David A. Hardy
This week I was mainly occupied with writing a massive (6,300 words) overview of the history of IQ testing in Russia and what we currently know about the geography of Russian intelligence.
I don’t think I am exaggerating when I say that it’s probably the most comprehensive popular article on the subject in English or Russian.
Hoping to have it come out sometime next week.
Breaking news that AfD has performed much better than expected, getting about 13% (more than 20% in the East – as per the usual regional pattern).
Interesting developments under way in Catalonia; reports of the military getting deployed. Bershidsky thinks the separatists are on the path to failure.
.
Featured
- Philip Giraldi: America’s Jews Are Driving America’s Wars
This is most prominent, of course, for having spread on the Internet like wildfire after Valerie Plame RT’ed it (she later deleted it under a barrage of criticism).
Of course analogous things are written and spoken of Russians daily without a hint of self-reflection – even though ROG is a couple of order of magnitudes less influential than ZOG.
- TIL: Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, Russian edition: The Last Testament of Peter the Great
The Will of Peter the Great is a political forgery which purported to be the testament of Peter I of Russia, which was allegedly a plan of the subjugation of Europe.
- George Soros: Rebuilding the Asylum System
First, the EU has to accept at least a million asylum-seekers annually for the foreseeable future… The EU should provide €15,000 ($16,800) per asylum-seeker for each of the first two years to help cover housing, health care, and education costs – and to make accepting refugees more appealing to member states.
- As James Thompson has remarked major new studies with huge n’s on the genomics of IQ are coming out every month if not every week.
-
Sniekers, Suzanne et al. – 2017 – Genome-wide association meta-analysis of 78,308 individuals identifies new loci and genes influencing human intelligence
-
Savage, Jeanne et al. – 2017 – GWAS meta-analysis (N=279,930) identifies new genes and functional links to intelligence
-
James Thompson: The Hsu Boundary
The “Hsu boundary” is Steve Hsu’s estimate that a sample size of roughly 1 million people may be required to reliably identify the genetic signals of intelligence. However, that has to be 1 million real persons, with individual data points, on which the best available techniques can be applied, not aggregated samples which are then subjected to a meta-analysis.
.
Ukraine
- Vincent Law: Ukraine Is About To Experience Yet Another Maidan.
Saakashvili evidently has a very high level krysha. That said I don’t think this will amount to much.
* Ukraine canceling foreign language secondary schooling in 2018, and primary schooling in 2020. All the “hystrionic” fears about the status of the Russian language in 2014 have been proven right. Incidentally, Hungary and even Romania and Poland aren’t very happy with it either.
* 19 Antimaidan activists were acquitted by a Ukrainian court of provoking the “disturbances” at the Odessa massacre of May 2, 2014. The fact that the victims were the ones being prosecuted for murders committed by far right Ukrainian radicals is outrageous enough. What’s more, two of the men, Sergey Dolzhenkov and Evgeny Mefedov, were immediately taken back under custody for separatism, while a third had his skull smashed in by far right vigilantes. Ukraine’s eurointegration proceeds apace.
- The king of the Russian patriotard/Stalinist crowd, Nikolay Starikov, has been caught misusing humanitarian aid donated to Donbass to pay his organization’s staff member’s salaries. Lie in bed with a Stalinist, wake up with… Incidentally, despite his outspoken American baiting, he played an important role shilling against intervention in Ukraine in 2014, ludicrously proclaiming it would lead to nuclear war with the US.
.
Russia
* The Zapad-2017 exercises have finished without Russia conquering Belarus or the Baltics. #fakenews
- Some retard: Russia has weaponized ideas of Samuel Huntington
-
Bryan MacDonald: ‘Putin’s Russia’ didn’t create the Ku Klux Klan (who’d have thought)
.
World
- Massive poll: America’s Changing Religious Identity
-
Yasha Levine: The Crypto-Keepers.
Looks like Pavel Durov is a honorable man:
Begin with the simple fact that he was publicly coming out to detail the FBI’s attempt to bribe his team and pressure Telegram into secretly working with the agency—despite Durov’s own disclaimers and efforts to downplay the revelation, it was a big deal. Despite being chased out of Russia, he wasn’t throwing in with the U.S. security apparatus, but electing instead to fight a two-front war. It was an unusual and impressive move. Most people who run afoul of politics in Russia and find themselves seeking safety in the West as modern-day dissidents usually fall into line with the West’s own propaganda aims, uncritically siding with American interests and players, no matter how unpleasant. Think Pussy Riot fleeing Russia and criticizing Vladimir Putin, while doing photo ops with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
- spandrell: What’s the deal with the Rohingyas
.
Alt Right
- Jason Jorjani: Why I Left the Alt Right
In May, at a meeting in London, I was assured by the investors that the obstacles had at last been cleared and I could expect our collaboration to begin in June. When I reported this to Richard at a New York lunch at the end of the same month, he thoughtlessly and angrily dismissed a plan that the investors had shared with me for creating an economic and security corridor from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea and across to the Caucasus. This “Neo-Scythian” Ukraine-based approach to the long-term revitalization and liberation of Europe – linked to a future, post-Islamic Greater Iran via the Caucasus – offended the Russophilia that has been fostered by his wife.
So I cannot say I was surprised when the backers ultimately failed to follow through with their long-promised investment. By late June the movement was long past its embryonic stage. A deformed creature, a mindless Frankenstein’s monster had already entered the world. Of course this would not have happened if, between February and May, the angel investors had made good on their promises. Even though they are now responsible for my being libeled in the New York Times, potentially at the cost of my career in academia, I will not reveal their identities. It would catalyze a mainstream media scandal that none of us want to see. I am not interested in testifying before Congress, because the truth I would have to tell is stranger than fiction.
Mr. Hermansson and Mr. Jorjani met at an Irish pub near the Empire State Building, where the baby-faced Mr. Jorjani imagined a near future in which, thanks to liberal complacency over the migration crisis, Europe re-embraces fascism: “We will have a Europe, in 2050, where the bank notes have Adolf Hitler, Napoleon Bonaparte, Alexander the Great. And Hitler will be seen like that: like Napoleon, like Alexander, not like some weird monster who is unique in his own category — no, he is just going to be seen as a great European leader.”
