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
Where Leftism Is Conservatism
🔊 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
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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

From Steve’s recent post highlighting an attempt by the Global Party Survey to map out all the parties in OECD countries on a graph where the vertical axis stands for sociopolitical liberalism (bottom) vs. conservatism (top), and the horizontal axis stands for economic leftism (left) vs. free markets (right).

Notice something? About the V4 in particular: Czechia; Hungary; Poland; Slovakia?

That’s right, there, liberalism tends to go with free markets, while conservatism goes with economic leftism. This is actually a long observed phenomenon that includes Russia, e.g. see Regt, Sabrina de, Dimitri Mortelmans, and Tim Smits. 2011. “Left-Wing Authoritarianism Is Not a Myth, but a Worrisome Reality. Evidence from 13 Eastern European Countries.Communist and Post-Communist Studies 44 (4): 299–308.

Now the HBD people have made a great deal of it, ascribing hereditary characteristics to this “left-wing authoritarianism” in Eastern Europe.

However, in this case, they would also have to explain how come it’s more or less the same picture in China. You would have the same sort of graph there, if the Chinese had party politics, e.g. see Pan, Jennifer, and Yiqing Xu. 2018. “China’s Ideological Spectrum.” The Journal of Politics 80 (1): 254–73.

More banal explanation: “Conservatism”, due to its extreme normative nature, is not really an ideology as such – unlike liberalism, Communism, or nationalism, which actually stand for more context-independent values and priorities – but a state of mind that’s formed by the national context, like a sort of ideological center of gravity. So even as 1980s conservatism in the Anglosphere came to be represented by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, in 1990s Russia it was the Communist Party that was the “conservative” electoral choice. Even today, from Warsaw to Beijing, conservatism “loads” on more socialistic outlooks, while liberalism presupposes further intensification of market reforms. You don’t need (heritable) behavioral traits specific to EE (and China) to explain it; their history is more than sufficient.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Communism, Conservatism, Human Biodiversity 
Hide 62 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. Daniel.I says:

    ascribing hereditary characteristics to this “left-wing authoritarianism” in Eastern Europe.

    This is just Westerners rationalizing their hatred of anyone who might out-compete them.

    “Sure, Eastern Euros have white skin, but they’re not really white because … uh …. they’re a bunch of commies, yeah, that’s why”

  3. Around 1990 or 1991 (I was barely a teenager) it was reported on Hungarian national TV that in Moscow parlance reformists like Yeltsin were called leftists, while conservative party apparatchiks were on the right. Probably there was some kind of commie thinking in it (left=good, right=bad), but maybe this deeper feature also went into this: wanting to keep the USSR as a one-party state was in a sense a deeply conservative position in Moscow in 1991.

  4. @Daniel.I

    Economic leftism is often pretty popular in the Anglosphere, or Scandinavia, so what’s thought to be unique is a broadly socially conservative or nationalist position coupled with economic leftism. Historically that’s hardly unprecedented in the West, like Chamberlain in the 1930s raised taxes and increased social benefits, and of course there was a rather well-known violently nationalistic movement in a Germanic country at the same time.

    • Replies: @Jaakko Raipala
  5. OT

    [MORE]
    There’s a possible Peremoga brewing in Montenegro, very large protests against the current Government which is very anti-Russian
    Thought ya’ll might want to know

  6. Svevlad says:

    duh, it’s why it’s called conservatism – conserve the present, whatever it is

  7. Conservatism is an ideology but uneducated Westerners, primarily Anglo-Americans, are unaware of the ideas that underpin it. Suggest reading Conservatism by Panagiotis Kondylis:

    https://www.panagiotiskondylis.com/conservatism.php

    Or from, Wiki:

