You are very ignorant aren’t you. If your post wasn’t almost entirely wrong, I could answer, but unfortunately it is mostly wrong. Only point I will answer is about crusades. The difference is that crusaders committed massacres and looting in all parts they’ve passed through, and it wasn’t near their periphery but across a continent. Including Constantinople itself. Yes, such thugs they were, they actually went on to loot the capital of Eastern Roman Empire and Orthodox Christians. Then they even went on to massacre inhabitants of Jerusalem, up to 70.000 people a massive number for the time, in a supposedly Holy City. The motive itself was also more about looting and robbing, much like wars we saw in Libya and Iraq in recent decades, Christianity was a thin guise for their barbarism. If that wasn’t the case they wouldn’t be passionately hated and despised by Eastern Christians for the following centuries, to the point that would make Orthodox clergy make statements such as preferring Muslim turban over Latin hat.

Also Turks pursuing world wars? You don’t even know why any war isn’t considered a world war. By your dumb logic, Swedish Wars or Wars of the Roses could also be considered world wars. Because why not? Lol. Clown.

No they weren’t Muslims. If you didn’t follow, a lot of Turkic tribes assimilated into modern European nations, particularly in Hungary, Bulgaria and Russia. Conversion is mostly a proximity issue. If Islam didn’t ban alcohol, Russians might as well converted to Islam too by the way. As for violence, I don’t think anyone could match Europeans in the violence division. Muslims aren’t the ones who started Crusades, multiple world wars or multiple massive genocides. It was Christians, if we go by religion. Also, even Arabs get a bad reputation. Arab terrorists killed a few thousands in 9/11, the largest terror attack in the US. But even before that hundreds of thousands of Arabs had died in Western instigated wars such as Gulf War.

No.

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Principality_of_Hungary

They referred Hungary as Tourkia. Romans did not call Turks as Persians, they were well aware that the two were different people.

It is not a mystery. It is well known history. Those Avars followed the path of Huns before them. Both groups are Turkic, Eastern Roman sources referred them ask Turks and called their country Tourkia. Consequently, they are not Mongolian. Not all Asians are Mongolians. A lot of White and Asian tribes kept migrating between Europe and Asia for thousands of years before modern nations. Avar people in Caucasus are not related to Avars that migrated to Europe.

Where TL and others have made a mistake is claiming that the U.S. leads Multiculturalism.

I never said that

That was my quote not Blade’s.

It was based on your assertion that he should reframe an argument to explicitly target the U.S. Such reframing would have failed because SJW is very Left European phenomenon.

PEACE 😇

Sounds like Andrew Anglin has a Chinese fetish.

It can be hard to follow what you are writing because it is plagued by what appear to be internal contradictions.

There are no contradictions, you either don’t know the extend some topics so you think something is contradictory, or I cannot explain some things details enough because I don’t want to write books on comment threads.

You may find that you can get more people on your side if your stop using the term Western.

It is not important for me to get people on my side. I don’t think so that others appreciate it, I think because I am a man. Both globalism and multiculturalism as policies are Western creations. The fact you think they are bad for the West and were invented by the evil elites that want to destroy the West doesn’t mean it is the truth.

Globalism = Anti-Western = Exporting the West’s wealth out of the West.

I already said I was done here, I meant our discussion because you already made all your arguments. Do you have any evidence for “exporting the West’s wealth” due to globalism? No, data points the opposite.

Multiculturalism = Anti-Western = Systematic devaluation of Western culture and traditional Christian values.

You talk as if Christianity had been a consideration before multiculturalism. Europeans killed Christianity for good over a century ago (since you keep misunderstanding, it doesn’t mean that there are no Christians left). Ever since then it has been shrinking. Devolving of Western culture has to do with your cultural and economic choices, not because of some minorities who mostly keep to themselves anyway. No one is putting a gun to your heads to watch stupid TV, listen to deranged music, or read garbage books.

What you seem to be complaining about

I am not complaining about anything, I just stated facts.

Where TL and others have made a mistake is claiming that the U.S. leads Multiculturalism.

I am guessing she is European, you are American. Thus neither of you have the maturity to accept the responsibility and are blaming each other. The reality is that on global policy the West acts as a bloc, the US is just the leader. From an economical perspective, globalism worked so far and generated a tremendous amount of wealth for your upper classes.

America can restrict immigration and return to Western Anti-Globalist values.

Restrict immigration, already being done. Return to anti-globalist values? I think you still don’t get that globalism worked very well for the overall wealth of your countries, you can easily verify that. Globalism is not responsible for inequalities within your country. That’s a completely separate topic.

Putinbot spoke. Speak Putinbot.

Let me correct that for you:

A theory claiming that Jesus and Muhammad were actually contemporaries seems very stupid to me.

Sir, I would like to inform you that you are in fact arguing with a woman.

That explains it, thanks for letting me know. 🙂

This implies that you had no better explanations than those “one weird fix” explanations.

No, it doesn’t imply that. Not even remotely. You need to work on your comprehension. Everything has more than one aspect to it, but also dominant or important parts. I am explaining why the West pushes for globalism and multiculturalism.

What do you mean by “globalism”? … “multiculturalism?”

Nothing new. You can also deduce it from comments so far.

What do you mean by “Western hegemony”?

– Forcing Western values on non-Western societies,
– Coercing other societies to form their policies based on the interests of Western nations, rather than their own (see China, Japan, and many other examples),
– In the past, this was achieved through plain violence, plundering, and robbing, today it is more sophisticated,

You are also presenting two different “end goals” and don’t seem to realise it.

I am not presenting two end goals without realizing, your reading comprehension is weak. All of these policies are for continuing and guaranteeing the prosperity of the Western bloc. If they were self-sufficient I don’t think they’d care that much about continuing the hegemony.

Your best bet would be to make your argument for the United States, not “the West”.

The US is just the leader, not “the West.” The fact that they may have disagreements here and there doesn’t mean they don’t act as a bloc against others (see China, AUKUS, five-eyes, EU-Russia relations, and more). They move as a bloc, it is actually commonly understood. It is strange you suggest the US and Europe hadn’t been on the same page regarding Western hegemony, globalism, and multiculturalism.

1. The United States government and elite has enjoyed being the most important in the world for decades and really want to keep that position, for various reasons…

This and the following arguments contain some truth, but fallacious as well. You are confusing correlation for causation. Your argument is also anachronistic. Because buried in their own arrogance, none of the leaders of the West expected China to turn into what it is. They thought it was “the end of history,” when the USSR was collapsed and that China would just be a big Japan (subtle racism of that opinion…). By your argument, the US must have expected all things that happened in the past few decades because they didn’t start immigration policy in the last ten years. As for your point number 6, that’s basically what I suggested earlier. However, all your points, including the 7th also fail to explain why would Europe adopt the same agenda.

I’ll make it for you, but better

Thanks for the attempt, but you actually didn’t do anything better for me since you took a different position and went on to explain your opinion, but hey that’s a step forward.

I have to say that your position is extremely naive, and requires much ignorance of history, power, and politics. The reality is coercion, and millions and millions of dead people in Algeria, Poland, South Asia, South America, and Africa. Well, anyway, I think we can end it here since you accidentally explained your position while trying to make a better argument for me. 🙂

Ron, did you know Lenin was aware of Pavlov’s studies (and wanted to learn how psychological research could be used for Communist society)? I have read arguments on how Communists intentionally created famines to break people and make them obedient slaves to the government. Are we sure that this isn’t true? I mean if it only happened in China, the unintentional famine argument would’ve been more believable. The same happened in Ukraine, then in Kazakhstan (60% of Kazakhs died as a result, yet another genocide of Russians), then in China, then in North Korea…

If you think from a completely materialistic point of view, and from a revolutionary’s mindset, it doesn’t seem like an entirely bad idea to force famines on people soon after the revolution (especially if people are members of a minority). Events like a huge famine, turning society upside down, wars, and so on are perfect tools to completely change societies very fast. Not to mention that though it is commonly argued otherwise (“hungry people revolt” argument), the reality is that hungry people do not have the energy or psyche to do anything. There is a good chance that CCP would not last as long as it did without completely crushing Chinese people’s spirit soon after the revolution. So, it has likely succeeded as well.

The numbers you report are also the extreme low end of estimates, no? I thought China’s official numbers were larger than the numbers you give.