What, exactly, is damning about any of this? They have said all this and more in public.
.
Misc
- Emil Kirkegaard: The end of anonymity in the crowd is near
In the next few years, massive datasets will be built of public, semi-public and leaked private data linking people between all services with available data, for all available time periods… All these people will be automatically identified and linked in the near future. It will not be possible to take part in a public demonstration without a mask (illegal in many places) which cannot later to matched to you. It will not be possible to take part in amateur or paid-porn without a mask and maybe without being silent (even moans can be matched in all likelihood).
- WaPo: A chilling study shows how hostile college students are toward free speech
-
TIL: Karl Pearson appears to have been the original Alt Left:
.
It wasn’t that surprising, there were hints in the last few days something like this might happen, a poll a few days ago had AfD pretty much accurate at 13% (and CDU/CSU at 34%, SPD at 20%…pretty much what happened).
What is somewhat surprising is how badly the CSU did in Bavaria, though I’m not sure this should be regarded as a good thing.
The really shocking part of this election though is how well the Greens still did at about 9%. It looks like they will now probably become part of the government in a CDU/CSU-FDP-Greens coalition…and presumably they will get much of their extremist agenda in immigration/asylum matters pushed through, with Merkel’s CDU gladly going along. It will be interesting to see how the CSU will react to this, they might be in serious trouble (there are Bavarian state elections next year…but given today’s election results their influence at the federal level will be even weaker than before).
So still a pretty bad situation on the whole.
Amused me to read a report that analysts had concluded the SPD supposedly wouldn’t be part of a continued coalition with the CDU/CSU if they got below 24-25% of the vote because it wouldn’t leave them with enough influence to get the policies they wanted out of the CDU, and then to hear the contemptible Schultz declaring that the Greens and FDP would have no problem getting the policies they want out of Merkel because of her lack of principles (probably true).
Coincidentally the SPD opt-out ensures the AfD won’t be the main opposition. “Left” or “right” is irrelevant next to establishment versus outsiders. Still lowest ever post-war vote for SPD and lowest since 1949 for CDU/CSU does look like progress. Let’s hope it won’t prove to have been too little, too late.
Seems like it should be difficult for Merkel to talk her own party (and especially the CSU) into going along with extremist Green demands on immigration when they know their right flank is wide open now and they’re already haemorrhaging support because of it.
But are there any other wacky and ludicrously costly Green policies left that Merkel could sell out to, in order to get them on board? I’m not familiar enough with German domestic politics to know the details of Green Party policies, but from over here it pretty much looks like Germany bought most of the Green agenda years ago.
how well the Greens still did at about 9%. It looks like they will now probably become part of the government
Too bad the threshold is not 10%, eh?
The Greens made some noise before the election about “reforming” the German car industry (by state-run committees…), and Merkel made some vague statements along the same lines; it wouldn’t be surprising if she gave in to some Green demands there.
But the big issue is asylum and “family reunification” for “refugees”. The Greens are arguing vehemently for fast and liberal family reunification since it will supposedly help “refugees” to integrate (note: this extends to the large class of “refugees” under subsidiary protection, e.g. temporary war refugees that are supposed to return to their country of origin once the crisis that caused their flight is over – it’s clear the Greens want even those to permanently settle in Germany). Quite simply, they’re a party of anti-German fanatics who think it’s incompatible with “human dignity” to send even convicted rapists back to Afghanistan and whose candidates makes statements like “Germany would be boring without Muslims”.
The CDU and probably the FDP (spineless careerists) won’t offer any meaningful resistance to this. There’s already a test case for this in the northern state of Schleswig-Holstein where there’s a CDU-FDP-Greens coalition: the state parliament there pretty much unanimously (with the votes of CDU and FDP members) decreed that they’re in favour of easier “family reunification” and that they would try to bring this about on the federal level.
It will be interesting though how the CSU will act. After today’s election they must realize that they’re in serious danger of losing their majority in Bavaria, and that merely verbal concessions won’t be enough anymore for many of their voters.
Bershidsky makes a good case.
The Catalan example makes an interesting comparison and contrast with the Scottish one. The situations are probably similar in the regions concerned, in the sense that neither probably has the stomach for a terrorist secessionist campaign. The difference is in the approach of the national governments to the arguments for secession – Madrid has adopted the US regime’s Civil War approach (in effect) of declaring it invalid for a region to choose to secede (grossly hypocritical in the case of the US, of course, as Buchanan recently pointed out). London on the other hand, essentially conceded the right of secession given sufficient popular support in the region and gambled that when it came down to it the Scots would not vote for it, a gamble that worked – this time.
The difference in approach is probably explained by the fact that Catalonia is richer than average in Spain, whereas Scotland is the opposite:
Source: ONS figures for Total Wealth, Wealth in Great Britain 2010-12
It seems unlikely the support for independence in Catalonia will be enough to enact a successful campaign of even passive resistance to the national government crackdown to come – unless, and this is the gamble taken by Madrid, there is a sufficiently forceful backlash against said crackdown. That said, it seems likely the Catalans will be too fat and happy to really fight for their independence and Madrid’s gamble, like London’s, will pay off.
The real difference is in the precedents set for the future – London has now sold the pass on any future popular secessionist campaign in Scotland (or probably in Wales and Northern Ireland as well, despite the constitutional differences), whereas Spain has set a firm line as the US did, albeit the US did it in bloody mass slaughter, unlike Spain.
You are comparing 1860’s issues in the US to 2017 issues in Spain and the UK.
Then it seems likely they will lose more supporters to the AfD. As you say, that might be more urgent for the CSU, but it must be a concern for the CDU given their already historically low support.
An interesting graph from the BBC coverage (sourced to ARD per DW News) showing where the AfD’s votes came from:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-41367497?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=59c81604e4b010d90a24dfcc%26Voter%20migration%20in%20numbers%26&ns_fee=0#post_59c81604e4b010d90a24dfcc
1,070,000 from CDU/CSU
500,000 from SPD
430,000 from Linke
40,000 from Greens
50,000 from FDP
740,000 from non-voters
Looks like AfD has the same problem/opportunity UKIP had in this country – anti-establishment support from both old left and old right, and a choice to be made therefore as to whether to jump in one direction or try to keep hold of both.