    Kondylis’s next book, Konservativismus. Geschichtlicher Gehalt und Untergang. (Conservatism. Historical Content and Decline.), like The Enlightenment, which broke new ground in its novel interpretation of such a pivotal period in European philosophy (see above), went against the grain of conventional wisdom on the history of conservatism understood simply as a reaction to the French Revolution as articulated by e.g. Karl Mannheim. Rather, in Kondylis’s book, conservatism had already existed as a social and political force since the Middle Ages in which the nobility and its estate system, having derived its legitimacy from a particular conception of law as a privilege, combated emerging egalitarian interpretations of law in the European Modern Era, which encompassed the rise of the modern sovereign state, albeit initially in absolutist guises (among which were the attempt to impose religious tolerance and peace in the aftermath of the Reformation and the religious wars). Nevertheless, the book also examines conservatism as a political force adapting to the reality of the modern sovereign state’s eventual triumph and in light of the French Revolution and beyond. Included is an analysis of how the central themes used in the socialist criticism of capitalism were initially formed in the ideological realm of the counter-Revolution, whose social conveyor of this first anti-capitalist criticism was the patriarchal great-landholder, the older or younger aristocrat, who saw his social existence being eroded and falling apart by the irrepressible march of mercantile-monetary relations, the Industrial Revolution and by individualistic-liberal ideas. What followed was an idealised image of pre-capitalist reality, whereby people lived united by the bonds of blood, tradition and mutual faith and protection, from the earth and in nature, preserving their existential essence from the fragmentation which is imposed by the advanced division of labour and the continuous hunt for material gain in a society cut up into competitive individuals. Key intellectuals during conservatism’s history include: Bonald, Burke, Carlyle, Chateaubriand, Cortés, Fénelon, Haller, Jarcke, de Maistre, Moser, Müller, Radowitz, Schlegel, and Stahl.

    • Replies: @Tusk
  8. Tusk says:
    @Agathoklis

    I would certainly describe the conservatism as mentioned in your post extremely differently to the modern day ‘cuckservatism’ which features barely any of the same principles. I agree with those people who prefer to call those like de Maistre, Carlyle, and so forth Reactionaries as compared to Conservatives. I certainly agree with Karlin’s explanation in the post as to why this is likely so.

  9. Muggles says:

    While the labels “conservative” and “liberal” mean historically different groups of ideas/policies in the USA, as opposed to elsewhere, there is something similar happening in America.

    Former “liberal” outfits like the ACLU were defenders of free speech absolutism. No longer, They are instead focused on helping convicted criminals escape their punishment and piling on those who they claim promote bad ideas they deem “hate speech.” So they are now pro censorship. Authoritarian.

    Most major Democrat politicians in the Trump era are vocal supporters and upholders (along with the nearly uniformly fake liberal media) of the police state agencies like the FBI (full of Trump haters and coup plotters, including nearly all top echelons), the CIA, NSA (ditto, ditto) and career Dept of Justice bureaucrats. Also they are eager neocon warmonger allies, always ready to support some new military action. Russia is now their bugaboo, whereas conservatives are not wanting a new Cold War. In just a few decades back, in the 20th century, Democrats were for civil liberties and skeptical of the military. Used to be Peace Democrats. All gone.

    With Trump derangement syndrome in full swing, Democrat candidates never mention the Constitution. Are happy to support ending the First, Second, Forth and Fifth Amendments as well as uphold Green New Deal calls for arbitrary “wealth confiscation” from those deemed enemies of the Green New Deal or whatever pretext is handy.

    Conservatives, forced to defend not really conservative Trump, are now skeptics of State Power despite Trump being nominally in charge. So now America has adopted Eastern European politics. Who knew?

    • Replies: @SFG
    , @Mitleser
    , @216
  10. SFG says:
    @Muggles

    Reorientation’s still occurring–Bernie for example is still kind of a liberal peacenik who’s economically liberal and socially liberal but doesn’t like war.

    But I wouldn’t be surprised if the neocons decamp for the Democrats and turn that party into warmongers, especially if the DSA types lose.

  11. Mitleser says:
    @Muggles

    With Trump derangement syndrome in full swing, Democrat candidates never mention the Constitution.

    It is not really their constitution. Why care?

    Caldwell summarizes his thesis:

    …what had seemed in 1964 to be merely an ambitious reform revealed itself to have been something more. The changes of the 1960s, with civil rights at their core, were not just a major new element in the Constitution. They were a rival constitution, with which the original one was frequently incompatible…. Much of what we have called “polarization” or “incivility” in recent years is something more grave—it is the disagreement over which of the two constitutions shall prevail: the de jure constitution of 1788, with all the traditional forms of jurisprudential legitimacy and centuries of American culture behind it; or the de facto constitution of 1964, which lacks this traditional kind of legitimacy but commands the near-unanimous endorsements of judicial elites and civic educators and the passionate allegiance of those who received it as a liberation.