I think we’re going to see China do some incredibly smart things like maintaining order. And also some incredibly stupid things, like not switching to a democratic government that can smoothly change leaders.

You’re kidding right? China’s system has smoothly and effectively changed leaders like a dream for the last few decades. Western democracies, and in particular the USA on the other hand… the clown show just gets worse and worse, with no obvious way to stop the spiral.

A democratic system would be an open invitation for greater outside meddling (‘Five Eyes’ are still good at stirring up division and mayhem with their intel agencies, if not much else), a more divided society, and one less capable of long term planning, to name a just few things. What exactly would the gain from this ‘incredibly stupid’ not-to-make move be?

As for you seeking a “one simple explanation” for everything, that’s stupid.

I agree seeking one simple explanation for everything is stupid. Do you know what else is stupid? Using straw man arguments. I repeatedly, implicitly said that not everything has simple explanations on this very thread. But I think you have problems deducing ideas unless they are explicitly stated.

I am not sure what you’re saying here as well. You wrote twice to my posts claiming that I don’t know something, then you go on to say the most obvious things that I haven’t denied anywhere in my comments, on the contrary, I did explicitly said some answers would require books. In any case, here too you are ranting but not really stating any opinions other than very general observations.

Since you seem to have trouble understanding things without being explicitly explained for you, I will summarize my argument as much as it can be done in three points (for others who are confused as well):

a) Globalism and multiculturalism are tools to continue and extend Western hegemony,
b) Multiculturalism is a part of globalism,
c) End goal is to ensure high material wealth in the Western countries,

Then I went on to explain how the leaders of the West implemented, or what their goals were. Also, stating opinions does not mean I agree or defend their ideals. A123 responded with how he disagreed with things I’ve said and argued my points were not correct. He thinks Western leaders and elites want to destroy the West and globalism is a tool for that, but could not explain why. Regardless, at least he said something and made his opinion clear. You keep jumping in, but really not saying anything. Do you have an opinion on any of the three points above? Because really, everything I’ve written so far is arguments and facts building around these points. So far you keep insisting I am saying something stupid or I am confused, but really, what you said so far is nothing but beating around the bush on corollary subjects which I could discuss for hours as well but would rather not waste my time.

If you have an opinion, or a real answer refuting things, rather than empty rhetoric on existential fears of the Western people, go ahead and write. It was you who jumped in on my comments acting like you got something right that I got wrong without really refuting anything, how do you expect me to disagree with you when you are pretending to make arguments?

DIE is about suppression of reporting illegals.

Corporations are hiring illegal migrants? I thought it was generally low-wage, low education jobs. Like farming, manual labor, and so on.

The top four companies using H1B visas are InfoSys, WiPro, Satyam, and Tata. They are all anti-Western. Their primary purpose is to hurt American workers by moving jobs overseas.

H1Bs are not illegal migrants. All those companies are Indian companies, none anti-Western. Their primary purpose is to increase their profits. If the American federal government and American corporations didn’t give them contracts they wouldn’t be able to move any jobs overseas. Offshoring is a decision of American managers, based on increasing the profits of their companies and thus enriching themselves. Why would Indians want to hurt American workers? Aren’t you blaming everyone except those who deserve to be blamed for things you complain about?

Between 50-80% of German migrants are unemployed (1). You are badly misinformed if you believe that Germany is successfully handling blue collar migrant employment.

First, I just said the German blue-collar class is doing well despite migration. Secondly, the link you sent is about asylum seekers who just (as in the past few years) escaped wars in their countries. Not the best example for your argument.

MAGA Reindustrialization is not going back to the 1960’s.

There will be no reindustrialization. America is already industrial anyway. The need for factory workers will keep going down, more labor-intensive industries will be based on low-wage countries or some of them will be automated as well. Economic nationalism would be destructive for the US, simply because too many of its corporations have huge markets abroad. It would however be beneficial for export-oriented or domestic-based, smaller economies.

I think you are blaming the wrong sides for your real or perceived misfortunes, it is not Indian companies, Chinese politicians, or Mexican farmworkers who control your businesses and your government. You are blaming other people for your own leadership’s actions. Moreover, I think you would not be willing to take a reduction in your comfort or economic well-being for these goals you are speaking of. It is also you who elected your business and political leaders. Even if you personally are an exception, in general, this is the case.

In any case, I think we discussed enough. I get your points. You can respond if you wish to clarify something, but this is my last post here.

What you are talking about are anti-American Internationals.

So how can they be openly nationalist and expect to do business in foreign countries? What sort of anti-American activities are they involved in? Is Toyota anti-Japanese for having factories in the US as well?

An American business would benefit American workers.

Alright, so you are a pro-worker, maybe even a socialist. I was going to say you cannot be a free-market capitalist and also not support globalism and migration. But it seems you are not since you believe businesses have nationalities and have an obligation to benefit a select group of nations. That’s OK to believe, but not a free market idea at all.

SJW MegaCorporations are an anti-Western blight that intentionally suppresses U.S. workers with DIE [Diversity, Inclusion, Equity] theology

I agree that DIE is part of wage suppression, but how are they anti-Western? And why? Aren’t they Western themselves? Do you rather keep women, gays, minorities unemployed so you can have even more social unrest?

They really want Americans to DIE.

Whether they want it or not, everyone will die anyway. Why do you think they want Americans to die?

Having more U.S. jobs and higher paying U.S. jobs yields increased real disposable income. Reindustrialization will lead to net price reductions versus salary.

Industries are far more automated than 40 or even 20 years ago. Look at Tesla’s gigafactory and tell me how many workers they have. A lot of the industries that require more manual labor that Western companies outsourced to Bangladesh or China would not be profitable in the US with current prices. There will be no reindustrialization.

If wages go up 50% and prices go up only 10%, that is a 40% win for U.S. workers

But as far as I know, it is Democrats who want to increase the minimum wage and it is Republicans who fight against it. Republicans argue that if minimum wage goes up so does business cost and the net result is increased inflation and more unemployment. I also don’t think a 50% increase in wages would only cause a 10% increase in prices.

I do not think you grasp the sheer magnitude of devastation and annihilation that decades of low skilled migration has had on U.S. blue collar wages.

Yes, though I don’t fully agree, I am aware that’s part of the wage suppression scheme. But I think more of the damage is caused by poor management and greed. Just look at Germany. They also have millions of low-skilled migrants, but their industries and blue collars doing very well.

Reduced migration plus MAGA Reindustrialization is a no-brainer, obvious win for U.S. citizens.

They are already working on reducing migration, the governments I mean. If they really wanted to destroy Western nations they would not build walls and migrant facilities, in Europe, they would not threaten Turkey to force it to keep millions of migrants and just let them come in. But there will be no reindustrialization with or without MAGA.

Seeming confused is a possibility, then it is also possible you are just picking one thing you imagine that I don’t know and trying to build an argument on that. This is just a comment section, I am not writing books here. Oh, and the US also received millions of peasants from Vietnam, China, Korea, Cambodia, and other countries. I doubt these people were the best of Asia. Furthermore, the original migrants to the US were the “worst” of Europe as well. Also, I am just presenting opinions on why the Western political bodies introduced globalism and multiculturalism. I am not saying whether I support them or not. So if you have better explanations, go on and share them. Alternative explanations I’ve seen so far range from “because Jews want to destroy Europeans” and “because Western elites hate us.” Neither of which makes sense or has any proof.

I using it in the commonly accepted form, “The people living in West”. I suspect you are trying to use it in some other way as a reference to tiny numbers of powerful elites in anti-Western Hollywood and anti-Western Wall Street.

No, I don’t mean ordinary people. I also don’t mean anti-Western people. I am talking about states, strategies, and politics. So I mean whoever plans those.

That is the academic theory. However current reality is very different.

Reality isn’t very different everywhere. That’s why they are reining in on China.

American workers lose their jobs as production is moved overseas. SJW Globalists win while non-SJW Westerners lose.

As far as I know, American workers have higher living standards than in the past, by Western measures. Globalists aren’t SJWs, SJWs are just a subgroup that globalists use for their goals.

Reinstating tariffs as a significant source of revenue would result in more domestic jobs. A win for Western workers and a loss for Globalist MegaCorporations.

Yes to more domestic jobs, and loss to mega-corporations. But having a higher paying job doesn’t mean a higher life standard if the prices of everything you buy go up more than your salary.