Yes, I am.
And?
Take a look at China’s face-recognition enabled surveillance system.
https://twitter.com/changlinsong/status/911134539665178625
Yes, and this might eventually become a problem, the AfD’s positions on economic issues (as far as they’re discernible) probably wouldn’t be popular with working class voters who are voting for them because of the migration crisis.
It remains to be seen whether the AfD will manage to permanently establish itself as a party…tbh I’m pessimistic, the party is still plagued by infighting and party intrigues (Frauke Petry who has been somewhat sidelined in recent months, but won a parliamentary seat in Saxony, has hostile relations with the top candidates Gauland and Weidel), and there’s the question how right-wing exactly they want to be. And of course the establishment will try everything to crush them.
As for the CDU, they seem incapable of learning, it would be best if that party just went the same way as the Christian Democrats in Italy (and given that a very large part of CDU voters are pensioners voting for them out of pure habit their prospects will look increasingly bleak anyway, deservedly so).
While most will say the AFD rise in votes might be a good thing and that one cannot realistically expect them to win an election from being so relatively new, I take the opposite view. The fact that the AFD did not get over 50% of the vote is a disaster, the rest of the parties all share the same fundamental ideals in the most important matters (immigration, Islam, EU, racial equality, anti whiteness), one can say the rest of the parties are the same party and that Germany has overwhelmingly voted for more hard leftism (CDU is hard left, just because they are not as left as the rest does not make them non hard left).
China’s long been really living up the cyberpunk vibe… Hengsha when?
https://twitter.com/akarlin88/status/879502149213986816
@German_reader: So, basically, the German Greens have no problem with making a majority of the younger German population cohorts be composed of Third Worlders (primarily Afro-Muslims), correct?
If so, and if other German parties agree with this, Germany could transform itself rather rapidly into a country where large parts of it will essentially be Third World. In turn, this combined with the economic problems that this will cause, could cause ideologies such as Fascism to become more popular in countries such as Germany. 🙁
Also, @Anatoly Karlin: Jason Reza Jorjani’s comments help explain why it’s extremely hard and problematic for the alt-right to become a serious political force. Indeed, when a prominent alt-right figure predicts that millions of people are going to die and that concentration camps are going to be brought back, it is certainly extremely understandable that most people would refuse to support the alt-right even if they would sympathize with some of their points (such as in regards to IQ and the effects of continued large-scale Third World immigration into the First World).
Also, comments such as those by Jason Reza Jorjani help explain why there is so much hostility to free speech. After all, past a certain point, free speech can be viewed as an incitement to violence.
For what it’s worth, I am generally pro-free speech and think that even Neo-Nazi idiots should generally be free to speak out. However, what I am squeamish about is comments which could incite violence–for instance, a comment such as “Jews should go to the ovens where they belong.” 🙁 Indeed, I think that there is a strong case in favor of censoring comments such as those. (However, I also admit that it’s a slippery slope and that one should be extremely careful with this; else, we could have idiots saying that even talking about race and IQ is an incitement to violence.)
That’s an understatement, it’s more like they’re actively working for such an outcome. They’re multiculturalist fanatics.
And unfortunately they have a bizarrely outsized influence on German society, since their members and sympathizers are 1.) generally from the well-off bourgeoisie (in fact not really having any material worries is probably a precondition for their demented idiocy, it’s a sign of wealth-induced decadence imo), 2.) are massively overrepresented in the media. There are credible studies which come up with results like about 25% of political journalists and up to 40% percent of all journalists in Germany leaning towards the Greens in their party preferences.
The Greens are a very big part of the explanation for what went wrong in Germany in the last 30-40 years.
As for genuine fascism coming back I don’t regard that as likely (some kind of identitarian-nationalist backlash certainly will happen though). And wow, that Jorjani person really is pretty dumb, Hitler will never be remembered as just another great European leader. I think hero-worship of Alexander and Napoleon is misguided, but at least there were some positive elements to their legacies; Hitler’s record is purely destructive.
@German_reader: Has anyone tried calling out the German Greens for their multicultism? Indeed, it would be interesting to have a debate between them and moderate German nativists about the effects of continued large-scale Third World immigration on First World IQs and levels of prosperity.
Also, were the Greens the ones who were pushing large-scale Turkish immigration into Germany as well as Ostpolitik? Indeed, where exactly do you think that the Greens have screwed up?
In addition to this, Yes, I agree that an identitarian-nationalist backlash is more likely than a fascist backlash. However, I certainly (and unfortunately) wouldn’t rule out the latter. Indeed, here is the U.S., we unfortunately appear to see a lot of fascists lately! 🙁
Also, Yes, you are completely correct that, unlike Hitler, Alexander the Great and especially Napoleon did do some good things. For instance, Napoleon emancipated Europe’s Jews and spread the progressive aspects of the French Revolution to other countries. In contrast, as you said, Hitler only brought destruction, destruction, and more destruction onto Germany and the rest of Europe. Indeed, the Nazis’ destructiveness is best exemplified by both World War II and the Holocaust–the latter having also had the extremely unfortunate effect of killing off most of Europe’s smartest ethnic group and thus significantly reducing the size of Europe’s smart fractions. 🙁
In addition to this, the anti-Semitism of the alt-right repulses me–both because I myself am Jewish and because it defies logic to make hasty generalizations about an entire group of people. Indeed, the alt-right certainly aren’t doing themselves any favors either with their anti-Semitism or with their association with two losing former countries–the Confederacy and Nazi Germany.
https://twitter.com/MarkACollett/status/911955951258923008
ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs is the official policy of German Government that cucks out to Globalists.
Bot the ‘right’ and ‘left’ compete to prove that it is less ‘racist’, and blacks take full advantage of this by colonizing white wombs infected with Dschungelfieber.
Also, as a side question, I’m curious about this–had Eastern Europe completely avoided Communist rule, would it be (much) friendlier towards immigration and multiculturalism right now?
