaining that to the boomers on Facebook.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    Well, ironically, 1940-1941 was the time where deporting Jews to the interior of the Soviet Union en masse would have been really, really beneficial for them. What exactly is hard to get about the idea of saving a lot more Soviet Jewish lives?
  129. @Europe Nationalist
    White Australians certainly are rootless these days. In my experience most have no sense of English identity and would regard it as an insult to be referred to as "English". They are solely "Australian" which to them is something very different to being English.

    As for crime rate I'm not sure exactly how it compares to England although I know that there is quite a large criminal biker gang problem in Australia and they fight over the drug trade, etc. From what I've seen of Australian news in general there seems to be quite a lot of violence there. Obviously the crime figures are confused by high levels of non-white immigration in both places although if it were possible to statistically work out I suspect that white Australians are more violent than native English people, possibly significantly more so.

    Australia has a large Irish Catholic population.

  130. @Not Raul
    It appears that Castro dealt with AIDS better than Putin did.

    Don’t know how much this affects the stats, but Russia has mandatory (pretty much) AIDS testing.

    • Replies: @joni
    I would be suspicious of all data about new cases in every former Soviet country except for Russia. None of them have a comprehensive testing regime. Russia is often the dumping ground for all FSU people with social problems, whether it be Georgian mobsters or Ukrainian orphans because there are far less opportunities in their home countries.
    , @Korenchkin
    Can confirm, foreign students have to provide copies of medical tests to prove they don't have HIV (specifically mentioned)
  131. Also, as a side note, why wasn’t Jewish capital attractive enough to the Russian Tsars for them to allow large-scale Jewish migration out of the Pale of Settlement? Did they hope to keep Jews out of Russia’s eastern territories so that they wouldn’t compete with the non-Jewish businessmen there? In other words, a form of affirmative action for non-Jews–just like with the Jewish quotas during Tsarist rule.

    Because, as even Jewish sources tacitly acknowledge, they were not renowned for being very good guests.

    https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/arenda-jewish-virtual-library

    https://yivoencyclopedia.org/article.aspx/Crime_and_Criminals

    https://kehilalinks.jewishgen.org/Kolomea/arenda.htm

  132. @Europe Nationalist
    White Australians certainly are rootless these days. In my experience most have no sense of English identity and would regard it as an insult to be referred to as "English". They are solely "Australian" which to them is something very different to being English.

    As for crime rate I'm not sure exactly how it compares to England although I know that there is quite a large criminal biker gang problem in Australia and they fight over the drug trade, etc. From what I've seen of Australian news in general there seems to be quite a lot of violence there. Obviously the crime figures are confused by high levels of non-white immigration in both places although if it were possible to statistically work out I suspect that white Australians are more violent than native English people, possibly significantly more so.

    At the World Cup in Russia Australian fans were following England as well as Australia. Australia and Britain have very close ties, something I find others don’t understand, all nourished by a healthy rivalry in sports and a great deal of travel and marriage between the two. Of course Australians have an Australian identity, why would they have anything else?

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    That said there is a noticeable difference between NZ and Aus, Oz being a former convict colony and New Zealand where the colonists were more carefully selected.
    , @Matra
    Australia and Britain have very close ties, something I find others don’t understand, all nourished by a healthy rivalry in sports and a great deal of travel and marriage between the two.

    Pop culture too. Australian TV shows like Home and Away and Neighbours always got three to four times as many viewers as the most popular American/Hollywood shows like Friends. I don't know what it is like now, though I doubt it's changed, but in the 1980s the typical Antipodean had far more knowledge of British (and Irish) society than even well-travelled North Americans.
  133. @LondonBob
    At the World Cup in Russia Australian fans were following England as well as Australia. Australia and Britain have very close ties, something I find others don't understand, all nourished by a healthy rivalry in sports and a great deal of travel and marriage between the two. Of course Australians have an Australian identity, why would they have anything else?

    That said there is a noticeable difference between NZ and Aus, Oz being a former convict colony and New Zealand where the colonists were more carefully selected.

  134. @Lars Porsena
    The south being democrat is largely an artifact of civil war history which predates the early 20th century union-man leftism I'm talking about. There is a hell of a lot of inertia in these things, as some parts of the south are still voting democrat as they historically always have been, but that is almost completely gone now and the (white) south has flipped republican. But that's a process that only totally completed within the last 10-20 years despite being probably at least 50-100 years out of date.

    But back then, the democrats were actually the conservative party on most issues. The agrarian south I do not think you can really describe as being actually leftist on anything. They were the social conservatives with regard to slavery and southern aristocracy. The political positions of the parties have changed and are still changing. The Old Left turn of the Democrat party was early 20th century, FDR style progressivism.

    But that populistic, economically left FDR program was what started making the north Democrat and the south Republican, prior to the civil rights movement accelerating it.

    But there has always been a clear economic policy divide between the industrial north and agrarian south (and one that goes back to before the Civil War). The northern industrial cities pioneered US trade unionism whereas the southern states all repressed unionism. The northern states favored trade protections and socialism while the southern states favored free trade and meritocracy (and aristocracy).

    Same thing in the UK. Northern England was it's industrial heartland and the industrial workers in the north were the foundation of the old Labor party and the trade unions, not the southern agricultural and service workers which have long been more Tory.

    In the US, it was states like Wisconsin, Michigan and Minnesota pioneering the old socialist trade movements.

    I have seen no conclusive proof to show that northern working class voters in the US were particularly liberal on either social or especially economic issues.
     
    I'm not suggesting they were, unless you consider trade protectionism and (early 20th century) unionization liberal. Trumpian, sure. You could look at it as being more left wing or more traditionally mercantilist. Or Populist. Not really liberal. Laissez-faire Capitalism is pretty economically liberal in the historical sense of the term and is what the oligarchs wanted.

    Obviously both sides were reactionary racist homophobic hatemongers compared to the New Left, but the New Left didn't even exist back then. The country didn't have our cultural marxist social-issue split, none of them wanted gay marriage or to tear down the patriarchy.

    Northern industrialists were not representative of the working-class base that they exploited.
     
    That's it. Northern industrialists had a harder time of it because in the north the working classes were organized along union class-warfare lines, as they saw it, to stand up for the working man against the capitalist fatcat oligarchs. It wasn't the capitalist class that built the northern socialist and protectionist leaning trade movements it was the industrial workers. The aspect of northern economies wasn't being driven by the elite.

    Back when the south was Democrat, the Democrats were free trade (which is liberalish) and the Republican party was the party of trade protections and free government gibs, including free land and government development of industry with subsidies (which was left-ish). And the Republicans were the progressive party while the Democrats were conservative. Republicans are a literal outgrowth of the Whig party which is the full blown progressive liberal party of it's day. Democrats were the common man's (populist) party of Jefferson and Jackson that wanted to kill all the bankers along with the indians.

    It doesn't line up neatly exactly, but before the 20th century and FDR, the south and the democrats were more economically liberal and I guess socially (for the social issues of the day) conservative. And the north and the republicans were more economically leftist and socially liberal.

    The industrialists oligarchs of the north mainly wanted the same thing the aristocrats of the south wanted - cheap labor immigration, lack of regulations and labor protections, lack of unions etc. But the north (in the US and UK) was more old school Labor (which is kind of Marxian) in it's politics.

    Mind you that was then and not now. 50 years or less on from FDR the unions were incredibly corrupt and in bed with the oligarchs in the north (as well as the Italian mob). The south never had unions. Same in the UK, by the 1980's even northerners were voting for Thatcher to reign in the out of control unions who were greatly exacerbating the economic decline of the industrial north which was already beginning. Nowadays in the US even the northern states like Wisconsin are going Right to Work (anti-union) which the south always was. Unionism is not the same thing anymore, the biggest unions around now are the government employee and service unions. Most of the working class tradesmen have long since abandoned their own trade unions.

    The political divide is all explained in Albion’s Seed. It is a bit confusing as the two parties swapped regions in the sixties. Also the old Puritan areas strongly opposed FDR and the Republicans were the restrictionists in the twenties.

    Simple explanations have some basis but populations have changed much due to immigration.

  135. @Mr. XYZ

    The capital and everything associated with that and they were hiring
     
    I thought that capital didn't matter very much in a Communist country?

    Also, as a side note, why wasn't Jewish capital attractive enough to the Russian Tsars for them to allow large-scale Jewish migration out of the Pale of Settlement? Did they hope to keep Jews out of Russia's eastern territories so that they wouldn't compete with the non-Jewish businessmen there? In other words, a form of affirmative action for non-Jews--just like with the Jewish quotas during Tsarist rule.

    – and giving Jews preferential access relative to similarly or more qualified Russians (as many of those had belonged to so-called “exploiter” classes).
     
    That actually makes sense. Also, as a side note, I wonder just how much larger the Jewish population in Russia proper would have eventually become if it wasn't for the Holocaust wiping out most of the Pale of Settlement's Jewish population. In real life, it peaked at slightly over 900,000 in 1959 if one includes Crimea as part of Russia (and at about 891,000 without Crimea).

    BTW, one of the most deeply regretful things about the Soviet Union is that it didn't deport the entire Jewish population west of Moscow en masse further east in the months and year before Operation Barbarossa. About 1.0-1.5 million Soviet Jews did, in fact, manage to evacuate further eastward in 1941 but something like 2.5-2.7 million Soviet Jews stayed behind and thus perished under Nazi rule and the resulting Holocaust. Stalin really, really should have deported the entirety of the Jewish population of the former Pale of Settlement deep into the interior of the Soviet Union before Operation Barbarossa. That way, much more of them would have survived the Holocaust and World War II.

    I was referring to Moscow’s status as the capital city.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    Oh. Well, what about St. Pete's and the smaller cities and towns in Russia? (The smaller cities and towns each didn't have a lot of Jews in 1939 and 1959, but combined they might have had a couple hundred thousand Jews or maybe even a little more than that.) Moscow and St. Pete's, on the other hand, each had a lot of Jews in 1939 and 1959.
  136. @Mr. XYZ
    What about Kazakhstan? According to Wikipedia, there were less Kazakhs in 1959 than there were in 1897--though this was compensated by large numbers of Slavic immigration into Kazakhstan between 1897 and 1959:

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

    Do you have population data for Kazakhstan in 1913-1914 and in 1945-1946?

    Also, if it makes you feel any better, it's worth noting that, percentage-wise, the Jews in the post-WWII territory of the former USSR suffered much more heavily between 1914 and 1945 than Eastern Slavs did. At least Eastern Slavs were able to keep their numbers steady whereas the number of Jews in the post-WWII territory of the former USSR probably fell by around half between 1914 and 1945. (If one uses 1938 Soviet territory, then the drop was more along the lines of 30%, but please remember that the Soviet Union expanded a lot in 1939-1940 and thus got a lot of additional Jews.)

    Not for those dates, no. I notice from Wikipedia that whereas the closely related Kyrgyz increased by a factor of 7x between 1926 and 2018/19, the Kazakhs only increased by a factor of 3.5x. This suggests that they too lost around half of their “potential” future population.

    They had much more per capita famine deaths, but they were not as advanced in their demographic transition as were Russians/Ukrainians during 1917-47 – the period when population growth was otherwise supposed to have maxed out – so the two effects must have canceled each other out.

  137. OT, but interesting.
    https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/greta-thunberg-putin-puppet-german-politician-demands-answers

    This is coming from an AFD politician, which shows how hopeless Germany is. The AFD is supposedly “far right”, yet you have stupid ideas like this coming from them (saying Thunberg is a Putin puppet). Is being a cucked out neocon now considered far right?

    • Replies: @Hyperborean

    This is coming from an AFD politician, which shows how hopeless Germany is. The AFD is supposedly “far right”, yet you have stupid ideas like this coming from them (saying Thunberg is a Putin puppet). Is being a cucked out neocon now considered far right?
     
    It is clearly an attempt at mockery of the rhetoric of "democratic" politicians and Thunberg, even RT noticed this.
    , @Thulean Friend
    Saying moronic things on her, or climate change generally, would make him fit right in with the general commentariat at this blog. Every the topic comes up, the collective IQ drops 50 points and most commenters become barely distinguishable from a typical Foxnews.com commenter. This is a very specific right-wing disease.
  138. @neutral
    OT, but interesting.
    https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/greta-thunberg-putin-puppet-german-politician-demands-answers

    This is coming from an AFD politician, which shows how hopeless Germany is. The AFD is supposedly "far right", yet you have stupid ideas like this coming from them (saying Thunberg is a Putin puppet). Is being a cucked out neocon now considered far right?

    This is coming from an AFD politician, which shows how hopeless Germany is. The AFD is supposedly “far right”, yet you have stupid ideas like this coming from them (saying Thunberg is a Putin puppet). Is being a cucked out neocon now considered far right?

    It is clearly an attempt at mockery of the rhetoric of “democratic” politicians and Thunberg, even RT noticed this.

  139. @Lars Porsena
    The south being democrat is largely an artifact of civil war history which predates the early 20th century union-man leftism I'm talking about. There is a hell of a lot of inertia in these things, as some parts of the south are still voting democrat as they historically always have been, but that is almost completely gone now and the (white) south has flipped republican. But that's a process that only totally completed within the last 10-20 years despite being probably at least 50-100 years out of date.

    But back then, the democrats were actually the conservative party on most issues. The agrarian south I do not think you can really describe as being actually leftist on anything. They were the social conservatives with regard to slavery and southern aristocracy. The political positions of the parties have changed and are still changing. The Old Left turn of the Democrat party was early 20th century, FDR style progressivism.

    But that populistic, economically left FDR program was what started making the north Democrat and the south Republican, prior to the civil rights movement accelerating it.

    But there has always been a clear economic policy divide between the industrial north and agrarian south (and one that goes back to before the Civil War). The northern industrial cities pioneered US trade unionism whereas the southern states all repressed unionism. The northern states favored trade protections and socialism while the southern states favored free trade and meritocracy (and aristocracy).

    Same thing in the UK. Northern England was it's industrial heartland and the industrial workers in the north were the foundation of the old Labor party and the trade unions, not the southern agricultural and service workers which have long been more Tory.

    In the US, it was states like Wisconsin, Michigan and Minnesota pioneering the old socialist trade movements.

    I have seen no conclusive proof to show that northern working class voters in the US were particularly liberal on either social or especially economic issues.
     
    I'm not suggesting they were, unless you consider trade protectionism and (early 20th century) unionization liberal. Trumpian, sure. You could look at it as being more left wing or more traditionally mercantilist. Or Populist. Not really liberal. Laissez-faire Capitalism is pretty economically liberal in the historical sense of the term and is what the oligarchs wanted.

    Obviously both sides were reactionary racist homophobic hatemongers compared to the New Left, but the New Left didn't even exist back then. The country didn't have our cultural marxist social-issue split, none of them wanted gay marriage or to tear down the patriarchy.

    Northern industrialists were not representative of the working-class base that they exploited.
     
    That's it. Northern industrialists had a harder time of it because in the north the working classes were organized along union class-warfare lines, as they saw it, to stand up for the working man against the capitalist fatcat oligarchs. It wasn't the capitalist class that built the northern socialist and protectionist leaning trade movements it was the industrial workers. The aspect of northern economies wasn't being driven by the elite.

    Back when the south was Democrat, the Democrats were free trade (which is liberalish) and the Republican party was the party of trade protections and free government gibs, including free land and government development of industry with subsidies (which was left-ish). And the Republicans were the progressive party while the Democrats were conservative. Republicans are a literal outgrowth of the Whig party which is the full blown progressive liberal party of it's day. Democrats were the common man's (populist) party of Jefferson and Jackson that wanted to kill all the bankers along with the indians.

    It doesn't line up neatly exactly, but before the 20th century and FDR, the south and the democrats were more economically liberal and I guess socially (for the social issues of the day) conservative. And the north and the republicans were more economically leftist and socially liberal.

    The industrialists oligarchs of the north mainly wanted the same thing the aristocrats of the south wanted - cheap labor immigration, lack of regulations and labor protections, lack of unions etc. But the north (in the US and UK) was more old school Labor (which is kind of Marxian) in it's politics.

    Mind you that was then and not now. 50 years or less on from FDR the unions were incredibly corrupt and in bed with the oligarchs in the north (as well as the Italian mob). The south never had unions. Same in the UK, by the 1980's even northerners were voting for Thatcher to reign in the out of control unions who were greatly exacerbating the economic decline of the industrial north which was already beginning. Nowadays in the US even the northern states like Wisconsin are going Right to Work (anti-union) which the south always was. Unionism is not the same thing anymore, the biggest unions around now are the government employee and service unions. Most of the working class tradesmen have long since abandoned their own trade unions.

    The South was actually quite supportive of FDR’s domestic interventionist policies, many of which were targeted to fix the backwardness of that region. The strongest ideological opposition to the New Deal and other such policies actually came from New Englanders(as LondonBob points out). The South’s turn away from the Democrats nationally shows itself with the LBJ election later, largely due to its integrationist policies.

    The South was also most supportive of FDR getting the U.S. into World War II, while isolationist sentiments were stronger elsewhere, including New England. This pattern continues to this day, southerners tend to support any war U.S. presidents blunder into.

    • Replies: @Lars Porsena

    This pattern continues to this day, southerners tend to support any war U.S. presidents blunder into.
     
    Well, they are the ones getting paid for it. It's mainly them in the military.

    It also fits with their aristocratic cavalier background.
  140. @anonymous coward
    Don't know how much this affects the stats, but Russia has mandatory (pretty much) AIDS testing.

    I would be suspicious of all data about new cases in every former Soviet country except for Russia. None of them have a comprehensive testing regime. Russia is often the dumping ground for all FSU people with social problems, whether it be Georgian mobsters or Ukrainian orphans because there are far less opportunities in their home countries.

  141. @Dmitry

    most of eastern Europe is significantly less HIV
     
    In the WHO division of Europe - Central Europe and Scandinavia has the lowest HIV diagnosis, followed by Western Europe. While the highest rates, are Eastern Europe (which is East from Poland for them).
    https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/portal/files/documents/hiv-aids-surveillance-in-europe-2018.pdf

    they are also a symptom of the great increase in drug use and prostitution that the healthcare system (and legal system) would normally have addressed.
     
    It is true that Russia has far more of a culture of prostitution, in comparison to some Western European countries like UK, France or Scandinavia.

    But the culture of prostitution in Russia is not higher than in Spain, Netherlands, Germany. Yet countries like Netherlands has one of the lowest HIV rates in the world.

    So we need to look elsewhere (prostitution is not a very important vector for HIV transmission).


    a perfect recipe for a spike in social dysfunction and the resulting negative outcomes, yet it’s rates of HIV are substantially lower than those of Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus.
     
    Yes, as HIV rates (like any disease epidemic) does not crudely measure or correlate to concepts like "social dysfunction".

    In Russia, HIV rate can also be paradoxically an indicator of more economically successful regions.

    One of reasons Ekaterinburg is the centre of HIV in Russia, is because it has a resilient economy - which means that there were always large profits for drug dealers and the opium route views the city as very important, even during recessions.

    In more economically "shithole cities" in Russia, HIV rates can often be significantly lower than Ekaterinburg (as would be profits for drug dealers).

    Something similar could also possibly explain a situation in Ukraine, where Donetsk apparently had the highest rate of HIV. Donetsk was one of the most economically successful regions of Ukraine (e.g. second richest city in Ukraine, second most innovative region).

    In Russia, HIV rate can also be paradoxically an indicator of more economically successful regions.

    homosexuals from small towns move to the cities (local or national) – especially cities with a lot of media / entertainment jobs

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    Then the HIV would be in Moscow.

    But the main incubating population of HIV in Russia, were people injecting heroin.
  142. @Europe Nationalist
    Bulgarians don't do themselves any favours with this sort of thing. Attacking white English fans just there to watch the match and shouting racist chants in the stadium for the sake of it plays right into the hands of the multiculturalists and makes Bulgarians just look like a bunch of moronic thugs.

    You talk as if you are proud that Bulgarian thugs attacked English fans, most of whom are not hooligans. All Bulgaria has done is made itself look really nasty and stupid.

    >British
    >White

  143. @anonymous coward
    Don't know how much this affects the stats, but Russia has mandatory (pretty much) AIDS testing.

    Can confirm, foreign students have to provide copies of medical tests to prove they don’t have HIV (specifically mentioned)

  144. @LondonBob
    At the World Cup in Russia Australian fans were following England as well as Australia. Australia and Britain have very close ties, something I find others don't understand, all nourished by a healthy rivalry in sports and a great deal of travel and marriage between the two. Of course Australians have an Australian identity, why would they have anything else?

    Australia and Britain have very close ties, something I find others don’t understand, all nourished by a healthy rivalry in sports and a great deal of travel and marriage between the two.

    Pop culture too. Australian TV shows like Home and Away and Neighbours always got three to four times as many viewers as the most popular American/Hollywood shows like Friends. I don’t know what it is like now, though I doubt it’s changed, but in the 1980s the typical Antipodean had far more knowledge of British (and Irish) society than even well-travelled North Americans.

  145. @neutral
    OT, but interesting.
    https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/greta-thunberg-putin-puppet-german-politician-demands-answers

    This is coming from an AFD politician, which shows how hopeless Germany is. The AFD is supposedly "far right", yet you have stupid ideas like this coming from them (saying Thunberg is a Putin puppet). Is being a cucked out neocon now considered far right?

    Saying moronic things on her, or climate change generally, would make him fit right in with the general commentariat at this blog. Every the topic comes up, the collective IQ drops 50 points and most commenters become barely distinguishable from a typical Foxnews.com commenter. This is a very specific right-wing disease.

    • Replies: @Pericles

    Saying moronic things on her, or climate change generally, would make him fit right in with the general commentariat at this blog.

     

    I'm sorry were we supposed to take the Thunberg farce seriously? Or the ever-failing doomsday predictions of climate change? Or that we must not build out nuclear plants but instead rely on windmills and solar panels? Or that we should, no must, accept vast numbers of immigrants from low-CO2 countries? etc, etc. Most sincere apologies if this was the case.

    It is, however, somewhat interesting that Sweden seems to have fully entered climate hysteria mode at the time of writing, in spite of all the failures and contradictions. Just repeat it enough on TV and it becomes true. Perhaps this manic phase will burn itself out in a couple of years.

    It really reminds me a bit of millennialist cults after the Savior failed to appear.
  146. @Lars Porsena
    The south being democrat is largely an artifact of civil war history which predates the early 20th century union-man leftism I'm talking about. There is a hell of a lot of inertia in these things, as some parts of the south are still voting democrat as they historically always have been, but that is almost completely gone now and the (white) south has flipped republican. But that's a process that only totally completed within the last 10-20 years despite being probably at least 50-100 years out of date.

    But back then, the democrats were actually the conservative party on most issues. The agrarian south I do not think you can really describe as being actually leftist on anything. They were the social conservatives with regard to slavery and southern aristocracy. The political positions of the parties have changed and are still changing. The Old Left turn of the Democrat party was early 20th century, FDR style progressivism.

    But that populistic, economically left FDR program was what started making the north Democrat and the south Republican, prior to the civil rights movement accelerating it.

    But there has always been a clear economic policy divide between the industrial north and agrarian south (and one that goes back to before the Civil War). The northern industrial cities pioneered US trade unionism whereas the southern states all repressed unionism. The northern states favored trade protections and socialism while the southern states favored free trade and meritocracy (and aristocracy).

    Same thing in the UK. Northern England was it's industrial heartland and the industrial workers in the north were the foundation of the old Labor party and the trade unions, not the southern agricultural and service workers which have long been more Tory.

    In the US, it was states like Wisconsin, Michigan and Minnesota pioneering the old socialist trade movements.

    I have seen no conclusive proof to show that northern working class voters in the US were particularly liberal on either social or especially economic issues.
     
    I'm not suggesting they were, unless you consider trade protectionism and (early 20th century) unionization liberal. Trumpian, sure. You could look at it as being more left wing or more traditionally mercantilist. Or Populist. Not really liberal. Laissez-faire Capitalism is pretty economically liberal in the historical sense of the term and is what the oligarchs wanted.

    Obviously both sides were reactionary racist homophobic hatemongers compared to the New Left, but the New Left didn't even exist back then. The country didn't have our cultural marxist social-issue split, none of them wanted gay marriage or to tear down the patriarchy.

    Northern industrialists were not representative of the working-class base that they exploited.
     
    That's it. Northern industrialists had a harder time of it because in the north the working classes were organized along union class-warfare lines, as they saw it, to stand up for the working man against the capitalist fatcat oligarchs. It wasn't the capitalist class that built the northern socialist and protectionist leaning trade movements it was the industrial workers. The aspect of northern economies wasn't being driven by the elite.

    Back when the south was Democrat, the Democrats were free trade (which is liberalish) and the Republican party was the party of trade protections and free government gibs, including free land and government development of industry with subsidies (which was left-ish). And the Republicans were the progressive party while the Democrats were conservative. Republicans are a literal outgrowth of the Whig party which is the full blown progressive liberal party of it's day. Democrats were the common man's (populist) party of Jefferson and Jackson that wanted to kill all the bankers along with the indians.

    It doesn't line up neatly exactly, but before the 20th century and FDR, the south and the democrats were more economically liberal and I guess socially (for the social issues of the day) conservative. And the north and the republicans were more economically leftist and socially liberal.

    The industrialists oligarchs of the north mainly wanted the same thing the aristocrats of the south wanted - cheap labor immigration, lack of regulations and labor protections, lack of unions etc. But the north (in the US and UK) was more old school Labor (which is kind of Marxian) in it's politics.

    Mind you that was then and not now. 50 years or less on from FDR the unions were incredibly corrupt and in bed with the oligarchs in the north (as well as the Italian mob). The south never had unions. Same in the UK, by the 1980's even northerners were voting for Thatcher to reign in the out of control unions who were greatly exacerbating the economic decline of the industrial north which was already beginning. Nowadays in the US even the northern states like Wisconsin are going Right to Work (anti-union) which the south always was. Unionism is not the same thing anymore, the biggest unions around now are the government employee and service unions. Most of the working class tradesmen have long since abandoned their own trade unions.

    But back then, the democrats were actually the conservative party on most issues

    Yes – except on economics, which was my point. The rural southern agrarians were voting for an economically leftist party compared to the GOP (which has always been the party of big business).

    Hence the “farmer = conservative” stereotype is untrue from an economic PoV. You’re correct about the focus on social issues also. That was also my complimentary challenge: prove to me that Northern white working class voters were liberals during this epoch on social issues. I doubt it. The liberal attitudes we associate with the North was mostly a product of a small elite of the New England industrialised class and its coterie of liberal thinkers. Northern proles did what they were told in their factories and elsewhere, but I doubt they shared the ideological proclivities to any great extent and much more likely had far more in common with rural southern whites in social views.

    Bringing this to Sweden, there is no reason to think that woodworkers in the North are any different in their conservatism on social issues from rural people in the South. The main difference was simply a combination of proximity to diversity as well as much lower density in the north, which necessitates a far greater role of public investments. But this shouldn’t be seen that these voters are ideological leftists. They vote left-wing for pragmatic economic reasons.

    But as Swedish Family pointed out, even this is slowly changing with only Stockholm as the sole outlier left in Sweden, where the local and international elite congregate and where the riff-raff get purged. I read an amusing story the other day in a local Stockholm paper of Solna kommun sending their welfare recipients to rural counties. Most of them are asylum seekers. This is how it is done, under the radar and with the mask of progressivism.

    • Replies: @iffen
    sending their welfare recipients to rural counties

    In the US, the Southern states kept (keep) the welfare benefits low or non-existent which encouraged(s) emigration by the welfare dependent.
    , @Lars Porsena
    Because historical politics doesn't line up exactly neatly with modern politics it is kind of difficult to pin modern political labels and have them fit with historical groups. But I have a hard time seeing the south as economically left.

    Left and liberal are not the same thing, though I have a hard time seeing the south as liberal too. As I mentioned, they were economic free traders and at-will-employers.

    Now, in modern terms of 'liberal', none of that sounds liberal. But it is a type of the original liberal, which is basically a neoliberal. Neoliberals are called neo because people are use to democrats calling themselves liberal while advocating policies left-socialist to communist.

    In classical terms, the liberal position on taxes is there shouldn't be any, the liberal position on gun laws is there shouldn't be any - although that's not an economic issue so an economic liberal wouldn't necessarily think that (ie many of the current neoliberals).

    But in the US practically the entire country was (and still heavily is) liberal. In the context of the US I don't think the south was that liberal really. Outside of Canada the southern aristocracy is basically the closest thing the US had to the old, ancient regime right. And that's where the slavery comes from, they were basically practicing serfdom but with blacks. It's very easy to imagine some of their ancestors doing basically the exact same thing centuries earlier but back in Europe with European serfs.

    And anyway, as I think you mentioned in a comment above, that southern style of liberal economics has basically become how we define the 'right wing' of economics in the US in modern American terms.

    I'm not seeing how the south was left wing at all, or even all that liberal compared to the north. I mean, you can make the argument that on american terms the south was liberal economically but that's practically libertarian economics, and meanwhile the north was liberal to socialist left.