    The author notes that the two parties now consisted of the winners (Democrats) and losers (Republicans) from the new quasi-constitution imposed in the 1960s:

    The Democrats were the party of those who benefited: not just racial minorities but sexual minorities, immigrants, women, government employees, lawyers—and all people sophisticated enough to be in a position to design, run, or analyze new systems. This collection of minorities could, with discipline, be bundled into an electoral majority, but that was not, strictly speaking, necessary…. Sympathetic regulators, judges, and attorneys took up the task of transferring as many prerogatives as possible from the majority to various minorities.

    https://www.takimag.com/article/civil-rights-gone-wrong/

  12. Trump’s retard base (Evangelicals) amusingly think that George Soros is an ultra left communist … Soros is an anti-authoritarian classic liberal, and as a follower of Popper, also a sort of conservative.

    Popper’s Open Society philosophy is against grand social engineering projects, which was theoretically and philosophically justified in his writings but also aligns with the conservative instincts.

    • Disagree: Rich
    • Replies: @fnn
    , @Dreadilk
  13. I really don’t get why American conservatism is used as a benchmark for authoritarian/patriotic/nationalist forces around the world. America , due to being a “proposition nation”, is an atomized society with no true ethnically homogeneous community that would allow to create a true collective spirit of solidarity. The antagonism between races supersedes class antagonism, and subsequently this dialectic opposition between two distinct peoples makes redistribution impossible. Whenever immigration in the US was low and the population also remained ethnically homogeneous America swung more “left” in terms of economic policies. The fiscal policy run by people like Eisenhower would be totally antithetical to modern day reaganite conservatives. The dynamic of race war superseding the class war and preventing national solidarity is in my opinion perfectly illustrated by most Latin American polities, where white comprador elites regularly sell themselves off to uncle Sam and work against their countries’ interest to keep the brown masses down and prevent wealth redistribution.
    Nationalists in most countries swing economically to the “left” in the sense that they support state ownership, redistribution and protectionism because they are collectivistic in outlook and look at the country’s interests, rather than privileging “private” or class interest.

  14. The Democrat Party’s Identity political tokenism is a clever Right Wing strategy to fragment and defuse the Left … like Hillary said when she was asked should the banksters be punished for their 2008 crash “that won’t help us to get Black women and LBGTQ people to the corporate boards”

    • Replies: @fnn
  15. @Swarthy Greek

    Perhaps one of the best comments I have read on this site. However, Swarthy Greek how would you explain the class antagonisms and low trust levels in very homogeneous nations like Greece (until recently anyway) rather than a “true collective spirit of solidarity”? Of course, there are certain events leading to unique path dependencies i.e. the question of the King, Population Exchange, diaspora versus autochthonous and so on. And arguably, the class antagonisms in the Greek case are not really class antagonisms as traditionally understood as there never was a bourgeois and proletariat in the north-western European sense but a bunch of lobotomised traitorous Commies who were also at various times deeply influenced by the Slavic-gypsies up north.

  16. Znzn says:

    Would Greece be better off if it won the Greco-Turkish war and controlled all of Northwest Anatolia including Constantinople?

    • Replies: @Agathoklis
  17. @Znzn

    You mean the Greek-Turkish war of 1919-1922? This is an interesting hypothetical that is sometimes discussed. The areas within the Vilayet of Aydin (Smyrna) and eastern Thrace are quite fertile with some large rivers. The type of land that is largely missing in Greece of today. The annexation of these lands would definitely have helped capital accumulation. Also, most of the bourgeoisie was located in these areas which was later uprooted or simply murdered. So, there would have been several benefits. Greece would have added mostly valuable land that would have contributed positively to national accounts. These areas would have acted as a sort of California. The bourgeoisie would have stayed where they were rather than becoming destitute. And the Greek state would have avoided resettling Greek 1.5m refugees, which in turn fed the Communists movement about 15-20 years later, and then led to Civil War after many of the refugees became disillusioned with Venizelos. In contrast, they would have been forced to find a solution to the 500,000 Muslims still residing within Greek borders. Less important, we would not have benefited from the artistic contribution of Asia Minor and Pontic Greeks to literature, music, theatre fueled by the pain of being uprooted from their ancient homelands.

    • Agree: TheTotallyAnonymous
  18. fnn says:
    @A. Hipster

    We really don’t have the political vocabulary to easily describe the cultural leftist and neoliberal international banksterist Soros. Maybe you could just say he’s in the vanguard of Woke Capital. But he can’t be an “anti-authoritarian classic liberal” if he’s chastising Zuckerberg for being too lax in his censorship regime. Popper seems like a phenomenon of the Cold War, and not really applicable to the current era.

    • Replies: @Znzn
  19. fnn says:
    @A. Hipster

    This is not a simple electoral strategy, but part of the hegemonic ideology of the American Empire.