Basically, the reason that I am asking this question is because, in Germany, the ex-Communist east appears to be much more hostile to these things than western Germany is; plus, there also appears to be a difference between Eastern and Western Europe in regards to things such as (attitudes towards) gay rights.
Indeed, I’d like to hear what other people think about this. Specifically, is a legacy of Communist rule the reason for Eastern Europe’s hostility towards immigration and multiculturalism?
Spain did it in a bloody mass slaughter too; only it was some time ago and people have forgotten.
My crystal ball says neither Catalonia nor the Basque country will become independent in the foreseeable future.
In addition to this, the anti-Semitism of the alt-right repulses me–both because I myself am Jewish and because it defies logic to make hasty generalizations about an entire group of people.
But I am sure you are OK with Islamophobia.
Its still something to celebrate, no?
If half of Catalonians support secession, you only need a radical 5% of that half to support a terrorist campaign against Madrid and the proceeding crackdown would bring you the rest. Only 1/3 of US colonists supported independence from Britain.
C’mon Spain, show us how it’s done! Civil war now!
I oppose even restricting that because then the law will just be used to declare being against mass immigration is “hate speech”.
Jews = G-d’s Chosen People
Muslims = Enemies of G-d’s Chosen People
There is 0 comparison between the two. Take your faux moral equivalence and shove it up your ass.
The answer depends on the question of why Western countries support mass immigration. I suspect the reasons are:
Negative view of one’s own culture due to horrible World War II behavior (Germany).
Isolation from and naivety about third world cultures combined with genuine desire to alleviate suffering and help other human beings (Scandinavia, Ireland).
Easy lives, not much perspective about others’ suffering.
Eastern European countries don’t have that. With respect to the points above,
No history of having colonized and brutalized third world peoples. Nothing to atone for.
They were victims, too. Here Communism does play a role, because they were victims of the Communists as well as of the Nazis. They are very proud survivors, pride in their nation was paid for with blood, they won’t be ashamed of it or wish it to disappear and be replaced.
Centuries of warfare with Turks, Tatars, etc. including being subject to slave-raids probably leads to a less idealistic view of those peoples.
Someone whose grandmother witnessed her parents being shot, or whose village was massacred by the Germans, won’t be in as much awe of the travails of Afghans and their poverty, as might be a Swede in her generations-lasting idyll.
You mean, like the ETA?
Yeah. Spain can’t handle an ETA plus Catalonian separatist campaigns simultaneously. Especially with 30% unemployment and the migration crisis.
That’s sarcasm, right?
If only. I sincerely hope that such was the case and then the population would rise up in nationalistic pride, in some form or another.
Unfortunately, I know the people too well.
With immigration it’s not a legacy of any communist idea, it is the legacy of lack of American influence. The sexual revolution was always a part of the international left and made it to policy in many states before American influence (eg. the first years of Soviet Russia) but this glorification of immigration doesn’t show up without American influence.
Finland avoided communism after WWII but we also avoided immigration as the Soviet Union pressured us into a bunch of treaties limiting influence of Western powers in Finland. With Moscow vetoing our membership in most Western organizations, keeping American “NGOs” and corporations out and even keeping Hollywood movies mostly out, there was ZERO promotion of mass immigration by politicians, academia or media.
The total number of refugees admitted to Finland between WWII and 1989 was less than we took in one day (!) during Merkel’s migrant crisis. Everything changed in the 1990s when Soviet influence collapsed and the Americanization that had taken over Scandinavia and West Germany decades earlier took over us as well and now suddenly returning to the immigration policy that we had in 1989 would be considered the equivalent of turning the country into Nazi Germany.
Finland was converted faster than the ex-communist countries because things like the English language had spread much more here during the Cold War but the same conversion will inevitably happen to all eastern countries that sign up for the American sphere of influence.
That’s the point.
@utu: I’m not OK with Islamophobia in a general sense. After all, there are good Muslims and bad Muslims–just like for any other religion. However, I certainly think that Muslims have problems with radicalism among their own adherents that they have to deal with. (Of course, even this isn’t an exclusively Muslim problem–as evidenced by the radicalism in Christian countries such as extremely homophobic Uganda.)
That said, though, I don’t think that it’s right to hate every member of a particular group. Rather, the good members of any group–such as the Muslims who advocate a more modern, tolerant version of Islam–should be praised while the bad members of any group should be condemned.
Do you live in Spain? I am open minded on this question. If you have any on the ground reason to believe that the Spanish government can handle two insurgencies, I will take your word for it.
I do find, however, that the people here tend to be excessively doom and gloomy about our prospects. For instance, it is soooooooo obvious that the US is headed towards civil war but all the Unzians just respond with “nuh uh” when I point it out.
You must be new here
@Greasy William: Yes, you might have a point here. Still, by your logic, Muslims who advocate blowing up infidels likewise shouldn’t get prosecuted if they themselves don’t actually hurt anyone. That doesn’t seem right, though.
@Jaakko Raipala: For some reason, though, heavy American influence didn’t result in large-scale immigration to Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. Plus, it is worth noting that the U.S. itself wasn’t particularly immigrant-friendly before 1965 (and after 1921, that is).
@AP: In regards to colonialism, I would like to point out that Russia’s conquest of the Caucasus and Central Asia along with (in certain cases) the resulting dispossession and expulsion of natives (in the case of the Circassians–with the Circassian genocide–and in the case of Kazakhs being pushed out of their lands) can certainly be viewed as colonialism. However, it doesn’t look like Russia is accepting a large number of Central Asians as permanent residents (at least based on the Moscow data that Anatoly Karlin has previously shared).
Still, your point about colonialism appears to be true for the rest of Eastern Europe. Of course, it is worth noting that even Western European countries which don’t have much of a recent history of colonialism–as in, Italy and Spain (both of whom didn’t have very many colonies in the last 150 years)–also have a lot of immigrants.
Your point about Germany is well-taken, though.
Also, the rest of your points here appear to be spot-on; indeed, I think that you have nailed it pretty well here.