    Something like slavery may count as a social issue of the day, but as a cultural thing it effects economic issues. The north was more egalitarian. The south more explicitly hierarchical. There is a big difference in employment laws probably stemming from that difference in cultures.

    That being said this has blown up a bit, the overall classification of their politics is not really the point, nor their cultural differences, but the different economics of industrialists vs traditional (non industrial) agriculturalists. And even that was just about those Swedish woodcutters who, when you call them woodcutters, don't sound industrial either.

    I basically agree with you that it's most likely for pragmatic economic reasons, not modern ideological leftism (I don't know though, I'm just guessing since I don't know them).

    That's basically what I'm saying about the working class in the industrial north US being a Trumpian type of left wing. I'm not talking about SJWs, I mean like machinists and truck drivers and miners. They vote left wing out of pragmatic economic reasons, but their reasons are a political cycle out of date. For pragmatic economic reasons they are voting for a party that wants to destroy them. Demographically speaking I think they are already realigning but they are currently in anachronistic alignment.

    In the south, like I was saying as recently as the last 10 years there were still voters who were voting democrat out of the cycle before that, 2 cycles out of alignment. So we might expect the last of these northern populations to catch up to the current political cycle sometime 10-20 years into the next one.
  147. @Thulean Friend

    But back then, the democrats were actually the conservative party on most issues
     
    Yes - except on economics, which was my point. The rural southern agrarians were voting for an economically leftist party compared to the GOP (which has always been the party of big business).

    Hence the "farmer = conservative" stereotype is untrue from an economic PoV. You're correct about the focus on social issues also. That was also my complimentary challenge: prove to me that Northern white working class voters were liberals during this epoch on social issues. I doubt it. The liberal attitudes we associate with the North was mostly a product of a small elite of the New England industrialised class and its coterie of liberal thinkers. Northern proles did what they were told in their factories and elsewhere, but I doubt they shared the ideological proclivities to any great extent and much more likely had far more in common with rural southern whites in social views.

    Bringing this to Sweden, there is no reason to think that woodworkers in the North are any different in their conservatism on social issues from rural people in the South. The main difference was simply a combination of proximity to diversity as well as much lower density in the north, which necessitates a far greater role of public investments. But this shouldn't be seen that these voters are ideological leftists. They vote left-wing for pragmatic economic reasons.

    But as Swedish Family pointed out, even this is slowly changing with only Stockholm as the sole outlier left in Sweden, where the local and international elite congregate and where the riff-raff get purged. I read an amusing story the other day in a local Stockholm paper of Solna kommun sending their welfare recipients to rural counties. Most of them are asylum seekers. This is how it is done, under the radar and with the mask of progressivism.

    sending their welfare recipients to rural counties

    In the US, the Southern states kept (keep) the welfare benefits low or non-existent which encouraged(s) emigration by the welfare dependent.

  148. @Dmitry
    I agree that the effect of unrootedness on populations, is probably very significant (and its effects will be the usual mix of good and bad).

    But I doubt there will be any simple to define effects like HIV or crime rates.

    -

    If you look at Mormons of Utah. It's one of the most "unrooted populations". The largest component of their ancestors are anglosaxons (so they should be living in London or Coventry). But instead they venerate "Jesus in Space"

    https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/images/gospel-library/manual/09797/salt-lake-first-presidency-lds_159354_inl.jpg

    While living in a place which looks like Mars (it's not the countryside of Oxford)

    https://d36tnp772eyphs.cloudfront.net/blogs/1/2014/09/canyonlands2-1200x719.jpg

    Yet the murder rate of this very unrooted (both geographically and culturally) population, is one of the lowest in America.

    http://i.imgur.com/ll2jhJN.png

    I agree that the effect of unrootedness on populations, is probably very significant (and its effects will be the usual mix of good and bad).

    But I doubt there will be any simple to define effects like HIV or crime rates.

    Yes, that’s why I took the easy way out and wrote “all else equal.”

  149. @Dmitry
    I agree that the effect of unrootedness on populations, is probably very significant (and its effects will be the usual mix of good and bad).

    But I doubt there will be any simple to define effects like HIV or crime rates.

    -

    If you look at Mormons of Utah. It's one of the most "unrooted populations". The largest component of their ancestors are anglosaxons (so they should be living in London or Coventry). But instead they venerate "Jesus in Space"

    https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/images/gospel-library/manual/09797/salt-lake-first-presidency-lds_159354_inl.jpg

    While living in a place which looks like Mars (it's not the countryside of Oxford)

    https://d36tnp772eyphs.cloudfront.net/blogs/1/2014/09/canyonlands2-1200x719.jpg

    Yet the murder rate of this very unrooted (both geographically and culturally) population, is one of the lowest in America.

    http://i.imgur.com/ll2jhJN.png

    Seems silly to conflate the “rootless” Mormons whose families have a 150~ year (give or take) history in Utah with the modern deracinated city dweller. What does it matter if you’re an Anglo-Saxon whose family was “rooted” in Britain when you move away from your hometown to a deracinated pozhole like London? 150 years is plenty of time to form organic communities (to an extent, I’ll concede that a genuinely deep-rooted cultural and ethnic identity cultivated over centuries is obviously superior), so in my view the organic Mormon communities are vastly more rooted than the urbanites of Europe, since organic urban communities are largely destroyed by population churn before they form (and that’s before even considering the effects of proximity to extremely alien foreign populations like africans). So they’re certainly more rooted than the analogous American urbanites, who don’t even have the very developed historical national identities to fall back on.

    I think it’s a rather serious category error to say the Mormons with a 150 odd year history within their home region are less rooted than western poles who’ve been where they are for around half as long.

    And why shouldn’t rootlessness correlate with HIV rates? General social ills correlate with self-identified homosexuality, which in turn correlates extremely strongly with HIV rates.

    As to rootlessness being a “mix of good and bad”, I struggle to think of what the good might be? I suppose there might be a correlation with greater economic productivity, but it would be near impossible to disentangle rootlessness from the general economic advantage of urban areas over rural ones, and whether the greater wealth isn’t what attracts the rootless in the first place. If some way were found to maintain modern urban economies while also stopping population churn and encouraging rooted communities to form, I suspect they would be superior to rootless cities in basically every way.

    • Replies: @Dmitry

    Mormons whose families have a 150~ year (give or take) history
     
    Perhaps contemporary Mormons could be seen as "re-rooted", as the time of Brigham Young was many generations ago.

    But in the early generations, they would be the most "unrooted" people, with a recently invented cult religion, and landscape which looks like Mars, aside from native Indians still living there.


    modern deracinated city dweller. What does it matter if you’re an Anglo-Saxon whose family was “rooted” in Britain when you move away from your hometown to a deracinated pozhole like London?
     
    There are families which live in London, Moscow or Rome, etc, for centuries.

    And I don't think emigration to those cities from nearby areas always requires loss of roots.

    It's true about "population churn" though. People born in such cities, become constantly contemptuous of new arrivals from provinces, that try to imitate them, their accents, etc.


    since organic urban communities are largely destroyed by population churn before they form

     

    I think it's just a different topic.

    People in big cities are usually more proud of their ancestors, than people in provinces (which could also be a reflection of higher social class of many people in big cities - higher proportion of aristocrats, etc).

    Although, I agree, the effect on the consciousness of the big city is probably more significant, than question of how rooted your family is in a certain area.

    Consciousness of "big city people" becomes very different (they have far more choices in everything in their life as well, which results in a special anxieties).


    why shouldn’t rootlessness correlate with HIV rates? General social ills correlate with self-identified homosexuality,

     

    If we look at the map of HIV in Russia (where it is a problem - in Poland there is no HIV problem) - it correlates to things like opium routes, not the rootlessness.

    Also, separate topics of homosexuality - it will not be a result of rootlessness,otherwise you would expect that countries like Sweden or Denmark, would not have homosexuality, as their ancestors live in the same small place for thousands of years.


    As to rootlessness being a “mix of good and bad”, I struggle to think of what the good might be? I suppose there might be a correlation with greater economic productivity,

     

    Think about California.

    It is the technology and cultural innovativeness centre of the world. Yet it is one of the most recently settled and rootless parts of America.

    This rootless quality even in the older architecture of California - most of the old buildings in California until around the 1970s era, look like temporary structures.

    (Although sadly this is not universal - Birobidzhan is not a centre of innovation, despite its recently settled population.)

  150. @Mr. XYZ

    The capital and everything associated with that and they were hiring
     
    I thought that capital didn't matter very much in a Communist country?

    Also, as a side note, why wasn't Jewish capital attractive enough to the Russian Tsars for them to allow large-scale Jewish migration out of the Pale of Settlement? Did they hope to keep Jews out of Russia's eastern territories so that they wouldn't compete with the non-Jewish businessmen there? In other words, a form of affirmative action for non-Jews--just like with the Jewish quotas during Tsarist rule.

    – and giving Jews preferential access relative to similarly or more qualified Russians (as many of those had belonged to so-called “exploiter” classes).
     
    That actually makes sense. Also, as a side note, I wonder just how much larger the Jewish population in Russia proper would have eventually become if it wasn't for the Holocaust wiping out most of the Pale of Settlement's Jewish population. In real life, it peaked at slightly over 900,000 in 1959 if one includes Crimea as part of Russia (and at about 891,000 without Crimea).

    BTW, one of the most deeply regretful things about the Soviet Union is that it didn't deport the entire Jewish population west of Moscow en masse further east in the months and year before Operation Barbarossa. About 1.0-1.5 million Soviet Jews did, in fact, manage to evacuate further eastward in 1941 but something like 2.5-2.7 million Soviet Jews stayed behind and thus perished under Nazi rule and the resulting Holocaust. Stalin really, really should have deported the entirety of the Jewish population of the former Pale of Settlement deep into the interior of the Soviet Union before Operation Barbarossa. That way, much more of them would have survived the Holocaust and World War II.

    BTW, one of the most deeply regretful things about the Soviet Union is that it didn’t deport the entire Jewish population west of Moscow en masse further east in the months and year before Operation Barbarossa. About 1.0-1.5 million Soviet Jews did, in fact, manage to evacuate further eastward in 1941 but something like 2.5-2.7 million Soviet Jews stayed behind and thus perished under Nazi rule and the resulting Holocaust. Stalin really, really should have deported the entirety of the Jewish population of the former Pale of Settlement deep into the interior of the Soviet Union before Operation Barbarossa. That way, much more of them would have survived the Holocaust and World War II.

    So Stalin’s main goal should have been to save Jews, regardless of anything else, and he should have been a clairvoyant to be able to deport Jews before Barbarossa (and the Holocaust) even got started, to save them from these events (which were then still in the future).

    Then at least Jews would be able to claim further victim status for themselves, because they’d have gotten violently mass deported by Stalin, right before the Holocaust.

    By the way, since the death rates of Slavs in those regions were also exceptionally high, shouldn’t he have deported all Slavs as well? After all, if he already were in the business of saving lives through the combined employment of clairvoyance and brutal mass deportations…

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    So Stalin’s main goal should have been to save Jews, regardless of anything else,
     
    No; winning the war was more important. If it wasn't, then Britain should have made peace in 1940 so that way the Nazis might have deported the Jews en masse to Madagascar instead of outright murdering them. So, yeah, the war effort must come first, but if there's a war to pursue the war effort (or to be prepared for war, since the USSR was neutral until June 1941) and still save a lot of people, then this should obviously be done.

    and he should have been a clairvoyant to be able to deport Jews before Barbarossa (and the Holocaust) even got started, to save them from these events (which were then still in the future).
     
    Well, that would be the hope, Yes. 1.0-1.5 million Soviet Jews actually were bright enough to figure out by themselves that living under Nazi rule would be extremely bad for them--even if they couldn't foresee genocide quite yet. So, Yes, one would have hoped that Stalin would have also been bright enough to see this.

    As for your own country (Hungary), it should have ironically remained in World War II up to the very end (which ultimately ended up happening anyway due to the Arrow Cross coup); that way, a larger--perhaps much larger--percentage of its Jewish population could have survived the Holocaust. The Nazis didn't actually touch Hungary's Jews until Hungary was about to defect from the Axis. Basically, this is a case where a lot of Jews could have been saved with minimal issues for the war effort.


    Then at least Jews would be able to claim further victim status for themselves, because they’d have gotten violently mass deported by Stalin, right before the Holocaust.
     
    Yes, but at least it's better than having them be murdered en masse.

    By the way, since the death rates of Slavs in those regions were also exceptionally high, shouldn’t he have deported all Slavs as well? After all, if he already were in the business of saving lives through the combined employment of clairvoyance and brutal mass deportations…
     
    AFAIK, the Nazis didn't have a policy of outright murdering Slavs en masse like they did with the Jews. That said, though, if the USSR could have also managed to pull this off (as in, Siberia and Central Asia could have actually handled this mass influx of Slavs), more deportations of Slavs from the western parts of the USSR in 1940-1941 might have actually been beneficial for the Soviet war effort since it would have resulted in the Soviets having more manpower while the Nazis would have still occupied huge sections of their country.

    Also, as a side note, in World War II, shit really hit the fan when France fell in 1940. Had France not fallen, at least half of the Jews who would have been murdered in the Holocaust in real life would have survived. It was the Fall of France that allowed the Nazis to murder huge numbers of Soviet Jews, Hungarian Jews, Yugoslav Jews, and Greek Jews and also cause a murderous government to come to power in Romania that slaughtered another 280,000-380,000 Soviet Jews after Operation Barbarossa. Without the Fall of France, the Nazis aren't going to be invading the USSR, or Hungary, or Yugoslavia, or Greece.

  151. @Boswald Bollocksworth
    These maps pop up for so many variables from the Poland. I believe road quality is still higher in Polish-occupied Germany, not that it seems to help those people vote right. Could it have something to do with a self selection. Was identity somewhat fluid in the Belarus before the population transfers? I’m thinking of General Rokossovski, half Belarusian and half Pole, he had identity issues but sided with Russia. Conservative man. Perhaps the shitheels of the Belarus and the Ukraine disproportionately filtered to a Polish identity. genetically all these people are on top of each other on an autosomal PCA plot. Point is these are kind of fake pose identities, everyone here is unadmixed Slav, may not be random who went Uniate Eastern Rite in the Polish Lithuanian commonwealth and who went full-on papist, which determines who feels Belarusian/Ukrainian vs Polish 400 years later and gets to stay in 1949. Could be a kind of Jizya effect where the higher quality genetics get filtered into the oppressed religion. Staying Byzantine Rite may have entailed a cost only wealthier peasants could bear.

    The act of moving may itself have effects as suggested by Karlin. Rootless Western Americans legalized weed long before the equally lefty New England states. They’re sort of “wilder”, but again the migration was not random, restless, greedy cunts moved west, while the more cautious stayed back east. Would be interesting to see what happened to the displaced Germans for a truly non-random case. Few Germans could pass as Poles (a few hundred thousand) whereas I’m hypothesizing far more Poles could pass as Belarusian/Ukrainian, or perhaps this pattern already existed in the east.

    Was identity somewhat fluid in the Belarus before the population transfers? I’m thinking of General Rokossovski, half Belarusian and half Pole, he had identity issues but sided with Russia. Conservative man. Perhaps the shitheels of the Belarus and the Ukraine disproportionately filtered to a Polish identity.

    Poland between the wars was multicultural to the point of madness. From Norman Davies’ Heart of Europe: The Past in Poland’s Present:

    The task of integrating the peoples, institutions, and traditions of the country’s disparate elements was immense. In 1919-1920 there were six different currencies in circulation; five regions maintained separate administrations; there were four languages of command in the Army; three legal codes; and two incompatible railway gauges. Poles who had lived all their lives in Russia, Prussia, or Austria had developed quite distinct habits, and could not adapt to each other overnight. The apocryphal story of the ex-Austrian officer who had to consult his French Army manual before telling his ex-Russian infantrymen how to load their ex-English ammunition into their ex-German rifles had more than a grain of reality.

  152. @Athletic and Whitesplosive
    Seems silly to conflate the "rootless" Mormons whose families have a 150~ year (give or take) history in Utah with the modern deracinated city dweller. What does it matter if you're an Anglo-Saxon whose family was "rooted" in Britain when you move away from your hometown to a deracinated pozhole like London? 150 years is plenty of time to form organic communities (to an extent, I'll concede that a genuinely deep-rooted cultural and ethnic identity cultivated over centuries is obviously superior), so in my view the organic Mormon communities are vastly more rooted than the urbanites of Europe, since organic urban communities are largely destroyed by population churn before they form (and that's before even considering the effects of proximity to extremely alien foreign populations like africans). So they're certainly more rooted than the analogous American urbanites, who don't even have the very developed historical national identities to fall back on.

    I think it's a rather serious category error to say the Mormons with a 150 odd year history within their home region are less rooted than western poles who've been where they are for around half as long.

    And why shouldn't rootlessness correlate with HIV rates? General social ills correlate with self-identified homosexuality, which in turn correlates extremely strongly with HIV rates.

    As to rootlessness being a "mix of good and bad", I struggle to think of what the good might be? I suppose there might be a correlation with greater economic productivity, but it would be near impossible to disentangle rootlessness from the general economic advantage of urban areas over rural ones, and whether the greater wealth isn't what attracts the rootless in the first place. If some way were found to maintain modern urban economies while also stopping population churn and encouraging rooted communities to form, I suspect they would be superior to rootless cities in basically every way.

    Mormons whose families have a 150~ year (give or take) history

    Perhaps contemporary Mormons could be seen as “re-rooted”, as the time of Brigham Young was many generations ago.

    But in the early generations, they would be the most “unrooted” people, with a recently invented cult religion, and landscape which looks like Mars, aside from native Indians still living there.

    modern deracinated city dweller. What does it matter if you’re an Anglo-Saxon whose family was “rooted” in Britain when you move away from your hometown to a deracinated pozhole like London?

    There are families which live in London, Moscow or Rome, etc, for centuries.

    And I don’t think emigration to those cities from nearby areas always requires loss of roots.

    It’s true about “population churn” though. People born in such cities, become constantly contemptuous of new arrivals from provinces, that try to imitate them, their accents, etc.

    since organic urban communities are largely destroyed by population churn before they form

    I think it’s just a different topic.

    People in big cities are usually more proud of their ancestors, than people in provinces (which could also be a reflection of higher social class of many people in big cities – higher proportion of aristocrats, etc).

    Although, I agree, the effect on the consciousness of the big city is probably more significant, than question of how rooted your family is in a certain area.

    Consciousness of “big city people” becomes very different (they have far more choices in everything in their life as well, which results in a special anxieties).

    why shouldn’t rootlessness correlate with HIV rates? General social ills correlate with self-identified homosexuality,

    If we look at the map of HIV in Russia (where it is a problem – in Poland there is no HIV problem) – it correlates to things like opium routes, not the rootlessness.

    Also, separate topics of homosexuality – it will not be a result of rootlessness,otherwise you would expect that countries like Sweden or Denmark, would not have homosexuality, as their ancestors live in the same small place for thousands of years.

    As to rootlessness being a “mix of good and bad”, I struggle to think of what the good might be? I suppose there might be a correlation with greater economic productivity,

    Think about California.

    It is the technology and cultural innovativeness centre of the world. Yet it is one of the most recently settled and rootless parts of America.

    This rootless quality even in the older architecture of California – most of the old buildings in California until around the 1970s era, look like temporary structures.

    (Although sadly this is not universal – Birobidzhan is not a centre of innovation, despite its recently settled population.)

    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    But in the early generations, they would be the most “unrooted” people
     
    Also members of a very strict religious sect, so pretty unlike the "uprooted" peoples Karlin or others are talking about. Uprooted peoples will normally have to live without well formed communities, far from their families, far from anyone else they know, atomized, alienated. Being a member of a strict religious sect will, however, give you a community. After a century it will become pretty organic - your great-grandparents had already been members of the same community. So Mormons are probably a pretty bad example of uprooted peoples.
    , @AP

    Perhaps contemporary Mormons could be seen as “re-rooted”, as the time of Brigham Young was many generations ago.

    But in the early generations, they would be the most “unrooted” people, with a recently invented cult religion, and landscape which looks like Mars, aside from native Indians still living there.
     
    They arrived as a united cohesive community with a similar social and cultural background (Puritan stock mostly, then joined by converts from the same part of England that Puritans came from) and goal. Thye were not just thrown together like people in western Poland or Sovok-Ukraine.

    There were also rootless settlers in the American West, living in mining towns or cowboy settlements. The differences between these ypes of settlements are stark. Mormon villages are clean, neat, well put together, relatively free of social problems. The mining town on the other side of the mountain is a wreck.
  153. @Not Raul
    So, Stalin didn't deport enough Jews to Siberia.

    Try explaining that to the boomers on Facebook.

    Well, ironically, 1940-1941 was the time where deporting Jews to the interior of the Soviet Union en masse would have been really, really beneficial for them. What exactly is hard to get about the idea of saving a lot more Soviet Jewish lives?

    • Replies: @Swedish Family

    Well, ironically, 1940-1941 was the time where deporting Jews to the interior of the Soviet Union en masse would have been really, really beneficial for them. What exactly is hard to get about the idea of saving a lot more Soviet Jewish lives?
     
    You are grossly overestimating the readiness for the invasion. Another quote (this time from Martin Amis' Koba the Dread):

    Soviet unpreparedness for the Nazi invasion is of course legendary. And Stalin’s refusal to believe in its imminence was no mere perversity or dereliction: it was the result of herculean self-hypnosis. He staked his being on it; and he lost. When the news came through (‘they are bombing our cities’), Stalin’s psyche simply fell away. It prostrated him; he became a bag of bones in a grey tunic; he was nothing but a power vacuum.

    [...]

    The way Stalin saw it, the imperialist powers would embroil themselves in a marathon bloodbath in Europe, after which a strengthened Red Army would do some empire-building of its own among the ruins. This dream was rather seriously undermined when Hitler took France in six weeks – leaving Stalin pacing the floor and giving vent to many a ‘choice’ obscenity (the adjective is Khrushchev’s). By June 1941 Hitler’s war record went as follows: Poland in twenty-seven days, Denmark in twenty-four hours, Norway in twenty-three days, Holland in five, Belgium in eighteen, France in thirty-nine, Yugoslavia in twelve, and Greece in twenty-one. Hitler had never been diffident about his plans for the USSR. In Mein Kampf (1925) he had proposed to cut a path eastward with fire and sword, and to enslave the Slavic undermen. After he came to power Mein Kampf was aggressively reissued ‘with no deletions’. Even Stalin fully accepted that it was only a question of when. In the broadest sense Soviet preparations for war were gargantuan, but they were off-centre, and fatally medium-term.

    Stalin received not fewer than eighty-four written warnings of the coming attack, from sources as various as Richard Sorge (his masterspy then stationed in the German Embassy in Tokyo) and Winston Churchill (who had decryptions from Bletchley Park). Any reasonably observant passenger on the Moscow-Berlin railway line would have prophesied war; for weeks, men and munitions had been thundering east, to form the largest concentration of poised violence ever. In the early months of 1941 there were 324 violations of Soviet airspace by German reconnaissance planes (which, if forced to land, were repaired and when necessary refuelled by Soviet engineers). The German ambassador in Moscow dismantled all precedent by giving the exact day; a German deserter earned summary execution (as a provocateur) by giving the exact hour. Russian commanders who put their troops on alert were sharply menaced from above (even by such comparative realists as Zhukov). On 14 June an official statement dismissed rumours of war as ‘clumsy fabrications’. At this time all German vessels left all Russian ports. On 21 June Lavrenti Beria demanded the recall of the Soviet minister in Berlin for ‘bombarding’ him with disinformation, promising, moreover, ‘to grind him to dust’ in the gulag.
     
    , @Not Raul
    What’s hard to get?

    1. Russia BAD
    2. Deport BAD
    3. Siberia BAD

    Russia Deport Jews to Siberia HITLER

    Those damn Cossacks had better not push their luck.
  154. @Anatoly Karlin
    I was referring to Moscow's status as the capital city.

    Oh. Well, what about St. Pete’s and the smaller cities and towns in Russia? (The smaller cities and towns each didn’t have a lot of Jews in 1939 and 1959, but combined they might have had a couple hundred thousand Jews or maybe even a little more than that.) Moscow and St. Pete’s, on the other hand, each had a lot of Jews in 1939 and 1959.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Well, there's some diffusion (so people from one part of the country randomly ending up somewhere else), but Moscow and St. Petersburg had their own pull. The latter was considered a kind of "second capital" for some time after 1917, and in any event, it was the second biggest city of the country - and big cities have more opportunities, so quite a bit attractive to Jews (or anyone else ambitious), even if it was not a capital city, so less attractive than Moscow.
  155. @notanon

    In Russia, HIV rate can also be paradoxically an indicator of more economically successful regions.
     
    homosexuals from small towns move to the cities (local or national) - especially cities with a lot of media / entertainment jobs

    Then the HIV would be in Moscow.

    But the main incubating population of HIV in Russia, were people injecting heroin.

    • Replies: @notanon
    yes there are two main vectors: homosexuality and injecting drugs, heroin generally correlates to disproportionate poverty (especially rust belt) whereas disproportionate homosexuality will often correlate to relative prosperity (cos they move to the regional centers from small towns) which provides a possible explanation for your original point.

    In Russia, HIV rate can also be paradoxically an indicator of more economically successful regions.
     

    Then the HIV would be in Moscow.
     
    maybe Ekaterinberg has both: regional center of media and rust-belt?
  156. @reiner Tor

    BTW, one of the most deeply regretful things about the Soviet Union is that it didn’t deport the entire Jewish population west of Moscow en masse further east in the months and year before Operation Barbarossa. About 1.0-1.5 million Soviet Jews did, in fact, manage to evacuate further eastward in 1941 but something like 2.5-2.7 million Soviet Jews stayed behind and thus perished under Nazi rule and the resulting Holocaust. Stalin really, really should have deported the entirety of the Jewish population of the former Pale of Settlement deep into the interior of the Soviet Union before Operation Barbarossa. That way, much more of them would have survived the Holocaust and World War II.
     
    So Stalin’s main goal should have been to save Jews, regardless of anything else, and he should have been a clairvoyant to be able to deport Jews before Barbarossa (and the Holocaust) even got started, to save them from these events (which were then still in the future).

    Then at least Jews would be able to claim further victim status for themselves, because they’d have gotten violently mass deported by Stalin, right before the Holocaust.

    By the way, since the death rates of Slavs in those regions were also exceptionally high, shouldn’t he have deported all Slavs as well? After all, if he already were in the business of saving lives through the combined employment of clairvoyance and brutal mass deportations...

    So Stalin’s main goal should have been to save Jews, regardless of anything else,

    No; winning the war was more important. If it wasn’t, then Britain should have made peace in 1940 so that way the Nazis might have deported the Jews en masse to Madagascar instead of outright murdering them. So, yeah, the war effort must come first, but if there’s a war to pursue the war effort (or to be prepared for war, since the USSR was neutral until June 1941) and still save a lot of people, then this should obviously be done.

    and he should have been a clairvoyant to be able to deport Jews before Barbarossa (and the Holocaust) even got started, to save them from these events (which were then still in the future).

    Well, that would be the hope, Yes. 1.0-1.5 million Soviet Jews actually were bright enough to figure out by themselves that living under Nazi rule would be extremely bad for them–even if they couldn’t foresee genocide quite yet. So, Yes, one would have hoped that Stalin would have also been bright enough to see this.

    As for your own country (Hungary), it should have ironically remained in World War II up to the very end (which ultimately ended up happening anyway due to the Arrow Cross coup); that way, a larger–perhaps much larger–percentage of its Jewish population could have survived the Holocaust. The Nazis didn’t actually touch Hungary’s Jews until Hungary was about to defect from the Axis. Basically, this is a case where a lot of Jews could have been saved with minimal issues for the war effort.

    Then at least Jews would be able to claim further victim status for themselves, because they’d have gotten violently mass deported by Stalin, right before the Holocaust.

    Yes, but at least it’s better than having them be murdered en masse.

    By the way, since the death rates of Slavs in those regions were also exceptionally high, shouldn’t he have deported all Slavs as well? After all, if he already were in the business of saving lives through the combined employment of clairvoyance and brutal mass deportations…

    AFAIK, the Nazis didn’t have a policy of outright murdering Slavs en masse like they did with the Jews. That said, though, if the USSR could have also managed to pull this off (as in, Siberia and Central Asia could have actually handled this mass influx of Slavs), more deportations of Slavs from the western parts of the USSR in 1940-1941 might have actually been beneficial for the Soviet war effort since it would have resulted in the Soviets having more manpower while the Nazis would have still occupied huge sections of their country.

    Also, as a side note, in World War II, shit really hit the fan when France fell in 1940. Had France not fallen, at least half of the Jews who would have been murdered in the Holocaust in real life would have survived. It was the Fall of France that allowed the Nazis to murder huge numbers of Soviet Jews, Hungarian Jews, Yugoslav Jews, and Greek Jews and also cause a murderous government to come to power in Romania that slaughtered another 280,000-380,000 Soviet Jews after Operation Barbarossa. Without the Fall of France, the Nazis aren’t going to be invading the USSR, or Hungary, or Yugoslavia, or Greece.