  20. Znzn says:
    @fnn

    Popper says that democracies must be illiberal to protect their liberalism, so he is not a libertarian.

    • Replies: @fnn
  21. Dreadilk says:
    @A. Hipster

    Soros is a criminal. His political work is aimed to help with his goals and provide cover. It does not have to make rational sense. He found a niche in woke pedaling.

    Notice he like the US supports losers with an axe to grind. They are the easiest to manipulate and use as expandable shock troops.

  22. reezy says:

    You don’t need (heritable) behavioral traits specific to EE (and China) to explain it; their history is more than sufficient.

    Shots fired at the Hajnal hammer crowd 😂

  23. fnn says:
    @Znzn

    That crap was accepted because of the alleged threat of Communism. Sidney Hook said much the same and through that became a hero of the CIA-McCarthyist Buckleyites. There was no doctrine of libertarianism until Murray Rothbard created it in the 1960s. Before that, the American Old Right (see Wikipedia) and Europeans like Hayek considered themselves classical liberals.

  24. @Agathoklis

    Slavic-gypsies up north.

    Is this meant to refer to Monkeydonia?

  25. More banal explanation: “Conservatism”, due to its extreme normative nature, is not really an ideology as such – unlike liberalism, Communism, or nationalism, which actually stand for more context-independent values and priorities – but a state of mind that’s formed by the national context, like a sort of ideological center of gravity.

    In Russia we now have “Patriotism” – an even more amorphous normative state of mind. It includes unwavering faith in Putin and WW2 Victory cult. Beyond that, their views are unclear. But Russian “Patriots” are generally hostile to the idea of reform and change. They have this in common with Western “Conservatives”.

    • Replies: @Dreadilk
  26. @Agathoklis

    Well i think that you have already kind of cornered the issue:Greece always lacked the necessary capital for the development of a capitalist, industrial economy, which would lead to capital accumulation by the elite, with the capital in question being subsequently distributed to the lower classes as part of a wider social contract. The lack of industry meant that class solidarity and spirit never truly developed and that Greeks essentially kept peasant mentalities, which is inherently selfish and small minded. I also think that you misinterpret the competition for resources between corporations as class antagonisms. As you said there never was a true proletariat nor a true bourgeoisie in Greece as the country never industrialised. Greece’s economic model since 1831 has been to live off remittances and being bankrolled by its hegemons: France, Britain, America, the EU…. Political infighting and protests in Greece always result from the struggle over the control of the “pie ” that represents foreign capital, which explains why greek politics are so opportunistic.

    • Replies: @Agathoklis
  27. Dreadilk says:
    @Felix Keverich

    As Vox Day says conservatism is a stance not an ideology. Conservatives give up all their positions with time as long as they appear civilized while losing.

    Probably same applies to “patriotic” Russians. It is a bit worrying at how Russians so resemble Americans before they lost their country. Only fortunate fact is that they are only starting on this road. General economic collapse in the world will probably reset all of this before they lose Russia.

    • Replies: @216
    , @anonymous coward
  28. @Swarthy Greek

    I would disagree about a few assertions. The lack of capitalist, industrialist economy was primarily because of the piecemeal growth of the Greek state and the exclusion of areas where the Greek capitalist elite were located i.e. Smyrna, Constantinople, Alexandria. With the growth of nationalism, those Greek elites either relocated to Greece (only the elite of the elite re-established their wealth in Greece) or they migrated to the United States or even Australia. Greeks did not retain peasant mentalities; although, urbanisation came very late (which explains many things that outsiders find perplexing), but petit bourgeoise mentalities primarily facilitated by very strong family and extended family bonds. Almost everything is mediated through the family and by extension small business rather than the public sphere. This is both a negative and a positive. A negative because it means grand project building reliant on distant, non-personal transactional relations is difficult i.e. there are few large enterprises, the state is weak. A positive, that the family always cushions swings in the economy increasingly wrought more volatile by global capital flows, family formation remains largely traditional and facilitates the continuation of culture. Lastly, Greece has not lived off remittances for at least 40 years and one of the problems of the Greek economy is a lack of foreign capital rather than Greeks fighting over foreign capital.

    • Replies: @Swarthy Greek
  29. @Daniel.I

    “White” is a biologically and taxonomically meaningless term. Eastern Europeans (in particular, northeastern Europeans) are quite obviously different than English or French people, genetically, phenotypically, culturally, and psycho-politically. One may think that’s a good thing or a bad thing (personally I much prefer the East to the West), but it is quite clearly a thing.