I think we concur on this point. Migrants damaged by anti-Western SJW culture are a threat to both Western culture and their home culture.

You call SJWs anti-Western, I don’t see it that way at all. It is the West in your ideal that may be under threat, but the West you have are them in the real world. I agree they are a threat to their home cultures, but I don’t think they are as much a threat to Western cultures. What do you expect? Someone from Somalia or Mexico to suddenly start listening to Mozart and appreciate Picasso as soon as they migrate?

You have bought the Hollywood trope hook, line, & sinker. Christianity is very much alive out in Main Street America.

They are conservatives yes, as far as I can see, they claim to believe in Christianity but they are very much seculars. It is like a weekly therapy for most Christians or just some cultural artifact. How many of them live by the values of Jesus? They don’t follow almost any part of their scripture, so how are they Christians?

Nationalism would make it much easier for Christian countries to avoid infiltration by Chinese and Iranian agents.

Christian country definition is a bit problematic because no country is Christian, they are all secular countries as far as I know. Yes, if you block immigration you can definitely avoid infiltration, but it cuts both ways you also cannot complain when they reign in on Christians in China, who according to some claims number tens of millions. Side note: Jesus was not a nationalist, he was a universalist.

Those who call for Christian Populism (e.g. MAGA) know exactly what they will obtain. Jobs and a return to traditional values.

I didn’t know MAGA was Christian Populism. Jobs yes, but higher prices also yes. Return to what traditional values? I don’t know what you mean by traditional values. As far as I can see, most Republicans aren’t traditionalists to begin with.

An end to other countries exploiting America.

Trust me, no country exploits other countries as much as America does. The only ones that could be said to exploit America could be its Western allies, such as European countries without proper armies. I don’t see how China exploits America while it was Chinese workers who were working for a dollar or less per hour for decades, allowing extremely high profits for American businesses.

The explanation, in its full scope, would have to be very, very long. I think the effect of diasporas on their origin countries alone is a huge study topic. Then there are the philosophical questions revolving around the topic. The benefit you speak of assumes that it is good to keep national identities as is, and reduce the intermingling of people and minimize cultural exchange/change. In another word, I think you are saying, “I want China to remain Chinese alone and prevent any migration.” Meanwhile, CCP is encouraging Chinese migration into Africa and bringing Africans to China (not on a Western scale, but this is still CCP we are talking about). So, most countries/civilizations that have global aspirations are allowing migration to extend their networks, footprint and reap long-term benefits. Bottom line is, multiculturalism to some degree, is inevitable unless the country is self-sufficient. I didn’t say whether multiculturalism is good or bad, I said from an economic and political perspective it makes sense and it is not all bad for Western nations. In fact, it is a necessity for Western strategic and economic goals (maybe not at Swedish scale, I’d say 1% to 2% of the country’s population would suffice), especially considering their colonialist pasts (colonies used to be much more nationalist and angry).

But it is still a choice for Western people as well, to say, “I don’t care about having 2-3 cars, large homes, and being able to find and afford whatever I want to consume” and ban immigration completely. The thing is, so few are of that mind, and even among those who think like that, I believe most would immediately drop that position if they realized the economic cost nativism and protectionism would imply on their day-to-day lives.

I heard Putin is using COVID as an excuse to have a short break from politics to become a Russian brat in PUBG to annoy everyone else who plays the game.

How is it a victim of globalism? Guess what happens if even just economic nationalism becomes the international standard rather than liberalism/globalism. Europe can no longer easily sell most of its products to most countries around the world. Globalism argues for a liberal order in which tariffs are eliminated (or low), this kind of system helps already developed countries. Idiocy globalism spreads isn’t a one side sword, it also harms developing countries, partly because of the other aspect of globalism: multiculturalism. Imported minorities do not only affect Western countries but also their home countries. They are, for the most part, end up becoming agents of the West without realizing it. Do you realize many Chinese (or other nationalities), who are supposed to be very nationalistic, end up becoming SJWs in the countries they emigrated to? In the end, the West benefits more than it loses from a material perspective, thanks to globalism. Not just that but also, multiculturalism allows it to export Western values at a faster speed to the parts of the world they’d have no access to otherwise.

You are talking of traditional Christian values. The last Christian died in the last century, what tradition are you speaking of? The West wants nationalism? Do you mean a minority who gets the crappy parts of multiculturalism and globalism, who don’t even realize that their countries are still nationalistic? As far as I know, open nationalism did not end well for the West, moreover, it caused rebellion after rebellion in their colonies as soon as the colonized started modernizing, and without a doubt, it would only cause Western hegemony to decline even faster. Otherwise, do you actually believe if India or Algeria didn’t revolt the Western countries would just stop taking advantage of them, and just let them go their own ways because they suddenly became SJW countries? So the facts are:

– West is still nationalistic, it is just not the way it used to be, it is less obnoxious and open about it because if they were the same way they were in the 19th century it’d end up with a disaster for them now that competitor countries are close/peers technologically,
– They understood obscene nationalism also causes infighting, as it did in WW1 and WW2,
– It is still imperialistic, it is called globalism and multiculturalism,
– Globalism spreads a lot of things, but anti-West sentiments are not one of those things,

Finally, there is a reason why both right and left elites support globalism and multiculturalism, more or less openly. There is also a reason why Russia is constantly provoking nationalist/racist sentiments in the West. West turning nationalist (openly, bordering racism, in the sense alt-right wants) would be a boon to challenging powers like Russia, China, and Iran. Honestly, it would also benefit developing countries. Therefore, I think those who call for old-style nationalism do not know what they are wishing for.

I believe 99.99% of Western critics misunderstand globalism and multiculturalism. They are both tools to extend and continue Western hegemony. As the rest of the world inevitably catches up in education, economy, and understand Western notions, it would be impossible to continue hegemony without making the rest of the world enemy. The solution is the idea of globalism and multiculturalism. Globalism serves developed nations by opening up developing markets and preventing tariffs that’d allow local industries to compete with foreign entities. Multiculturalism weakens nationalist fervor around the world and allows Western cultural exports and ideals to flourish; both of which are crucial to continuing the hegemony. There is a downside to multiculturalism, I don’t need to explain it, but without some kinds of risks and backlash, there is no way to achieve continuation of the Western supremacy. Ordinary people in the right (and left) don’t understand these things, so they’ll blame Jews or elite conspiracy or the Leftists. I wonder how they suggest continuing the Western supremacy? Do they even realize that Europe cannot sustain high living standards without Asia or Africa? America is much luckier from the resource perspective, but even living in the US would have been much more modest compared to its current standards. So, it is a choice Western elites made to continue the material well-being of their countries, and it is a long game.

Maybe Nobel will be a global unbiased thing sometime in the future, but so far it has mostly been politically motivated, and there wasn’t even much of a concept of globalism or multiculturalism (contrary to Eurocentrism) for the most part of its existence anyway.

China will not receive a lot of Nobel Prizes unless it kneels before the West. I don’t get the obsession with Nobel Prize as if it is the standard for scientific or artistic success anyway. It is a Swedish-made prize, which, curiously awarded a very high number of Swedes despite their meager contributions. Add in the racism and/or Eurocentrism at least until the late 90s, and it is very difficult to take it seriously as an indicator of something other than Western confirmation bias. Tolstoy didn’t get a Nobel literature prize, but Churchill did enough said. I personally do not even follow who received the prize and I don’t even care, it is irrelevant and not worthy of paying attention to.

Okay, let’s say white rust belt towns where meth and opioid addiction are rampant then. The point is supposedly dangerous parts of Japan or China are actually much safer than most of the US. Of course, if you never leave your middle-class suburbs you are relatively safer than most people in the US, but it says nothing about the country as a whole. The chances of you getting attacked on street are very low in the US (then what is very low? you could also say the same about pretty much any country), but relative to China or Japan? Even in the US, Asians have a significantly lower rate of crime. What are you arguing about here? You just proved my point, your “very low risk” perception is actually probably about the same level of Japanese people’s “very dangerous,” definition. So take it with a grain of salt when you hear about dangerous parts of Japan or China. The decay in rural Japan has to do with the aging population and youth leaving for big cities. It is not “rotten” in the sense of crime, degeneracy, and drug addiction. Rural China was always poor, but very safe regardless.