I know Spaniards pretty well, having worked with several and in one odd intersection of family history, actually have a family member who fought against Franco; these days, though, there’s not much energy for an insurgency. For an example: a huge portion of the population has decided that living close to poverty is perfectly fine so as long as they don’t have to work.
What do you do with people with so little thymos left? You think there is enough of it yet for an insurgency in today’s panopticon?
Prove me wrong. I want to be proven wrong.
Such a high threshold means the death of parliamentarian democracy, see Turkey.
I’m really confused right now. Aren’t you a Taiwanese expat? How do you have Spanish people in your family? In laws?
I can’t prove you wrong. I had just assumed that the Catalonians wouldn’t accept foreign rule by force lying down. Perhaps they will.
It is possible that, as an American, I project the rage and hatred that I see all around me onto the peoples of Western Europe. I know that the American people haven’t lost their will to live and to fight. On the contrary, they are increasingly pissed off. But maybe Western Euros really are different.
Parliamentary democracy is a tool of the elites. Keep people divided with a bunch of fake choices.
Only a partisan, first past the post system with primaries open to the public has any chance of offering the people a real choice. Trump could never have been elected in any other “democratic” system.
I’m not a Taiwanese expat(have family there), but without doxxing myself, in one of the strange moments of history, one of my Chinese ancestors was wandering around in Europe. To be exact, he was a student in an European university(an early example of expat student) and got involved.
It was an interesting time then; the Spanish Civil War had a tendency to draw all sorts of people into it.
The article by Yasha Levine is interesting. He raises fair points about government backed crypto-technology, but I don’t think serious people are using the kinds of apps that he describes. If you really need to keep a secret, then you generate your private key on a smartcard and wear it like a dog tag. If the spooks come looking for you, you swallow it. That way at least you make them dig through your shit if they want to get their hands on it.
I have no direct contacts with Spanish opinion, but my impression from afar, like Bershidsky’s, is that they don’t appear to have any stomach for a real fight over this issue. The Catalans won’t fight because, as I noted, they are basically too “fat and happy”, and those who might try to encourage the others to take up arms will be quickly silenced because of the disastrous example of the long defeat and surrender of ETA next door. As for the Spanish government, it still has all the tools set up to fight ETA and will likely crack down hard and early on any signs of secessionist violence.
As we’ve both highlighted, the unknown really is to what extent the central government crackdown itself will inspire resistance. But assuming they just use the usual techniques of opinion control and only arrest a few politicians, along with a few symbolic “concessions” at the right time to whatever “moderate” collaborationist politicians (such men can always be found) step forward to take over from the arrested ones, I’d have thought they would get away with it.
Like Daniel Chieh, I’d love to be proved wrong on this. And with any central government, there’s always the chance of gross incompetence.
I think your crystal ball is probably working quite well.
As for the Spanish Civil War reference, I think that’s misplaced here. Although there were plenty of secessionist groups involved in it, unlike the ACW the Spanish war was not fundamentally about secession. It’s better compared with one potential future of the present day US, with leftist radicals running murderously amok eventually to such a degree that what was left of civilised society had no choice but to turn to military force to survive and to restore order. Though whether the winner in the US would be an American Franco or an American Pol Pot remains to be seen.
No, that happened before the arrival of the Greens on the political scene in the early 1980s. In the 1970s many of their later leading members were in weird Maoist or other far left sects (e.g. Joscha Schmierer who later got a cozy job in the foreign office under Fischer was leader of the Kommunistischer Bund Westdeutschland and led a delegation visiting Pol Pot).
Their influence has been pernicious in pushing certain agendas and views and moralizing policy discussions. But of course they couldn’t have succeeded in that if other parties (especially the fake “conservatives” from the CDU) hadn’t gone along with it.
I don’t feel like celebrating at all, AfD politicians aren’t really competent and infighting has escalated to the point that former leader Frauke Petry doesn’t want to be part of the AfD group in parliament (really despicable move imo).
12,6% for a party like the AfD is unprecedented but the entire establishment pushes the line that they (and by extension their voters) are Nazis who need to be crushed. As was to be expected, little introspection or self-criticism from all the “good” people.
If Merkel gets into coalition with the Greens and lets them push through their agenda (which she’s clearly inclined to), it will get a lot worse.
On the contrary, it defies logic not to do so (leaving aside the rhetorical “hasty” in your statement).
Few meaningful conversations about real world affairs can be made without the use of generalisations, and groups clearly do have shared interests that mean those groups collectively act to push policy in particular directions or to achieve particular goals, and also that members of those groups will tend to have shared attitudes on particular issues. Such is the entire basis of our identity lobby-driven modern political system, and indeed such is, in one sense, the entire basis of nationality.
It’s even irrational not to use knowledge about group general characteristics to form initial judgements about individuals, so long as you do not lose sight of the rebuttable nature of such judgements. For an intellectual discussion of this point, consider the following link:
Stereotypes are relevant for judgments about individuals even when one has individualized information
For a real world common sense example, consider the revealing words of notorious anti-white race baiter Jesse Jackson, when (in a moment of uncharacteristic honesty) he stated that:
In UKIP’s case they never really committed to jumping either way, and they were spectacularly successful in achieving their stated purpose (for the moment, at any rate – the leftist establishment never gives up and the possibility it will find ways to overturn the popular will can never be dismissed), but then again their nominal purpose was limited to leaving the EU. The purpose of nationalists in general is necessarily broader – restoring sanity on mass immigration and defeating globalist internationalism – and requires getting into government either by taking office directly or forcing the established parties to take nationalists into their own ranks.
I do wonder if the contradictions between the “right” and “left” nationalists might not be better addressed by having two nationalist parties, one of the old school working class solidarity left, and one of the conservative right. With support already above 10% there’s clearly room for two parties to get above the 5% threshold, and two separate parties could each much more effectively target dissenters from the establishment parties.
The UKIP experience suggests to me that the contradictions involved in aiming for working class anti-immigration support and for conservative support at the same time might be insurmountable.
That’s what we want. Push the system to its breaking point. Absolute worst case scenario is that Germany turns into a Muslim country but a Muslim country is infinitely preferable to the status quo. An Islamic Germany would also blow up the entire EU.