    • Replies: @melanf
    , @Daniel.I
  30. @Swarthy Greek

    Correct, the “collective vs. individual” or “protection vs. freedom” axis is at least as important as the “equality vs. hierarchy” axis that has historically preoccupied Anglo-American political thought.

    • Replies: @Swarthy Greek
  31. @Hector_St_Clare

    Correct. Anglo political and philosophical thought is in my opinion, deficient in that regard. French and Russian thought are much more interesting: More specifically the fact that these three antagonisms expressed themselves at once during the French Revolution show how significant it was to modern politics. I would also add Internationalism against Nationalism as an axis although it expresses itself much more intermittently than the others and internationalism has a natural tendency to fade away among popular movements, as cosmopolitanism is inherently pro elite and pro capital. (Which is why communist regimes quickly turn nationalist.)

  32. @Agathoklis

    Entire industries such as construction are dependent on European structural funds and other EU subsidies. You also forget that the Greek state would have gone bankrupt without EU intervention in 2008.

    • Replies: @Agathoklis
  33. @reiner Tor

    Depends on what you mean by economic leftism. Sweden: low capital income tax, high regular income tax, no inheritance tax, high income equality but extreme wealth inequality, high number of billionaires and no political party that’s traditionally leftist in the sense of promoting class struggle or fighting wealth disparities through appropriation.

    Someone like Bernie Sanders who actually attacks the wealthy is unthinkable in Scandinavia (which is ironic considering he seems to idolize Scandinavian “socialism”). Scandinavia is indeed very “conservative” in the sense that the whole regime is crafted around preserving the oligarchy that has owned the country for centuries and preventing rivals from climbing up.

    If we still had the leftists of 1917 there’s no way this would be accepted as “leftism”. Grabbing the properties of the upper class was the single most important plan of the revolutionaries and they would not negotiate on that.

  34. @Swarthy Greek

    The primary driver of the Greek economy before the bubble burst in 2008 was the residential and hotel construction industry and they are hardly dependent on European structural funds. The area which benefits from those funds are infrastructure projects and their contribution to the Greek economy is usually quite small. It only increased on a relative basis during the crisis period when the residential construction industry collapsed. Also, the EU intervention in the period from 2008 cannot be defined as foreign capital investing in Greece but low interest loans which are essentially used to refinance maturing higher interest debt helping to keep the Greek state solvent. There was not much to fight over because the funds basically came in and then went out again.

    • Replies: @utu
  35. 216 says: • Website
    @Muggles

    Former “liberal” outfits like the ACLU were defenders of free speech absolutism. No longer, They are instead focused on helping convicted criminals escape their punishment and piling on those who they claim promote bad ideas they deem “hate speech.” So they are now pro censorship. Authoritarian.

    The free speech absolutism of the ACLU was a mirage. Their goals were twofold: normalize pornography and get rid of the Red Scare-era laws that restricted Communist Party members.

    I don’t recall any instances where the ACLU condemned hate speech laws in the rest of the Western world. “Free speech in one country” is not a consistent position.

    In the same visage, I don’t recall any prominent left wing in the US figure arguing that UK laws on firearms ownership are tyrannical and should be countered with sanctions.

    • Replies: @Muggles
    , @another anon
  36. utu says:
    @Agathoklis

    Swarthy Greek and Agathoklis, Good and interesting comments. Keep talking about Greece. Thanks.

  37. 216 says: • Website
    @Dreadilk

    Call it “Muricasplaining”, but I’m hazarding a guess that Putin doesn’t want “Red Guards” as an base of support that might slip beyond the establishment’s control. The “loyal” oligarchs would be next on the chopping block.

    In US politics, the left side dominates mass mobilizations, and coordinates much better with “civil society”.

    The right side almost never protests, and most organizations disdain both the activity and of organizing local chapters. The recent Virginia insurrection is indicative, the NRA wants nothing to do with it, and the protest was organized by a local movement that has been around for decades accusing the NRA of being too corporate and compromising.

    The infamous “Tea Party” protests were organized top down by two establishment organizations. Koch funded “Americans for Prosperity” and “FreedomWorks” which was run by Dick Armey, a former corrupt congressman. The actual origin of the movement was Ron Paul, but he was quickly cast aside with the consolation prize of his moderate son being elevated to the Senate.