You know, it is rather strange how so many people cannot put two and two together and accept the reality. If you said “Chinese do better in mathematics” they’d be fine, but if you say “they are ahead/getting ahead in AI” suddenly they get mad, and try to prove you wrong.

Then the other fact you mentioned. While I could consider giving them the benefit of the doubt, and say they are waging a propaganda war, the fact that they seem to swallow their own lies and act stupidly based on them makes me suspect that Western elites actually believe the stuff Western media repeats. Of course, then, ordinary people are misled even more. Even in this thread, we can see that, this idea that China will collapse because they are not making enough babies for example. It is often repeated among Western media/thought leaders. Meanwhile, just one look at the data and you see it is no different from (and sometimes better) than Western countries, including Japan or Korea. Then there is the fact that China already has more than enough people. Combine it with enough technology and a much lesser than current % of the working-age population is enough to keep China (or any other advanced country) going.

And if I am wrong and TFR really needs to be above 2.0, I promise everyone that CCP could make TFR go above 2.0 the day they want it (or 3.0 for that matter). It is interesting that people have no problem believing they had 1 child policy for decades but they are struggling to believe the opposite could also be achieved. The West has no understanding of China. It is as simple as that.

“Rotten” you speak of is a result of the aging population and youth leaving for urban areas. There are other, more appropriate words for it, such as decayed or crumbling. The worst areas of Tokyo or Osaka are still safer than many downtowns of the US or suburbs of Paris or sketchy areas of London. Perception of safety is also relative, Asians tend to be extremely cautious and safety-oriented. I guarantee you the worst parts of China or Japan are still much safer than the bad parts of Western countries, and sometimes as safe as good parts. Chances you will be randomly attacked on the street in a major city’s most central location while you are minding your own business is basically zero in those Asian countries. You didn’t refute the anon dude. If you want to see real destitute check American hoods on Youtube.

why do I spend so much time here instead of on TTL platforms?

Because you have no friends?

It is very smart of China to focus on chip building. AKarlin is rambling as usual. There are many reasons why China focuses on chips, that’s because they are counting on coming:

– IOT, smart cities will make the need grow exponentially,
– Quantum computing is still in its infancy,
– Smart cars,
– AI will definitely be part of warfare (as in, soldier robots), ever-increasing the need for chips,

The list can be extended. They already have the world’s largest market for all this. Just look at the case of Turkey and it is not difficult to see why it is very important to achieve independence in critical components of critical technologies. Ever since the Turkish drone industry started becoming world-class, Western ‘allies’ of Turkey have been implementing sanctions after sanctions to cripple its manufacturing (it is this behavior that made Turkey focus on the defense industry ever since the liberation of North Cyprus and the following Western sanctions). This is how they treat an ‘ally,’ that carries the refugee burden of their useless and unsuccessful wars. Just imagine what could they do to China if China was dependent on critical components. The US also understands that, so it encourages TSMC to move to the US and already blocked some deals involving Chinese overtake in the computer hardware industry.

You are talking of software but the software is not that hard. Chinese already have alternatives to Facebook, Twitter, Uber, and so on. Not to forget that, if Chinese alternatives actually grew outside China and started taking over, the other side would (and did) ban their software as well. Also, just because ‘software ate the world’ doesn’t mean hardware focus is a bad idea; the software that ate the world still needs hardware and it is also mostly consumer tech that defines the phrase.

Finally, in Japan’s case, there is something else going on, but I don’t know enough to figure what it is. Let’s not forget that Japan is actually a vassal of the US. Having more than one of the best-selling car brands, machine parts, hi-tech, some of the best electronics, and so on, it just doesn’t add up that if Japan isn’t better off than France or the UK. After all, which one of those G7 countries has a significant footprint in the software industry other than the US?

In any case, China is run by very smart and deep-thinking people. That is my observation, and it is not just based on their tech focus but also their other policies. They don’t buy any BS and that is what really worries the West. If things go at this rate, it will be China that will isolate the West from the rest of the world, not the other way around. To think that they’d go after an industry so aggressively just because is foolish. China understands that the West wants hegemony, not equality or alternative systems and civilizations. Focus on acquiring advanced chip manufacturing capability is just an extension of this understanding.

She is not a FIDE master, it says WGM, which should be a woman grandmaster. I think the difference should be greater than pro-athlete vs. college athlete. This means if that old dude pulled a Bruce Jenner trick, he could probably be a WGM. 🙂

In this situation partner study (called chevruta in Hebrew) enables you to dissect the text very effectively, far more than if you read it on your own.

Yes, I noticed the method of discussion in your previous post, thus learned something new. It is actually interesting and worth investigating as far as the educational outcomes are concerned. Well, this is the reason comments are worth skimming, for it allows me to see so many different people’s opinions or knowledge. Following discussion regarding religion and atheism, I don’t know why you opened that topic, but I am not an Atheist nor do I follow a religion. However, I agree with your sentiment about atheists like Sam Harris. Their arrogance is the mirror image of the religious arrogance (of many, who claim their religion is the truth, thus they are superior). There is nothing to be proud of something we believe or don’t believe.

We all experience weird synchronicities and acts of Providence (Fate?) that force us to realize that we live in a very mysterious place

I have my reservations there. The likelihood of something that feels weird/fortunate/mysterious with things or events that happen/exist around us is purely because we have a limited environment and limited random interactions as individuals. If that book was mistakenly shipped to you on this day, that’d be mysterious, but the event that you found that book today simply has to do with the fact that you are the type of person who’d buy a book that relates to your value system. Change your country, your home, and your social environment, and pretty much all those synchronicities will disappear. I am in the camp that thinks Bayesian Theorem is more than sufficient to explain them but will reconsider my position if faced with convincing evidence.

What is art music and love to an atheist?

I am not an atheist, but art and music are just forms of communication. It happens to be the case that some sounds do generate feelings of pleasure for some animals. Love is more complex, but ultimately a rational choice that wraps itself inside a magical package. I am talking about romantic love of course, feelings of mercy or compassion also tend to be confused for love at times, those feelings have more to do with the sense of kinship we feel towards other human beings. In that regard, similar behaviors have been shown by other animals as well but no one speaks highly of a sense of love among chimps or gorillas.

Also I think all the discussions here at UR about Covid and also the 9/11 investigation prove that scientists cannot be trusted because: (1) science is constantly evolving and exposing new levels of knowledge so the latest scientific breakthrough might yet prove to be flawed or defective in some way and (2) scientists are human and prone to vanity and lust for fame and fortune.

Well, I think your first argument does not follow. The fact that science is evolving is not a reason to not trust scientists, but having doubts is part of science itself so that makes sense. Then trust and doubt are not mutually exclusive, I think this is your Yeshiva education getting back at you. Personally, I am more likely to trust someone who confesses he was wrong given new evidence than a fool who repeats opinions with no proof. Your second argument is also a fallacy, you are basically saying “some scientists are prone to vanity, therefore scientists are not trustworthy” (I inserted “some” because I don’t think you’d argue all scientists are prone to vanity).

They all too often act like political hacks selling their services to the highest bidder, like any hustling businessmen.

I agree with this sentiment. It is a whole topic that is worth writing a book about. I wonder if Ron would be interested enough to write about it for I lack the patience and English ability. 🙂 But then again, that is not all scientists and also, there are more scientists today than ever, there is idolatry of money and widespread materialism so it makes sense. While I don’t believe that most scientists are like hustling businessmen, I’d agree so few of them have Philosophia.

So again I think the atheists are mistaken in their desire to see society ruled by a “coldly rational” scientific priesthood.

I don’t think most atheists are that insightful or bothered to think much about how society should be ruled. A position of weakness is also a position of comfort in a different way. You can want anything knowing fully well you will never get it. The same attitude can be seen in many minority groups protesting the majority’s morals or ways of handling things. I will not dive further into this topic, it is far too complex for a comment answer.

This was just an idea I have been pondering and I threw it in here as an aside. The idea is to pay a small subscription fee that would allow us to post comments without fear of censorship.

I think it introduces too many problems and doesn’t solve Linh’s grievances. Forum systems solved many of such problems, but then the site would turn into something else.

I do wonder if Ron actually reads each and every comment posted here.

He doesn’t. If he did, either he or the site would not last this long.