Although I’m not advocating it, it may prove necessary for Western Euro reactionaries to simply convert to Islam.
Indeed.
Well, one example from history of trying that approach didn’t end all that well:
The issue of where to draw the line on freedom of speech in relation to advocacy of violence is a tricky one indeed, but I think it’s generally better to err on the side of pushing the envelope to slightly beyond one’s comfort zone wherever possible. An equivalent from my point of view to the “Jews should go to the ovens” that you understandably find personally menacing would be the kind of anti-white racist advocacy of violence that is fairly commonplace these days (from the mealy-mouthed “deniable” stuff such as Professor Curry’s to the more blatantly ignorant stuff).
I’d prefer to shrug and let the Curry’s of this world stew in their own obsessive, but if nationalists, traditionalists, nativists, conservatives, “racists”, “homophobes” and “antisemites” are going to be sacked, assaulted or locked up for expressing their opinions then at least I want to see the likes of Curry sacked, assaulted or locked up, too.
I disagree with AP.
I suspect Russia at any rate would have embraced the population replacement agenda with gusto.
There is this stereotype of the Russian Empire as this arch-reactionary entity with Cossacks on thot patrol with nagaikas in hand, but it is completely wrong. It was in fact socially liberal (or libertine), in many respects even by (non-French) Western standards.
Consider the following:
Law: Tended to be humane even by European standards, especially in the context of the sustained terrorist campaign against government officials conducted by Leftist radicals (rarely is it mentioned that the numbers of murdered officials was similar to the victims of Stolypin’s infamous neckties). Exiles to Siberia tended to be internal holidays that the “inmates” could cancel at will. All forms of corporal punishment were abolished in 1904, ahead of the UK and the US. Despite modern Russia’s 70 year legacy of official atheism, the irony is that Pussy Riot would have spent a maximum of three months in jail in the Russian Empire (had they gone to prison at all).
Tattooes: Popular amongst the bobos and aristos. Here’s Nicky’s:
http://www.prezidentpress.ru/uploads/posts/2016-09/1474817667_kwpd-cxhsca.jpg
How’s the Women’s Battalion of Death for feminism?
More “problematic” aspects:
Now I am not saying that Russia would have been comparatively or even more “cucked” than modern day Sweden or Germany.
For instance, gun rights were very strong in the Russian Empire.
There were also no shortage of conservative and nationalist pundits, who under a normal 20th century trajectory might have developed into US-style conservative talk radio.
All that said, Russia would have still been way more liberal than it is today.
Now to address a couple of AP’s points:
Russia would however have been influenced by colonialist self-loathing (esp. with respect to Central Asia).
And even Ireland, a country that was extremely conservative – frankly it was more conservative in the 1960s than Russia was in the 1900s – didn’t participate in colonialism, wasn’t Nazi/fascist, isn’t core Hajnal like the Scandinavian nations – but they have still invited mass immigration and elected a gay Indian as their Prime Minister.
Russia and the rest of Eastern Europe would have probably been something like that.
tl;dr: there is self destructive tendency to white people, ALL white people, slavs included.
I can understand why Jews, Latinos, Arabs, Indians and Blacks don’t have this self destructive tendency, but I don’t understand how Northeast Asians, who are even more intelligent than whites are, have avoided it.
Wrong. Proportional representation is much better for nationalists than winner-take-all. If the USA had a parliamentary system, then as far back as the 1990’s, or even 1980’s, there would have been an American version of UKIP, led by Pat Buchanan or somebody, which would have forced the GOP to either start listening to its voters on immigration or be replaced. When you only have two major parties, it’s too easy for them to form a cartel on issues where the elites of both parties agree. And when there is no significant political figure or party advocating a reduction in legal immigration, the establishment media can get away with treating even the mention of the idea as taboo, as they have basically have done in America for decades (though Tom Cotton’s introduction of the RAISE Act has finally opened a small crack in that wall of silence).
Which would be a good thing, because Trump is a con man and a buffoon, whose election has hurt Le Pen and other genuine, serious nationalist candidates in Europe (although hopefully the German result means that effect is beginning to wear off). In a parliamentary system, the vacuum that produced Trump would never have existed.
The mindset of the impoverished rural hidalgo from the Golden Century. The English and other Northern Europeans complained about it then like you complain now, but Spain was never a culture where work, work and even more work is purpose of life.
no! no wai!
Proportion-wise, that means the biggest number of defections to AfD was from Linke. Which is of course exactly what I would have expected (same base of support in the east and the working class, same general skepticism of liberalism and the establishment, etc.).
I’ve got to say, AfD did wildly better than I would have expected, especially since ethnic nationalists have underperformed in several European elections since Trump’s victory (the Hofer loss to Van der Bellen was especially irritating). I’m not in favour of AfD, and i’m more of a Linke guy myself, but this does indicate that ethnic nationalism in general might be recovering from the temporary ‘trump effect’.
If reactionaries could agree not to infight every other second, it’ll already be a divine miracle.
“Scandinavia” here is an oversimplification. Denmark has taken a very different route on immigration than Sweden and Finland have (fortunately), and the ethnic nationalist DF party has had a lot of influence on their immigration laws (to the point where even the Social Democrats now reject the idea of a multi-ethnic Denmark).
Austria is another example of a European country outside the old communist block which is going quite conservative on immigration, but as you rightly note this may be related to the lack of a colonial legacy: Austria-Hungary never had colonies outside Europe.
Yes, but Austria wasn’t completely free of Nazi-guilt. Otherwise it would have exactly fit the pattern of other eastern European countries.
Anatoly,
My comments were strictly about the central/eastern European people such as Poles, Hungarians, Balts, Czechs, Slovaks, and Ukrainians. I did not take Russia in mind when making them. As you rightly point out Russia had some features differentiating itself from the others.
Actually, your description of late Tsarist-era Russia is very interesting. A few comments:
The murdered crowned prince of conservative Austria-Hungary also had a large dragon tattoo – his was across his chest.
I would not equate Puritanism with conservativism (which is basically traditionalism). The contrary is the case. Dour Cromwell was not more conservative than the monarchs whom he replaced. ISIS is not more conservative than the traditional Arab tribal structures and societal religious pluralism. Aristocrats indulging themselves now and then is not necessarily some sort of liberalism.