    • Replies: @iffen
    So it's all Maginot's fault?
    , @reiner Tor
    Totally ahistorical.

    Stalin didn't know that Jews in Kiev (for example) would come under German rule, since he had no idea that the Germans would capture Kiev. It was a total shock to him when that became a possibility, and he even refused to accept it until the very last minute: for example he prevented a timely retreat from the city.

    As for your own country (Hungary), it should have ironically remained in World War II up to the very end (which ultimately ended up happening anyway due to the Arrow Cross coup); that way, a larger–perhaps much larger–percentage of its Jewish population could have survived the Holocaust. The Nazis didn’t actually touch Hungary’s Jews until Hungary was about to defect from the Axis. Basically, this is a case where a lot of Jews could have been saved with minimal issues for the war effort.
     
    Most Jews in Hungary hate Horthy, and as an important reason they cite how he willingly joined Hitler. So I guess he (and "Hungary" as a whole) would be getting even more flak from Hungarian Jews (and in that timeline there'd also be many more of them to criticize Horthy and Hungary). By the way your assertions are probably wrong. Hungary was occupied so early (March 1944, well before the Soviets reached the Hungarian borders), because Hitler didn't trust Horthy. One reason was that Horthy had refused to deport Jews to Auschwitz several times in 1942 and 1943, unlike Slovakia, and Hungary also didn't carry out wholesale massacres of its Jews, unlike Romania. So, Hitler reasoned, Horthy must be under Jewish influence. German troops only occupied Slovakia (apart from a small border region already occupied since 1939), when there was a large revolt against the pro-German government there. They occupied Hungary way before that. Hitler never planned to occupy Romania (though some air defense troops were present in the country), because he trusted Antonescu so much. (Romania being farther away from Germany might have played a role, but probably wasn't the decisive factor.)

    AFAIK, the Nazis didn’t have a policy of outright murdering Slavs en masse like they did with the Jews. That said, though, if the USSR could have also managed to pull this off (as in, Siberia and Central Asia could have actually handled this mass influx of Slavs), more deportations of Slavs from the western parts of the USSR in 1940-1941 might have actually been beneficial for the Soviet war effort since it would have resulted in the Soviets having more manpower while the Nazis would have still occupied huge sections of their country.
     
    But it would have created a lot of confusion and diversion of effort right before the attack. You don't seem to understand that Stalin didn't know that Hitler would occupy Smolensk in a few weeks, or that he'd nearly capture Moscow. (There is a lot of debates going on about whether he could have captured Moscow, hadn't he diverted Guderian to Kiev. Maybe he could have destroyed the USSR.) Stalin believed that Hitler would surely be stopped way earlier. He also probably believed that war wouldn't happen before 1942. Let alone he didn't think of saving the Jews from the holocaust which hadn't yet started.

    You seem pretty indignant that the rest of the world didn't consider saving the Jews as its most important goal, and that they didn't predict dangers to Jews accurately.
    , @Daniel.I
    Is this XYZ guy for real ? Weren't Jews supposed to be smart ?
  157. @Mr. XYZ
    Well, ironically, 1940-1941 was the time where deporting Jews to the interior of the Soviet Union en masse would have been really, really beneficial for them. What exactly is hard to get about the idea of saving a lot more Soviet Jewish lives?

    Well, ironically, 1940-1941 was the time where deporting Jews to the interior of the Soviet Union en masse would have been really, really beneficial for them. What exactly is hard to get about the idea of saving a lot more Soviet Jewish lives?

    You are grossly overestimating the readiness for the invasion. Another quote (this time from Martin Amis’ Koba the Dread):

    Soviet unpreparedness for the Nazi invasion is of course legendary. And Stalin’s refusal to believe in its imminence was no mere perversity or dereliction: it was the result of herculean self-hypnosis. He staked his being on it; and he lost. When the news came through (‘they are bombing our cities’), Stalin’s psyche simply fell away. It prostrated him; he became a bag of bones in a grey tunic; he was nothing but a power vacuum.

    […]

    The way Stalin saw it, the imperialist powers would embroil themselves in a marathon bloodbath in Europe, after which a strengthened Red Army would do some empire-building of its own among the ruins. This dream was rather seriously undermined when Hitler took France in six weeks – leaving Stalin pacing the floor and giving vent to many a ‘choice’ obscenity (the adjective is Khrushchev’s). By June 1941 Hitler’s war record went as follows: Poland in twenty-seven days, Denmark in twenty-four hours, Norway in twenty-three days, Holland in five, Belgium in eighteen, France in thirty-nine, Yugoslavia in twelve, and Greece in twenty-one. Hitler had never been diffident about his plans for the USSR. In Mein Kampf (1925) he had proposed to cut a path eastward with fire and sword, and to enslave the Slavic undermen. After he came to power Mein Kampf was aggressively reissued ‘with no deletions’. Even Stalin fully accepted that it was only a question of when. In the broadest sense Soviet preparations for war were gargantuan, but they were off-centre, and fatally medium-term.

    Stalin received not fewer than eighty-four written warnings of the coming attack, from sources as various as Richard Sorge (his masterspy then stationed in the German Embassy in Tokyo) and Winston Churchill (who had decryptions from Bletchley Park). Any reasonably observant passenger on the Moscow-Berlin railway line would have prophesied war; for weeks, men and munitions had been thundering east, to form the largest concentration of poised violence ever. In the early months of 1941 there were 324 violations of Soviet airspace by German reconnaissance planes (which, if forced to land, were repaired and when necessary refuelled by Soviet engineers). The German ambassador in Moscow dismantled all precedent by giving the exact day; a German deserter earned summary execution (as a provocateur) by giving the exact hour. Russian commanders who put their troops on alert were sharply menaced from above (even by such comparative realists as Zhukov). On 14 June an official statement dismissed rumours of war as ‘clumsy fabrications’. At this time all German vessels left all Russian ports. On 21 June Lavrenti Beria demanded the recall of the Soviet minister in Berlin for ‘bombarding’ him with disinformation, promising, moreover, ‘to grind him to dust’ in the gulag.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    Yes, Stalin really fucked up in regards to this.
    , @iffen
    a German deserter earned summary execution (as a provocateur) by giving the exact hour.

    Poetic Justice File

    In the immediate days before the invasion, more than one German communist deserted, crossed into Russia and reported the imminent invasion. Stalin had all of them shot.
  158. @Mr. XYZ

    So Stalin’s main goal should have been to save Jews, regardless of anything else,
     
    No; winning the war was more important. If it wasn't, then Britain should have made peace in 1940 so that way the Nazis might have deported the Jews en masse to Madagascar instead of outright murdering them. So, yeah, the war effort must come first, but if there's a war to pursue the war effort (or to be prepared for war, since the USSR was neutral until June 1941) and still save a lot of people, then this should obviously be done.

    and he should have been a clairvoyant to be able to deport Jews before Barbarossa (and the Holocaust) even got started, to save them from these events (which were then still in the future).
     
    Well, that would be the hope, Yes. 1.0-1.5 million Soviet Jews actually were bright enough to figure out by themselves that living under Nazi rule would be extremely bad for them--even if they couldn't foresee genocide quite yet. So, Yes, one would have hoped that Stalin would have also been bright enough to see this.

    As for your own country (Hungary), it should have ironically remained in World War II up to the very end (which ultimately ended up happening anyway due to the Arrow Cross coup); that way, a larger--perhaps much larger--percentage of its Jewish population could have survived the Holocaust. The Nazis didn't actually touch Hungary's Jews until Hungary was about to defect from the Axis. Basically, this is a case where a lot of Jews could have been saved with minimal issues for the war effort.


    Then at least Jews would be able to claim further victim status for themselves, because they’d have gotten violently mass deported by Stalin, right before the Holocaust.
     
    Yes, but at least it's better than having them be murdered en masse.

    By the way, since the death rates of Slavs in those regions were also exceptionally high, shouldn’t he have deported all Slavs as well? After all, if he already were in the business of saving lives through the combined employment of clairvoyance and brutal mass deportations…
     
    AFAIK, the Nazis didn't have a policy of outright murdering Slavs en masse like they did with the Jews. That said, though, if the USSR could have also managed to pull this off (as in, Siberia and Central Asia could have actually handled this mass influx of Slavs), more deportations of Slavs from the western parts of the USSR in 1940-1941 might have actually been beneficial for the Soviet war effort since it would have resulted in the Soviets having more manpower while the Nazis would have still occupied huge sections of their country.

    Also, as a side note, in World War II, shit really hit the fan when France fell in 1940. Had France not fallen, at least half of the Jews who would have been murdered in the Holocaust in real life would have survived. It was the Fall of France that allowed the Nazis to murder huge numbers of Soviet Jews, Hungarian Jews, Yugoslav Jews, and Greek Jews and also cause a murderous government to come to power in Romania that slaughtered another 280,000-380,000 Soviet Jews after Operation Barbarossa. Without the Fall of France, the Nazis aren't going to be invading the USSR, or Hungary, or Yugoslavia, or Greece.

    So it’s all Maginot’s fault?

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    More like Gamelin's.
  159. @iffen
    So it's all Maginot's fault?

    More like Gamelin’s.

  160. @Swedish Family

    Well, ironically, 1940-1941 was the time where deporting Jews to the interior of the Soviet Union en masse would have been really, really beneficial for them. What exactly is hard to get about the idea of saving a lot more Soviet Jewish lives?
     
    You are grossly overestimating the readiness for the invasion. Another quote (this time from Martin Amis' Koba the Dread):

    Soviet unpreparedness for the Nazi invasion is of course legendary. And Stalin’s refusal to believe in its imminence was no mere perversity or dereliction: it was the result of herculean self-hypnosis. He staked his being on it; and he lost. When the news came through (‘they are bombing our cities’), Stalin’s psyche simply fell away. It prostrated him; he became a bag of bones in a grey tunic; he was nothing but a power vacuum.

    [...]

    The way Stalin saw it, the imperialist powers would embroil themselves in a marathon bloodbath in Europe, after which a strengthened Red Army would do some empire-building of its own among the ruins. This dream was rather seriously undermined when Hitler took France in six weeks – leaving Stalin pacing the floor and giving vent to many a ‘choice’ obscenity (the adjective is Khrushchev’s). By June 1941 Hitler’s war record went as follows: Poland in twenty-seven days, Denmark in twenty-four hours, Norway in twenty-three days, Holland in five, Belgium in eighteen, France in thirty-nine, Yugoslavia in twelve, and Greece in twenty-one. Hitler had never been diffident about his plans for the USSR. In Mein Kampf (1925) he had proposed to cut a path eastward with fire and sword, and to enslave the Slavic undermen. After he came to power Mein Kampf was aggressively reissued ‘with no deletions’. Even Stalin fully accepted that it was only a question of when. In the broadest sense Soviet preparations for war were gargantuan, but they were off-centre, and fatally medium-term.

    Stalin received not fewer than eighty-four written warnings of the coming attack, from sources as various as Richard Sorge (his masterspy then stationed in the German Embassy in Tokyo) and Winston Churchill (who had decryptions from Bletchley Park). Any reasonably observant passenger on the Moscow-Berlin railway line would have prophesied war; for weeks, men and munitions had been thundering east, to form the largest concentration of poised violence ever. In the early months of 1941 there were 324 violations of Soviet airspace by German reconnaissance planes (which, if forced to land, were repaired and when necessary refuelled by Soviet engineers). The German ambassador in Moscow dismantled all precedent by giving the exact day; a German deserter earned summary execution (as a provocateur) by giving the exact hour. Russian commanders who put their troops on alert were sharply menaced from above (even by such comparative realists as Zhukov). On 14 June an official statement dismissed rumours of war as ‘clumsy fabrications’. At this time all German vessels left all Russian ports. On 21 June Lavrenti Beria demanded the recall of the Soviet minister in Berlin for ‘bombarding’ him with disinformation, promising, moreover, ‘to grind him to dust’ in the gulag.
     

    Yes, Stalin really fucked up in regards to this.

    • Replies: @iffen
    Yes, Stalin really fucked up in regards to this.

    He was smart enough to move the industries to the East. Kind of makes sense in that actual commies think of machines as being more important than people.

  161. @Dmitry

    Mormons whose families have a 150~ year (give or take) history
     
    Perhaps contemporary Mormons could be seen as "re-rooted", as the time of Brigham Young was many generations ago.

    But in the early generations, they would be the most "unrooted" people, with a recently invented cult religion, and landscape which looks like Mars, aside from native Indians still living there.


    modern deracinated city dweller. What does it matter if you’re an Anglo-Saxon whose family was “rooted” in Britain when you move away from your hometown to a deracinated pozhole like London?
     
    There are families which live in London, Moscow or Rome, etc, for centuries.

    And I don't think emigration to those cities from nearby areas always requires loss of roots.

    It's true about "population churn" though. People born in such cities, become constantly contemptuous of new arrivals from provinces, that try to imitate them, their accents, etc.


    since organic urban communities are largely destroyed by population churn before they form

     

    I think it's just a different topic.

    People in big cities are usually more proud of their ancestors, than people in provinces (which could also be a reflection of higher social class of many people in big cities - higher proportion of aristocrats, etc).

    Although, I agree, the effect on the consciousness of the big city is probably more significant, than question of how rooted your family is in a certain area.

    Consciousness of "big city people" becomes very different (they have far more choices in everything in their life as well, which results in a special anxieties).


    why shouldn’t rootlessness correlate with HIV rates? General social ills correlate with self-identified homosexuality,

     

    If we look at the map of HIV in Russia (where it is a problem - in Poland there is no HIV problem) - it correlates to things like opium routes, not the rootlessness.

    Also, separate topics of homosexuality - it will not be a result of rootlessness,otherwise you would expect that countries like Sweden or Denmark, would not have homosexuality, as their ancestors live in the same small place for thousands of years.


    As to rootlessness being a “mix of good and bad”, I struggle to think of what the good might be? I suppose there might be a correlation with greater economic productivity,

     

    Think about California.

    It is the technology and cultural innovativeness centre of the world. Yet it is one of the most recently settled and rootless parts of America.

    This rootless quality even in the older architecture of California - most of the old buildings in California until around the 1970s era, look like temporary structures.

    (Although sadly this is not universal - Birobidzhan is not a centre of innovation, despite its recently settled population.)

    But in the early generations, they would be the most “unrooted” people

    Also members of a very strict religious sect, so pretty unlike the “uprooted” peoples Karlin or others are talking about. Uprooted peoples will normally have to live without well formed communities, far from their families, far from anyone else they know, atomized, alienated. Being a member of a strict religious sect will, however, give you a community. After a century it will become pretty organic – your great-grandparents had already been members of the same community. So Mormons are probably a pretty bad example of uprooted peoples.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    Claim of the post is that unrooting people (moving people so they are unrooted their original location as in West Poland, or allegedly East Ukraine), should result in these particularly social ills - richer, high crime, high HIV rate, and liberal politics. You add a couple of other results (atomization, alienation).

    This is supposedly the explanation for differences of West Poland from East Poland, and East Ukraine from West Ukraine.

    Mormons are a counter-example, as are many other unrooted peoples (Australians, etc).

    Australians have one of the lowest HIV rates in the world; Botswanans (which live in the same location for 1500 years) have the highest HIV rates in the world.

    Australians have one of the most conservative politics; while Swedes (who live in the same location for thousands of years) have one of the most liberal politics.

    -

    The area where there is some support for the theory that unrooted population has those effects, is in relation to crime.

    New World countries have a higher murder rates generally.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

  162. @Swedish Family

    Well, ironically, 1940-1941 was the time where deporting Jews to the interior of the Soviet Union en masse would have been really, really beneficial for them. What exactly is hard to get about the idea of saving a lot more Soviet Jewish lives?
     
    You are grossly overestimating the readiness for the invasion. Another quote (this time from Martin Amis' Koba the Dread):

    Soviet unpreparedness for the Nazi invasion is of course legendary. And Stalin’s refusal to believe in its imminence was no mere perversity or dereliction: it was the result of herculean self-hypnosis. He staked his being on it; and he lost. When the news came through (‘they are bombing our cities’), Stalin’s psyche simply fell away. It prostrated him; he became a bag of bones in a grey tunic; he was nothing but a power vacuum.

    [...]

    The way Stalin saw it, the imperialist powers would embroil themselves in a marathon bloodbath in Europe, after which a strengthened Red Army would do some empire-building of its own among the ruins. This dream was rather seriously undermined when Hitler took France in six weeks – leaving Stalin pacing the floor and giving vent to many a ‘choice’ obscenity (the adjective is Khrushchev’s). By June 1941 Hitler’s war record went as follows: Poland in twenty-seven days, Denmark in twenty-four hours, Norway in twenty-three days, Holland in five, Belgium in eighteen, France in thirty-nine, Yugoslavia in twelve, and Greece in twenty-one. Hitler had never been diffident about his plans for the USSR. In Mein Kampf (1925) he had proposed to cut a path eastward with fire and sword, and to enslave the Slavic undermen. After he came to power Mein Kampf was aggressively reissued ‘with no deletions’. Even Stalin fully accepted that it was only a question of when. In the broadest sense Soviet preparations for war were gargantuan, but they were off-centre, and fatally medium-term.

    Stalin received not fewer than eighty-four written warnings of the coming attack, from sources as various as Richard Sorge (his masterspy then stationed in the German Embassy in Tokyo) and Winston Churchill (who had decryptions from Bletchley Park). Any reasonably observant passenger on the Moscow-Berlin railway line would have prophesied war; for weeks, men and munitions had been thundering east, to form the largest concentration of poised violence ever. In the early months of 1941 there were 324 violations of Soviet airspace by German reconnaissance planes (which, if forced to land, were repaired and when necessary refuelled by Soviet engineers). The German ambassador in Moscow dismantled all precedent by giving the exact day; a German deserter earned summary execution (as a provocateur) by giving the exact hour. Russian commanders who put their troops on alert were sharply menaced from above (even by such comparative realists as Zhukov). On 14 June an official statement dismissed rumours of war as ‘clumsy fabrications’. At this time all German vessels left all Russian ports. On 21 June Lavrenti Beria demanded the recall of the Soviet minister in Berlin for ‘bombarding’ him with disinformation, promising, moreover, ‘to grind him to dust’ in the gulag.
     

    a German deserter earned summary execution (as a provocateur) by giving the exact hour.

    Poetic Justice File

    In the immediate days before the invasion, more than one German communist deserted, crossed into Russia and reported the imminent invasion. Stalin had all of them shot.

    • Replies: @Swedish Family

    Poetic Justice File

    In the immediate days before the invasion, more than one German communist deserted, crossed into Russia and reported the imminent invasion. Stalin had all of them shot.
     
    Yes, foreign communists were often the first up against the wall.
    , @Korenchkin
    Man, Stalin killed a lot of Communists
    based
  163. @Mr. XYZ
    Oh. Well, what about St. Pete's and the smaller cities and towns in Russia? (The smaller cities and towns each didn't have a lot of Jews in 1939 and 1959, but combined they might have had a couple hundred thousand Jews or maybe even a little more than that.) Moscow and St. Pete's, on the other hand, each had a lot of Jews in 1939 and 1959.

    Well, there’s some diffusion (so people from one part of the country randomly ending up somewhere else), but Moscow and St. Petersburg had their own pull. The latter was considered a kind of “second capital” for some time after 1917, and in any event, it was the second biggest city of the country – and big cities have more opportunities, so quite a bit attractive to Jews (or anyone else ambitious), even if it was not a capital city, so less attractive than Moscow.

  164. @Dmitry

    Mormons whose families have a 150~ year (give or take) history
     
    Perhaps contemporary Mormons could be seen as "re-rooted", as the time of Brigham Young was many generations ago.

    But in the early generations, they would be the most "unrooted" people, with a recently invented cult religion, and landscape which looks like Mars, aside from native Indians still living there.


    modern deracinated city dweller. What does it matter if you’re an Anglo-Saxon whose family was “rooted” in Britain when you move away from your hometown to a deracinated pozhole like London?
     
    There are families which live in London, Moscow or Rome, etc, for centuries.

    And I don't think emigration to those cities from nearby areas always requires loss of roots.

    It's true about "population churn" though. People born in such cities, become constantly contemptuous of new arrivals from provinces, that try to imitate them, their accents, etc.


    since organic urban communities are largely destroyed by population churn before they form

     

    I think it's just a different topic.

    People in big cities are usually more proud of their ancestors, than people in provinces (which could also be a reflection of higher social class of many people in big cities - higher proportion of aristocrats, etc).

    Although, I agree, the effect on the consciousness of the big city is probably more significant, than question of how rooted your family is in a certain area.

    Consciousness of "big city people" becomes very different (they have far more choices in everything in their life as well, which results in a special anxieties).


    why shouldn’t rootlessness correlate with HIV rates? General social ills correlate with self-identified homosexuality,

     

    If we look at the map of HIV in Russia (where it is a problem - in Poland there is no HIV problem) - it correlates to things like opium routes, not the rootlessness.

    Also, separate topics of homosexuality - it will not be a result of rootlessness,otherwise you would expect that countries like Sweden or Denmark, would not have homosexuality, as their ancestors live in the same small place for thousands of years.


    As to rootlessness being a “mix of good and bad”, I struggle to think of what the good might be? I suppose there might be a correlation with greater economic productivity,

     

    Think about California.

    It is the technology and cultural innovativeness centre of the world. Yet it is one of the most recently settled and rootless parts of America.

    This rootless quality even in the older architecture of California - most of the old buildings in California until around the 1970s era, look like temporary structures.

    (Although sadly this is not universal - Birobidzhan is not a centre of innovation, despite its recently settled population.)

    Perhaps contemporary Mormons could be seen as “re-rooted”, as the time of Brigham Young was many generations ago.

    But in the early generations, they would be the most “unrooted” people, with a recently invented cult religion, and landscape which looks like Mars, aside from native Indians still living there.

    They arrived as a united cohesive community with a similar social and cultural background (Puritan stock mostly, then joined by converts from the same part of England that Puritans came from) and goal. Thye were not just thrown together like people in western Poland or Sovok-Ukraine.

    There were also rootless settlers in the American West, living in mining towns or cowboy settlements. The differences between these ypes of settlements are stark. Mormon villages are clean, neat, well put together, relatively free of social problems. The mining town on the other side of the mountain is a wreck.

    • Replies: @German_reader

    Puritan stock mostly, then joined by converts from the same part of England that Puritans came from
     
    Puritans were from East Anglia, the Mormon converts in the 19th century had their centre in Lancashire (which had been a stronghold of the royalists in the civil war, also retained an unusually high number of Catholics):
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/when-the-saints-go-marching-in-how-a-tiny-town-in-lancashire-saved-mormonism-from-extinction-7976632.html

    As for Poland, I don't see the point of those speculations without any hard data about the actual origins of those living in the formerly German parts (commenters early in this thread wrote that only a minority are descendants of Poles expelled from present-day Belarus and Ukraine). It's also irritating that what was Posen province in imperial Germany is also liberal-leaning, even though it's always had a Polish majority and belonged to the reborn Polish state since 1918/1919...what's supposed to be the explanation for that? Did the ethnic cleansing during the German occupation in WW2 kill so many of the long-term residents that the vacuum was filled by migrants from other parts of Poland?
    , @Dmitry

    mining town on the other side
     
    Also immigration to mining town would be mainly men (certainly more men than women).

    Whereas, the Mormon emigration seems to have a very high ratio of women.

    For example, about Brigham Young:

    "Young was dubbed by his followers the "Lion of the Lord" for his bold personality and commonly was called "Brother Brigham" by Latter-day Saints. A polygamist, Young had 55 wives."

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


    - If you have 55 wives, then it is not perhaps a surprise that the lawn is regularly cut and the house looks clean.

    I wouldn't be surprised if this is the forgotten origin of the Salt Lake City culture of clean and neat houses.

  165. @Mr. XYZ
    Yes, Stalin really fucked up in regards to this.

    Yes, Stalin really fucked up in regards to this.

    He was smart enough to move the industries to the East. Kind of makes sense in that actual commies think of machines as being more important than people.

  166. @AP

    Perhaps contemporary Mormons could be seen as “re-rooted”, as the time of Brigham Young was many generations ago.

    But in the early generations, they would be the most “unrooted” people, with a recently invented cult religion, and landscape which looks like Mars, aside from native Indians still living there.
     
    They arrived as a united cohesive community with a similar social and cultural background (Puritan stock mostly, then joined by converts from the same part of England that Puritans came from) and goal. Thye were not just thrown together like people in western Poland or Sovok-Ukraine.

    There were also rootless settlers in the American West, living in mining towns or cowboy settlements. The differences between these ypes of settlements are stark. Mormon villages are clean, neat, well put together, relatively free of social problems. The mining town on the other side of the mountain is a wreck.

    Puritan stock mostly, then joined by converts from the same part of England that Puritans came from

    Puritans were from East Anglia, the Mormon converts in the 19th century had their centre in Lancashire (which had been a stronghold of the royalists in the civil war, also retained an unusually high number of Catholics):
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/when-the-saints-go-marching-in-how-a-tiny-town-in-lancashire-saved-mormonism-from-extinction-7976632.html

    As for Poland, I don’t see the point of those speculations without any hard data about the actual origins of those living in the formerly German parts (commenters early in this thread wrote that only a minority are descendants of Poles expelled from present-day Belarus and Ukraine). It’s also irritating that what was Posen province in imperial Germany is also liberal-leaning, even though it’s always had a Polish majority and belonged to the reborn Polish state since 1918/1919…what’s supposed to be the explanation for that? Did the ethnic cleansing during the German occupation in WW2 kill so many of the long-term residents that the vacuum was filled by migrants from other parts of Poland?

    • Replies: @Philip Owen
    Lancashire, London and Wales. A lot of Mormon migration was/is chain migration. Other members of the family are brought over.
    , @AP
    Thank you for the correction.

    Still, it was mostly English Puritan-stock from the USA, and then added to those were more English ultra-religious immigrants.
    , @LondonBob
    From what I have read the Mormon founders came from the descendants of radical sects that sprouted out of the north during the civil wars, diggers, ranters, muggletonians etc., all much opposed by Puritans. No doubt they got recruits from different places in due course.
    , @Zn30
    In respect to Greater Poland/ Wielkopolska region, what I learnt reading comments elsewhere that Germans expelled a significant number of Poles between 1939 and 1941. Not all of them came back, on top of that you need to add the murder of a number of those who stayed there. After the war they were replaced by Poles from other regions, creating the unfortunate conditions similar to the ones in the territories which joined Poland after the war.
  167. @reiner Tor

    But in the early generations, they would be the most “unrooted” people
     
    Also members of a very strict religious sect, so pretty unlike the "uprooted" peoples Karlin or others are talking about. Uprooted peoples will normally have to live without well formed communities, far from their families, far from anyone else they know, atomized, alienated. Being a member of a strict religious sect will, however, give you a community. After a century it will become pretty organic - your great-grandparents had already been members of the same community. So Mormons are probably a pretty bad example of uprooted peoples.

    Claim of the post is that unrooting people (moving people so they are unrooted their original location as in West Poland, or allegedly East Ukraine), should result in these particularly social ills – richer, high crime, high HIV rate, and liberal politics. You add a couple of other results (atomization, alienation).

    This is supposedly the explanation for differences of West Poland from East Poland, and East Ukraine from West Ukraine.

    Mormons are a counter-example, as are many other unrooted peoples (Australians, etc).

    Australians have one of the lowest HIV rates in the world; Botswanans (which live in the same location for 1500 years) have the highest HIV rates in the world.

    Australians have one of the most conservative politics; while Swedes (who live in the same location for thousands of years) have one of the most liberal politics.

    The area where there is some support for the theory that unrooted population has those effects, is in relation to crime.

    New World countries have a higher murder rates generally.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    You seem to not understand the argument.

    1) It doesn't throw out HBD, so, Africans will be Africans.

    2) Uprooted people will lose their communities, and will for a long time be unable to rebuild those. In the case of people ending up in big cities, they will never quite be able to build communities, since cities are constantly in flux, people don't tend to live at the same place for generations.

    Mormons are pretty special, because they formed a religious sect, which means they already had a community back then, and after a few generations it probably became a very strong community.
    , @AP

    Claim of the post is that unrooting people (moving people so they are unrooted their original location as in West Poland, or allegedly East Ukraine), should result in these particularly social ills – richer, high crime, high HIV rate, and liberal politics. You add a couple of other results (atomization, alienation).
     
    Correct.

    You for some reason ignore explanations for your concerns.

    Mormons are a counter-example, as are many other unrooted peoples (Australians, etc)
     
    Mormons are not a counterexample, because they are not an uprooted people. They were from cohesive communities with a tight society who moved en masse in an organized way to a new place where they recreated their original community.

    As I already explained, there are also uprooted communities in the American West. They have the problems one would expect - drinking, brothels, etc. Politically speaking they tend to be libertarian in nature.