I don’t regularly follow articles here, for some reason ever since COVID it has lost its edge for me. Or maybe the world has become such an insane place that an alternative news site no longer feels that interesting. Also authors like Andrew Anglin, the shortest troll on the internet, definitely didn’t make the site more interesting. I don’t believe most people read the entire comments section, but if I actually read an article, I will skim comments to see if anyone has an interesting take on the topic.

I disagree that comment boards are good places to develop debating skills though. Then there is the fact that the older you get less interested you become in debating, at least that was the case for me. So I can see where Kevin is coming from, but I disagree with the tone that his assessment is the universal truth. Preferring to read Dostoevsky over internet comments is just a choice, neither can be the true or false way. From an Islamic perspective, however, they are both largely wastes of time.

I like to email authors about their books, and only rarely will they deign to reply. My motto is: if you cannot interact with an author and ask follow-up questions, they aren’t worth reading in the first place.

I thought Yeshiva is a Torah study school of some sort. Do authors of Torah respond when you have questions or did you come to conclude studying Torah was useless after the fact?

On a related note: I wonder if Ron would consider offering a subscription option (say $20/month) that would allow us to comment unfettered by fear of censorship?

I think you misunderstand the issue. Linh isn’t saying “I want to censor opinions that conflict with mine.” He says he is tired of racial and personal attacks that add nothing to the discussion. How does paying $20 address that? Are you suggesting establishing the internet’s first pay per insult comments board where authors can make pennies for each insult they suffer? 🙂

Well, you cannot get into a pissing contest with Dostoevsky on the internet. That might be just one factor.

Well, it’s one factor, sure. But the other, more general thing is that this kind of discussion forum has basic elements that can make it very addictive. When you post a comment, you get email notification when somebody replies and you go see what they said. Sometimes it’s favorable and sometimes they flame you and you are eager to flame them back, but the point is that this is intermittent reinforcement, which is the key mechanism in gambling addiction.

But obviously, I’m talking nonsense. We all know that nobody plays slot machines/ Obviously not. Why would they when there are such better ways of spending one’s time…

But seriously, it’s potentially very very addictive. It really is. Also, debating on internet forums is a game of sorts, and like with any game, you can get better at it. So, pinball and pac-man (I know I’m dating myself!) are horrendously addictive for that reason as well. (Of course, again, I’m being silly. Nobody ever played pinball or pac-man. Why would they do that when they could go to the library and read Dostoyevsky? For free!)

Even for the people who are just lurkers, it may have some of the same addictive qualities that a soap opera does. Or the fascination that watching a good food fight might exert…

Also, on occasion (less and less often, I think) interesting discussions do develop and one can actually learn some things.

The more I think about it, the more it strikes me how false Kevin’s conjecture is. I’m quite certain that quite a few people read the comment section. In fact, you see a lot of people saying that they don’t read Paul Craig Roberts precisely because there is no comment section!

Go figure…

There are hundreds of millions of Arabs and seven million Israeli Jews. If Arabs cannot solve their own issues given how favorable the conditions are, I don’t think they deserve anyone’s sympathy. I am sure they have a long list of excuses, but again, so is any failure.

Well, you cannot get into a pissing contest with Dostoevsky on the internet. That might be just one factor. 🙂

However, assuming you are right, then what is the point of comments anyway? Why not just block all comments? Better yet, if an AI goes through all comments and creates a single comment reflecting the sum of the sentiments and ideas of all commenters, would you read that single comment? Just curious.

You are forgetting that most people have nothing to do with technology and that training doesn’t mean an 8 hours study session. He’d have to log in many times a day if he wants to publish comments as fast as possible, which is ideal in order to preserve the flow of discussion.

Well, that’s it? Unz can definitely give the ability to moderate comments to all authors who want it. I see no problem with that. I understand free speech concerns, but if an author feels ownership towards a page where their article is being published, that is fair. I doubt anyone would use it to silence criticism, and those who do would eventually lose readers anyway. So I cannot really see why he would deny Linh (or any author) the ability to moderate comments if they ask for it.

Also a side note: someone commented that he doesn’t like your hostility to Jews, while I don’t like or dislike anyone’s feelings without knowing the details (there may be valid reasons for one’s feelings) I cannot help but wonder why you dislike Jews partially because you are Vietnamese not necessarily a group of people who have much history with the Jews. Maybe write about it once Ron gives you the ability to moderate articles? I am also curious why would Ron, being Jewish himself, would be allowing blatant antisemitism in some articles (just free speech isn’t really a satisfying answer IMO)? I mean I am just an observer, but it appears to me that if ten people do something bad, nine of them get ignored and the tenth is blamed for being the Jew. Too many authors and commenters focus too much on the Jewish role in everything as well. Whether it is illegal migration or degeneracy, all gets blamed on Jews even though almost all these perceived or real threats are mostly consistent and logical within the historical and natural context. Why is that?

I have not read the article until now. Even more arguments could be added but it is already sufficient to show that IQ of nations theory doesn’t make sense across national borders. Moreover, outliers on both sides make zero sense; am I supposed to believe the average IQ of a whole country’s population is on par with people with intellectual disabilities? Another population’s 16% are at Harvard-level? The thing is I don’t even disagree with the heritability, elasticity, and differences of intelligence, moreover, I think it should be studied but thanks to dumb arguments like this no one can dare to actually research this stuff without risking their careers (maybe we could find strong proof for certain claims, maybe we could interfere or fix it if we knew there was an issue). It is as bad as Leftists banning (implicitly or explicitly) discussing certain topics, perhaps worse because at least modern Leftists are objectively subjective, while this kind of broken science blocks real science by pretending (it is actually an interesting research subject, wonder if anyone researched the impact of bad science over real science?).

And your IMO issue is a very significant one, which was new to me.

I didn’t think it was significant because I knew some of the facts you listed in your article, know some history and science. When some argument cannot pass basic logical tests, it is not really worthwhile (for me) to look as far as IMO results. I only brought it because it causes the other side of an argument to bend backwards when the argument includes undeniable data in the form of test results. As a side note, Hungary produced so many superstar mathematicians, it has a lot to do with the reforms in their education system in the 19th century. I’d guess a similar story with say Romania.

People work really hard to prove that hard work doesn’t work despite all the contrary evidence. Until we have hard proof on this topic, I don’t think it is worth debating long about. People don’t care to change their opinions when those opinions ignore facts they don’t like.

No both and you are getting it wrong. To be sure, I don’t care about IMO results as well, I posted it as input for your standards and considerations. There are obviously a bunch of factors, including math education, the importance attributed to the olympiad, focus on test culture, population size, and so on. I would say math education is probably the most important factor as proven by Hungary and Romania.

I could write a whole rebuttal and close this topic for once and all, but I have more pressing concerns. Supposedly the highest IQ people in the world are Koreans, yet until America supported them post-Korean War they were one of the most underdeveloped countries in the world, China which is supposedly another one of the high IQ nations was worse than many parts of Africa until Western elites robbed their own lower classes to invest in China. How does the IQ of nations theory explain that? Why were high IQ Japanese, Chinese, etc. living middle ages when the West invented modernity? What if the West never invested in China but instead chose, say Vietnam or India to open factories would China be anywhere near close to where it is today (the answer is “No”)? It is not as simple as “one is high IQ other is low.” Culture and mindset play a far larger role in development than the IQ, there are cultures and philosophies that actively discourage development.

It doesn’t mean that I completely deny the hypothesis of IQ difference or that IQ is dependent on factors like nutrition and environment as well, in the case of blacks supposedly there is a significant difference in brain volume, I can listen to that and it is worth studying. But when it is claimed that Greeks have 90 IQ (but Italians have 102 IQ) there is nothing to do but laugh. It gets even more ridiculous (and dumber) when the same people claim Turkey has 86 average, but at the same time claim, Turks are a mix of ancient Greeks and Mongols, purportedly two high IQ nations. At that point, it is just a tool for racists to claim supremacy and nothing worth intellectual interest. Simply put, such claims conflict with most knowledge we have.

I also observed that IQ tests can be easily studied. With some familiarity and practice, one can easily get a whole standard deviation higher. Is there any study on that? I guess not. Give the test to two identical intelligence people, one of whom never took a single test in his entire life (such as in Africa) and the other grew up in a test culture (such as in China), I hypothesize there’ll be at least 2 std dev difference between the two, again I don’t expect such tests had been carried out. It doesn’t mean that Africans are as smart as Chinese, but it means that there are a bunch of other factors that are not considered and until those are sorted out we don’t really have a very reliable tool to measure the intelligence of differing populations, including within the same nation (go to Appalachia and see if they score as high as the whites from New York).