    The conservative mythology is that “IRS harassment” is why the Tea Party disappeared, rather than the more accurate explanation that the establishment wanted it to go away. A secondary explanation comes from the rank amateurism of the Swine Right that managed to found organizations independent of the establishment. Many of these Swine got distracted by cheap Islamophobia.

  38. Muggles says:
    @216

    re: 216;s reply to my original post:

    >>The free speech absolutism of the ACLU was a mirage. Their goals were twofold: normalize pornography and get rid of the Red Scare-era laws that restricted Communist Party members.

    I don’t recall any instances where the ACLU condemned hate speech laws in the rest of the Western world. “Free speech in one country” is not a consistent position.

    In the same visage, I don’t recall any prominent left wing in the US figure arguing that UK laws on firearms ownership are tyrannical and should be countered with sanctions.<<

    The old ACLU famously litigated a Skokie IL case overturning a ban on a march held by American Nazis (back when there were such.) This was in a heavily Jewish Chicago suburb. Most ACLU legal actions were done or paid for by local chapters, not the national umbrella group. I don't believe they did much regarding pornography or anti Communist laws. Both of which were and are unconstitutional. Making things illegal doesn't make them go away.

    Nor is the ACLU required to or expected to opine about non US legal systems or restrictions. I have no idea what that organization said about foreign matters. Why would they do so? Very few American organizations seek to tell foreigners how to run their laws or systems. Ditto w/ the UK. It wasn't called the International Civil Liberties Union was it? That is moot now since the ACLU no longer cares about actual civil liberties. It is just a SJW front to aid criminals and force others to accept mandatory "diversity" for whatever group or cause is faddish.

    • Replies: @216
  39. 216 says: • Website
    @Muggles

    The old ACLU famously litigated a Skokie IL case overturning a ban on a march held by American Nazis (back when there were such.)

    Afiak, this movement was fringe at the time, in contrast to the contemporaneous Klan which was still influential in the rural South. The Klan was successfully dismantled by the FBI’s COINTELPRO operation, which was illegal. Most of the negative reaction to COINTELPRO was in regards to its infiltration of the left wing anti-war and Black Power movements.

    I don’t believe they did much regarding pornography or anti Communist laws. Both of which were and are unconstitutional. Making things illegal doesn’t make them go away.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._American_Civil_Liberties_Union
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_v._United_States

    The idea that pornography is constitutionally protected is an XX century invention, in the XVIII and XIX centuries this would have been laughable.

    Very few American organizations seek to tell foreigners how to run their laws or systems.

    lol

  40. melanf says:
    @Hector_St_Clare

    Eastern Europeans (in particular, northeastern Europeans) are quite obviously different than English or French people, genetically, phenotypically

    From the point of view of genetics, there is no division into Western and Eastern Europe. Residents of the Arkhangelsk region (Russia) are genetically (and phenotypically) much closer to Swedes than to Romanians. And the Swedes are much closer genetically (and phenotypically) to the residents of Arkhangelsk than to the French.

    If Europe were divided according to the genetic principle, it would not be divided into East/West, but quite differently (North/South). At the same time, Europeans form a single genetic cluster in comparison with the inhabitants of other parts of the earth.

    Well, phenotypically – you can distinguish in these photos (by phenotype not by captions) where is Eastern and where is Western Europe?

  41. melanf says:

    Eastern Europeans (in particular, northeastern Europeans) are quite obviously different than English or French people….culturally.

    There is no single culture in what is called Eastern Europe

  42. @Dreadilk

    Three points:

    a) Quoting Vox Day unironically is cringe and yikes.

    b) The quote is actually a bastardized G. K. Chesterton rendition:
    “The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes being corrected.”

    c) Russians don’t resemble Americans. One crucial fact: Russians are far, far, far more reactionary on all social issues in 2020 than they were in 1990. There is no ‘arc of history’ in Russia.

    • Replies: @Dreadilk
  43. Rahan says:

    Go here https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/ebs_493_data_fact_lgbti_eu_en-1.pdf
    It shows quite clearly the overall views on the rainbow stuff by country, within the EU.

    The questions about gay marriage give kinda wishy washy results, but by the time you reach the issues of trannies and public displays of homo affection, the eastern half of the EU goes into torches and pitchfork mode.

    In Eastern Europe the concepts of…
    1. Law and order
    2. Family values and encouraging fertility
    3. Protection of traditional local religious faiths
    4. Patriotic education
    5. Pride in the military, etc
    …are present in every single part of the political spectrum, with the possible exceptions of the various “greens” and “pirate parties” and such. Everyone else, be they communist, socialist, liberals, conservatives, or nationalists, (or monarchists), everyone supports the above. It’s a given, it’s the bedrock of society to them.