Maybe not. Russia was itself the victim of Muslim invasion and occupation; it just turned the tables on its oppressors. This is very different from western Europeans conquering innocent Africans and abusing them. Moreover, with the exception of the Caucuses, Russia under the Tsars was far more humane towards its conquered subjects than were western Europeans. Russia didn’t do to them what was done to the Congo, or India, or even Ireland. Russians would have far less to be guilty about.
I wrote elsewhere and will paste (with edits) that an actual natural experiment exists, that can give us a clue about Communist influence on culture – the former Russian governate of Volynia, that was split by the Treat of Riga, such as that one part went to the USSR and the other part became part of Poland, free of Communism for 25 years.
So, you can compare Rivne oblast to Zhytomir oblast. These oblasts have the same populations, same history prior to Communism, same religion, same urban/rural mix. Only difference is Zhytomir got 25 years more of communism. href=https://www.volynnews.com/news/extreme/karta_zlochynnosti_v_ukrayini_sered_ukrayinomovnykh__zlochyntsiv_menshe/ >Here is crime rate in 2012. It jumps when you cross the 1920 border into territory that was subjected to an additional 25 years of Communism. Here is abortion by oblast in 1999. Rivne – 32.8%. Zhytomir 45.9%. Similarly, HIV rate nearly doubles when you cross from Rivne to Zhytomir oblasts, from 13.7 per 100,000 to 20.3/100,000.
The parts that experienced communism later have lower homicide rates, crime rates, HIV rates, abortion rates and other indicators of social and moral degeneracy. Communist parts also have lower fertility rates, yet higher % of children born to unwed mothers.
:::::::::::::::::::::
Another thing to consider – no Communism no Nazism. And no Nazism – no German guilt. This might have changed things considerably.
This kinda implies that he’s a player, playing his own game under this ‘krysha’. But I just don’t see what his game might be in that part of the world. The best game he’s got, at this point, is being paid by AEI or the Atlantic Council or some such. Which means that it’s not a ‘krysha’, but his boss, his employer; he’s working for someone.
Did you read the article?
It was rather stupid on various levels, and the author comes across as ignorant in the comments.
Superb idea and I one I’ve not heard before. A left-leaning or “progressive” nationalist party to weaken and take support from the Dems, and a right-leaning “conservative or libertarian party to weaken and take support from the republicans. Love it.
I didn’t mean to vouch for the veracity of the article (not sure when Vincent Law became an authority on matters Russian/Ukrainian), just to point out that the answer to MCJ’s question, according to the author, was contained in the article.
Wouldn’t work in the USA due to the political system. It would just mean that if the left-wing nationalist party was stronger than the right-wing one, the Republicans would win, or vice versa.
It was an SCW reference but it could just as easily have been a Catalan Revolt reference, which really was too long ago to remember.
The SCW was not really about regionalism except for the Basques but it did shut down nascent romantic-nationalist independentism quite effectively. And it ensured people would start thinking about “Spain” as a good idea (the Republicans, whether separatists or internationalists, would shoot you for saying “Viva Espanya!”).
He fought with the Reds (the International Brigades)?
The SCW was won (it was fought by everyone from Castilians to Catalans to Italians to Americans and peasants to millionaires) by the Navarrese, the Legion, and (mostly initially) the Moors. The Navarrese and the Legion are still game, I think.
And as Darin said unwillingness of Spaniards to work has never meant unwillingness of Spaniards to fight. But then I’m not a Spaniard.
Spaniards aren’t foreigners no matter what the crazier Catalanists will tell you. And this is just a guess but I think the real Catalanists have the least stomach for a fight of anyone in Spain, unless they’re also Commies or something.
Indeed, he fought with the Reds. I’m not sure if he was with the International Brigades, but looking at it, it seems almost certain that he was. He was a student in France, got radicalized to the Communists, and joined the war effort; he would survive the SCW to return to China, where he became a journalist/propagandist to promote the Communist cause for the remainder of his life. As most of my family were nationalists/KMT, he was the black sheep.
In some ways, I think, a typical example of a disaffected member of the elite that went hard left. He died(from an STD) before it happened, but I wonder sometimes what he would think of the fact that almost our entire family would get butchered by the Red Guard following Mao Zedong’s victory.
But what’s there ‘to think of it’? Surely you understand that the Red Guard were not aliens from Mars but a completely natural and unavoidable development. Are you so westernized/corrupted that no healthy fatalism is left in you, at all?
Speaking of Peter the Great, how come he looked more like a gypsy than a Northern Slav? Take a look:
http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-ivan-nikitin-portrait-of-peter-the-great-on-his-death-bed-wga16574-132818468.html
http://www.rusartist.org/ivan-nikitich-nikitin-c-1680-1742/nikitin_peter1/
Fair point. Presumably AfD have drawn away those among the anti-establishment potential Linke voters who see the need for, or are attracted by, patriotism or traditional social views. Left behind are presumably those who do not find those issues important or who are just too indoctrinated in the anti-racist etc taboos.
Not buying this one. The supposed “underperforming” was mostly measured against mainstream media hype of unrealistic expectations raised because of Trump’s victory and UKIP’s triumph.
There has been a degree of consolidation, but that’s mostly because of the unprecedented highs reached by such parties in many countries, and the resulting rallying of establishment parties and media mouthpieces of both “left” and “right” against them.
It seems to me (based upon the UKIP experience in this country) to be essential, because “left” nationalists are mostly incompatible with “right” nationalists in many of the (especially economic) policies they push. So the more UKIP tried to attract “old left” working class types alienated by the devastation wrought by mass immigration, the more they alienated former “Conservative” Party types who recognised the damage of globalism and mass immigration but did not find working class solidarity particularly appealing and saw many of the proposed measures as likely to cost them money, and vice versa. Trump has the same problem over issues like healthcare, where if he goes for nationalised healthcare on the basis of national working class solidarity he’ll immediately lose much of his conservative support, whereas if he goes for the kind of low subsidy healthcare options preferred by many conservatives he’ll lose much of his working class base.