I hope this was enough clarification, I leave IMO results as an exercise to those who need to justify why France gets less medals than Iran despite a much higher supposed IQ, I have no interest in that.

That there is more to country IMO performance than country average IQ? Culture, special skills, societal priorities, smart subgroups, etc.

That’s what I am pointing to, it is not a counterargument to my points. If you can say this about IMO results, then why can’t you say the same about other facts such as differences in development levels or civilizational achievement?

Kind of hard to justify that when China leads the gold medal count.

Actually, Russia is leading if you include USSR. But that aside, I didn’t say that China isn’t leading, I said despite purported higher IQ (like 20 or so more than Iran’s), long study hours, and the giant population they are underperforming terribly. With these factors, they have to be leading by a large margin. But they don’t.

I actually kind of agree with the sentiment (if not the language) of that.

No point in expanding that. It is clear that it should be agreed on. There is no physiological reason that explains why should there be 20 points difference in two separate Caucasian groups.

I’m curious what makes you say Iran has low participation.

It means that countries like Iran or Turkey did not even participate in as many IMOs unlike say France or Italy. Due to development levels but also because of war or political upheavel.

So why do you think Iran performs so well if not IQ?

It sounds like you misunderstand just about everything I said in such a short comment. I am saying that this IQ of nations idea holds no water. I would guess in order to get a medal in IMO you’d need to have at least around 130 IQ, if not higher. If the Iranian or Turkish average was indeed 86, the possibility of finding someone with such intelligence is near impossible even if we assume a 10 point standard deviation. However, medals say otherwise.

Rather Farsis, embarrassed of 1000+ years of Turkish rule, twist the reality and like to claim all Turkish heritage as Persian. A very good example of this fact is the Taj Mahal. Even though architects are from Istanbul, and students of Sinan, Iranians claim architects were Iranians. Again none of the architecture indicates that it was designed by Farsis. Farsi mosques are modeled after their house architecture, also do not have sky blue. Sky blue is widely used in Turkish culture due to the influence of the Sky God (Kok Tengri) faith. Turks of Central Asia had their own architects and mathematicians by the middle ages, they did not need Farsi architects. Perhaps you would like to point to some famous Central Asian architecture and tell the names of their Farsi architects.

Interesting. One look at International Math Olympiad results and you can see that supposedly low IQ Iran pulled more medals than France, and Turkey more than Italy despite the lower income, less participation, and fewer opportunities in those countries. How does IQ explain that? Moreover, tiny Romania got more medals than the UK. At the same time despite the supposedly highest IQ, longest study hours, and giant population, China is terribly underperforming. What is the explanation?

Could it be that there are few things more retarded than claiming IQ difference based on country? Why should people with identical cranial capacity have almost two deviation differences in their IQs?

This is a typical example of Central Asian Turkic architecture, unlikely that it was architected by anyone other than the Turks. Not saying that Iranians could not build things, but this doesn’t seem Iranian at all from its yurt-shaped domes to the choice of sky blue color.

BS. Those Turks “from Europe” are Turkish tribes settled in the Balkans by the Ottoman Empire. So you don’t really need to “find” it through genealogy service, it is no secret as most of them were forced out through genocide and deportation just around a century ago. Ataturk himself looks nothing like a Greek or Macedonian, but just like a Karaman Turk (from whom he descends), high cheekbones, broad face, almond eyes. Typical Turkic features.

Perhaps you might be thinking that Turks were Mongols, a common misconception among new-age morons when not intentional. But contrary to that Turks have always been migrating between Asia and Europe. Chinese records mention blue-eyed Turks while the Russian word for Kumans is Polovtsi (blonde).

many old stock West Anatolian

More bs. Genetic research shows that West Anatolian, particularly Southwest Anatolia is the most similar region to the Asian Turks:

Educate yourself, moron. Even Uighurs who never left China are not pure Mongoloids: https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/uyghurs-are-hybrids

TLDR: Muh slavery good, other slavery bad. Muh was business, others’ religious war.

You guys sound married.

New tactics and higher morale both imply a better military. Kill ratio of soldiers of each country shows that Germans did fight better than the others.

I like your use of the English language old man, I rarely hear words like “hauteur” and “uncredentialed.” I always addressed my professors with their titles. I see nothing wrong with it. I don’t want to be buddies with my professors so keeping formality works better for me. If I was a Ph.D. candidate that might change though.

https://rainbow-europe.org/country-ranking

They are up there in the top ten if you exclude tiny countryettes like Malta. Then compare it to Turkey and Azerbaijan. Too bad Greeks chose to be gays instead of being imperials.

There is nothing cringe about someone thinking Albania would be better off as a part of Turkey. So would every other part of the former Ottoman Empire. Instead, Arabs made trillions from oil and wasted trillions for arms they cannot use. Balkans largely fell victim to Communism for decades. Multiple genocides and foreign invasions happened in the same geography. And Greeks became gays. All of this could be avoided if there was a union and all would be more prosperous, better educated, and more cultured.

Having an agenda is not an explanation for the lack of creativity. They can try to be creative globohomos as well, but they won’t. Because it is risky to be creative.

There is no creativity crisis in Hollywood. Just publicly traded companies run by Harvard MBAs who know everything better than everyone else running everything to the ground for the sake of more shareholder value and better pay for themselves. There is a larger minority market than in the past, so of course, they’ll go for it. There is also data science, helping generate more of the same ideas.

There are always creative people, it is just that they cannot go past gatekeepers anymore. Data, economics, and business culture make it harder for them because by definition creative work requires risk-taking.

No. It is the endless Armenian whining in those countries by the Armenian diaspora that made it, most of those recognitions being after almost a century, at a time when those countries had a perception that Turkey’s government would not react (they were right, Islamist + Liberal moron combination in Turkish government is what allowed it).

Regardless, I don’t care about what any country recognizes. I don’t see them recognize the Congo genocide or Kazakh genocide, or the Algerian genocide. That doesn’t mean those didn’t happen just because most countries don’t recognize them. Vice versa also applies.

I am relying on my own research. Akcam, FYI is not a historian, he cannot read Ottoman therefore he cannot “discover” anything in that language. What he “discovered” was long known false letters attributed to some “Naim Efendi” that no one knows, author of the book is an Armenian, Andonian Telegrams are not written in formal Ottoman language and contain many errors that a Turk would not have made. That is because it is a forgery written by an Armenian named Aram Andonian and serious scholars haven’t even considered it for decades before Akcam “discovered” it. Moreover, I gave data from American relief, the vast majority of deportees survived per that record. As it is easy to see, it is not the “other” side that I am relying on. Since NER was an American organization that was active in the area and involved with Armenians.

I gave two very simple numbers. Data is clear. Historical records are there. As you can see even in such a simple statement they could not give real data, but say over one million Armenians were massacred. Then others claim 1.5 million. Yet all the data invalidate their claims. Moreover, seems like the statement you posted was in response to this: Turkey invited Armenians to form a common commission of independent historians, research the topic, open BOTH archives (because Armenians aren’t opening their archives). As a response, instead of jumping on the opportunity, they rejected any discussions -> they want recognition without questioning. Why? If they are so sure and have so much evidence, I’d think they’d form the commission, open their archives, lay out all the evidence, and force Turks to accept their views. If they did, I could not make this claim today, they didn’t because they know they cannot pass any serious scholarly questioning.

Anyway, I gave just a few data points above. If they are wrong let me know. Do you have any rebuttal or are you going to keep going with someone said this tactic? Because there are also plenty of Western scholars who clearly say that there wasn’t a genocide but it serves exactly claimers purpose if I go that route. They just want to muddy the water, avoid talking data and records and pull the Turks are guilty view out of chaos, leaning on antiturkic bias. I am not falling for that. I gave you an American institutions’ data from 1922, it is recorded history. It clearly says 817.000 Armenians survived deportation, with 400.000 living in Turkey. Considering the Armenian population was around 1.5 million in Ottoman Empire, there cannot be even a quarter of losses genocide claimers make up. If you have an answer to any of that, go on and respond. If not, you are just supporting my claims.