    Australians have one of the lowest HIV rates in the world; Botswanans (which live in the same location for 1500 years) have the highest HIV rates in the world.
     
    As has already been explained to you, African traditional culture involves males and females having 3 or so long-term sexual partners. These triads overlap with other triads, which means that HIV once introduced into the society will spread widely through the society.

    European/Christian society values monogamy. This means less HIV.

    As has also been explained to you several times, HIV incidence has several causes. Rootedness is not the only factor affecting HIV rate. An uprooted society will engage in promiscuity but if it also has a good healthcare system, access to condoms, etc. its HIV rate will not be high.
  168. @Mr. XYZ

    So Stalin’s main goal should have been to save Jews, regardless of anything else,
     
    No; winning the war was more important. If it wasn't, then Britain should have made peace in 1940 so that way the Nazis might have deported the Jews en masse to Madagascar instead of outright murdering them. So, yeah, the war effort must come first, but if there's a war to pursue the war effort (or to be prepared for war, since the USSR was neutral until June 1941) and still save a lot of people, then this should obviously be done.

    and he should have been a clairvoyant to be able to deport Jews before Barbarossa (and the Holocaust) even got started, to save them from these events (which were then still in the future).
     
    Well, that would be the hope, Yes. 1.0-1.5 million Soviet Jews actually were bright enough to figure out by themselves that living under Nazi rule would be extremely bad for them--even if they couldn't foresee genocide quite yet. So, Yes, one would have hoped that Stalin would have also been bright enough to see this.

    As for your own country (Hungary), it should have ironically remained in World War II up to the very end (which ultimately ended up happening anyway due to the Arrow Cross coup); that way, a larger--perhaps much larger--percentage of its Jewish population could have survived the Holocaust. The Nazis didn't actually touch Hungary's Jews until Hungary was about to defect from the Axis. Basically, this is a case where a lot of Jews could have been saved with minimal issues for the war effort.


    Then at least Jews would be able to claim further victim status for themselves, because they’d have gotten violently mass deported by Stalin, right before the Holocaust.
     
    Yes, but at least it's better than having them be murdered en masse.

    By the way, since the death rates of Slavs in those regions were also exceptionally high, shouldn’t he have deported all Slavs as well? After all, if he already were in the business of saving lives through the combined employment of clairvoyance and brutal mass deportations…
     
    AFAIK, the Nazis didn't have a policy of outright murdering Slavs en masse like they did with the Jews. That said, though, if the USSR could have also managed to pull this off (as in, Siberia and Central Asia could have actually handled this mass influx of Slavs), more deportations of Slavs from the western parts of the USSR in 1940-1941 might have actually been beneficial for the Soviet war effort since it would have resulted in the Soviets having more manpower while the Nazis would have still occupied huge sections of their country.

    Also, as a side note, in World War II, shit really hit the fan when France fell in 1940. Had France not fallen, at least half of the Jews who would have been murdered in the Holocaust in real life would have survived. It was the Fall of France that allowed the Nazis to murder huge numbers of Soviet Jews, Hungarian Jews, Yugoslav Jews, and Greek Jews and also cause a murderous government to come to power in Romania that slaughtered another 280,000-380,000 Soviet Jews after Operation Barbarossa. Without the Fall of France, the Nazis aren't going to be invading the USSR, or Hungary, or Yugoslavia, or Greece.

    Totally ahistorical.

    Stalin didn’t know that Jews in Kiev (for example) would come under German rule, since he had no idea that the Germans would capture Kiev. It was a total shock to him when that became a possibility, and he even refused to accept it until the very last minute: for example he prevented a timely retreat from the city.

    As for your own country (Hungary), it should have ironically remained in World War II up to the very end (which ultimately ended up happening anyway due to the Arrow Cross coup); that way, a larger–perhaps much larger–percentage of its Jewish population could have survived the Holocaust. The Nazis didn’t actually touch Hungary’s Jews until Hungary was about to defect from the Axis. Basically, this is a case where a lot of Jews could have been saved with minimal issues for the war effort.

    Most Jews in Hungary hate Horthy, and as an important reason they cite how he willingly joined Hitler. So I guess he (and “Hungary” as a whole) would be getting even more flak from Hungarian Jews (and in that timeline there’d also be many more of them to criticize Horthy and Hungary). By the way your assertions are probably wrong. Hungary was occupied so early (March 1944, well before the Soviets reached the Hungarian borders), because Hitler didn’t trust Horthy. One reason was that Horthy had refused to deport Jews to Auschwitz several times in 1942 and 1943, unlike Slovakia, and Hungary also didn’t carry out wholesale massacres of its Jews, unlike Romania. So, Hitler reasoned, Horthy must be under Jewish influence. German troops only occupied Slovakia (apart from a small border region already occupied since 1939), when there was a large revolt against the pro-German government there. They occupied Hungary way before that. Hitler never planned to occupy Romania (though some air defense troops were present in the country), because he trusted Antonescu so much. (Romania being farther away from Germany might have played a role, but probably wasn’t the decisive factor.)

    AFAIK, the Nazis didn’t have a policy of outright murdering Slavs en masse like they did with the Jews. That said, though, if the USSR could have also managed to pull this off (as in, Siberia and Central Asia could have actually handled this mass influx of Slavs), more deportations of Slavs from the western parts of the USSR in 1940-1941 might have actually been beneficial for the Soviet war effort since it would have resulted in the Soviets having more manpower while the Nazis would have still occupied huge sections of their country.

    But it would have created a lot of confusion and diversion of effort right before the attack. You don’t seem to understand that Stalin didn’t know that Hitler would occupy Smolensk in a few weeks, or that he’d nearly capture Moscow. (There is a lot of debates going on about whether he could have captured Moscow, hadn’t he diverted Guderian to Kiev. Maybe he could have destroyed the USSR.) Stalin believed that Hitler would surely be stopped way earlier. He also probably believed that war wouldn’t happen before 1942. Let alone he didn’t think of saving the Jews from the holocaust which hadn’t yet started.

    You seem pretty indignant that the rest of the world didn’t consider saving the Jews as its most important goal, and that they didn’t predict dangers to Jews accurately.

    • Replies: @iffen
    One reason was that Horthy had refused to deport Jews to Auschwitz several times in 1942 and 1943

    Did he make a distinction between "his" (Hungary's) Jews and Jewish refugees?
  169. @Dmitry
    Claim of the post is that unrooting people (moving people so they are unrooted their original location as in West Poland, or allegedly East Ukraine), should result in these particularly social ills - richer, high crime, high HIV rate, and liberal politics. You add a couple of other results (atomization, alienation).

    This is supposedly the explanation for differences of West Poland from East Poland, and East Ukraine from West Ukraine.

    Mormons are a counter-example, as are many other unrooted peoples (Australians, etc).

    Australians have one of the lowest HIV rates in the world; Botswanans (which live in the same location for 1500 years) have the highest HIV rates in the world.

    Australians have one of the most conservative politics; while Swedes (who live in the same location for thousands of years) have one of the most liberal politics.

    -

    The area where there is some support for the theory that unrooted population has those effects, is in relation to crime.

    New World countries have a higher murder rates generally.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

    You seem to not understand the argument.

    1) It doesn’t throw out HBD, so, Africans will be Africans.

    2) Uprooted people will lose their communities, and will for a long time be unable to rebuild those. In the case of people ending up in big cities, they will never quite be able to build communities, since cities are constantly in flux, people don’t tend to live at the same place for generations.

    Mormons are pretty special, because they formed a religious sect, which means they already had a community back then, and after a few generations it probably became a very strong community.

    • Replies: @Dmitry

    Mormons are pretty special, because they formed a religious sect,
     
    So you claim there is an exception for one example that was used. Sure, maybe Mormons are a special case of low crime population despite relocation (as a religious sect). Ok, bad choice to use Mormons.

    But then you would have to find exception for the other examples - e.g. Australians (unrooted but low HIV), Swedes (rooted but liberal politics), etc.

    Without putting it on a graph - it does not look like there are correlations here.


    You seem to not understand the argument.

     

    Because you think there is an exception for one of the examples?

    out HBD, so, Africans will be Africans.
     
    So to remove another exception (Africans - rooted but high HIV), you invoke "HBD" - that the problem is genetics of Africans.

    But aside from HIV rates globally having no relation to mobility of population (except in the wrong direction from the one claimed).

    For example, in Russia, HIV also have no special relation to mobility or rootedness of the population. It relates to opium routes.

    And East Ukraine, it is almost very likely something similar to in Russia. East Ukraine also has unrelated reasons for its politics, than West Poland.

  170. @reiner Tor
    You seem to not understand the argument.

    1) It doesn't throw out HBD, so, Africans will be Africans.

    2) Uprooted people will lose their communities, and will for a long time be unable to rebuild those. In the case of people ending up in big cities, they will never quite be able to build communities, since cities are constantly in flux, people don't tend to live at the same place for generations.

    Mormons are pretty special, because they formed a religious sect, which means they already had a community back then, and after a few generations it probably became a very strong community.

    Mormons are pretty special, because they formed a religious sect,

    So you claim there is an exception for one example that was used. Sure, maybe Mormons are a special case of low crime population despite relocation (as a religious sect). Ok, bad choice to use Mormons.

    But then you would have to find exception for the other examples – e.g. Australians (unrooted but low HIV), Swedes (rooted but liberal politics), etc.

    Without putting it on a graph – it does not look like there are correlations here.

    You seem to not understand the argument.

    Because you think there is an exception for one of the examples?

    out HBD, so, Africans will be Africans.

    So to remove another exception (Africans – rooted but high HIV), you invoke “HBD” – that the problem is genetics of Africans.

    But aside from HIV rates globally having no relation to mobility of population (except in the wrong direction from the one claimed).

    For example, in Russia, HIV also have no special relation to mobility or rootedness of the population. It relates to opium routes.

    And East Ukraine, it is almost very likely something similar to in Russia. East Ukraine also has unrelated reasons for its politics, than West Poland.

  171. @reiner Tor
    Totally ahistorical.

    Stalin didn't know that Jews in Kiev (for example) would come under German rule, since he had no idea that the Germans would capture Kiev. It was a total shock to him when that became a possibility, and he even refused to accept it until the very last minute: for example he prevented a timely retreat from the city.

    As for your own country (Hungary), it should have ironically remained in World War II up to the very end (which ultimately ended up happening anyway due to the Arrow Cross coup); that way, a larger–perhaps much larger–percentage of its Jewish population could have survived the Holocaust. The Nazis didn’t actually touch Hungary’s Jews until Hungary was about to defect from the Axis. Basically, this is a case where a lot of Jews could have been saved with minimal issues for the war effort.
     
    Most Jews in Hungary hate Horthy, and as an important reason they cite how he willingly joined Hitler. So I guess he (and "Hungary" as a whole) would be getting even more flak from Hungarian Jews (and in that timeline there'd also be many more of them to criticize Horthy and Hungary). By the way your assertions are probably wrong. Hungary was occupied so early (March 1944, well before the Soviets reached the Hungarian borders), because Hitler didn't trust Horthy. One reason was that Horthy had refused to deport Jews to Auschwitz several times in 1942 and 1943, unlike Slovakia, and Hungary also didn't carry out wholesale massacres of its Jews, unlike Romania. So, Hitler reasoned, Horthy must be under Jewish influence. German troops only occupied Slovakia (apart from a small border region already occupied since 1939), when there was a large revolt against the pro-German government there. They occupied Hungary way before that. Hitler never planned to occupy Romania (though some air defense troops were present in the country), because he trusted Antonescu so much. (Romania being farther away from Germany might have played a role, but probably wasn't the decisive factor.)

    AFAIK, the Nazis didn’t have a policy of outright murdering Slavs en masse like they did with the Jews. That said, though, if the USSR could have also managed to pull this off (as in, Siberia and Central Asia could have actually handled this mass influx of Slavs), more deportations of Slavs from the western parts of the USSR in 1940-1941 might have actually been beneficial for the Soviet war effort since it would have resulted in the Soviets having more manpower while the Nazis would have still occupied huge sections of their country.
     
    But it would have created a lot of confusion and diversion of effort right before the attack. You don't seem to understand that Stalin didn't know that Hitler would occupy Smolensk in a few weeks, or that he'd nearly capture Moscow. (There is a lot of debates going on about whether he could have captured Moscow, hadn't he diverted Guderian to Kiev. Maybe he could have destroyed the USSR.) Stalin believed that Hitler would surely be stopped way earlier. He also probably believed that war wouldn't happen before 1942. Let alone he didn't think of saving the Jews from the holocaust which hadn't yet started.

    You seem pretty indignant that the rest of the world didn't consider saving the Jews as its most important goal, and that they didn't predict dangers to Jews accurately.

    One reason was that Horthy had refused to deport Jews to Auschwitz several times in 1942 and 1943

    Did he make a distinction between “his” (Hungary’s) Jews and Jewish refugees?

    • Replies: @Not Raul
    The French went to great lengths to protect “their” Jews; but they weren’t generally willing to risk as much to protect refugee Jews. So, a vast majority of French Jews survived, while a considerably lower percentage of refugee Jews in France survived.
    , @Yevardian
    Horthy opposed the persecution of Jews period, although he held a traditional aristocrat's snobbish dislike of their race. Horthy didn't practice or understand realpolitik and was obsessed with old notions of honour, like refusing to join German's invasion of Poland despite huge incentives to do so. Tens of thousands of Jews went through Hungary on the way to Switzerland, Hungary only nearly lost all it's Jews (by some counts there as many Hungarian as Polish Jews) because the Germans occupied Hungary directly and installed Szalasi, who really was insane.

    Horthy simply wasn't very bright and made many poor decisions, though he was fundamentally a decent man who only wanted the best for his country. Horthy sent many long fawning letters to Hitler (one accompanied by a basket of fruit with instructions for a traditional Magyar recipe) begging for concessions that mostly just made Hitler respect him even less.

    Hungary was single-mindedly obsessed with reversing Triannon to exclusion of practically everything else, it's very unlikely they would have joined WW2 otherwise, they were by far the least enthusiastic of all Germany's allies.
  172. @Dmitry
    Claim of the post is that unrooting people (moving people so they are unrooted their original location as in West Poland, or allegedly East Ukraine), should result in these particularly social ills - richer, high crime, high HIV rate, and liberal politics. You add a couple of other results (atomization, alienation).

    This is supposedly the explanation for differences of West Poland from East Poland, and East Ukraine from West Ukraine.

    Mormons are a counter-example, as are many other unrooted peoples (Australians, etc).

    Australians have one of the lowest HIV rates in the world; Botswanans (which live in the same location for 1500 years) have the highest HIV rates in the world.

    Australians have one of the most conservative politics; while Swedes (who live in the same location for thousands of years) have one of the most liberal politics.

    -

    The area where there is some support for the theory that unrooted population has those effects, is in relation to crime.

    New World countries have a higher murder rates generally.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

    Claim of the post is that unrooting people (moving people so they are unrooted their original location as in West Poland, or allegedly East Ukraine), should result in these particularly social ills – richer, high crime, high HIV rate, and liberal politics. You add a couple of other results (atomization, alienation).

    Correct.

    You for some reason ignore explanations for your concerns.

    Mormons are a counter-example, as are many other unrooted peoples (Australians, etc)

    Mormons are not a counterexample, because they are not an uprooted people. They were from cohesive communities with a tight society who moved en masse in an organized way to a new place where they recreated their original community.

    As I already explained, there are also uprooted communities in the American West. They have the problems one would expect – drinking, brothels, etc. Politically speaking they tend to be libertarian in nature.

    Australians have one of the lowest HIV rates in the world; Botswanans (which live in the same location for 1500 years) have the highest HIV rates in the world.

    As has already been explained to you, African traditional culture involves males and females having 3 or so long-term sexual partners. These triads overlap with other triads, which means that HIV once introduced into the society will spread widely through the society.

    European/Christian society values monogamy. This means less HIV.

    As has also been explained to you several times, HIV incidence has several causes. Rootedness is not the only factor affecting HIV rate. An uprooted society will engage in promiscuity but if it also has a good healthcare system, access to condoms, etc. its HIV rate will not be high.

    • Replies: @iffen
    the problems one would expect – drinking, brothels, etc.

    Problems?
    , @Dmitry

    HIV incidence has several causes.

     

    And "promiscuity" - is not a relevant one, at least for the Europeans relevant societies (e.g. Poland, Ukraine).

    As we see - world's most promiscuous societies (Netherlands, Sweden, Australia, etc) with world's lowest HIV rates.


    An uprooted society will engage in promiscuity
     
    These are your personal assertions or claims, but which there is not evidence.

    I can see some evidence for unrooted populations having higher murder rates, as New World countries have generally higher murder rates than Old World countries.

    But for the other topics (e.g. liberal politics, HIV, richer, promiscuity), there is not evidence.

  173. @AP

    Claim of the post is that unrooting people (moving people so they are unrooted their original location as in West Poland, or allegedly East Ukraine), should result in these particularly social ills – richer, high crime, high HIV rate, and liberal politics. You add a couple of other results (atomization, alienation).
     
    Correct.

    You for some reason ignore explanations for your concerns.

    Mormons are a counter-example, as are many other unrooted peoples (Australians, etc)
     
    Mormons are not a counterexample, because they are not an uprooted people. They were from cohesive communities with a tight society who moved en masse in an organized way to a new place where they recreated their original community.

    As I already explained, there are also uprooted communities in the American West. They have the problems one would expect - drinking, brothels, etc. Politically speaking they tend to be libertarian in nature.

    Australians have one of the lowest HIV rates in the world; Botswanans (which live in the same location for 1500 years) have the highest HIV rates in the world.
     
    As has already been explained to you, African traditional culture involves males and females having 3 or so long-term sexual partners. These triads overlap with other triads, which means that HIV once introduced into the society will spread widely through the society.

    European/Christian society values monogamy. This means less HIV.

    As has also been explained to you several times, HIV incidence has several causes. Rootedness is not the only factor affecting HIV rate. An uprooted society will engage in promiscuity but if it also has a good healthcare system, access to condoms, etc. its HIV rate will not be high.

    the problems one would expect – drinking, brothels, etc.

    Problems?

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    The country I have seen with the most of this (if you also add casinos and cannabis, to the brothels and open prostitutes which take over whole blocks of cities), is Spain - by far.

    Spain is also one of the most rooted people in the world (even Spanish families living in cities apartments often or even mostly still own the house of their ancestors, in their ancestor's village).

  174. @AP

    Perhaps contemporary Mormons could be seen as “re-rooted”, as the time of Brigham Young was many generations ago.

    But in the early generations, they would be the most “unrooted” people, with a recently invented cult religion, and landscape which looks like Mars, aside from native Indians still living there.
     
    They arrived as a united cohesive community with a similar social and cultural background (Puritan stock mostly, then joined by converts from the same part of England that Puritans came from) and goal. Thye were not just thrown together like people in western Poland or Sovok-Ukraine.

    There were also rootless settlers in the American West, living in mining towns or cowboy settlements. The differences between these ypes of settlements are stark. Mormon villages are clean, neat, well put together, relatively free of social problems. The mining town on the other side of the mountain is a wreck.

    mining town on the other side

    Also immigration to mining town would be mainly men (certainly more men than women).

    Whereas, the Mormon emigration seems to have a very high ratio of women.

    For example, about Brigham Young:

    “Young was dubbed by his followers the “Lion of the Lord” for his bold personality and commonly was called “Brother Brigham” by Latter-day Saints. A polygamist, Young had 55 wives.”

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

    – If you have 55 wives, then it is not perhaps a surprise that the lawn is regularly cut and the house looks clean.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if this is the forgotten origin of the Salt Lake City culture of clean and neat houses.

  175. @AP

    Claim of the post is that unrooting people (moving people so they are unrooted their original location as in West Poland, or allegedly East Ukraine), should result in these particularly social ills – richer, high crime, high HIV rate, and liberal politics. You add a couple of other results (atomization, alienation).
     
    Correct.

    You for some reason ignore explanations for your concerns.

    Mormons are a counter-example, as are many other unrooted peoples (Australians, etc)
     
    Mormons are not a counterexample, because they are not an uprooted people. They were from cohesive communities with a tight society who moved en masse in an organized way to a new place where they recreated their original community.

    As I already explained, there are also uprooted communities in the American West. They have the problems one would expect - drinking, brothels, etc. Politically speaking they tend to be libertarian in nature.

    Australians have one of the lowest HIV rates in the world; Botswanans (which live in the same location for 1500 years) have the highest HIV rates in the world.
     
    As has already been explained to you, African traditional culture involves males and females having 3 or so long-term sexual partners. These triads overlap with other triads, which means that HIV once introduced into the society will spread widely through the society.

    European/Christian society values monogamy. This means less HIV.

    As has also been explained to you several times, HIV incidence has several causes. Rootedness is not the only factor affecting HIV rate. An uprooted society will engage in promiscuity but if it also has a good healthcare system, access to condoms, etc. its HIV rate will not be high.

    HIV incidence has several causes.

    And “promiscuity” – is not a relevant one, at least for the Europeans relevant societies (e.g. Poland, Ukraine).

    As we see – world’s most promiscuous societies (Netherlands, Sweden, Australia, etc) with world’s lowest HIV rates.

    An uprooted society will engage in promiscuity

    These are your personal assertions or claims, but which there is not evidence.

    I can see some evidence for unrooted populations having higher murder rates, as New World countries have generally higher murder rates than Old World countries.

    But for the other topics (e.g. liberal politics, HIV, richer, promiscuity), there is not evidence.

    • Replies: @AP

    HIV incidence has several causes.

    And “promiscuity” – is not a relevant one, at least for the Europeans relevant societies (e.g. Poland, Ukraine).
     
    Promiscuity is not only relevant but necessary. If everyone only has one sexual partner their entire life there would be basically zero HIV (limited to needle-sharing drug users and their wives and children).

    I can see some evidence for unrooted populations having higher murder rates, as New World countries have generally higher murder rates than Old World countries.

    But for the other topics (e.g. liberal politics, HIV, richer, promiscuity), there is not evidence.
     
    More uprooted societies in Poland and Ukraine have higher HIV rates. This, plus more kids born out of wedlock and more STDs suggests greater promiscuity also, at least in Ukraine's case (haven't looked at this for Poland).

    Edit: Look , out of wedlock births also follow the trend for Poland. SO I predicted this accurately:

    https://miro.medium.com/max/494/1*wYrJCH4UWW-yK6US3tJNbA.png

    Notice that the map for Ukraine, Belarus and Poland matches the borders of the pre-1939 Polish state for low out of wedlock births.

    (in Ukraine, the famine-devastated areas of southern Ukraine are the worst, but Donbas comes in second place).
  176. @Mr. XYZ

    The capital and everything associated with that and they were hiring
     
    I thought that capital didn't matter very much in a Communist country?

    Also, as a side note, why wasn't Jewish capital attractive enough to the Russian Tsars for them to allow large-scale Jewish migration out of the Pale of Settlement? Did they hope to keep Jews out of Russia's eastern territories so that they wouldn't compete with the non-Jewish businessmen there? In other words, a form of affirmative action for non-Jews--just like with the Jewish quotas during Tsarist rule.

    – and giving Jews preferential access relative to similarly or more qualified Russians (as many of those had belonged to so-called “exploiter” classes).
     
    That actually makes sense. Also, as a side note, I wonder just how much larger the Jewish population in Russia proper would have eventually become if it wasn't for the Holocaust wiping out most of the Pale of Settlement's Jewish population. In real life, it peaked at slightly over 900,000 in 1959 if one includes Crimea as part of Russia (and at about 891,000 without Crimea).

    BTW, one of the most deeply regretful things about the Soviet Union is that it didn't deport the entire Jewish population west of Moscow en masse further east in the months and year before Operation Barbarossa. About 1.0-1.5 million Soviet Jews did, in fact, manage to evacuate further eastward in 1941 but something like 2.5-2.7 million Soviet Jews stayed behind and thus perished under Nazi rule and the resulting Holocaust. Stalin really, really should have deported the entirety of the Jewish population of the former Pale of Settlement deep into the interior of the Soviet Union before Operation Barbarossa. That way, much more of them would have survived the Holocaust and World War II.

    The only sensible conclusion one can draw from your post is that Stalin’s greatest mistake was not to relocate all Soviet Jews to the German-Soviet border on June 21st, 1941.

  177. @iffen
    the problems one would expect – drinking, brothels, etc.

    Problems?

    The country I have seen with the most of this (if you also add casinos and cannabis, to the brothels and open prostitutes which take over whole blocks of cities), is Spain – by far.

    Spain is also one of the most rooted people in the world (even Spanish families living in cities apartments often or even mostly still own the house of their ancestors, in their ancestor’s village).

  178. @AP

    Apparently, Lwow Voivodeship was majority Polish during the interwar period
     
    That's because the Polish government added a bunch of Polish lands to it (that are now part of Poland) that Ukrainians never claimed, in order to get that majority. Red line is the current border:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/15/Lwowskie.png/1024px-Lwowskie.png

    Current Galicia in Ukraine was about 62% Ukrainian, 10% Jewish, the rest Poles. Lwow was a barely-Polish "island" surrounded by Ukrainian villages.

    So, to adjust Dmitry’s statement a little bit, it is likely that if it were not for the massacre of Poles by the nationalists, the deportations under Stalin, Hitler’s massacres, and finally, the transfer of the eastern half of the province to the USSR and the accompanying population transfers, then not only the city, but the entire region would be mostly Polish (and Jewish) today.
     
    No, see my previous comment.

    Galicians turn up at Celtic music festivals claiming to be Celts. That is what the name of the area says.

  179. @German_reader

    Puritan stock mostly, then joined by converts from the same part of England that Puritans came from
     
    Puritans were from East Anglia, the Mormon converts in the 19th century had their centre in Lancashire (which had been a stronghold of the royalists in the civil war, also retained an unusually high number of Catholics):
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/when-the-saints-go-marching-in-how-a-tiny-town-in-lancashire-saved-mormonism-from-extinction-7976632.html

    As for Poland, I don't see the point of those speculations without any hard data about the actual origins of those living in the formerly German parts (commenters early in this thread wrote that only a minority are descendants of Poles expelled from present-day Belarus and Ukraine). It's also irritating that what was Posen province in imperial Germany is also liberal-leaning, even though it's always had a Polish majority and belonged to the reborn Polish state since 1918/1919...what's supposed to be the explanation for that? Did the ethnic cleansing during the German occupation in WW2 kill so many of the long-term residents that the vacuum was filled by migrants from other parts of Poland?

    Lancashire, London and Wales. A lot of Mormon migration was/is chain migration. Other members of the family are brought over.

  180. @Dmitry

    HIV incidence has several causes.

     

    And "promiscuity" - is not a relevant one, at least for the Europeans relevant societies (e.g. Poland, Ukraine).

    As we see - world's most promiscuous societies (Netherlands, Sweden, Australia, etc) with world's lowest HIV rates.


    An uprooted society will engage in promiscuity
     
    These are your personal assertions or claims, but which there is not evidence.

    I can see some evidence for unrooted populations having higher murder rates, as New World countries have generally higher murder rates than Old World countries.

    But for the other topics (e.g. liberal politics, HIV, richer, promiscuity), there is not evidence.

    HIV incidence has several causes.

    And “promiscuity” – is not a relevant one, at least for the Europeans relevant societies (e.g. Poland, Ukraine).

    Promiscuity is not only relevant but necessary. If everyone only has one sexual partner their entire life there would be basically zero HIV (limited to needle-sharing drug users and their wives and children).

    I can see some evidence for unrooted populations having higher murder rates, as New World countries have generally higher murder rates than Old World countries.

    But for the other topics (e.g. liberal politics, HIV, richer, promiscuity), there is not evidence.

    More uprooted societies in Poland and Ukraine have higher HIV rates. This, plus more kids born out of wedlock and more STDs suggests greater promiscuity also, at least in Ukraine’s case (haven’t looked at this for Poland).

    Edit: Look , out of wedlock births also follow the trend for Poland. SO I predicted this accurately:

    Notice that the map for Ukraine, Belarus and Poland matches the borders of the pre-1939 Polish state for low out of wedlock births.

    (in Ukraine, the famine-devastated areas of southern Ukraine are the worst, but Donbas comes in second place).

    • Replies: @Dmitry

    be basically zero HIV (limited to needle-sharing drug users and their wives and children)

     

    This is what is described as the typical heterosexual HIV story in Russia.

    Wife/girlfriend has HIV from a test. Then she finds her boyfriend/husband has injected drugs many years earlier.


    , out of wedlock births also follow the trend for
     
    Look at the colours for Sweden, France, Denmark, Iceland, Norway.

    It's true Iceland people have only been there for 1000 years, but they have been very rooted people since then (moving maybe a few kilometres from where their thousand year ancestors lived).

    If the connection between rooted population and out of wedlock births does not generalize even across Northern Europe, then it does not appear very plausible that rootedness of population is the causal factor for the regional differences inside Poland or Ukraine.


    more STDs suggests greater promiscuity also,

     

    It's also possible there is lower condom use, as with the out of wedlock births.