    The more east of Austria you go, the more every established political party has the social values of the Western “far right crypto-Hitler terrorists of hate”.

    The difference is in the details: the commies will want nationalized industries, the socialists will want to raise pensions and have more unions, the center-liberals will want a mildly permissive social democracy, the conservatives will want to deregulate and privatize shit (hence them being called “liberals” in Russia and parts of the EE), the nationalists will want military education in schools and a sterner approach to local minorities, but that’s the surface, and below this surface the above-mentioned bedrock is universal.

    **

    Except Estonia, the Czech republic, and Slovenia—three EE countries which are on the verge of crossing over to “almost GloboHomo” of Austrian and Italian levels—everyone else, both inside and outside the EU, is either a “conservative democracy”, or “conservative paternalistic authoritarianism”.

    Every country has socialist and communist parties, and they are the ones that will first recommend that you be thrown out of a window and then set on fire, if you suggest kids should be injected with hormones, public prayer should be forbidden, or that borders should be uncontrolled.

    Same goes for the Far East and Central Asia–either conservative democracies, or conservative paternalistic authoritarianism. The only GloboHomo cucks are Taiwan, and even there it’s still a top-down thing, with the “elites” enforcing stuff the population actually votes against, like gay marriage.

    **

    Anti-racism and anti-xenophobia and anti-bullying are actually things most normal human being support, but to use those concepts as excuses to dismantle whole civilizations, that’s a pretty impressive lesson in institutional hijacking and social subversion.

    P.S. I’m starting to use a third variation starting today. The first was “GloboHomo”, the second “GloboShlomo”, and the third as of now is “GloboHoho”. Useful, IMO, to subtly differentiate the focus of the topic—is it more about lgbdegenerate stuff, or about fellow white people stuff, or about general clown world stuff.

    • Replies: @Znzn
    , @Hector_St_Clare
  44. Znzn says:
    @Rahan

    You can always immigrate to South Island, aside from Christchurch, all of the countryside including the largish towns with 30000 plus population are basically 80 percent or more European.

  45. @216

    I don’t recall any instances where the ACLU condemned hate speech laws in the rest of the Western world. “Free speech in one country” is not a consistent position.

    In the same visage, I don’t recall any prominent left wing in the US figure arguing that UK laws on firearms ownership are tyrannical and should be countered with sanctions.

    If you want to criticize American insularity, the right is much more guilty.

    Do you see NRA pushing for gun rights worldwide? No.

    Did NRA protested when during Iraq war US forces were taking Iraqi guns? No.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/21/world/aftereffects-the-military-allies-to-begin-seizing-weapons-from-most-iraqis.html

    If Americans confiscated Iraqi Korans and forbade them to practice Islam, the left would protest, but when they infringed what was, according to the right, the most important human right of all … crickets.

  46. Daniel.I says:
    @Hector_St_Clare

    “White” is a biologically and taxonomically meaningless term.

    Nice of you to let me know for the start you’re retarded.

    • Replies: @Mitleser
  47. Mitleser says:
    @Daniel.I

    He is not completely wrong. Note that Chinese were described as “white” in the past.

    How did East Asians come to be referred to as yellow-skinned? It was the result of a series of racial mappings of the world and had nothing to do with the actual colour of people’s skin.

    In fact, when complexion was mentioned by an early Western traveller or missionary or ambassador (and it very often wasn’t, because skin colour as a racial marker was not fully in place until the 19th century), East Asians were almost always called white, particularly during the period of first modern contact in the 16th century. And on a number of occasions, even more revealingly, the people were termed “as white as we are”.

    The term yellow occasionally began to appear towards the end of the 18th century and then really took hold of the Western imagination in the 19th. But by the 17th century, the Chinese and Japanese were “darkening” in published texts, gradually losing their erstwhile whiteness when it became clear they would remain unwilling to participate in European systems of trade, religion, and international relations.

    https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/opinion/article/2184754/chinese-were-white-until-white-men-called-them-yellow

  48. Daniel.I says:
    @Mitleser

    Oh look, more autistic hair-splitting. As if there wasn’t enough of that to go around.

    But what the hell, I’ll play along.
    The way “white” is colloquially used (the very fact that I need to state such an obvious thing is quite worrisome) has a very definite meaning – people of 100% European ancestry.