So what? Is that some sort of ruling mechanism? Anyone can form an association and make claims, that association you provided worked with an Armenian association to bring up these claims by the way. I can form one tomorrow “World Genocide Scholars Association” and claim no Armenian Genocide happened. It is very easy actually, go to Hague, bring your case and see if you can get a ruling. For some reason, Armenians have always avoided international courts. I wonder why (Hint: Because they know it wouldn’t pass a serious panel). Also, again as always with genocide claimers, you have not denied any data and evidence I presented.

This is just a politically charged claim for Western governments and victimhood masturbation for Armenians. Nothing else. If they actually cared about genocide, to begin with, why aren’t they talking at all about genocides in Congo, India, Namibia, and other parts of the world committed by none other than Western nations?

There was no Armenian Genocide. I have written about it plenty in this site’s comments section. Not one Armenian Genocide claimer has refuted the facts. If you are seeking better documented, actual genocides Dr. Giraldi, you should look into Belgian Congo, British India, or Soviet Kazakhstan where 60% of the population was killed in a man-made famine. Armenians do NOT have a single document regarding order on genocide or killings, so they always want us to “read between the lines” by which they mean “please believe the lines we made up.” Repeat after me, there isn’t one single proof ordering killing of Armenians, not a single one. Moreover, the American organization Near East Relief reports that 817.173 of the world’s Armenians were Ottoman deportees, which really weren’t even deportees because Ottomans simply wanted to move them from the Russian front to another part of their country because guess what; tens of thousands of them were fighting for the Russian army. That’s is not deportation, rather relocation. Data says the vast majority of deported Armenians survived, when you consider that another 400.000 was still living in Turkey at the time (1922), you get 200-400K deaths, based on the population statistics. Originally, 80 years ago exaggerated numbers given by Western observers were actually closer to this number too. In 80 years number kept inflating to the point of matching the total Armenian population in the Ottoman Empire. Based on the numbers of Armenians and biased Western governments, Turks must have killed all Armenians yet there are millions of them today. How so?

Let’s not forget that the US interned over 100.000 of its own citizens decades after the half-medieval Ottoman Empire based on nothing but suspicion. Then the US even ruled that it was OK to do so in Korematsu vs. the US government. The vast majority of those people were second and third-generation Americans, and they have not been involved in a single attack against Americans. Quite the contrary, when they were interned their family members were in the army fighting for the US army. Now, I wonder what would Americans do if some minority in the US collaborated with China or some other country and massacred well over a hundred thousand Americans if they did Japanese internment to their Japanese citizens for absolutely no reason?

Both France and Britain were on the side of the Greeks. Actively involved in the war. Soviets just supplied Turks with arms, for which they were paid for. If Greeks are so incompetent that they cannot even beat Turkey without a proper army (their fully trained, modern armed, and supported proper army really lost to Turkish militia) they shouldn’t bitch about everyone.

I also like digging. Found your Greek grandpa’s bones yesterday in my backyard, maybe he wasn’t running fast enough to catch up with Greek armies who were running away with their tails tucked between their legs. Bones became nice toys for my dogs. Thankfully Greeks were huge losers, otherwise taking such a prime location of the world could prove hard even for the Turks.

But then Denialist Turks are not civilized people.

Says Claimant Armenian.

Turks, savage nomadic tribes originally from East and Central Asia (Uyguristan), invaded Asia Minor several centuries ago

Thousand years isn’t several centuries.

and proceeded to murder, rape, loot, burn, ethnically cleanse, forcibly Islamize, kidnap children and forcibly Turkify them, cultural misappropriate, steal, destroy churches, and on, and on, and on.

So how come there were millions of Greeks, Armenians, and other non-Muslims by the early 1900s? Simple fact for you: if not for Turks you’d all be Hellenized by the Byzantine Empire. Armenians owe their existence to Turks.

The centuries long terror of the Asiatic Muslim invaders culminated in the complete extermination of the indigenous peoples of Asia Minor

You revolted, you killed your neighbors, your patrons the imperialists dumped you like used toilet paper and here you whine after 100+ years for your failed rebellion. Have you seen a Turk whining about Balkan disaster where more than 2 million Turks were slaughtered?

About 4 million Christians were subjected to Genocide by Muslim Turks and their Muslim Kurd butchers between 1915-1923.

The total number of Christians wasn’t even 4 million in Anatolia + Istanbul between 1915 to 1923. Almost all Greeks survived per their own population exchange numbers, save for some of those in the Northeast who formed gangs and started a war against their civilian neighbors. Less than 300K Armenians died as a result of Kurdish attacks and wartime conditions. See Near East Relief report dated 1922, it is documented. 817.173 Armenian Ottoman refugees were alive in 1922. Close to 400K still lived in Turkey. Do the math and tell me the result.

In 1974 they invaded Cyprus, occupied 40% of it, ethnically cleansed the occupied 40% of its indigenous Cypriots/Greeks

Nikos Sampson, the leader of Cyprus Greeks at the time stated years later in his interview with Greek newspaper Eleftiroi that if it wasn’t for Turkey, he’d “annihilate” Turks. His words, not mine. Makarios was more generous, he stated that Turks should be exiled. Turkey stopped Greek savagery and brought peace.

At present, Turks illegally occupy part of Syria

Turkey can leave tomorrow, will you welcome 3 million Syrians into Europe who will escape Idlib the moment Turkey leaves?

Turks are a menace to the entire region.
Always been, always will be.

Only to those with an itch.

Perhaps his or her view of the organization was favorable – and that can be a matter of discussion – but it is not fair to deny the connection.

It is an idiom in the English language + Uygur is of Turkish origin. Considering he was young at the time, and previous facts, it sounds like a very understandable name. I doubt he knows a ton about Turkish history. FYI “Young Turks” included plenty of Armenians, Greeks, and Jews as well.

The criticism regarding the killings of Armenians is not that armed Armenian militiamen were killed; it is that the civilian population was killed. Slaughter of women and children is not “called war” by civilized people.

Faulty in so many ways. First of all, Armenian militias/defectors (more than 50K was fighting for Russia) were rather numerous. Armenians include their deaths as well, it is so ridiculous that by their logic Turks are at fault for not dying. Moreover, the total number of Armenians who perished on the road is nowhere near to Armenian claims. By historical records (Western), in 1922, there were slightly over 800K Armenians who were exiled from Anatolia still alive. Add in those who lived in Turkey at the time and the total Armenian losses end up being 300K max. Finally, women and children weren’t killed, rather the men. However, some perished during the exile and the war. More civilian Turks than Armenians or Greeks died between 1910 to 1922. Why isn’t it ever voiced?

If a minority consisting of 13 percent of the population can generate as much political energy and solidarity as America’s Blacks have, what happens when a large proportion of the 60 percent of the population that is White begins to use the same playbook?

Doesn’t happen. Abrahamic religions prevent that. The morality of these religions, particularly Christianity and Islam is universal. Moreover, on average, European Americans are capable of building on this morality and philosophizing it. Whereas lower IQ groups do not have such ability. Even when they believe in one of these religions, religion reduces to their intelligence level and becomes something far less complex and primitive as well (thus not a barrier to tribalism). Asians who believe in Christianity, if you noticed, are also similar to white Christians.

Therefore, Murray’s fears are unfounded. The moment some whites advocate for such tribalism, some others will invent new morals to counter, others will point to Jesus, Mohammed etc. and claim such ideas conflict with the morality of selected Abrahamic religion, yet others will come up with new philosophical ideas on why all collective actions are barriers to true liberty.

No barrier in this world is stranger than cognitive barriers.

Young Turks is an idiom in the English language. It means someone young who is against the establishment. Original “Young Turks” did not even call themselves as such, it was a name given by Europeans. There was no genocide of Greeks and Armenians. Both declared war on Turks (and Kurds in the East), both ended up getting defeated. It is called war, except these two are such whiners that they cannot even accept it and try to get back at Turks at least through slanders. Armenians weren’t even killed by the Turks, but the Kurds. I know this whole thing very well except for Assyrians. Assyrians were a small minority about 70K people, almost none of them lived in Turkish majority cities. 45K was killed by the Kurds in Mardin. For both Armenian and Assyrian “genocides” you’d have to ask Kurds about it.

Turks did fight against the Greeks. Greece tried to invade Turkey, and Greek militias in the Northeast started terrorizing Turkish villages around the same time. So then Turks formed their own militias. They got what they deserved. Their deaths do not constitute genocide. There was no order or planning whatsoever to attack them. If they’d stayed peaceful, they’d still be in Turkey today.