    For example, nobody believes that young people in Spain/Italy, are not having sex (you only have to see the nightlife in those countries) - however, they may be using condoms and/or abortion.

    If you look at that map of out of wedlock births, you have to ask what is the situation with East Germany? There was perhaps a different contraception method in GDR compared to West Germany (which has continued to have influence)?

    , @Yevardian
    I'm actually very surprised at how conservative (West) Germany appears on this map.
  181. @German_reader

    Puritan stock mostly, then joined by converts from the same part of England that Puritans came from
     
    Puritans were from East Anglia, the Mormon converts in the 19th century had their centre in Lancashire (which had been a stronghold of the royalists in the civil war, also retained an unusually high number of Catholics):
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/when-the-saints-go-marching-in-how-a-tiny-town-in-lancashire-saved-mormonism-from-extinction-7976632.html

    As for Poland, I don't see the point of those speculations without any hard data about the actual origins of those living in the formerly German parts (commenters early in this thread wrote that only a minority are descendants of Poles expelled from present-day Belarus and Ukraine). It's also irritating that what was Posen province in imperial Germany is also liberal-leaning, even though it's always had a Polish majority and belonged to the reborn Polish state since 1918/1919...what's supposed to be the explanation for that? Did the ethnic cleansing during the German occupation in WW2 kill so many of the long-term residents that the vacuum was filled by migrants from other parts of Poland?

    Thank you for the correction.

    Still, it was mostly English Puritan-stock from the USA, and then added to those were more English ultra-religious immigrants.

  182. @AP

    Apparently, Lwow Voivodeship was majority Polish during the interwar period
     
    That's because the Polish government added a bunch of Polish lands to it (that are now part of Poland) that Ukrainians never claimed, in order to get that majority. Red line is the current border:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/15/Lwowskie.png/1024px-Lwowskie.png

    Current Galicia in Ukraine was about 62% Ukrainian, 10% Jewish, the rest Poles. Lwow was a barely-Polish "island" surrounded by Ukrainian villages.

    So, to adjust Dmitry’s statement a little bit, it is likely that if it were not for the massacre of Poles by the nationalists, the deportations under Stalin, Hitler’s massacres, and finally, the transfer of the eastern half of the province to the USSR and the accompanying population transfers, then not only the city, but the entire region would be mostly Polish (and Jewish) today.
     
    No, see my previous comment.

    That’s because the Polish government added a bunch of Polish lands to it (that are now part of Poland) that Ukrainians never claimed

    So what?

    No, see my previous comment.

    I don’t see how you are challenging my statement, or Dmitry’s.

    • Replies: @AP

    That’s because the Polish government added a bunch of Polish lands to it (that are now part of Poland) that Ukrainians never claimed

    So what?
     
    So, because the region we are talking about, western Ukraine/East Galicia (which is now in Ukraine's border), wasn't the same as "Lwow Voivodeship" it would not have been true that "the entire region would be mostly Polish (and Jewish) today." The entire region plus the Polish parts from other regions that Poland added to it to create an artificial ahistorical Polish-majority province would have been mostly Polish and Jewish. But not the current western Ukraine. It would still have been about 60% Ukrainian, as it was in 1931.
  183. @EldnahYm
    The South was actually quite supportive of FDR's domestic interventionist policies, many of which were targeted to fix the backwardness of that region. The strongest ideological opposition to the New Deal and other such policies actually came from New Englanders(as LondonBob points out). The South's turn away from the Democrats nationally shows itself with the LBJ election later, largely due to its integrationist policies.

    The South was also most supportive of FDR getting the U.S. into World War II, while isolationist sentiments were stronger elsewhere, including New England. This pattern continues to this day, southerners tend to support any war U.S. presidents blunder into.

    This pattern continues to this day, southerners tend to support any war U.S. presidents blunder into.

    Well, they are the ones getting paid for it. It’s mainly them in the military.

    It also fits with their aristocratic cavalier background.

  184. @AP

    HIV incidence has several causes.

    And “promiscuity” – is not a relevant one, at least for the Europeans relevant societies (e.g. Poland, Ukraine).
     
    Promiscuity is not only relevant but necessary. If everyone only has one sexual partner their entire life there would be basically zero HIV (limited to needle-sharing drug users and their wives and children).

    I can see some evidence for unrooted populations having higher murder rates, as New World countries have generally higher murder rates than Old World countries.

    But for the other topics (e.g. liberal politics, HIV, richer, promiscuity), there is not evidence.
     
    More uprooted societies in Poland and Ukraine have higher HIV rates. This, plus more kids born out of wedlock and more STDs suggests greater promiscuity also, at least in Ukraine's case (haven't looked at this for Poland).

    Edit: Look , out of wedlock births also follow the trend for Poland. SO I predicted this accurately:

    https://miro.medium.com/max/494/1*wYrJCH4UWW-yK6US3tJNbA.png

    Notice that the map for Ukraine, Belarus and Poland matches the borders of the pre-1939 Polish state for low out of wedlock births.

    (in Ukraine, the famine-devastated areas of southern Ukraine are the worst, but Donbas comes in second place).

    be basically zero HIV (limited to needle-sharing drug users and their wives and children)

    This is what is described as the typical heterosexual HIV story in Russia.

    Wife/girlfriend has HIV from a test. Then she finds her boyfriend/husband has injected drugs many years earlier.

    , out of wedlock births also follow the trend for

    Look at the colours for Sweden, France, Denmark, Iceland, Norway.

    It’s true Iceland people have only been there for 1000 years, but they have been very rooted people since then (moving maybe a few kilometres from where their thousand year ancestors lived).

    If the connection between rooted population and out of wedlock births does not generalize even across Northern Europe, then it does not appear very plausible that rootedness of population is the causal factor for the regional differences inside Poland or Ukraine.

    more STDs suggests greater promiscuity also,

    It’s also possible there is lower condom use, as with the out of wedlock births.

    For example, nobody believes that young people in Spain/Italy, are not having sex (you only have to see the nightlife in those countries) – however, they may be using condoms and/or abortion.

    If you look at that map of out of wedlock births, you have to ask what is the situation with East Germany? There was perhaps a different contraception method in GDR compared to West Germany (which has continued to have influence)?

    • Replies: @German_reader

    Look at the colours for Sweden, France, Denmark, Iceland, Norway.
     
    Out of wedlock births may be somewhat misleading as a category here, my understanding is that in Scandinavian countries it usually means parents of children are still living together in a long-term relationship, so de facto there's an intact family unit, not that much different from formal marriage. This has to be distinguished from situations where the man abandons the mother of his children, leading to one parent or patchwork families and all the dysfunction typical of them.
    , @AP

    be basically zero HIV (limited to needle-sharing drug users and their wives and children)

    This is what is described as the typical heterosexual HIV story in Russia.

    Wife/girlfriend has HIV from a test. Then she finds her boyfriend/husband has injected drugs many years earlier.
     
    Drug abuse is also a symptom of rootlessness.

    , out of wedlock births also follow the trend for

    Look at the colours for Sweden, France, Denmark, Iceland, Norway.
     
    Here as elsewhere, you seem to have trouble understanding that things can have more than one cause. Sweden, France, Iceland etc. have undergone massive social and cultural changes without their population being uprooted (although I suppose a huge influx of outsiders can count for this purpose). But within Poland and Ukraine, Germany, Czech Republic (highest rate is in Sudetenland) we see uprootedness at work.

    If you look at that map of out of wedlock births, you have to ask what is the situation with East Germany? There was surely a contraception method in GDR compared to West Germany?
     
    East Germany underwent massive Commie social engineering. It also hosted a huge number of refugee settlers from lands to the East who were ethnically cleansed from East Prussia, Poland, Transylvania, etc.
  185. @Denis

    That’s because the Polish government added a bunch of Polish lands to it (that are now part of Poland) that Ukrainians never claimed
     
    So what?

    No, see my previous comment.
     
    I don't see how you are challenging my statement, or Dmitry's.

    That’s because the Polish government added a bunch of Polish lands to it (that are now part of Poland) that Ukrainians never claimed

    So what?

    So, because the region we are talking about, western Ukraine/East Galicia (which is now in Ukraine’s border), wasn’t the same as “Lwow Voivodeship” it would not have been true that “the entire region would be mostly Polish (and Jewish) today.” The entire region plus the Polish parts from other regions that Poland added to it to create an artificial ahistorical Polish-majority province would have been mostly Polish and Jewish. But not the current western Ukraine. It would still have been about 60% Ukrainian, as it was in 1931.

    • Replies: @Denis

    But not the current western Ukraine
     
    Current western Ukraine would not exist in its current borders and with its current demographics were it not for the massacres of Poles by the rebels, the deportation of the Poles by the Soviets, the Holocaust, the border adjustment, and the various other tectonic shifts in the region; I don't think this is debatable, and it is the root of the question.

    For an analogy, the modern territory of Poland would also obviously not have its current demographics (it would be much more German) if it were not for world war 2, the post war territorial adjustment, the ethnic cleansing of the Germans, the deportation of Poles to the west, etc.
  186. @Dmitry

    be basically zero HIV (limited to needle-sharing drug users and their wives and children)

     

    This is what is described as the typical heterosexual HIV story in Russia.

    Wife/girlfriend has HIV from a test. Then she finds her boyfriend/husband has injected drugs many years earlier.


    , out of wedlock births also follow the trend for
     
    Look at the colours for Sweden, France, Denmark, Iceland, Norway.

    It's true Iceland people have only been there for 1000 years, but they have been very rooted people since then (moving maybe a few kilometres from where their thousand year ancestors lived).

    If the connection between rooted population and out of wedlock births does not generalize even across Northern Europe, then it does not appear very plausible that rootedness of population is the causal factor for the regional differences inside Poland or Ukraine.


    more STDs suggests greater promiscuity also,

     

    It's also possible there is lower condom use, as with the out of wedlock births.

    For example, nobody believes that young people in Spain/Italy, are not having sex (you only have to see the nightlife in those countries) - however, they may be using condoms and/or abortion.

    If you look at that map of out of wedlock births, you have to ask what is the situation with East Germany? There was perhaps a different contraception method in GDR compared to West Germany (which has continued to have influence)?

    Look at the colours for Sweden, France, Denmark, Iceland, Norway.

    Out of wedlock births may be somewhat misleading as a category here, my understanding is that in Scandinavian countries it usually means parents of children are still living together in a long-term relationship, so de facto there’s an intact family unit, not that much different from formal marriage. This has to be distinguished from situations where the man abandons the mother of his children, leading to one parent or patchwork families and all the dysfunction typical of them.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    Sure, that measurement is not necessarily measuring promiscuity, at least in an informal sense (unmarried couples can have children, without being promiscuous).

    Promiscuity itself, of course, has no particular or universal relation to unrootedness - we just need to look at the same Scandinavian countries, which have extremely rooted populations and also (according to other surveys) high promiscuity rates.

    HIV rates are not correlating with rootedness of populations in different countries.

    And finally, promiscuity rates between populations are not a good predictor of HIV rates.

  187. @AP

    That’s because the Polish government added a bunch of Polish lands to it (that are now part of Poland) that Ukrainians never claimed

    So what?
     
    So, because the region we are talking about, western Ukraine/East Galicia (which is now in Ukraine's border), wasn't the same as "Lwow Voivodeship" it would not have been true that "the entire region would be mostly Polish (and Jewish) today." The entire region plus the Polish parts from other regions that Poland added to it to create an artificial ahistorical Polish-majority province would have been mostly Polish and Jewish. But not the current western Ukraine. It would still have been about 60% Ukrainian, as it was in 1931.

    But not the current western Ukraine

    Current western Ukraine would not exist in its current borders and with its current demographics were it not for the massacres of Poles by the rebels, the deportation of the Poles by the Soviets, the Holocaust, the border adjustment, and the various other tectonic shifts in the region; I don’t think this is debatable, and it is the root of the question.

    For an analogy, the modern territory of Poland would also obviously not have its current demographics (it would be much more German) if it were not for world war 2, the post war territorial adjustment, the ethnic cleansing of the Germans, the deportation of Poles to the west, etc.

    • Replies: @AP

    Current western Ukraine would not exist in its current borders and with its current demographics were it not for the massacres of Poles by the rebels, the deportation of the Poles by the Soviets, the Holocaust, the border adjustment, and the various other tectonic shifts in the region
     
    Borders, sure. And those borders would not have existed if not for World War I and if not for the Ukrainian-Polish war. So? But within the current borders there would still have been a Ukrainian majority without all of those things. Even if the Poles never left Lviv and the Jews were not all killed, western Ukraine would still have a Ukrainian majority.

    The Polish state wanted to make sure that the city of Lviv was within a majority-Polish province. This could only be done by adding a bunch of lands from a different historical region, that Ukrainians never claimed, to create a new province based on an ahistorical territory.
  188. @Dmitry

    be basically zero HIV (limited to needle-sharing drug users and their wives and children)

     

    This is what is described as the typical heterosexual HIV story in Russia.

    Wife/girlfriend has HIV from a test. Then she finds her boyfriend/husband has injected drugs many years earlier.


    , out of wedlock births also follow the trend for
     
    Look at the colours for Sweden, France, Denmark, Iceland, Norway.

    It's true Iceland people have only been there for 1000 years, but they have been very rooted people since then (moving maybe a few kilometres from where their thousand year ancestors lived).

    If the connection between rooted population and out of wedlock births does not generalize even across Northern Europe, then it does not appear very plausible that rootedness of population is the causal factor for the regional differences inside Poland or Ukraine.


    more STDs suggests greater promiscuity also,

     

    It's also possible there is lower condom use, as with the out of wedlock births.

    For example, nobody believes that young people in Spain/Italy, are not having sex (you only have to see the nightlife in those countries) - however, they may be using condoms and/or abortion.

    If you look at that map of out of wedlock births, you have to ask what is the situation with East Germany? There was perhaps a different contraception method in GDR compared to West Germany (which has continued to have influence)?

    be basically zero HIV (limited to needle-sharing drug users and their wives and children)

    This is what is described as the typical heterosexual HIV story in Russia.

    Wife/girlfriend has HIV from a test. Then she finds her boyfriend/husband has injected drugs many years earlier.

    Drug abuse is also a symptom of rootlessness.

    , out of wedlock births also follow the trend for

    Look at the colours for Sweden, France, Denmark, Iceland, Norway.

    Here as elsewhere, you seem to have trouble understanding that things can have more than one cause. Sweden, France, Iceland etc. have undergone massive social and cultural changes without their population being uprooted (although I suppose a huge influx of outsiders can count for this purpose). But within Poland and Ukraine, Germany, Czech Republic (highest rate is in Sudetenland) we see uprootedness at work.

    If you look at that map of out of wedlock births, you have to ask what is the situation with East Germany? There was surely a contraception method in GDR compared to West Germany?

    East Germany underwent massive Commie social engineering. It also hosted a huge number of refugee settlers from lands to the East who were ethnically cleansed from East Prussia, Poland, Transylvania, etc.

    • Replies: @Dmitry

    symptom of rootlessness... we see uprootedness at work.
     
    These are your claims or assertions.

    If you want to make a weak version of these claims, you would need to at least collect correlations which shows some connection between these variables. E.g. you need correlations to show connection between unrootedness and promiscuity, between unrootedness and HIV, and between promiscuity and HIV.

    But from any brief look at examples, it seems often to show the opposite - actually it could be more common that there are correlations in the opposite direction on those topics.

    E.g. The most promiscuous societies, include the most rooted populations in the world (e.g. Sweden, Netherlands, UK).

    And more counter-intuitively: The lowest HIV countries in the world, include the most promiscuous societies in the world (e.g. Sweden, Netherlands, Australia).


    East Germany underwent massive Commie social engineering. It also hosted a huge number
     
    A likely reason for the difference in that measure - the GDR, they used abortion as the method of contraception (which is like in the USSR).

    After re-unification, then abortion is suddenly restricted (so there is transition in the birthcontrol method)-


    Re-unification was associated with two major
    changes in the realm of fertility regulation for
    East German women: the more liberal East
    German abortion law was rejected in 1992 in
    favour of a law which made abortion a criminal
    offence except where there was a serious threat
    to the woman’s health or life,21
     
    https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1016/S0968-8080%2898%2990089-1
  189. @Denis

    But not the current western Ukraine
     
    Current western Ukraine would not exist in its current borders and with its current demographics were it not for the massacres of Poles by the rebels, the deportation of the Poles by the Soviets, the Holocaust, the border adjustment, and the various other tectonic shifts in the region; I don't think this is debatable, and it is the root of the question.

    For an analogy, the modern territory of Poland would also obviously not have its current demographics (it would be much more German) if it were not for world war 2, the post war territorial adjustment, the ethnic cleansing of the Germans, the deportation of Poles to the west, etc.

    Current western Ukraine would not exist in its current borders and with its current demographics were it not for the massacres of Poles by the rebels, the deportation of the Poles by the Soviets, the Holocaust, the border adjustment, and the various other tectonic shifts in the region

    Borders, sure. And those borders would not have existed if not for World War I and if not for the Ukrainian-Polish war. So? But within the current borders there would still have been a Ukrainian majority without all of those things. Even if the Poles never left Lviv and the Jews were not all killed, western Ukraine would still have a Ukrainian majority.

    The Polish state wanted to make sure that the city of Lviv was within a majority-Polish province. This could only be done by adding a bunch of lands from a different historical region, that Ukrainians never claimed, to create a new province based on an ahistorical territory.

    • Replies: @Denis

    Borders, sure. And those borders would not have existed if not for World War I and if not for the Ukrainian-Polish war. So?
     
    So it wouldn't be part of Ukraine, as it is today. Your claim, that Lviv would necessarily become a Ukrainian city no matter what, was based on Ukrainians relocating to the city. There is no reason to believe that this would necessarily happen if Lviv, a Polish city, were in a majority polish province, in Poland. Unless someone placed a magnet there that attracts Ukrainians.

    But within the current borders there would still have been a Ukrainian majority without all of those things. Even if the Poles never left Lviv and the Jews were not all killed, western Ukraine would still have a Ukrainian majority.
     
    I assume by western Ukraine you specifically mean the eastern territories that were part of Poland at the time. This statement is clearly of little foundation, given that this hypothetical alternate history did not happen. In reality, Galicia is today only a part of Ukraine, and it only has it's current demographics, due to the travails of the local Poles. The fact that a certain segment of the province was mostly Ukrainian would obviously not have led to it being a part of an independent Ukraine without these outside factors.

    The Polish state wanted to make sure that the city of Lviv was within a majority-Polish province. This could only be done by adding a bunch of lands from a different historical region, that Ukrainians never claimed, to create a new province based on an ahistorical territory.
     
    This is irrelevant to my statement; I have no interest in litigating old Polish territorial claims. I am saying that in a hypothetical alternate scenario where these events don't come to pass, there is no reason to believe that the city would be Ukrainian today. Indeed, since we are engaging in conjecture, I would say that it's at least as likely that the city would have become even more Polish.
  190. @Thulean Friend

    But back then, the democrats were actually the conservative party on most issues
     
    Yes - except on economics, which was my point. The rural southern agrarians were voting for an economically leftist party compared to the GOP (which has always been the party of big business).

    Hence the "farmer = conservative" stereotype is untrue from an economic PoV. You're correct about the focus on social issues also. That was also my complimentary challenge: prove to me that Northern white working class voters were liberals during this epoch on social issues. I doubt it. The liberal attitudes we associate with the North was mostly a product of a small elite of the New England industrialised class and its coterie of liberal thinkers. Northern proles did what they were told in their factories and elsewhere, but I doubt they shared the ideological proclivities to any great extent and much more likely had far more in common with rural southern whites in social views.

    Bringing this to Sweden, there is no reason to think that woodworkers in the North are any different in their conservatism on social issues from rural people in the South. The main difference was simply a combination of proximity to diversity as well as much lower density in the north, which necessitates a far greater role of public investments. But this shouldn't be seen that these voters are ideological leftists. They vote left-wing for pragmatic economic reasons.

    But as Swedish Family pointed out, even this is slowly changing with only Stockholm as the sole outlier left in Sweden, where the local and international elite congregate and where the riff-raff get purged. I read an amusing story the other day in a local Stockholm paper of Solna kommun sending their welfare recipients to rural counties. Most of them are asylum seekers. This is how it is done, under the radar and with the mask of progressivism.

    Because historical politics doesn’t line up exactly neatly with modern politics it is kind of difficult to pin modern political labels and have them fit with historical groups. But I have a hard time seeing the south as economically left.

    Left and liberal are not the same thing, though I have a hard time seeing the south as liberal too. As I mentioned, they were economic free traders and at-will-employers.

    Now, in modern terms of ‘liberal’, none of that sounds liberal. But it is a type of the original liberal, which is basically a neoliberal. Neoliberals are called neo because people are use to democrats calling themselves liberal while advocating policies left-socialist to communist.

    In classical terms, the liberal position on taxes is there shouldn’t be any, the liberal position on gun laws is there shouldn’t be any – although that’s not an economic issue so an economic liberal wouldn’t necessarily think that (ie many of the current neoliberals).

    But in the US practically the entire country was (and still heavily is) liberal. In the context of the US I don’t think the south was that liberal really. Outside of Canada the southern aristocracy is basically the closest thing the US had to the old, ancient regime right. And that’s where the slavery comes from, they were basically practicing serfdom but with blacks. It’s very easy to imagine some of their ancestors doing basically the exact same thing centuries earlier but back in Europe with European serfs.

    And anyway, as I think you mentioned in a comment above, that southern style of liberal economics has basically become how we define the ‘right wing’ of economics in the US in modern American terms.

    I’m not seeing how the south was left wing at all, or even all that liberal compared to the north. I mean, you can make the argument that on american terms the south was liberal economically but that’s practically libertarian economics, and meanwhile the north was liberal to socialist left.

    Something like slavery may count as a social issue of the day, but as a cultural thing it effects economic issues. The north was more egalitarian. The south more explicitly hierarchical. There is a big difference in employment laws probably stemming from that difference in cultures.

    That being said this has blown up a bit, the overall classification of their politics is not really the point, nor their cultural differences, but the different economics of industrialists vs traditional (non industrial) agriculturalists. And even that was just about those Swedish woodcutters who, when you call them woodcutters, don’t sound industrial either.

    I basically agree with you that it’s most likely for pragmatic economic reasons, not modern ideological leftism (I don’t know though, I’m just guessing since I don’t know them).

    That’s basically what I’m saying about the working class in the industrial north US being a Trumpian type of left wing. I’m not talking about SJWs, I mean like machinists and truck drivers and miners. They vote left wing out of pragmatic economic reasons, but their reasons are a political cycle out of date. For pragmatic economic reasons they are voting for a party that wants to destroy them. Demographically speaking I think they are already realigning but they are currently in anachronistic alignment.

    In the south, like I was saying as recently as the last 10 years there were still voters who were voting democrat out of the cycle before that, 2 cycles out of alignment. So we might expect the last of these northern populations to catch up to the current political cycle sometime 10-20 years into the next one.

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    I agree that modern politics is impossible to transfer to historical politics. The Democrats were Dixiecrats in the South, no one would have been much aware that FDR was a commie but they would have know who their father fought for in the civil war and that FDR was promising to bring electricity to their region.

    In Albion's Seed Fisher has the English South West as the most conservative area, but these days it is a region where the Liberal Democrats are quite strong, even if Labour are very weak there. The old Puritan East of England is actually the region the Conservatives and UKIP/Brexit Party do best. Of course in the US immigration has changed the South West to the left and the more White Northern states like Michigan, Wisconsin are going right. As noted they no longer have the economic incentive to vote Democrat and the new demographics have changed the calculations for white voters.
  191. @AP

    be basically zero HIV (limited to needle-sharing drug users and their wives and children)

    This is what is described as the typical heterosexual HIV story in Russia.

    Wife/girlfriend has HIV from a test. Then she finds her boyfriend/husband has injected drugs many years earlier.
     
    Drug abuse is also a symptom of rootlessness.

    , out of wedlock births also follow the trend for

    Look at the colours for Sweden, France, Denmark, Iceland, Norway.
     
    Here as elsewhere, you seem to have trouble understanding that things can have more than one cause. Sweden, France, Iceland etc. have undergone massive social and cultural changes without their population being uprooted (although I suppose a huge influx of outsiders can count for this purpose). But within Poland and Ukraine, Germany, Czech Republic (highest rate is in Sudetenland) we see uprootedness at work.

    If you look at that map of out of wedlock births, you have to ask what is the situation with East Germany? There was surely a contraception method in GDR compared to West Germany?
     
    East Germany underwent massive Commie social engineering. It also hosted a huge number of refugee settlers from lands to the East who were ethnically cleansed from East Prussia, Poland, Transylvania, etc.

    symptom of rootlessness… we see uprootedness at work.

    These are your claims or assertions.

    If you want to make a weak version of these claims, you would need to at least collect correlations which shows some connection between these variables. E.g. you need correlations to show connection between unrootedness and promiscuity, between unrootedness and HIV, and between promiscuity and HIV.

    But from any brief look at examples, it seems often to show the opposite – actually it could be more common that there are correlations in the opposite direction on those topics.

    E.g. The most promiscuous societies, include the most rooted populations in the world (e.g. Sweden, Netherlands, UK).

    And more counter-intuitively: The lowest HIV countries in the world, include the most promiscuous societies in the world (e.g. Sweden, Netherlands, Australia).

    East Germany underwent massive Commie social engineering. It also hosted a huge number

    A likely reason for the difference in that measure – the GDR, they used abortion as the method of contraception (which is like in the USSR).

    After re-unification, then abortion is suddenly restricted (so there is transition in the birthcontrol method)-

    Re-unification was associated with two major
    changes in the realm of fertility regulation for
    East German women: the more liberal East
    German abortion law was rejected in 1992 in
    favour of a law which made abortion a criminal
    offence except where there was a serious threat
    to the woman’s health or life,21

    https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1016/S0968-8080%2898%2990089-1

    • Replies: @AP

    If you want to make a weak version of these claims, you would need to at least collect correlations which shows some connection between these variables. E.g. you need correlations to show connection between unrootedness and promiscuity, between unrootedness and HIV, and between promiscuity and HIV.
     
    We have correlations for the first two (see the maps). The third is obvious. No promiscuity, and HIV is limited to a tiny % of the population (people sharing drug needles and their wives).

    The most promiscuous societies, include the most rooted populations in the world (e.g. Sweden, Netherlands, UK).
     
    Again, you fail to understand that things can have more than one cause.

    Smoking causes lung cancer. The fact that some people get lung cancer without smoking does not disprove this.

    Likewise, there is a correlation between uprootedeness and promiscuity, HIV, out of wedlock births, and crime. This is robust enough that we conclude that being uprooted causes an increase of these things in the uprooted population. This does not mean that there are no other causes for these problems.

    Uprooted populations in Europe include eastern Ukraine, western/northwestern Poland, Sudetenland. "Rooted" population include western Ukraine, and eastern and southern Poland.

    So as predicted (I am summarizing everything here):

    HIV rate:

    http://i.wp.pl/a/f/jpeg/28080/hiv_polska.jpeg

    https://i.imgur.com/ZCDdYEr.png

    Crime rate:

    https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Agnieszka_Kozera/publication/323018273/figure/fig10/AS:[email protected]/Crime-vulnerability-index-in-the-years-2010-2013-Index-for-Poland_Q640.jpg

    https://i.imgur.com/9EswwPC.png

    http://www.praha.eu/public/14/2d/5f/1762737_422944_kriminalita_praha_02.jpg

    Out of wedlock birth rate:

    https://miro.medium.com/max/494/1*wYrJCH4UWW-yK6US3tJNbA.png

  192. @AP

    Current western Ukraine would not exist in its current borders and with its current demographics were it not for the massacres of Poles by the rebels, the deportation of the Poles by the Soviets, the Holocaust, the border adjustment, and the various other tectonic shifts in the region
     
    Borders, sure. And those borders would not have existed if not for World War I and if not for the Ukrainian-Polish war. So? But within the current borders there would still have been a Ukrainian majority without all of those things. Even if the Poles never left Lviv and the Jews were not all killed, western Ukraine would still have a Ukrainian majority.

    The Polish state wanted to make sure that the city of Lviv was within a majority-Polish province. This could only be done by adding a bunch of lands from a different historical region, that Ukrainians never claimed, to create a new province based on an ahistorical territory.

    Borders, sure. And those borders would not have existed if not for World War I and if not for the Ukrainian-Polish war. So?

    So it wouldn’t be part of Ukraine, as it is today. Your claim, that Lviv would necessarily become a Ukrainian city no matter what, was based on Ukrainians relocating to the city. There is no reason to believe that this would necessarily happen if Lviv, a Polish city, were in a majority polish province, in Poland. Unless someone placed a magnet there that attracts Ukrainians.

    But within the current borders there would still have been a Ukrainian majority without all of those things. Even if the Poles never left Lviv and the Jews were not all killed, western Ukraine would still have a Ukrainian majority.