    The fact remains that some Westernes are very keen to deny that quality to people who are phenotipically indistinct from them.

    Now the questions is – why do they feel the need to do such a thing ?

    • Replies: @Znzn
  49. Dreadilk says:
    @anonymous coward

    You are a cuck.

    Americans(conservatives) in 1970s or w.e they were socially conservative also had this stupid posture. At the same time they kept giving ground to where now kids are getting gender reassignment hormones.

    Russians seem to be too sure in their invincibility too and at the same time not bothering to do the bare minimum of purging degenerates that are breeding in the big cities and universities. They still a bit inoculated from 1990. Shout out to the lady who threatened to beat liberals with steel chains. But that does not last because I see too little beatings.

    It is always hard to deal with someone chimping out so people just leave them alone and try to ignore. But this slice of social fabric grows while you ignore it. By the time you are forced to address it a hundred years passed and there needs to be blood somewhere.

    One last thing left is very good at subversion. They will create works if culture that is within overton window but is Chuck full of subversive work.

    Edit: your quote actually exemplifies this cuck mentality.

    • Replies: @anonymous coward
  50. Znzn says:
    @Daniel.I

    Because you have the cucks who would insist that their Chinese wife is white and their children are also white? Though going by the same logic Negro albinos would also be called white?

    • Replies: @Daniel.I
  51. @Mitleser

    This is all nonsense. Linnaeus published the first taxonomy in 1735 and he described Homo Sapiens Europeanus as pale and Homo Sapiens Asiaticus as yellow. There was never an earlier racial taxonomy where East Asians were white.

    Yellow itself is a confusion because the first racial taxonomists had no direct access to all the different peoples of the world and photography didn’t exist. East Asians are the last people that Western Europeans reached and there was a lot of confusion due to the fact that the term “Asian” covered everything from Turks to Indians to Japanese and a lot of early European authors didn’t actually realize that “Asia” has a lot of different looking peoples. So many tried to incorporate descriptions of Middle Eastern, Indian and East Asian people into one race.

  52. Daniel.I says:
    @Znzn

    Can’t tell if you’re retarded or a subversive Jew.

    • LOL: Blinky Bill
  53. Anon 2 says:

    President Macron of France, who is on an extended visit in Poland this
    week, said that, after Brexit, Poland, Germany, and France will lead Europe.

    By the way, Donald Tusk of Poland is not leaving Brussels. He is now
    the leader of European People’s Party. Donald Tusk – what a perfect name
    if you want to lead Europe!

    • Replies: @Jaakko Raipala
    , @Mitleser
  54. @Anon 2

    OK guys I’m going to need a bit of help. Where do foreign volunteers sign up for the Russian armed forces?

    • Replies: @AP
  55. @Rahan

    The Czech Republic is by sone measures the most ethnocentric / ethnically aware country in Europe, so no, they aren’t going to slide into the western sphere of influence anytime in the foreseeable future.

    Slovenia has a “left conservative” party which I quite like, SNS: it’s unclear whether they are going to slide in a more western direction in future though.

    About Estonia, I sure hope not, but it’s worth pointing out that public opinion there is still quite solidly against mass immigration.

  56. AP says:
    @Jaakko Raipala

    Placing Poland into the mix in a central leadership role will subvert negative tendencies by the EU.

    • LOL: EldnahYm
    • Replies: @Blinky Bill
  57. @AP

    It would also replace one “Special Relationship” nation with another.

  58. Mitleser says:
    @Anon 2

    And you believe him?

    Poland is never going to join the leadership of the European project, i.e. France, Germany, Italy and the Benelux.

  59. @Dreadilk

    Are you actually illiterate? (Don’t answer the rhetorical question, please.)

    Let me rephrase the quote in retardese: ‘Conservatives’ and ‘Liberals’ are on the same team.

    ‘Liberals’ are the vanguard that advances the frontlines, ‘Conservatives’ are the rearguard that ensures their gains aren’t lost.

    • Replies: @Dreadilk
  60. Dreadilk says:
    @anonymous coward

    In which case I am curious at what is your problem with Vox?

    • Replies: @anonymous coward
  61. @Dreadilk

    Vox Day’s “sexual hierarchy” is spot on, but there is one slight problem: Vox Day himself is the purest example of a ‘gamma male’ known to mankind.

    Takes one to know one, I guess.

    I worry that someone can harbor that much self-hate, though.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Anon comments are not allowed. If you are new to my work, *start here*. If you liked this post, and want me to produce more such content, consider *donating*.


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