Not Godfree Roberts level of China polishing, but appreciate the effort.

Lol what an assclown you are. He was 8 years old when his family immigrated to the US.

Is this guy an idiot?

And on Korea, they had basically nothing in the name of civilization. They just keep coming up with these ludicrous claims that they invented this and that. In reality, there was nothing in Korea before Japanese brought them civilization and then America supported them for strategic purposes. This is how English Socialist Beatrice Webb described them:

The Koreans are 12 millions of dirty, degraded, sullen, lazy, and religionless savages, who slouch about in dirty white garments of the most inept kind, and who live in filthy mudhuts…

She thought only Japanese could civilize Koreans. A historically proven truth Koreans resent to this day.

Well, I doubt that technical difficulty was the primary concern. After all, the printing press still can be done with the Arabic script and be much more effective than handwriting. However, writing books was a profession and an art/craft with thousands of practitioners. Earlier attempts were rejected because scribes had their lobbies and interests. Basically they thought “this will take our jerbs.” So it was not allowed. Even in 1728 when Muteferrika’s printing press was established, it was conditional. Islamic books would not be printed. Jews of Istanbul had their printing press since the 15th century on the other hand.

The bigger problem with Arabic script, as far as the Turks were concerned, was the fact that the two languages are not even remotely related thus the lack of letters and signs Turkish language needed. It was causing problems in written communication. Before Ataturk, there was already an ongoing debate among Ottoman elites to address the alphabet problem.

Whatever gives China the right to sanction Australia or jail Uighurs, and whatever gives Russia the right to invade Crimea or Georgia. In another word, nothing other than might to do so.

Syria policy has nothing to do with oil or Assad being a dictator. It is a continuation of Israel’s policies. The whole purpose of these wars is to establish an independent Kurdish state so that the pressure on Israel could be reduced and states in the region could be destabilized. While the US was busy trying to fight Israel’s wars in ME, China has become a strategic threat with no signs of slowing down the process of overtaking the US as the dominant superpower of the world. Despite all the damage these policies have caused, even the so-called conservatives in the US keep repeating nonsensical ideas like “Kurds deserve a state.” Not realizing that there is no such thing as “deserving a state” or that this just a zionist project that offers nothing to the US.

Regarding China, sanctions should be used more not less, unless the US wants to be the secondary power. However, they are not needed with other countries. In ME, the US should wash its hands off Israel and let the most moral army of the world protect their own country. That country is a huge liability and problem for the US, it offered the US nothing other than selling American military secrets and earning 1.5 billion Muslims’ disdain. To counter Russia and Iran, the US should double down on cooperating with Turkey, increase investments and military support so that Turks can be more active in Central Asia and Afghanistan as well. This is the smartest and the most efficient way for the US to achieve its goals in Asia and ME. Which would be slowing China’s growth, Russia’s creeping in the South, and Iranian activity in Arab ME.

However, the US basically does the opposite of everything it should. Turning neutral/unfriendly with Turkey is one of the dumbest things the US foreign service could do, considering the fact that Turks are the historical enemies of all three of China, Russia, and Iran, and they did exactly that? Why? For Israel whose feelings were hurt by Erdogan of course. Currently, the US government is a hostage to vocal minorities and interest groups. Therefore, its relative decline will not stop unless actual Americans with no double allegiances step up and take back their government.

An article by an imbecile. Just skimming, I noticed dozens of incorrect information pieces. But one stands out, so I will respond; supposed rape and killing of children and women. Constantinople had only 35.000 people at the time of its fall if you count 5000 soldiers as well. If Turks indeed massacred people and burnt their neighborhoods this already small number should have been eradicated; then where did all those Greeks who lived in Istanbul for 500 years come from? The reality is that churches that weren’t captured while the battle was ongoing weren’t even converted to mosques. Hagia Sophia became a mosque because it is close to the sea and by the time of its capture Byzantines still hadn’t resigned. This is in accordance with the interpretation of Islamic warfare laws. On the other hand, Muslims weren’t as lucky if their lands were captured by Christians. One look at the fall of Kazan, and you see a massive genocide (the equivalent of 7 million people today if you adjust for world population %). That’s just one example; not even getting into Reconquista, or the fall of the Balkans (where Turks were mass slaughtered in millions).

There is a reason why Greeks very often switched sides and joined the Ottomans during the conquest of Byzantine territories. They were sick of extractive Byzantine elites, their taxes, incompetence, and corruption. If Turks were indeed the savages this imbecile claims they were, then why would Greeks join them? Not only Greeks, but even European soldiers often fought along with Ottomans, for a fee. Maybe this whole West vs. East thing with regards to Ottomans is in your imagination and the reality is that if it wasn’t for Turks in the past few years, you’d have a few more million Africans and Arabs in Europe through Libya and Syria, thanks to your warmongering elites.

Haven’t watched it. Read after seeing your response. Indeed it sounds somewhat similar. Either a coincidence or some people have a really bad sense of humor. I already mentioned that the earth had been a destination for an alien race for quite a while now. Since late 19th century actually. Adolf Hitler was one of them, so were Mao and Stalin (not Mussolini, Mussolini was just a regular Italian). Also two American presidents since WW2.

Anglin is wrong. Unfortunately, aliens are real and COVID is tied to that. World elites made a deal with aliens, in return for allowing some of humanity to survive, the rest are being vaccinated with alien DNA. Notice how fast vaccines have developed, untested? That’s because they were ready, to begin with. The new vaccines attach alien genes to human nerve cells; hence the headaches (caused by minor encephalitis, but no one reports it because the headache is supposed to be a ‘side effect’ of the vaccine) and heart inflammation in some cases (heart does contain nerve cells, a little though, hence fewer reports of heartache after the vaccine). What is the end goal? Well my friends, when the alien invasion happens, those who received alien vaccines will not be able to resist them. In fact, they may end up as alien food. Note that the world has already been a settlement, at an increasing rate in the past twenty years for an alien race from a collapsing planet. So the next wave will be the final one and the largest. > 99% of humanity will be used as a workforce and food source (I know it is hard to believe, but it is true; think of how we use cattle). This is the deal our elites made. Vaccines will render you incapable of resisting aliens. Think of how some parasites and viruses remove the fear of a certain predator in their hosts so that they can continue their life cycles. The same thing.

You might be wondering if an alien civilization is this advanced then why wouldn’t they just destroy us and take our planet instead of making a deal with some people. That’s for the same reason why we wouldn’t go on to kill all animals in a newly found land, but instead, conservatively use them for our needs. Humans are useful animals for them. Also, our numbers are huge comparatively. If we were to actually resist, they’d end up losing their valuable comrades as well. If you’ve read this far, what you can do to protect yourself is going as far as possible by 2027. This is mostly a guess, but people who go to live away in the wilderness will fare relatively better like wild animals. If you have already been vaccinated; well, good luck.

One quick edit note: China will soon start releasing alien recordings as well. Then you will realize your idea was wrong. China is in this too. Their elites are also part of the conspiracy against the humanity.

It is incredible how many lies are being written here.

This means hurting an opponent by using people as a weapon. Turkey has been doing it for years.

This is the black propaganda Western media had been pushing. Turkey is supposedly weaponizing migrants. How? By reminding Europe that it has no obligation to take care of millions of foreigners.

Turkey never signed Geneva Convention on Refugees as is. In order to be considered refugees, they have to be coming from Europe. That’s how Turkey signed it. However, Europe is blackmailing Turkey by threatening sanctions, cancelling customs union, sending navies near its seas, and stopping the EU membership process. All to blackmail Turkey into keeping migrants. Legally, Europe has no right to stop coming Syrians. Because they don’t have refugee status in Turkey, only temporary protection. At the same time, Western media writes the exact opposite of truth and claims Turkey is weaponizing refugees.

Then we have morons on the internet regurgitating that Turkey weaponizes refugees. How can Turkey weaponize them? They don’t even have refugee status in Turkey. As a matter of fact, Turkey should end all support to refugees, end-all help, don’t offer hospitals, schooling, business licenses and so on and let them continue on to their merry road into Europe. Turkey should violently push them instead. I am sure Europeans would be very happy to end Turkey’s blackmail and help poor refugees.

I got along very well with the Jews I know, not all were atheists. Was just curious about Unz’s reasoning.