    I assume by western Ukraine you specifically mean the eastern territories that were part of Poland at the time. This statement is clearly of little foundation, given that this hypothetical alternate history did not happen. In reality, Galicia is today only a part of Ukraine, and it only has it’s current demographics, due to the travails of the local Poles. The fact that a certain segment of the province was mostly Ukrainian would obviously not have led to it being a part of an independent Ukraine without these outside factors.

    The Polish state wanted to make sure that the city of Lviv was within a majority-Polish province. This could only be done by adding a bunch of lands from a different historical region, that Ukrainians never claimed, to create a new province based on an ahistorical territory.

    This is irrelevant to my statement; I have no interest in litigating old Polish territorial claims. I am saying that in a hypothetical alternate scenario where these events don’t come to pass, there is no reason to believe that the city would be Ukrainian today. Indeed, since we are engaging in conjecture, I would say that it’s at least as likely that the city would have become even more Polish.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    In relation to this discussion, the Ukrainian population of Lvov (the city, not the region) are mainly unrooted immigrants who are not native to the city within living memory.

    The majority of the Ukrainian population of Lvov were resettled in (this formerly majority Jewish/Polish) city in the 1940s-60s.

    In 1931, Ukrainians were only 49,747 (15.9%) in Lvov, according to Wikipedia. By 1989, Ukrainians were 622,800 (79.1%) of Lvov.

    So if Lvov (the city) has low HIV rate today - then it is another counter-example. Ukrainians in the city of Lvov are a mainly unrooted people, whose families were mostly recent immigrants into a new city which is not native to them, and today they have a low HIV rate.

    , @AP

    Borders, sure. And those borders would not have existed if not for World War I and if not for the Ukrainian-Polish war. So?

    So it wouldn’t be part of Ukraine, as it is today.
     
    So?

    Your claim, that Lviv would necessarily become a Ukrainian city no matter what, was based on Ukrainians relocating to the city. There is no reason to believe that this would necessarily happen if Lviv, a Polish city, were in a majority polish province, in Poland.
     
    Review the map again. The Polish parts of the province were way off to the west. The villages surrounding Lviv were populated by Ukrainians (who were also about 18% of the city itself). Those were the people most likely to move to the city during urbanization - the ones living near the city This is exactly what happened to Prague during Austrian rule. Czech villagers moved in, the city switched from being German to being Czech. Germans didn't leapfrog over Czech-inhabited territories to settle the city.

    I am saying that in a hypothetical alternate scenario where these events don’t come to pass, there is no reason to believe that the city would be Ukrainian today.
     
    The only way it would not have become Ukrainian would be if urbanization didn't happen and it remained a city of 300,000 or so people rather than a city of 800,000 people.
  193. @German_reader

    Look at the colours for Sweden, France, Denmark, Iceland, Norway.
     
    Out of wedlock births may be somewhat misleading as a category here, my understanding is that in Scandinavian countries it usually means parents of children are still living together in a long-term relationship, so de facto there's an intact family unit, not that much different from formal marriage. This has to be distinguished from situations where the man abandons the mother of his children, leading to one parent or patchwork families and all the dysfunction typical of them.

    Sure, that measurement is not necessarily measuring promiscuity, at least in an informal sense (unmarried couples can have children, without being promiscuous).

    Promiscuity itself, of course, has no particular or universal relation to unrootedness – we just need to look at the same Scandinavian countries, which have extremely rooted populations and also (according to other surveys) high promiscuity rates.

    HIV rates are not correlating with rootedness of populations in different countries.

    And finally, promiscuity rates between populations are not a good predictor of HIV rates.

    • Replies: @AP
    All disproven statements.
  194. @Denis

    Borders, sure. And those borders would not have existed if not for World War I and if not for the Ukrainian-Polish war. So?
     
    So it wouldn't be part of Ukraine, as it is today. Your claim, that Lviv would necessarily become a Ukrainian city no matter what, was based on Ukrainians relocating to the city. There is no reason to believe that this would necessarily happen if Lviv, a Polish city, were in a majority polish province, in Poland. Unless someone placed a magnet there that attracts Ukrainians.

    But within the current borders there would still have been a Ukrainian majority without all of those things. Even if the Poles never left Lviv and the Jews were not all killed, western Ukraine would still have a Ukrainian majority.
     
    I assume by western Ukraine you specifically mean the eastern territories that were part of Poland at the time. This statement is clearly of little foundation, given that this hypothetical alternate history did not happen. In reality, Galicia is today only a part of Ukraine, and it only has it's current demographics, due to the travails of the local Poles. The fact that a certain segment of the province was mostly Ukrainian would obviously not have led to it being a part of an independent Ukraine without these outside factors.

    The Polish state wanted to make sure that the city of Lviv was within a majority-Polish province. This could only be done by adding a bunch of lands from a different historical region, that Ukrainians never claimed, to create a new province based on an ahistorical territory.
     
    This is irrelevant to my statement; I have no interest in litigating old Polish territorial claims. I am saying that in a hypothetical alternate scenario where these events don't come to pass, there is no reason to believe that the city would be Ukrainian today. Indeed, since we are engaging in conjecture, I would say that it's at least as likely that the city would have become even more Polish.

    In relation to this discussion, the Ukrainian population of Lvov (the city, not the region) are mainly unrooted immigrants who are not native to the city within living memory.

    The majority of the Ukrainian population of Lvov were resettled in (this formerly majority Jewish/Polish) city in the 1940s-60s.

    In 1931, Ukrainians were only 49,747 (15.9%) in Lvov, according to Wikipedia. By 1989, Ukrainians were 622,800 (79.1%) of Lvov.

    So if Lvov (the city) has low HIV rate today – then it is another counter-example. Ukrainians in the city of Lvov are a mainly unrooted people, whose families were mostly recent immigrants into a new city which is not native to them, and today they have a low HIV rate.

    • Replies: @AP

    In relation to this discussion, the Ukrainian population of Lvov (the city, not the region) are mainly unrooted immigrants who are not native to the city within living memory.

    The majority of the Ukrainian population of Lvov were resettled in (this formerly majority Jewish/Polish) city in the 1940s-60s.
     

    Most of them were resettled from surrounding villages and kept in contact with those villages, where they visited grandparents and cousins. Before they were resettled any of them had been visiting the city market etc. They were not settled there from the other end of Ukraine. So they remained rooted in their native land.

    So if Lvov (the city) has low HIV rate today – then it is another counter-example.
     
    On the contrary. A city settled by villagers from surrounding villages and in contact with the ancestral villagers has a lower rate of HIV, crime, out of wedlock births than cities settled by people from throughout the USSR in Donbas. It is further evidence that rootedness is associated with lower rates of social problems.

    Ukrainians in the city of Lvov are a mainly unrooted people, whose families were mostly recent immigrants into a new city which is not native to them, and today they have a low HIV rate.
     
    Mistaken statements lead to false conclusion.
  195. @Dmitry

    symptom of rootlessness... we see uprootedness at work.
     
    These are your claims or assertions.

    If you want to make a weak version of these claims, you would need to at least collect correlations which shows some connection between these variables. E.g. you need correlations to show connection between unrootedness and promiscuity, between unrootedness and HIV, and between promiscuity and HIV.

    But from any brief look at examples, it seems often to show the opposite - actually it could be more common that there are correlations in the opposite direction on those topics.

    E.g. The most promiscuous societies, include the most rooted populations in the world (e.g. Sweden, Netherlands, UK).

    And more counter-intuitively: The lowest HIV countries in the world, include the most promiscuous societies in the world (e.g. Sweden, Netherlands, Australia).


    East Germany underwent massive Commie social engineering. It also hosted a huge number
     
    A likely reason for the difference in that measure - the GDR, they used abortion as the method of contraception (which is like in the USSR).

    After re-unification, then abortion is suddenly restricted (so there is transition in the birthcontrol method)-


    Re-unification was associated with two major
    changes in the realm of fertility regulation for
    East German women: the more liberal East
    German abortion law was rejected in 1992 in
    favour of a law which made abortion a criminal
    offence except where there was a serious threat
    to the woman’s health or life,21
     
    https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1016/S0968-8080%2898%2990089-1

    If you want to make a weak version of these claims, you would need to at least collect correlations which shows some connection between these variables. E.g. you need correlations to show connection between unrootedness and promiscuity, between unrootedness and HIV, and between promiscuity and HIV.

    We have correlations for the first two (see the maps). The third is obvious. No promiscuity, and HIV is limited to a tiny % of the population (people sharing drug needles and their wives).

    The most promiscuous societies, include the most rooted populations in the world (e.g. Sweden, Netherlands, UK).

    Again, you fail to understand that things can have more than one cause.

    Smoking causes lung cancer. The fact that some people get lung cancer without smoking does not disprove this.

    Likewise, there is a correlation between uprootedeness and promiscuity, HIV, out of wedlock births, and crime. This is robust enough that we conclude that being uprooted causes an increase of these things in the uprooted population. This does not mean that there are no other causes for these problems.

    Uprooted populations in Europe include eastern Ukraine, western/northwestern Poland, Sudetenland. “Rooted” population include western Ukraine, and eastern and southern Poland.

    So as predicted (I am summarizing everything here):

    HIV rate:

    Crime rate:

    Out of wedlock birth rate:

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    There's no correlation of "rootedness and HIV", that generalizes to other countries (outside allegedly Ukraine).

    Whereas smoking and lung cancer, is a relationship which generalizes to all populations, and has even experimental evidence (in the laboratory).

    -

    Aside from that, there is no proposed causal mechanism for this connection "rootedness and HIV" - as rootedness does not correlated to promiscuity, and promiscuity does not correlate to HIV across countries.

    In the case of Poland, the map is showing very low HIV rates in all regions.

    Slightly higher (but probably not significant) HIV new diagnosis areas matching partly economically active regions like Warsaw. In addition, the slightly higher rate of diagnosis in the most West region, is area of Poland 100 kilometres next to Berlin, Prague.

    https://images.slideplayer.com/35/10463376/slides/slide_6.jpg

  196. @Denis

    Borders, sure. And those borders would not have existed if not for World War I and if not for the Ukrainian-Polish war. So?
     
    So it wouldn't be part of Ukraine, as it is today. Your claim, that Lviv would necessarily become a Ukrainian city no matter what, was based on Ukrainians relocating to the city. There is no reason to believe that this would necessarily happen if Lviv, a Polish city, were in a majority polish province, in Poland. Unless someone placed a magnet there that attracts Ukrainians.

    But within the current borders there would still have been a Ukrainian majority without all of those things. Even if the Poles never left Lviv and the Jews were not all killed, western Ukraine would still have a Ukrainian majority.
     
    I assume by western Ukraine you specifically mean the eastern territories that were part of Poland at the time. This statement is clearly of little foundation, given that this hypothetical alternate history did not happen. In reality, Galicia is today only a part of Ukraine, and it only has it's current demographics, due to the travails of the local Poles. The fact that a certain segment of the province was mostly Ukrainian would obviously not have led to it being a part of an independent Ukraine without these outside factors.

    The Polish state wanted to make sure that the city of Lviv was within a majority-Polish province. This could only be done by adding a bunch of lands from a different historical region, that Ukrainians never claimed, to create a new province based on an ahistorical territory.
     
    This is irrelevant to my statement; I have no interest in litigating old Polish territorial claims. I am saying that in a hypothetical alternate scenario where these events don't come to pass, there is no reason to believe that the city would be Ukrainian today. Indeed, since we are engaging in conjecture, I would say that it's at least as likely that the city would have become even more Polish.

    Borders, sure. And those borders would not have existed if not for World War I and if not for the Ukrainian-Polish war. So?

    So it wouldn’t be part of Ukraine, as it is today.

    So?

    Your claim, that Lviv would necessarily become a Ukrainian city no matter what, was based on Ukrainians relocating to the city. There is no reason to believe that this would necessarily happen if Lviv, a Polish city, were in a majority polish province, in Poland.

    Review the map again. The Polish parts of the province were way off to the west. The villages surrounding Lviv were populated by Ukrainians (who were also about 18% of the city itself). Those were the people most likely to move to the city during urbanization – the ones living near the city This is exactly what happened to Prague during Austrian rule. Czech villagers moved in, the city switched from being German to being Czech. Germans didn’t leapfrog over Czech-inhabited territories to settle the city.

    I am saying that in a hypothetical alternate scenario where these events don’t come to pass, there is no reason to believe that the city would be Ukrainian today.

    The only way it would not have become Ukrainian would be if urbanization didn’t happen and it remained a city of 300,000 or so people rather than a city of 800,000 people.

    • Replies: @Zn30
    You are ignoring Polonization effect.
    , @Denis

    Review the map again.
     
    Don't worry, I am well aware of the map.

    Those were the people most likely to move to the city during urbanization
     
    Conjecture, Poles are obviously capable of moving to the city as well, especially that had been a major cultural centre of theirs for a long time.

    This is exactly what happened to Prague during Austrian rule. Czech villagers moved in, the city switched from being German to being Czech. Germans didn’t leapfrog over Czech-inhabited territories to settle the city.
     
    False analogy, Germans were a minority in the empire as a whole, as well as Bohemia in particular, by the time Prague became Czech.

    The only way it would not have become Ukrainian would be if urbanization didn’t happen and it remained a city of 300,000 or so people rather than a city of 800,000 people.
     
    Conjecture. There is obviously a multitude of additional means by which Lviv could have avoided Ukrainization, especially within the borders of Poland.
    , @Denis

    So?
     
    So the process by which Lviv became Ukrainian today, which was a very particular set of events, would not necessarily have come to pass.
  197. @Dmitry
    Sure, that measurement is not necessarily measuring promiscuity, at least in an informal sense (unmarried couples can have children, without being promiscuous).

    Promiscuity itself, of course, has no particular or universal relation to unrootedness - we just need to look at the same Scandinavian countries, which have extremely rooted populations and also (according to other surveys) high promiscuity rates.

    HIV rates are not correlating with rootedness of populations in different countries.

    And finally, promiscuity rates between populations are not a good predictor of HIV rates.

    All disproven statements.

  198. @Dmitry
    In relation to this discussion, the Ukrainian population of Lvov (the city, not the region) are mainly unrooted immigrants who are not native to the city within living memory.

    The majority of the Ukrainian population of Lvov were resettled in (this formerly majority Jewish/Polish) city in the 1940s-60s.

    In 1931, Ukrainians were only 49,747 (15.9%) in Lvov, according to Wikipedia. By 1989, Ukrainians were 622,800 (79.1%) of Lvov.

    So if Lvov (the city) has low HIV rate today - then it is another counter-example. Ukrainians in the city of Lvov are a mainly unrooted people, whose families were mostly recent immigrants into a new city which is not native to them, and today they have a low HIV rate.

    In relation to this discussion, the Ukrainian population of Lvov (the city, not the region) are mainly unrooted immigrants who are not native to the city within living memory.

    The majority of the Ukrainian population of Lvov were resettled in (this formerly majority Jewish/Polish) city in the 1940s-60s.

    Most of them were resettled from surrounding villages and kept in contact with those villages, where they visited grandparents and cousins. Before they were resettled any of them had been visiting the city market etc. They were not settled there from the other end of Ukraine. So they remained rooted in their native land.

    So if Lvov (the city) has low HIV rate today – then it is another counter-example.

    On the contrary. A city settled by villagers from surrounding villages and in contact with the ancestral villagers has a lower rate of HIV, crime, out of wedlock births than cities settled by people from throughout the USSR in Donbas. It is further evidence that rootedness is associated with lower rates of social problems.

    Ukrainians in the city of Lvov are a mainly unrooted people, whose families were mostly recent immigrants into a new city which is not native to them, and today they have a low HIV rate.

    Mistaken statements lead to false conclusion.

    • Replies: @joni
    Lvov is a poor region. How comprehensive is their testing there? Rates don't give a very good picture of the problem since it is mostly hidden in the countries with few resources. How much worse has Dr. Death made things there?
  199. @German_reader

    Puritan stock mostly, then joined by converts from the same part of England that Puritans came from
     
    Puritans were from East Anglia, the Mormon converts in the 19th century had their centre in Lancashire (which had been a stronghold of the royalists in the civil war, also retained an unusually high number of Catholics):
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/when-the-saints-go-marching-in-how-a-tiny-town-in-lancashire-saved-mormonism-from-extinction-7976632.html

    As for Poland, I don't see the point of those speculations without any hard data about the actual origins of those living in the formerly German parts (commenters early in this thread wrote that only a minority are descendants of Poles expelled from present-day Belarus and Ukraine). It's also irritating that what was Posen province in imperial Germany is also liberal-leaning, even though it's always had a Polish majority and belonged to the reborn Polish state since 1918/1919...what's supposed to be the explanation for that? Did the ethnic cleansing during the German occupation in WW2 kill so many of the long-term residents that the vacuum was filled by migrants from other parts of Poland?

    From what I have read the Mormon founders came from the descendants of radical sects that sprouted out of the north during the civil wars, diggers, ranters, muggletonians etc., all much opposed by Puritans. No doubt they got recruits from different places in due course.

  200. @Lars Porsena
    Because historical politics doesn't line up exactly neatly with modern politics it is kind of difficult to pin modern political labels and have them fit with historical groups. But I have a hard time seeing the south as economically left.

    Left and liberal are not the same thing, though I have a hard time seeing the south as liberal too. As I mentioned, they were economic free traders and at-will-employers.

    Now, in modern terms of 'liberal', none of that sounds liberal. But it is a type of the original liberal, which is basically a neoliberal. Neoliberals are called neo because people are use to democrats calling themselves liberal while advocating policies left-socialist to communist.

    In classical terms, the liberal position on taxes is there shouldn't be any, the liberal position on gun laws is there shouldn't be any - although that's not an economic issue so an economic liberal wouldn't necessarily think that (ie many of the current neoliberals).

    But in the US practically the entire country was (and still heavily is) liberal. In the context of the US I don't think the south was that liberal really. Outside of Canada the southern aristocracy is basically the closest thing the US had to the old, ancient regime right. And that's where the slavery comes from, they were basically practicing serfdom but with blacks. It's very easy to imagine some of their ancestors doing basically the exact same thing centuries earlier but back in Europe with European serfs.

    And anyway, as I think you mentioned in a comment above, that southern style of liberal economics has basically become how we define the 'right wing' of economics in the US in modern American terms.

    I'm not seeing how the south was left wing at all, or even all that liberal compared to the north. I mean, you can make the argument that on american terms the south was liberal economically but that's practically libertarian economics, and meanwhile the north was liberal to socialist left.

    Something like slavery may count as a social issue of the day, but as a cultural thing it effects economic issues. The north was more egalitarian. The south more explicitly hierarchical. There is a big difference in employment laws probably stemming from that difference in cultures.

    That being said this has blown up a bit, the overall classification of their politics is not really the point, nor their cultural differences, but the different economics of industrialists vs traditional (non industrial) agriculturalists. And even that was just about those Swedish woodcutters who, when you call them woodcutters, don't sound industrial either.

    I basically agree with you that it's most likely for pragmatic economic reasons, not modern ideological leftism (I don't know though, I'm just guessing since I don't know them).

    That's basically what I'm saying about the working class in the industrial north US being a Trumpian type of left wing. I'm not talking about SJWs, I mean like machinists and truck drivers and miners. They vote left wing out of pragmatic economic reasons, but their reasons are a political cycle out of date. For pragmatic economic reasons they are voting for a party that wants to destroy them. Demographically speaking I think they are already realigning but they are currently in anachronistic alignment.

    In the south, like I was saying as recently as the last 10 years there were still voters who were voting democrat out of the cycle before that, 2 cycles out of alignment. So we might expect the last of these northern populations to catch up to the current political cycle sometime 10-20 years into the next one.

    I agree that modern politics is impossible to transfer to historical politics. The Democrats were Dixiecrats in the South, no one would have been much aware that FDR was a commie but they would have know who their father fought for in the civil war and that FDR was promising to bring electricity to their region.

    In Albion’s Seed Fisher has the English South West as the most conservative area, but these days it is a region where the Liberal Democrats are quite strong, even if Labour are very weak there. The old Puritan East of England is actually the region the Conservatives and UKIP/Brexit Party do best. Of course in the US immigration has changed the South West to the left and the more White Northern states like Michigan, Wisconsin are going right. As noted they no longer have the economic incentive to vote Democrat and the new demographics have changed the calculations for white voters.

    • Replies: @Lars Porsena
    Lib dems are basically neoliberal/libertarianish, no? It would fit.
  201. @Mr. XYZ

    So Stalin’s main goal should have been to save Jews, regardless of anything else,
     
    No; winning the war was more important. If it wasn't, then Britain should have made peace in 1940 so that way the Nazis might have deported the Jews en masse to Madagascar instead of outright murdering them. So, yeah, the war effort must come first, but if there's a war to pursue the war effort (or to be prepared for war, since the USSR was neutral until June 1941) and still save a lot of people, then this should obviously be done.

    and he should have been a clairvoyant to be able to deport Jews before Barbarossa (and the Holocaust) even got started, to save them from these events (which were then still in the future).
     
    Well, that would be the hope, Yes. 1.0-1.5 million Soviet Jews actually were bright enough to figure out by themselves that living under Nazi rule would be extremely bad for them--even if they couldn't foresee genocide quite yet. So, Yes, one would have hoped that Stalin would have also been bright enough to see this.

    As for your own country (Hungary), it should have ironically remained in World War II up to the very end (which ultimately ended up happening anyway due to the Arrow Cross coup); that way, a larger--perhaps much larger--percentage of its Jewish population could have survived the Holocaust. The Nazis didn't actually touch Hungary's Jews until Hungary was about to defect from the Axis. Basically, this is a case where a lot of Jews could have been saved with minimal issues for the war effort.


    Then at least Jews would be able to claim further victim status for themselves, because they’d have gotten violently mass deported by Stalin, right before the Holocaust.
     
    Yes, but at least it's better than having them be murdered en masse.

    By the way, since the death rates of Slavs in those regions were also exceptionally high, shouldn’t he have deported all Slavs as well? After all, if he already were in the business of saving lives through the combined employment of clairvoyance and brutal mass deportations…
     
    AFAIK, the Nazis didn't have a policy of outright murdering Slavs en masse like they did with the Jews. That said, though, if the USSR could have also managed to pull this off (as in, Siberia and Central Asia could have actually handled this mass influx of Slavs), more deportations of Slavs from the western parts of the USSR in 1940-1941 might have actually been beneficial for the Soviet war effort since it would have resulted in the Soviets having more manpower while the Nazis would have still occupied huge sections of their country.

    Also, as a side note, in World War II, shit really hit the fan when France fell in 1940. Had France not fallen, at least half of the Jews who would have been murdered in the Holocaust in real life would have survived. It was the Fall of France that allowed the Nazis to murder huge numbers of Soviet Jews, Hungarian Jews, Yugoslav Jews, and Greek Jews and also cause a murderous government to come to power in Romania that slaughtered another 280,000-380,000 Soviet Jews after Operation Barbarossa. Without the Fall of France, the Nazis aren't going to be invading the USSR, or Hungary, or Yugoslavia, or Greece.

    Is this XYZ guy for real ? Weren’t Jews supposed to be smart ?

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    Where exactly did I say that Jews weren't smart? After all, one can be smart and still make mistakes in one's decision-making.
  202. @AP

    In relation to this discussion, the Ukrainian population of Lvov (the city, not the region) are mainly unrooted immigrants who are not native to the city within living memory.

    The majority of the Ukrainian population of Lvov were resettled in (this formerly majority Jewish/Polish) city in the 1940s-60s.
     

    Most of them were resettled from surrounding villages and kept in contact with those villages, where they visited grandparents and cousins. Before they were resettled any of them had been visiting the city market etc. They were not settled there from the other end of Ukraine. So they remained rooted in their native land.

    So if Lvov (the city) has low HIV rate today – then it is another counter-example.
     
    On the contrary. A city settled by villagers from surrounding villages and in contact with the ancestral villagers has a lower rate of HIV, crime, out of wedlock births than cities settled by people from throughout the USSR in Donbas. It is further evidence that rootedness is associated with lower rates of social problems.

    Ukrainians in the city of Lvov are a mainly unrooted people, whose families were mostly recent immigrants into a new city which is not native to them, and today they have a low HIV rate.
     
    Mistaken statements lead to false conclusion.

    Lvov is a poor region. How comprehensive is their testing there? Rates don’t give a very good picture of the problem since it is mostly hidden in the countries with few resources. How much worse has Dr. Death made things there?

    • Replies: @AP
    Lviv region was in the top third in income for Ukraine in 2017:

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

    It has increased since then.
  203. @joni
    Lvov is a poor region. How comprehensive is their testing there? Rates don't give a very good picture of the problem since it is mostly hidden in the countries with few resources. How much worse has Dr. Death made things there?

    Lviv region was in the top third in income for Ukraine in 2017:

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

    It has increased since then.

  204. @German_reader

    Puritan stock mostly, then joined by converts from the same part of England that Puritans came from
     
    Puritans were from East Anglia, the Mormon converts in the 19th century had their centre in Lancashire (which had been a stronghold of the royalists in the civil war, also retained an unusually high number of Catholics):
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/when-the-saints-go-marching-in-how-a-tiny-town-in-lancashire-saved-mormonism-from-extinction-7976632.html

    As for Poland, I don't see the point of those speculations without any hard data about the actual origins of those living in the formerly German parts (commenters early in this thread wrote that only a minority are descendants of Poles expelled from present-day Belarus and Ukraine). It's also irritating that what was Posen province in imperial Germany is also liberal-leaning, even though it's always had a Polish majority and belonged to the reborn Polish state since 1918/1919...what's supposed to be the explanation for that? Did the ethnic cleansing during the German occupation in WW2 kill so many of the long-term residents that the vacuum was filled by migrants from other parts of Poland?

    In respect to Greater Poland/ Wielkopolska region, what I learnt reading comments elsewhere that Germans expelled a significant number of Poles between 1939 and 1941. Not all of them came back, on top of that you need to add the murder of a number of those who stayed there. After the war they were replaced by Poles from other regions, creating the unfortunate conditions similar to the ones in the territories which joined Poland after the war.

  205. @AP

    Borders, sure. And those borders would not have existed if not for World War I and if not for the Ukrainian-Polish war. So?

    So it wouldn’t be part of Ukraine, as it is today.
     
    So?

    Your claim, that Lviv would necessarily become a Ukrainian city no matter what, was based on Ukrainians relocating to the city. There is no reason to believe that this would necessarily happen if Lviv, a Polish city, were in a majority polish province, in Poland.
     
    Review the map again. The Polish parts of the province were way off to the west. The villages surrounding Lviv were populated by Ukrainians (who were also about 18% of the city itself). Those were the people most likely to move to the city during urbanization - the ones living near the city This is exactly what happened to Prague during Austrian rule. Czech villagers moved in, the city switched from being German to being Czech. Germans didn't leapfrog over Czech-inhabited territories to settle the city.

    I am saying that in a hypothetical alternate scenario where these events don’t come to pass, there is no reason to believe that the city would be Ukrainian today.
     
    The only way it would not have become Ukrainian would be if urbanization didn't happen and it remained a city of 300,000 or so people rather than a city of 800,000 people.

    You are ignoring Polonization effect.

    • Replies: @AP
    Well, there might be some of that. However by that time, national identity has been rather set so it would be minimal. Historically, national identify changes almost always occurred with pre-nationalized people.
  206. @Daniel.I
    Is this XYZ guy for real ? Weren't Jews supposed to be smart ?

    Where exactly did I say that Jews weren’t smart? After all, one can be smart and still make mistakes in one’s decision-making.

  207. @LondonBob
    I agree that modern politics is impossible to transfer to historical politics. The Democrats were Dixiecrats in the South, no one would have been much aware that FDR was a commie but they would have know who their father fought for in the civil war and that FDR was promising to bring electricity to their region.

    In Albion's Seed Fisher has the English South West as the most conservative area, but these days it is a region where the Liberal Democrats are quite strong, even if Labour are very weak there. The old Puritan East of England is actually the region the Conservatives and UKIP/Brexit Party do best. Of course in the US immigration has changed the South West to the left and the more White Northern states like Michigan, Wisconsin are going right. As noted they no longer have the economic incentive to vote Democrat and the new demographics have changed the calculations for white voters.

    Lib dems are basically neoliberal/libertarianish, no? It would fit.

  208. @Europe Nationalist
    Bulgarians don't do themselves any favours with this sort of thing. Attacking white English fans just there to watch the match and shouting racist chants in the stadium for the sake of it plays right into the hands of the multiculturalists and makes Bulgarians just look like a bunch of moronic thugs.

    You talk as if you are proud that Bulgarian thugs attacked English fans, most of whom are not hooligans. All Bulgaria has done is made itself look really nasty and stupid.

    Yeah, the headlines in the based UK papers must have been terrible.

  209. @iffen
    a German deserter earned summary execution (as a provocateur) by giving the exact hour.

    Poetic Justice File

    In the immediate days before the invasion, more than one German communist deserted, crossed into Russia and reported the imminent invasion. Stalin had all of them shot.

    Poetic Justice File

    In the immediate days before the invasion, more than one German communist deserted, crossed into Russia and reported the imminent invasion. Stalin had all of them shot.

    Yes, foreign communists were often the first up against the wall.

    • Replies: @iffen
    foreign communists were often the first up against the wall.

    Yeah, they should have taken a clue from his having Trotsky killed that the "internationalists" were on shaky ground.

  210. @Thulean Friend
    Saying moronic things on her, or climate change generally, would make him fit right in with the general commentariat at this blog. Every the topic comes up, the collective IQ drops 50 points and most commenters become barely distinguishable from a typical Foxnews.com commenter. This is a very specific right-wing disease.

    Saying moronic things on her, or climate change generally, would make him fit right in with the general commentariat at this blog.

    I’m sorry were we supposed to take the Thunberg farce seriously? Or the ever-failing doomsday predictions of climate change? Or that we must not build out nuclear plants but instead rely on windmills and solar panels? Or that we should, no must, accept vast numbers of immigrants from low-CO2 countries? etc, etc. Most sincere apologies if this was the case.

    It is, however, somewhat interesting that Sweden seems to have fully entered climate hysteria mode at the time of writing, in spite of all the failures and contradictions. Just repeat it enough on TV and it becomes true. Perhaps this manic phase will burn itself out in a couple of years.

    It really reminds me a bit of millennialist cults after the Savior failed to appear.

    • Replies: @anonymous coward

    Perhaps this manic phase will burn itself out in a couple of years.
     
    Don't hold your breath. We're in the "end of history" (read: dark ages) after all.
    , @Thulean Friend
    Your comment is an example of the phenomenon I've mentioned. There are a lot of windmills you are tilting against. I've already pointed out that building nuclear plants is something many in the climate change community are in favour of, notably Bill Gates and the founder of Greenpeace, among many others. So that is already a red herring and an example of a low IQ take.
    The immigration thing is obviously irrational, but that is nothing about climate change, that is just an example of leftist infiltration. This is precisely why I said that right-wingers need to get engaged in this topic, so that the left cannot push these absurd positions because there is no correlation.

    But instead the right prefers to prove how idiotic it is and just ignore the issue, thereby granting the left complete monopoly on a crucial question of our time. Then you can't complain when they start mixing in unrelated issues, such as increased third world immigration etc. You self-imposed yourself to the margins and made yourself irrelevant.

    The rest of your comment just reads like a typical climate change denialist claptrap. So, yes, you just proved my point. Congratulations. The collective IQ on these issues on this blog becomes indistinguishable from some moron at fox news boomerposting about any topic.

  211. @iffen
    a German deserter earned summary execution (as a provocateur) by giving the exact hour.

    Poetic Justice File

    In the immediate days before the invasion, more than one German communist deserted, crossed into Russia and reported the imminent invasion. Stalin had all of them shot.

    Man, Stalin killed a lot of Communists
    based

    • Replies: @Denis
    Joe McCarthy ain't got shit on Uncle Joe.
  212. @Zn30
    You are ignoring Polonization effect.

    Well, there might be some of that. However by that time, national identity has been rather set so it would be minimal. Historically, national identify changes almost always occurred with pre-nationalized people.

  213. @Swedish Family

    Poetic Justice File

    In the immediate days before the invasion, more than one German communist deserted, crossed into Russia and reported the imminent invasion. Stalin had all of them shot.
     
    Yes, foreign communists were often the first up against the wall.

    foreign communists were often the first up against the wall.

    Yeah, they should have taken a clue from his having Trotsky killed that the “internationalists” were on shaky ground.

    • Replies: @Swedish Family

    Yeah, they should have taken a clue from his having Trotsky killed that the “internationalists” were on shaky ground.
     
    My theory is that, in those days, communication was so primitive and unreliable that no one ever trusted anyone -- and certainly not voices from the other end of the political spectrum. Even in our day, in 2019, you find this tendency on Twitter, so just imagine how bad it must have been back in the 1930s ...

    Since I like quoting Martin Amis (among the few truly great writers of our day, I think, along with Michel Houellebecq and J.M. Coetzee), I will relate his take (from the same book) on the killing of Trotsky:

    It is suggestive that Stalin, adding to his copious demerits, should question the courage of the Russian soldier, who would soon be astonishing the world with his (and her) heroic madness. Perhaps we should take a look at the physical bravery of the main politicals.

    Trotsky was brave, but I have never read anyone who claimed that Lenin, when danger neared, was other than a double-quick decamper (and Zinoviev was known as ‘panic personified’). Trotsky was physically brave. A sense of invulnerability was an ingredient of his charisma. It was still with him on 20 August 1940, in Mexico. When the assassin Ramón Mercader drove the icepick into Trotsky’s head there came a cry – a cry that is variously described but seemed to convey outrage, infinite and incredulous outrage. And Trotsky resisted, and fought with his assailant.* When Mercader struck, Trotsky had been at his desk, working on a biography of the man who had him murdered.

    * Trotsky hung on until the following day. As he lay dying in the hospital he had a strange visitor: the twenty-five-year-old Saul Bellow (who remembers the stain of blood and iodine on Trotsky’s short grey beard). The living Trotsky is evoked in Bellow’s novel The Adventures of Augie March (1953); in a book full of extraordinary passages, this is a superextraordinary passage, and powerfully romantic, embodying all the intensity of hope that our artists and thinkers directed towards 1917 … When Ramón Mercader was released from prison and journeyed to Moscow in the 1960s, he formally inherited the award that had been been granted (by Stalin) to his mother. It was, of all things, the Order of Lenin.
     
  214. @AP

    Borders, sure. And those borders would not have existed if not for World War I and if not for the Ukrainian-Polish war. So?

    So it wouldn’t be part of Ukraine, as it is today.
     
    So?

    Your claim, that Lviv would necessarily become a Ukrainian city no matter what, was based on Ukrainians relocating to the city. There is no reason to believe that this would necessarily happen if Lviv, a Polish city, were in a majority polish province, in Poland.
     
    Review the map again. The Polish parts of the province were way off to the west. The villages surrounding Lviv were populated by Ukrainians (who were also about 18% of the city itself). Those were the people most likely to move to the city during urbanization - the ones living near the city This is exactly what happened to Prague during Austrian rule. Czech villagers moved in, the city switched from being German to being Czech. Germans didn't leapfrog over Czech-inhabited territories to settle the city.

    I am saying that in a hypothetical alternate scenario where these events don’t come to pass, there is no reason to believe that the city would be Ukrainian today.
     
    The only way it would not have become Ukrainian would be if urbanization didn't happen and it remained a city of 300,000 or so people rather than a city of 800,000 people.

    Review the map again.

    Don’t worry, I am well aware of the map.

    Those were the people most likely to move to the city during urbanization

    Conjecture, Poles are obviously capable of moving to the city as well, especially that had been a major cultural centre of theirs for a long time.

    This is exactly what happened to Prague during Austrian rule. Czech villagers moved in, the city switched from being German to being Czech. Germans didn’t leapfrog over Czech-inhabited territories to settle the city.

    False analogy, Germans were a minority in the empire as a whole, as well as Bohemia in particular, by the time Prague became Czech.

    The only way it would not have become Ukrainian would be if urbanization didn’t happen and it remained a city of 300,000 or so people rather than a city of 800,000 people.

    Conjecture. There is obviously a multitude of additional means by which Lviv could have avoided Ukrainization, especially within the borders of Poland.

    • Replies: @AP

    Those were the people most likely to move to the city during urbanization

    Conjecture, Poles are obviously capable of moving to the city as well, especially that had been a major cultural centre of theirs for a long time.
     
    Poles to where? There are closer Polish cities to where Polish people lived. OTOH, Lviv was surrounded by Ukrainian villagers. If the city were to grow through urbanization getting villagers to move to the city to work in the factories (as happened with Prague, Kiev, or Riga, etc.) it would be local villagers from the surrounding countryside moving in. Villagers from the Krakow or Lodz or Warsaw area likely wouldn't be leapfrogging across Ukrainian-settled lands to come to Lviv.

    "This is exactly what happened to Prague during Austrian rule. Czech villagers moved in, the city switched from being German to being Czech. Germans didn’t leapfrog over Czech-inhabited territories to settle the city."

    False analogy, Germans were a minority in the empire as a whole, as well as Bohemia in particular, by the time Prague became Czech.
     
    Doesn't matter. Poles were a minority in the Lviv area too.

    "The only way it would not have become Ukrainian would be if urbanization didn’t happen and it remained a city of 300,000 or so people rather than a city of 800,000 people."

    Conjecture. There is obviously a multitude of additional means by which Lviv could have avoided Ukrainization, especially within the borders of Poland.
     
    And that, too is conjecture. Sure, maybe Poles would have gassed the Ukrainian villages, or deported the villagers. Very unlikely. Or instituted a propiska system, banning ethnic Ukrainians from settling within the city limits. Less unlikely, but still unlikely. Your conjectures are more far-fetched than the idea that as the growing city drew in people from the surrounding countryside, the city would increasingly reflect the ethnicity of that countryside. Which was Ukrainian.

    In 1921 Lviv went from being 12% Ukrainian to 16% Ukrainian in 1931 (it had been 18% Ukrainian under Austria but there were some anti-Ukrainian pogroms after Poles seized the city in 1918). Polish percentage declined from 51% to 50.4%. So the process was already starting.
  215. @AP

    Borders, sure. And those borders would not have existed if not for World War I and if not for the Ukrainian-Polish war. So?

    So it wouldn’t be part of Ukraine, as it is today.
     
    So?

    Your claim, that Lviv would necessarily become a Ukrainian city no matter what, was based on Ukrainians relocating to the city. There is no reason to believe that this would necessarily happen if Lviv, a Polish city, were in a majority polish province, in Poland.
     
    Review the map again. The Polish parts of the province were way off to the west. The villages surrounding Lviv were populated by Ukrainians (who were also about 18% of the city itself). Those were the people most likely to move to the city during urbanization - the ones living near the city This is exactly what happened to Prague during Austrian rule. Czech villagers moved in, the city switched from being German to being Czech. Germans didn't leapfrog over Czech-inhabited territories to settle the city.

    I am saying that in a hypothetical alternate scenario where these events don’t come to pass, there is no reason to believe that the city would be Ukrainian today.
     
    The only way it would not have become Ukrainian would be if urbanization didn't happen and it remained a city of 300,000 or so people rather than a city of 800,000 people.

    So?

    So the process by which Lviv became Ukrainian today, which was a very particular set of events, would not necessarily have come to pass.

  216. @Denis

    Review the map again.
     
    Don't worry, I am well aware of the map.

    Those were the people most likely to move to the city during urbanization
     
    Conjecture, Poles are obviously capable of moving to the city as well, especially that had been a major cultural centre of theirs for a long time.

    This is exactly what happened to Prague during Austrian rule. Czech villagers moved in, the city switched from being German to being Czech. Germans didn’t leapfrog over Czech-inhabited territories to settle the city.
     
    False analogy, Germans were a minority in the empire as a whole, as well as Bohemia in particular, by the time Prague became Czech.

    The only way it would not have become Ukrainian would be if urbanization didn’t happen and it remained a city of 300,000 or so people rather than a city of 800,000 people.
     
    Conjecture. There is obviously a multitude of additional means by which Lviv could have avoided Ukrainization, especially within the borders of Poland.

    Those were the people most likely to move to the city during urbanization

    Conjecture, Poles are obviously capable of moving to the city as well, especially that had been a major cultural centre of theirs for a long time.

    Poles to where? There are closer Polish cities to where Polish people lived. OTOH, Lviv was surrounded by Ukrainian villagers. If the city were to grow through urbanization getting villagers to move to the city to work in the factories (as happened with Prague, Kiev, or Riga, etc.) it would be local villagers from the surrounding countryside moving in. Villagers from the Krakow or Lodz or Warsaw area likely wouldn’t be leapfrogging across Ukrainian-settled lands to come to Lviv.

    “This is exactly what happened to Prague during Austrian rule. Czech villagers moved in, the city switched from being German to being Czech. Germans didn’t leapfrog over Czech-inhabited territories to settle the city.”

    False analogy, Germans were a minority in the empire as a whole, as well as Bohemia in particular, by the time Prague became Czech.

    Doesn’t matter. Poles were a minority in the Lviv area too.

    “The only way it would not have become Ukrainian would be if urbanization didn’t happen and it remained a city of 300,000 or so people rather than a city of 800,000 people.”

    Conjecture. There is obviously a multitude of additional means by which Lviv could have avoided Ukrainization, especially within the borders of Poland.

    And that, too is conjecture. Sure, maybe Poles would have gassed the Ukrainian villages, or deported the villagers. Very unlikely. Or instituted a propiska system, banning ethnic Ukrainians from settling within the city limits. Less unlikely, but still unlikely. Your conjectures are more far-fetched than the idea that as the growing city drew in people from the surrounding countryside, the city would increasingly reflect the ethnicity of that countryside. Which was Ukrainian.

    In 1921 Lviv went from being 12% Ukrainian to 16% Ukrainian in 1931 (it had been 18% Ukrainian under Austria but there were some anti-Ukrainian pogroms after Poles seized the city in 1918). Polish percentage declined from 51% to 50.4%. So the process was already starting.

    • Agree: Mr. Hack
    • Disagree: Denis
    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    Poles to where? There are closer Polish cities to where Polish people lived. OTOH, Lviv was surrounded by Ukrainian villagers. If the city were to grow through urbanization getting villagers to move to the city to work in the factories (as happened with Prague, Kiev, or Riga, etc.) it would be local villagers from the surrounding countryside moving in. Villagers from the Krakow or Lodz or Warsaw area likely wouldn’t be leapfrogging across Ukrainian-settled lands to come to Lviv.
     
    For what it's worth, blacks in the US in the 20th century often leapfrogged across the entire country in order to settle in Northern cities that were heavily surrounded by extremely white areas. Still, that was in large part a response to Jim Crow--and there was obviously nothing comparable of the sort in Poland (and certainly not for Poles, the majority ethnicity in Poland). (Though, it is interesting that the same also appears to apply for Hispanics, Asians, and very possibly Jews as well in the US. As in, they largely settle in cities that are surrounded by a heavily white countryside--with the exception being Hispanics in the Southwestern US, of course.) I guess the question is whether Lviv/Lwow would in any way be attractive to Polish migrants from other parts of Poland. Was it a major economic hub? More major in, say, Krakow or Lodz or Warsaw or Gdynia? What's interesting, though, is that a lot of Russians settled in Lviv after World War II even though Russian-majority territories are much further away from Lviv than Polish-majority territories are. Lviv city might have been as much as 30% Russian in the 1950s--though the figure for all of Lviv Oblast in 1959 was 8.6% Russian.
    , @Denis

    Poles to where?
     
    Anywhere. People move to cities all the time, and there were plenty of Poles in the Voivodeship alone who could have moved there. They wouldn't have needed a program for it or anything.

    Villagers from the Krakow or Lodz or Warsaw area likely wouldn’t be leapfrogging across Ukrainian-settled lands to come to Lviv
     
    Following the Polish annexation of the region centuries ago, Poles moving through Ukrainian lands is precisely how Lviv became a Polish city in the first place (+polonization).

    Doesn’t matter. Poles were a minority in the Lviv area too.
     
    Sure it does. Your analogy is false. Poland was majority Polish, Czechia was not majority German. Lviv voivodeship was majority Polish as well. Poles obviously did not care about the lines the local east slavs draw in the ground.

    And that, too is conjecture. Sure, maybe Poles would have gassed the Ukrainian villages, or deported the villagers. Very unlikely. Or instituted a propiska system, banning ethnic Ukrainians from settling within the city limits. Less unlikely, but still unlikely. Your conjectures are more far-fetched than the idea that as the growing city drew in people from the surrounding countryside, the city would increasingly reflect the ethnicity of that countryside. Which was Ukrainian.
     

    Silliness. You obviously don't have to kill the Ukrainians, although I suppose that would have been one option. They could have just instituted mandatory usage of the Polish language in education and written official communications in the city, or something similar. This is how most states spread their national identity.

    I also don't see why ethnic cleansing would be so unrealistic, given that the Ukrainians later did it to the Poles, and given that Poland was obviously willing to kill Ukrainians, having invaded Ukraine in the first place only a short while after the collapse of Austria-Hungary.


    In 1921 Lviv went from being 12% Ukrainian to 16% Ukrainian in 1931 (it had been 18% Ukrainian under Austria but there were some anti-Ukrainian pogroms after Poles seized the city in 1918). Polish percentage declined from 51% to 50.4%. So the process was already starting.
     
    You don't see the contradiction between this and your previous paragraph? Regarding the pogroms that is.
  217. @Mr. XYZ
    Well, ironically, 1940-1941 was the time where deporting Jews to the interior of the Soviet Union en masse would have been really, really beneficial for them. What exactly is hard to get about the idea of saving a lot more Soviet Jewish lives?

    What’s hard to get?

    1. Russia BAD
    2. Deport BAD
    3. Siberia BAD

    Russia Deport Jews to Siberia HITLER

    Those damn Cossacks had better not push their luck.

  218. @AP

    Those were the people most likely to move to the city during urbanization

    Conjecture, Poles are obviously capable of moving to the city as well, especially that had been a major cultural centre of theirs for a long time.
     
    Poles to where? There are closer Polish cities to where Polish people lived. OTOH, Lviv was surrounded by Ukrainian villagers. If the city were to grow through urbanization getting villagers to move to the city to work in the factories (as happened with Prague, Kiev, or Riga, etc.) it would be local villagers from the surrounding countryside moving in. Villagers from the Krakow or Lodz or Warsaw area likely wouldn't be leapfrogging across Ukrainian-settled lands to come to Lviv.

    "This is exactly what happened to Prague during Austrian rule. Czech villagers moved in, the city switched from being German to being Czech. Germans didn’t leapfrog over Czech-inhabited territories to settle the city."

    False analogy, Germans were a minority in the empire as a whole, as well as Bohemia in particular, by the time Prague became Czech.
     
    Doesn't matter. Poles were a minority in the Lviv area too.

    "The only way it would not have become Ukrainian would be if urbanization didn’t happen and it remained a city of 300,000 or so people rather than a city of 800,000 people."

    Conjecture. There is obviously a multitude of additional means by which Lviv could have avoided Ukrainization, especially within the borders of Poland.
     
    And that, too is conjecture. Sure, maybe Poles would have gassed the Ukrainian villages, or deported the villagers. Very unlikely. Or instituted a propiska system, banning ethnic Ukrainians from settling within the city limits. Less unlikely, but still unlikely. Your conjectures are more far-fetched than the idea that as the growing city drew in people from the surrounding countryside, the city would increasingly reflect the ethnicity of that countryside. Which was Ukrainian.

    In 1921 Lviv went from being 12% Ukrainian to 16% Ukrainian in 1931 (it had been 18% Ukrainian under Austria but there were some anti-Ukrainian pogroms after Poles seized the city in 1918). Polish percentage declined from 51% to 50.4%. So the process was already starting.

    Poles to where? There are closer Polish cities to where Polish people lived. OTOH, Lviv was surrounded by Ukrainian villagers. If the city were to grow through urbanization getting villagers to move to the city to work in the factories (as happened with Prague, Kiev, or Riga, etc.) it would be local villagers from the surrounding countryside moving in. Villagers from the Krakow or Lodz or Warsaw area likely wouldn’t be leapfrogging across Ukrainian-settled lands to come to Lviv.

    For what it’s worth, blacks in the US in the 20th century often leapfrogged across the entire country in order to settle in Northern cities that were heavily surrounded by extremely white areas. Still, that was in large part a response to Jim Crow–and there was obviously nothing comparable of the sort in Poland (and certainly not for Poles, the majority ethnicity in Poland). (Though, it is interesting that the same also appears to apply for Hispanics, Asians, and very possibly Jews as well in the US. As in, they largely settle in cities that are surrounded by a heavily white countryside–with the exception being Hispanics in the Southwestern US, of course.) I guess the question is whether Lviv/Lwow would in any way be attractive to Polish migrants from other parts of Poland. Was it a major economic hub? More major in, say, Krakow or Lodz or Warsaw or Gdynia? What’s interesting, though, is that a lot of Russians settled in Lviv after World War II even though Russian-majority territories are much further away from Lviv than Polish-majority territories are. Lviv city might have been as much as 30% Russian in the 1950s–though the figure for all of Lviv Oblast in 1959 was 8.6% Russian.

    • Replies: @AP

    What’s interesting, though, is that a lot of Russians settled in Lviv after World War II even though Russian-majority territories are much further away from Lviv than Polish-majority territories are. Lviv city might have been as much as 30% Russian in the 1950s–though the figure for all of Lviv Oblast in 1959 was 8.6% Russian.
     
    It was active policy of the Soviet government to send people there. This required a powerful state that could engage in such massive population-transfer projects. Poland wasn't that.
  219. @iffen
    One reason was that Horthy had refused to deport Jews to Auschwitz several times in 1942 and 1943

    Did he make a distinction between "his" (Hungary's) Jews and Jewish refugees?

    The French went to great lengths to protect “their” Jews; but they weren’t generally willing to risk as much to protect refugee Jews. So, a vast majority of French Jews survived, while a considerably lower percentage of refugee Jews in France survived.

    • Replies: @iffen
    The French went to great lengths to protect “their” Jews;

    Thanks.

    I remembered reading that some leaders and countries had made the distinction, but I couldn't remember which ones. It seems civic nationalism can work, even at crunch time.
    , @neutral

    The French went to great lengths to protect “their” Jews
     
    And look how that turned out in the end for France.
  220. @AP

    Those were the people most likely to move to the city during urbanization

    Conjecture, Poles are obviously capable of moving to the city as well, especially that had been a major cultural centre of theirs for a long time.
     
    Poles to where? There are closer Polish cities to where Polish people lived. OTOH, Lviv was surrounded by Ukrainian villagers. If the city were to grow through urbanization getting villagers to move to the city to work in the factories (as happened with Prague, Kiev, or Riga, etc.) it would be local villagers from the surrounding countryside moving in. Villagers from the Krakow or Lodz or Warsaw area likely wouldn't be leapfrogging across Ukrainian-settled lands to come to Lviv.

    "This is exactly what happened to Prague during Austrian rule. Czech villagers moved in, the city switched from being German to being Czech. Germans didn’t leapfrog over Czech-inhabited territories to settle the city."

    False analogy, Germans were a minority in the empire as a whole, as well as Bohemia in particular, by the time Prague became Czech.
     
    Doesn't matter. Poles were a minority in the Lviv area too.

    "The only way it would not have become Ukrainian would be if urbanization didn’t happen and it remained a city of 300,000 or so people rather than a city of 800,000 people."

    Conjecture. There is obviously a multitude of additional means by which Lviv could have avoided Ukrainization, especially within the borders of Poland.
     
    And that, too is conjecture. Sure, maybe Poles would have gassed the Ukrainian villages, or deported the villagers. Very unlikely. Or instituted a propiska system, banning ethnic Ukrainians from settling within the city limits. Less unlikely, but still unlikely. Your conjectures are more far-fetched than the idea that as the growing city drew in people from the surrounding countryside, the city would increasingly reflect the ethnicity of that countryside. Which was Ukrainian.

    In 1921 Lviv went from being 12% Ukrainian to 16% Ukrainian in 1931 (it had been 18% Ukrainian under Austria but there were some anti-Ukrainian pogroms after Poles seized the city in 1918). Polish percentage declined from 51% to 50.4%. So the process was already starting.

    Poles to where?

    Anywhere. People move to cities all the time, and there were plenty of Poles in the Voivodeship alone who could have moved there. They wouldn’t have needed a program for it or anything.

    Villagers from the Krakow or Lodz or Warsaw area likely wouldn’t be leapfrogging across Ukrainian-settled lands to come to Lviv

    Following the Polish annexation of the region centuries ago, Poles moving through Ukrainian lands is precisely how Lviv became a Polish city in the first place (+polonization).

    Doesn’t matter. Poles were a minority in the Lviv area too.

    Sure it does. Your analogy is false. Poland was majority Polish, Czechia was not majority German. Lviv voivodeship was majority Polish as well. Poles obviously did not care about the lines the local east slavs draw in the ground.

    And that, too is conjecture. Sure, maybe Poles would have gassed the Ukrainian villages, or deported the villagers. Very unlikely. Or instituted a propiska system, banning ethnic Ukrainians from settling within the city limits. Less unlikely, but still unlikely. Your conjectures are more far-fetched than the idea that as the growing city drew in people from the surrounding countryside, the city would increasingly reflect the ethnicity of that countryside. Which was Ukrainian.

    Silliness. You obviously don’t have to kill the Ukrainians, although I suppose that would have been one option. They could have just instituted mandatory usage of the Polish language in education and written official communications in the city, or something similar. This is how most states spread their national identity.

    I also don’t see why ethnic cleansing would be so unrealistic, given that the Ukrainians later did it to the Poles, and given that Poland was obviously willing to kill Ukrainians, having invaded Ukraine in the first place only a short while after the collapse of Austria-Hungary.

    In 1921 Lviv went from being 12% Ukrainian to 16% Ukrainian in 1931 (it had been 18% Ukrainian under Austria but there were some anti-Ukrainian pogroms after Poles seized the city in 1918). Polish percentage declined from 51% to 50.4%. So the process was already starting.

    You don’t see the contradiction between this and your previous paragraph? Regarding the pogroms that is.

    • Replies: @AP

    Poles to where?

    Anywhere. People move to cities all the time, and there were plenty of Poles in the Voivodeship alone who could have moved there. They wouldn’t have needed a program for it or anything.
     
    Poles were heavily outnumbered by Ukrainians in the surrounding territory.

    Villagers from the Krakow or Lodz or Warsaw area likely wouldn’t be leapfrogging across Ukrainian-settled lands to come to Lviv

    Following the Polish annexation of the region centuries ago, Poles moving through Ukrainian lands is precisely how Lviv became a Polish city in the first place (+polonization).
     
    1. Lviv was once a major boomtown in the late middle ages/early modern period. Not relative to Polish areas such as Warsaw or Lodz in the 20th.

    2. Polonization and Russification depended on illiterate populations without much of a national ideology, who could become Poles or Russians or whomever. By the early 20th century mass literacy in Ukrainian was achieved and this was impossible. Despite largescale Polish government efforts, there was no Polonization in the 1920s and 1930s of Ukrainians (the efforts actually resulted n a major backlash).

    They could have just instituted mandatory usage of the Polish language in education and written official communications in the city, or something similar. This is how most states spread their national identity.
     
    Polish government did that anyways of course (you weren't aware?) - shut down Ukrainian schools, banned the term Ukrainian, in Volhynia even went into Orthodox churches and forced priests to give sermons in Polish, etc. The result wasn't Polonization but OUN/UPA.

    Poland was obviously willing to kill Ukrainians, having invaded Ukraine in the first place only a short while after the collapse of Austria-Hungary.
     
    Poland was imperialistic but not genocidal. Even Ukrainians didn't get genocidal until after the Soviet than Nazi experiences demoralized them. Invading in war (with some pogroms) or IRA-style hits (what Bandera's organization was doing in the 1930s) is a lot different from systematic mass killings.
  221. @Korenchkin
    Man, Stalin killed a lot of Communists
    based

    Joe McCarthy ain’t got shit on Uncle Joe.

  222. @Pericles

    Saying moronic things on her, or climate change generally, would make him fit right in with the general commentariat at this blog.

     

    I'm sorry were we supposed to take the Thunberg farce seriously? Or the ever-failing doomsday predictions of climate change? Or that we must not build out nuclear plants but instead rely on windmills and solar panels? Or that we should, no must, accept vast numbers of immigrants from low-CO2 countries? etc, etc. Most sincere apologies if this was the case.

    It is, however, somewhat interesting that Sweden seems to have fully entered climate hysteria mode at the time of writing, in spite of all the failures and contradictions. Just repeat it enough on TV and it becomes true. Perhaps this manic phase will burn itself out in a couple of years.

    It really reminds me a bit of millennialist cults after the Savior failed to appear.

    Perhaps this manic phase will burn itself out in a couple of years.

    Don’t hold your breath. We’re in the “end of history” (read: dark ages) after all.

  223. Hmm, use partition for ex.

    Karachi & Delhi are degen, both have large expat pop uprooted during partition.

  224. @Not Raul
    The French went to great lengths to protect “their” Jews; but they weren’t generally willing to risk as much to protect refugee Jews. So, a vast majority of French Jews survived, while a considerably lower percentage of refugee Jews in France survived.

    The French went to great lengths to protect “their” Jews;

    Thanks.

    I remembered reading that some leaders and countries had made the distinction, but I couldn’t remember which ones. It seems civic nationalism can work, even at crunch time.

  225. @Mr. XYZ

    Poles to where? There are closer Polish cities to where Polish people lived. OTOH, Lviv was surrounded by Ukrainian villagers. If the city were to grow through urbanization getting villagers to move to the city to work in the factories (as happened with Prague, Kiev, or Riga, etc.) it would be local villagers from the surrounding countryside moving in. Villagers from the Krakow or Lodz or Warsaw area likely wouldn’t be leapfrogging across Ukrainian-settled lands to come to Lviv.
     
    For what it's worth, blacks in the US in the 20th century often leapfrogged across the entire country in order to settle in Northern cities that were heavily surrounded by extremely white areas. Still, that was in large part a response to Jim Crow--and there was obviously nothing comparable of the sort in Poland (and certainly not for Poles, the majority ethnicity in Poland). (Though, it is interesting that the same also appears to apply for Hispanics, Asians, and very possibly Jews as well in the US. As in, they largely settle in cities that are surrounded by a heavily white countryside--with the exception being Hispanics in the Southwestern US, of course.) I guess the question is whether Lviv/Lwow would in any way be attractive to Polish migrants from other parts of Poland. Was it a major economic hub? More major in, say, Krakow or Lodz or Warsaw or Gdynia? What's interesting, though, is that a lot of Russians settled in Lviv after World War II even though Russian-majority territories are much further away from Lviv than Polish-majority territories are. Lviv city might have been as much as 30% Russian in the 1950s--though the figure for all of Lviv Oblast in 1959 was 8.6% Russian.

    What’s interesting, though, is that a lot of Russians settled in Lviv after World War II even though Russian-majority territories are much further away from Lviv than Polish-majority territories are. Lviv city might have been as much as 30% Russian in the 1950s–though the figure for all of Lviv Oblast in 1959 was 8.6% Russian.

    It was active policy of the Soviet government to send people there. This required a powerful state that could engage in such massive population-transfer projects. Poland wasn’t that.

  226. @Denis

    Poles to where?
     
    Anywhere. People move to cities all the time, and there were plenty of Poles in the Voivodeship alone who could have moved there. They wouldn't have needed a program for it or anything.

    Villagers from the Krakow or Lodz or Warsaw area likely wouldn’t be leapfrogging across Ukrainian-settled lands to come to Lviv
     
    Following the Polish annexation of the region centuries ago, Poles moving through Ukrainian lands is precisely how Lviv became a Polish city in the first place (+polonization).

    Doesn’t matter. Poles were a minority in the Lviv area too.
     
    Sure it does. Your analogy is false. Poland was majority Polish, Czechia was not majority German. Lviv voivodeship was majority Polish as well. Poles obviously did not care about the lines the local east slavs draw in the ground.

    And that, too is conjecture. Sure, maybe Poles would have gassed the Ukrainian villages, or deported the villagers. Very unlikely. Or instituted a propiska system, banning ethnic Ukrainians from settling within the city limits. Less unlikely, but still unlikely. Your conjectures are more far-fetched than the idea that as the growing city drew in people from the surrounding countryside, the city would increasingly reflect the ethnicity of that countryside. Which was Ukrainian.
     

    Silliness. You obviously don't have to kill the Ukrainians, although I suppose that would have been one option. They could have just instituted mandatory usage of the Polish language in education and written official communications in the city, or something similar. This is how most states spread their national identity.

    I also don't see why ethnic cleansing would be so unrealistic, given that the Ukrainians later did it to the Poles, and given that Poland was obviously willing to kill Ukrainians, having invaded Ukraine in the first place only a short while after the collapse of Austria-Hungary.


    In 1921 Lviv went from being 12% Ukrainian to 16% Ukrainian in 1931 (it had been 18% Ukrainian under Austria but there were some anti-Ukrainian pogroms after Poles seized the city in 1918). Polish percentage declined from 51% to 50.4%. So the process was already starting.
     
    You don't see the contradiction between this and your previous paragraph? Regarding the pogroms that is.

    Poles to where?

    Anywhere. People move to cities all the time, and there were plenty of Poles in the Voivodeship alone who could have moved there. They wouldn’t have needed a program for it or anything.

    Poles were heavily outnumbered by Ukrainians in the surrounding territory.

    Villagers from the Krakow or Lodz or Warsaw area likely wouldn’t be leapfrogging across Ukrainian-settled lands to come to Lviv

    Following the Polish annexation of the region centuries ago, Poles moving through Ukrainian lands is precisely how Lviv became a Polish city in the first place (+polonization).

    1. Lviv was once a major boomtown in the late middle ages/early modern period. Not relative to Polish areas such as Warsaw or Lodz in the 20th.

    2. Polonization and Russification depended on illiterate populations without much of a national ideology, who could become Poles or Russians or whomever. By the early 20th century mass literacy in Ukrainian was achieved and this was impossible. Despite largescale Polish government efforts, there was no Polonization in the 1920s and 1930s of Ukrainians (the efforts actually resulted n a major backlash).

    They could have just instituted mandatory usage of the Polish language in education and written official communications in the city, or something similar. This is how most states spread their national identity.

    Polish government did that anyways of course (you weren’t aware?) – shut down Ukrainian schools, banned the term Ukrainian, in Volhynia even went into Orthodox churches and forced priests to give sermons in Polish, etc. The result wasn’t Polonization but OUN/UPA.

    Poland was obviously willing to kill Ukrainians, having invaded Ukraine in the first place only a short while after the collapse of Austria-Hungary.

    Poland was imperialistic but not genocidal. Even Ukrainians didn’t get genocidal until after the Soviet than Nazi experiences demoralized them. Invading in war (with some pogroms) or IRA-style hits (what Bandera’s organization was doing in the 1930s) is a lot different from systematic mass killings.

  227. People claim that promiscuity is not to blame for high HIV rates because the supposedly highly promiscuous Western countries have very low HIV rates, but are most Western countries really all that promiscuous in reality?

    It seems that most of the time Western men are complaining about how they can’t get laid and that women aren’t interested in them. That doesn’t sound like a highly promiscuous culture to me.

    • Agree: Alden
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    There seems to be almost no reliable information, academically.

    Only professor called "David Schmitt" studies this (for his "global sexuality project") and his papers are not easy to understand (at least in 5 minutes of looking).

    -

    But, for example, Africa is one of the most sexually conservative for "short term relationships" in his ratings (which could be a response to the high HIV rates there and lack of contraception available).

    Western Europe, is the most sexually liberal in some of his graphs. American women are the same as in the Middle East in those surveys, so it might not be very plausible.

    https://i.imgur.com/21jE8j0.jpg

    https://i.imgur.com/sQ0yAw7.jpg

    https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ae5f/4463bf4cc23af1ae318feb817679c2a3740a.pdf

    , @Alden
    It’s gay men who have HIV. Extremely low rates for women and heterosexual men.
    Low HIV rates are proof the percentage of gay men in the population is minuscule despite their claims.
  228. @AP

    If you want to make a weak version of these claims, you would need to at least collect correlations which shows some connection between these variables. E.g. you need correlations to show connection between unrootedness and promiscuity, between unrootedness and HIV, and between promiscuity and HIV.
     
    We have correlations for the first two (see the maps). The third is obvious. No promiscuity, and HIV is limited to a tiny % of the population (people sharing drug needles and their wives).

    The most promiscuous societies, include the most rooted populations in the world (e.g. Sweden, Netherlands, UK).
     
    Again, you fail to understand that things can have more than one cause.

    Smoking causes lung cancer. The fact that some people get lung cancer without smoking does not disprove this.

    Likewise, there is a correlation between uprootedeness and promiscuity, HIV, out of wedlock births, and crime. This is robust enough that we conclude that being uprooted causes an increase of these things in the uprooted population. This does not mean that there are no other causes for these problems.

    Uprooted populations in Europe include eastern Ukraine, western/northwestern Poland, Sudetenland. "Rooted" population include western Ukraine, and eastern and southern Poland.

    So as predicted (I am summarizing everything here):

    HIV rate:

    http://i.wp.pl/a/f/jpeg/28080/hiv_polska.jpeg

    https://i.imgur.com/ZCDdYEr.png

    Crime rate:

    https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Agnieszka_Kozera/publication/323018273/figure/fig10/AS:[email protected]/Crime-vulnerability-index-in-the-years-2010-2013-Index-for-Poland_Q640.jpg

    https://i.imgur.com/9EswwPC.png

    http://www.praha.eu/public/14/2d/5f/1762737_422944_kriminalita_praha_02.jpg

    Out of wedlock birth rate:

    https://miro.medium.com/max/494/1*wYrJCH4UWW-yK6US3tJNbA.png

    There’s no correlation of “rootedness and HIV”, that generalizes to other countries (outside allegedly Ukraine).

    Whereas smoking and lung cancer, is a relationship which generalizes to all populations, and has even experimental evidence (in the laboratory).

    Aside from that, there is no proposed causal mechanism for this connection “rootedness and HIV” – as rootedness does not correlated to promiscuity, and promiscuity does not correlate to HIV across countries.

    In the case of Poland, the map is showing very low HIV rates in all regions.

    Slightly higher (but probably not significant) HIV new diagnosis areas matching partly economically active regions like Warsaw. In addition, the slightly higher rate of diagnosis in the most West region, is area of Poland 100 kilometres next to Berlin, Prague.

    • Replies: @AP

    There’s no correlation of “rootedness and HIV”, that generalizes to other countries (outside allegedly Ukraine).
     
    There is, as we have seen, in Poland. And perhaps Russia also, if you are correct about Sverdlosvsk (the Urals are full or people sent there from everywhere).

    rootedness does not correlated to promiscuity, and promiscuity does not correlate to HIV across countries.
     
    Promiscuity is correlated to out of wedlock births, and out of wedlock births are correlated to rootlessness. It would be interesting to see data for sexual partners per person for specific regions in Poland and Ukraine, but it's not online (at least, not easy to find). I suspect it would match the pattern for HIV and out-of-wedlock births.

    in the case of Poland, the map is showing very low HIV rates in all regions.

    Slightly higher (but probably not significant) HIV new diagnosis areas matching partly economically
     
    Warsaw, the capital and largest city, has a high rate. Beyond Warsaw, it is exactly those rootless areas that have the highest rate. I predicted that would be the case before I even looked for this info. Same thing for crime and out of wedlock births. All sorts of social problems come from rootlessness.
  229. @Europe Nationalist
    People claim that promiscuity is not to blame for high HIV rates because the supposedly highly promiscuous Western countries have very low HIV rates, but are most Western countries really all that promiscuous in reality?

    It seems that most of the time Western men are complaining about how they can't get laid and that women aren't interested in them. That doesn't sound like a highly promiscuous culture to me.

    There seems to be almost no reliable information, academically.

    Only professor called “David Schmitt” studies this (for his “global sexuality project”) and his papers are not easy to understand (at least in 5 minutes of looking).

    But, for example, Africa is one of the most sexually conservative for “short term relationships” in his ratings (which could be a response to the high HIV rates there and lack of contraception available).

    Western Europe, is the most sexually liberal in some of his graphs. American women are the same as in the Middle East in those surveys, so it might not be very plausible.

    https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ae5f/4463bf4cc23af1ae318feb817679c2a3740a.pdf

    • Replies: @Swedish Family

    There seems to be almost no reliable information, academically.
     
    Yes, I've searched around for links to Swedish data and it's all tabloid stuff (but of course still yields plenty of sensationalist headlines). My impression from the data, very rough as it must be, is that the average number of partners in Sweden has remained steady in the low or mid 10s for decades (from the boomers on). What makes this figure even shakier than is, however, is that these same unreliable pollsters (YouGov, RFSU, RFSL) claim that condom usage has risen sharply in the past years, which I find extremely hard to believe (indeed, even the old figures seem way off -- I suspect social-desirability bias at work here).
  230. @Not Raul
    The French went to great lengths to protect “their” Jews; but they weren’t generally willing to risk as much to protect refugee Jews. So, a vast majority of French Jews survived, while a considerably lower percentage of refugee Jews in France survived.

    The French went to great lengths to protect “their” Jews

    And look how that turned out in the end for France.

  231. @Dmitry
    Then the HIV would be in Moscow.

    But the main incubating population of HIV in Russia, were people injecting heroin.

    yes there are two main vectors: homosexuality and injecting drugs, heroin generally correlates to disproportionate poverty (especially rust belt) whereas disproportionate homosexuality will often correlate to relative prosperity (cos they move to the regional centers from small towns) which provides a possible explanation for your original point.

    In Russia, HIV rate can also be paradoxically an indicator of more economically successful regions.

    Then the HIV would be in Moscow.

    maybe Ekaterinberg has both: regional center of media and rust-belt?

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    There's no real "media industry" which could result in immigration of homosexuals (lol).

    There's a lot of successful industry though, which is one reason it was (compared to other cities) economically strong during the 1990s, and allowing drug dealers to still attain large profits in the city in those years.

    Its very high HIV rate is a combination of that, with the fact it is also a city route for heroin to travel into the country.

  232. @Pericles

    Saying moronic things on her, or climate change generally, would make him fit right in with the general commentariat at this blog.

     

    I'm sorry were we supposed to take the Thunberg farce seriously? Or the ever-failing doomsday predictions of climate change? Or that we must not build out nuclear plants but instead rely on windmills and solar panels? Or that we should, no must, accept vast numbers of immigrants from low-CO2 countries? etc, etc. Most sincere apologies if this was the case.

    It is, however, somewhat interesting that Sweden seems to have fully entered climate hysteria mode at the time of writing, in spite of all the failures and contradictions. Just repeat it enough on TV and it becomes true. Perhaps this manic phase will burn itself out in a couple of years.

    It really reminds me a bit of millennialist cults after the Savior failed to appear.

    Your comment is an example of the phenomenon I’ve mentioned. There are a lot of windmills you are tilting against. I’ve already pointed out that building nuclear plants is something many in the climate change community are in favour of, notably Bill Gates and the founder of Greenpeace, among many others. So that is already a red herring and an example of a low IQ take.
    The immigration thing is obviously irrational, but that is nothing about climate change, that is just an example of leftist infiltration. This is precisely why I said that right-wingers need to get engaged in this topic, so that the left cannot push these absurd positions because there is no correlation.

    But instead the right prefers to prove how idiotic it is and just ignore the issue, thereby granting the left complete monopoly on a crucial question of our time. Then you can’t complain when they start mixing in unrelated issues, such as increased third world immigration etc. You self-imposed yourself to the margins and made yourself irrelevant.

    The rest of your comment just reads like a typical climate change denialist claptrap. So, yes, you just proved my point. Congratulations. The collective IQ on these issues on this blog becomes indistinguishable from some moron at fox news boomerposting about any topic.

    • Replies: @anonymous coward

    climate change community
     
    Seek help, bro.

    P.S. Also, you didn't answer his question. Are we supposed to take Thunberg seriously? It's a simple 'yes' or 'no' answer.
    , @Pericles

    But instead the right prefers to prove how idiotic it is and just ignore the issue, thereby granting the left complete monopoly on a crucial question of our time. Then you can’t complain when they start mixing in unrelated issues, such as increased third world immigration etc. You self-imposed yourself to the margins and made yourself irrelevant.

     

    All we need to do is to concede that the 'climate change community' were right all along, huh? Then, but only then, we can all rationally discuss how to solve the problem.

    This seems quite familiar somehow.
  233. @notanon
    yes there are two main vectors: homosexuality and injecting drugs, heroin generally correlates to disproportionate poverty (especially rust belt) whereas disproportionate homosexuality will often correlate to relative prosperity (cos they move to the regional centers from small towns) which provides a possible explanation for your original point.

    In Russia, HIV rate can also be paradoxically an indicator of more economically successful regions.
     

    Then the HIV would be in Moscow.
     
    maybe Ekaterinberg has both: regional center of media and rust-belt?

    There’s no real “media industry” which could result in immigration of homosexuals (lol).

    There’s a lot of successful industry though, which is one reason it was (compared to other cities) economically strong during the 1990s, and allowing drug dealers to still attain large profits in the city in those years.

    Its very high HIV rate is a combination of that, with the fact it is also a city route for heroin to travel into the country.

    • Replies: @notanon

    Its very high HIV rate is a combination of that, with the fact it is also a city route for heroin to travel into the country.
     
    fair enough - i don't know enough about the place to argue.

    #

    separately

    Claim of the post is that unrooting people (moving people so they are unrooted their original location as in West Poland, or allegedly East Ukraine), should result in these particularly social ills ... (snip) ... Mormons are a counter-example, as are many other unrooted peoples (Australians, etc).
     
    say there are two environments
    1) closely related people living in clusters
    2) people living among loosely related or unrelated people

    and three cases
    a) people adapted to environment #1 who are living in environment #1
    b) people adapted to environment #1 who are living in environment #2
    c) people adapted to environment #2 who are living in environment #2

    then case B might be the general "uprooted" case who display more social ills relative to case A while Mormons, Australians etc might be case C (as they are descendants of people who'd become adapted to lower levels of relatedness over the last 1000 years of outbreeding).

    if correct maybe the distinguishing factor is differing levels of restraint with people adapted to environment #1 needing external cultural restraint (e.g. family shame) while the case C people who are more adapted to environment #2 evolved internal restraints.
  234. @Thulean Friend
    Your comment is an example of the phenomenon I've mentioned. There are a lot of windmills you are tilting against. I've already pointed out that building nuclear plants is something many in the climate change community are in favour of, notably Bill Gates and the founder of Greenpeace, among many others. So that is already a red herring and an example of a low IQ take.
    The immigration thing is obviously irrational, but that is nothing about climate change, that is just an example of leftist infiltration. This is precisely why I said that right-wingers need to get engaged in this topic, so that the left cannot push these absurd positions because there is no correlation.

    But instead the right prefers to prove how idiotic it is and just ignore the issue, thereby granting the left complete monopoly on a crucial question of our time. Then you can't complain when they start mixing in unrelated issues, such as increased third world immigration etc. You self-imposed yourself to the margins and made yourself irrelevant.

    The rest of your comment just reads like a typical climate change denialist claptrap. So, yes, you just proved my point. Congratulations. The collective IQ on these issues on this blog becomes indistinguishable from some moron at fox news boomerposting about any topic.

    climate change community

    Seek help, bro.

    P.S. Also, you didn’t answer his question. Are we supposed to take Thunberg seriously? It’s a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer.

  235. @Dmitry
    There's no real "media industry" which could result in immigration of homosexuals (lol).

    There's a lot of successful industry though, which is one reason it was (compared to other cities) economically strong during the 1990s, and allowing drug dealers to still attain large profits in the city in those years.

    Its very high HIV rate is a combination of that, with the fact it is also a city route for heroin to travel into the country.

    Its very high HIV rate is a combination of that, with the fact it is also a city route for heroin to travel into the country.

    fair enough – i don’t know enough about the place to argue.

    #

    separately

    Claim of the post is that unrooting people (moving people so they are unrooted their original location as in West Poland, or allegedly East Ukraine), should result in these particularly social ills … (snip) … Mormons are a counter-example, as are many other unrooted peoples (Australians, etc).

    say there are two environments
    1) closely related people living in clusters
    2) people living among loosely related or unrelated people

    and three cases
    a) people adapted to environment #1 who are living in environment #1
    b) people adapted to environment #1 who are living in environment #2
    c) people adapted to environment #2 who are living in environment #2

    then case B might be the general “uprooted” case who display more social ills relative to case A while Mormons, Australians etc might be case C (as they are descendants of people who’d become adapted to lower levels of relatedness over the last 1000 years of outbreeding).

    if correct maybe the distinguishing factor is differing levels of restraint with people adapted to environment #1 needing external cultural restraint (e.g. family shame) while the case C people who are more adapted to environment #2 evolved internal restraints.

  236. @iffen
    foreign communists were often the first up against the wall.

    Yeah, they should have taken a clue from his having Trotsky killed that the "internationalists" were on shaky ground.

    Yeah, they should have taken a clue from his having Trotsky killed that the “internationalists” were on shaky ground.

    My theory is that, in those days, communication was so primitive and unreliable that no one ever trusted anyone — and certainly not voices from the other end of the political spectrum. Even in our day, in 2019, you find this tendency on Twitter, so just imagine how bad it must have been back in the 1930s …

    Since I like quoting Martin Amis (among the few truly great writers of our day, I think, along with Michel Houellebecq and J.M. Coetzee), I will relate his take (from the same book) on the killing of Trotsky:

    It is suggestive that Stalin, adding to his copious demerits, should question the courage of the Russian soldier, who would soon be astonishing the world with his (and her) heroic madness. Perhaps we should take a look at the physical bravery of the main politicals.

    Trotsky was brave, but I have never read anyone who claimed that Lenin, when danger neared, was other than a double-quick decamper (and Zinoviev was known as ‘panic personified’). Trotsky was physically brave. A sense of invulnerability was an ingredient of his charisma. It was still with him on 20 August 1940, in Mexico. When the assassin Ramón Mercader drove the icepick into Trotsky’s head there came a cry – a cry that is variously described but seemed to convey outrage, infinite and incredulous outrage. And Trotsky resisted, and fought with his assailant.* When Mercader struck, Trotsky had been at his desk, working on a biography of the man who had him murdered.

    * Trotsky hung on until the following day. As he lay dying in the hospital he had a strange visitor: the twenty-five-year-old Saul Bellow (who remembers the stain of blood and iodine on Trotsky’s short grey beard). The living Trotsky is evoked in Bellow’s novel The Adventures of Augie March (1953); in a book full of extraordinary passages, this is a superextraordinary passage, and powerfully romantic, embodying all the intensity of hope that our artists and thinkers directed towards 1917 … When Ramón Mercader was released from prison and journeyed to Moscow in the 1960s, he formally inherited the award that had been been granted (by Stalin) to his mother. It was, of all things, the Order of Lenin.

  237. @Dmitry
    There's no correlation of "rootedness and HIV", that generalizes to other countries (outside allegedly Ukraine).

    Whereas smoking and lung cancer, is a relationship which generalizes to all populations, and has even experimental evidence (in the laboratory).

    -

    Aside from that, there is no proposed causal mechanism for this connection "rootedness and HIV" - as rootedness does not correlated to promiscuity, and promiscuity does not correlate to HIV across countries.

    In the case of Poland, the map is showing very low HIV rates in all regions.

    Slightly higher (but probably not significant) HIV new diagnosis areas matching partly economically active regions like Warsaw. In addition, the slightly higher rate of diagnosis in the most West region, is area of Poland 100 kilometres next to Berlin, Prague.

    https://images.slideplayer.com/35/10463376/slides/slide_6.jpg

    There’s no correlation of “rootedness and HIV”, that generalizes to other countries (outside allegedly Ukraine).

    There is, as we have seen, in Poland. And perhaps Russia also, if you are correct about Sverdlosvsk (the Urals are full or people sent there from everywhere).

    rootedness does not correlated to promiscuity, and promiscuity does not correlate to HIV across countries.

    Promiscuity is correlated to out of wedlock births, and out of wedlock births are correlated to rootlessness. It would be interesting to see data for sexual partners per person for specific regions in Poland and Ukraine, but it’s not online (at least, not easy to find). I suspect it would match the pattern for HIV and out-of-wedlock births.

    in the case of Poland, the map is showing very low HIV rates in all regions.

    Slightly higher (but probably not significant) HIV new diagnosis areas matching partly economically

    Warsaw, the capital and largest city, has a high rate. Beyond Warsaw, it is exactly those rootless areas that have the highest rate. I predicted that would be the case before I even looked for this info. Same thing for crime and out of wedlock births. All sorts of social problems come from rootlessness.

    • Replies: @Dmitry

    There is, as we have seen,

     

    HIV rates are not matching to rootedness or rootlessness. For example, in Africa - high HIV. In Australia - lowest HIV.

    So it's rather funny to claim that what does not happen in the rest of the world, will suddenly explain events in Ukraine.


    we have seen, in Poland.
     
    The highest HIV zone in that map is in Warsaw in the East of the country.

    Besides all the rates are lower than in more rooted parts of Europe, so looking at tiny differences in a map because they are shaded in exciting red colours, is not very helpful.


    Promiscuity is correlated to out of wedlock births, and out of wedlock births are correlated to rootlessness.

     

    Neither correlates to "rootlessness". As we see in the map you posted - the highest out of wedlock births was in Iceland, Sweden, Norway, France, etc (some of the world's most rooted nationalities - Iceland's settlement 1000 years ago excepted).

    interesting to see data for sexual partners per person for specific regions in Poland and Ukraine, but it’s not online
     
    If you search for academic research, the only one who researches seems to be “David Schmitt” - who has a "International Sexuality Description Project ". World Health Report on topics like this, just cites his surveys.

    In his scores - often very anciently rooted nationalities are included in the top. While a very unrooted nationality (Taiwan - a recently settled Chinese population) at the bottom.


    https://i.imgur.com/PTzgRUM.jpg

    https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/147470490800600204


    All sorts of social problems come from rootlessness.
     
    I can see a link with homicide rates, as rootless America (North and South) have much higher homicide rates, than most of Europe or Asia.

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

    But in the other things you are claiming - there is no kind of even rough correlation.

  238. @Dreadilk
    How is China under performing. They were a super power for most of human history and it is rapidly returning that status today. Read less Western propoganda.

    China was never a super power. It didn’t conquer Manchuria and Mongolia, those countries conquered China It couldn’t conquer Vietnam and Japan although China tried often enough.

    Chinese culture spread throughout E Asia but not by conquest. The Chinese rulers appear to have realized that by 3,000 years ago they had big enough territory, big enough population. enough variations in climate agriculture rivers coastal harbors boat builders construction people artists farmers trades men big and small merchants local and long distance traders , plains hills mountains every kind of resources from jade and gold to iron and copper.

    China has everything it needed. Why rampage all over Asia like the mongols.?

    Or all over the world as America does?

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    Asians lack European testosterone and inquisitiveness. Ask JP Rushton.
  239. @Dmitry
    There seems to be almost no reliable information, academically.

    Only professor called "David Schmitt" studies this (for his "global sexuality project") and his papers are not easy to understand (at least in 5 minutes of looking).

    -

    But, for example, Africa is one of the most sexually conservative for "short term relationships" in his ratings (which could be a response to the high HIV rates there and lack of contraception available).

    Western Europe, is the most sexually liberal in some of his graphs. American women are the same as in the Middle East in those surveys, so it might not be very plausible.

    https://i.imgur.com/21jE8j0.jpg

    https://i.imgur.com/sQ0yAw7.jpg

    https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ae5f/4463bf4cc23af1ae318feb817679c2a3740a.pdf

    There seems to be almost no reliable information, academically.

    Yes, I’ve searched around for links to Swedish data and it’s all tabloid stuff (but of course still yields plenty of sensationalist headlines). My impression from the data, very rough as it must be, is that the average number of partners in Sweden has remained steady in the low or mid 10s for decades (from the boomers on). What makes this figure even shakier than is, however, is that these same unreliable pollsters (YouGov, RFSU, RFSL) claim that condom usage has risen sharply in the past years, which I find extremely hard to believe (indeed, even the old figures seem way off — I suspect social-desirability bias at work here).

  240. @Europe Nationalist
    People claim that promiscuity is not to blame for high HIV rates because the supposedly highly promiscuous Western countries have very low HIV rates, but are most Western countries really all that promiscuous in reality?

    It seems that most of the time Western men are complaining about how they can't get laid and that women aren't interested in them. That doesn't sound like a highly promiscuous culture to me.

    It’s gay men who have HIV. Extremely low rates for women and heterosexual men.
    Low HIV rates are proof the percentage of gay men in the population is minuscule despite their claims.

    • Replies: @Europe Nationalist
    So basically you're saying that Russia must have a significantly higher percentage of gay men than Western Europe to have a significantly higher HIV rate?
    , @AP
    So Donbas is full of gays? LOL I doubt it...
  241. Does England count as a rooted country? As a result of the industrial revolution there are parts of England, particularly in the North, that have a high percentage of people of Irish descent, probably 50%+ in some areas. That’s in addition to all the non-white immigrants and immigrants from Eastern Europe, etc, who came in more recent decades.

    You have to take into account the legacy of the Norman invasion as well, which turned post-1066 England into an extremely different place to Anglo-Saxon England. To compare Old English and Modern English is like looking at two completely different languages, it would be difficult to argue that Modern English has anything more in common with Old English than it does with Modern German or is any more comprehensible to a Modern English speaker.

    • Replies: @AP

    Does England count as a rooted country? As a result of the industrial revolution there are parts of England, particularly in the North, that have a high percentage of people of Irish descent, probably 50%+ in some areas. That’s in addition to all the non-white immigrants and immigrants from Eastern Europe, etc, who came in more recent decades.
     
    Well, let's see if England follows the pattern of Donbas and western Poland.

    English North:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c0/Northern_England-Historic_counties.svg/200px-Northern_England-Historic_counties.svg.png

    Crime rate in England:

    https://blogs.sap.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/populationwithoutlondon_599315.png

    Yup - high in the North

    HIV:

    https://slideplayer.com/slide/5939226/20/images/5/HPA%3A+HIV+in+the+united+kingdom%3B+2010+report..jpg

    Mostly centered around London, but a cluster in the North also.

    Births outside of marriage:

    https://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/images/print-edition/20150124_BRM979.png

    Highest in Wales, but in England itself - highest in the North.

    :::::::

    So these patterns are consistent across countries.