It’s much easier to propose in Germany, where they have proportional representation and a relatively low threshold for election to office. In Britain with the high threshold created by first past the post and in the US with the various constitutional and other blocks against third parties, it runs up against the difficulty that you need sufficient support to break through. Appealing to both sides seems to help with that, but in reality it seems to create a ceiling on support.
Ideally, on one side you’d have a left national solidarity party advocating an end to mass immigration, globalist interventionism and pc nonsense, together with strong national sovereignty, nationalised healthcare and high tax and spending for the benefit of the working people of the nation, leeching support from the bankrupt establishment parties of the “left”. On the other you’d have a right national solidarity party advocating an end to mass immigration, globalist interventionism and pc nonsense, together with strong national sovereignty, low taxes and low spending, leeching support from the bankrupt establishment parties of the “right”. In the end these parties would ideally each destroy its establishment counterpart and take over as the party representing their broad constituency, essentially replacing the globalist pc political elite wholesale with more patriotic, more sensible and less ideologically internationalist and antiracist people.
I think the idea of one nationalist party is superficially appealing in both the US and the UK, with their high barriers to entry for third parties, because it holds out the possibility of getting bigger by drawing support from both sides. But in practice, for the reasons I’ve pointed out in the posts above, it creates a limit to the growth of the nationalist party and ensures that the bigger such a party gets the more unstable it becomes.
In the end, I think the situation I’ve described above will be the inevitable result of general growth in nationalist support combined with establishment parties on both sides that continue to spurn that point of view, anyway.
This is a problem with any third party in the US system, where no matter how much it tries to pretend to draw support from both sides.
You’re over there so you would know better but from stateside it appears like non Americans really, really, really hate Trump, including centrists and even right wingers. I can’t believe that the Trump effect didn’t hurt Hofer and Le Pen, although I also feel like it is starting to wear off.
Hofer probably beat that cuck he was running against if not for fraud the first time they ran and he got absolutely slaughtered the 2nd time. The only change between 1st race and the 2nd was Trump’s victory.
I can’t speak for the UK, but our homo northern neighbors are losing their minds over Trump. They have been melting down for nearly a year now and don’t show any indications that they will be recovering anytime soon. Even Mexico has lost interest in Trump but the West is still going nuts.
This is a very naive take on US politics. A man like Corbyn could never even win the primary for a House seat in the US, let alone lead the Democratic party. In the contemporary Democratic party, anything less then full throat support for open borders is political suicide.
This isn’t like the UK where even Milliband pretended to want some immigration restriction.
Maybe I’m mistaken, but isn’t Corbyn an internationalist nutcase who’s strongly in favour of mass immigration? Not exactly a representative of a “patriotic Left” imo.
As for Trump, well, of course unhinged lefties freak out over him, that was to be expected, but I have to say, as someone who had some hopes for his presidency, I’m not impressed so far by his conduct at all. It’s hard not to feel that Trump is a seriously flawed character (what’s it with him humiliating even someone like Sessions who endorsed him when it actually mattered?) and quite possibly nothing more than an egomanical con man without any principles or coherent thought at all. And his conduct of international affairs (e.g. calling Kim Jong Un “rocket man” and saying he won’t be around for much longer…you can do something like that with domestic opponents, but not towards a regime like North Korea’s) is starting to unnerve me, seems to confirm the worst predictions (and no, I don’t think it’s all part of some brilliant strategy, that’s wishful thinking imo).
He is in favour (in theory) of border controls with the EU, but obviously pro non-white mass immigration.
It’s a shame that the immigration debate in our country has become centred around EU migrants who are (excluding Western Europeans and those from the white Commonwealth) by far the least objectionable group. But it suits lefty politicians for it to be that way, because they can pretend to be anti-immigration without being (plausibly) accused of racism and without alienating their non-white voting base.
That’s also the impression the media over here gives of the US, in fact. That it is incompatible with the reality that 63 million Americans voted for him does not trouble the mainstream media any more than realities that conflict with their ideological dogmas ever do.
But for sure, disrespect for Trump is more widespread over here and in Europe.
But the Trump victory coming on top of the UKIP triumph led to widespread media predictions of similar unexpectedly high votes for nationalists here, supposedly in part inspired by those victories. That effect, to the extent it was real, might or might not have been counteracted by a negative “Trump effect”, but the reality is that all the supposed “nationalist failures” have actually been nothing of the kind in any rational long view, though again that has not been the impression given (deliberately and with propagandist intent) by the establishment media.
Inflating your enemy’s expectations so as to paint them as failures is a commonplace political tactic. The real picture of the past year has been one of ongoing disasters for establishment parties whilst parties of national survival consolidated at massive long term highs.
In Holland, Wilders’ PVV gained 3% and moved up into 2nd place in number of seats while the ruling VVD lost ground and the establishment “left” Labor party were smashed.
In France, the FN contested the Presidential final vote for only the second time in history, last time sneaking into the runoff by beating the Socialists into 3rd place by a mere 0.7% and getting only 17% in the final vote in the face of the usual establishment shutout. This time round they doubled that vote and after the total collapse of the establishment parties of “left” and “right” they were only beaten by an emergency “new” bankers’ candidate who will likely crash and burn.
In Austria, getting into the runoff, let alone so close to the victory, was an unprecedented event – the first time since WW2 the Presidency had not come down to a choice between establishment “left” and establishment “right” parties. The difference between Hofer’s votes was about 3%, and the bankers’ candidate gained about the same, but how much of that was due to voters associating Hofer with Trump, rather than added motivation for anti-nationalists and second thoughts for nationalist voters created by the shock of an unprecedented nationalist victory, who knows? The bottom line though is that in the broader contest the result was another point on the sharply rising long term trend for nationalists.
Corbyn is not a good example anyway. Though he has some old fashioned leftist characteristics in his personality and politics, and his wing of the party is defined against the more openly establishment Blairite faction, he is by no means nationalist in any useful sense. On most issues he’s fully on board with the leftist internationalist and minority-worshipping dogmas that cripple parties of the “left” generally. (Most of the criticism he gets on this score is Israel lobby bollocks slung at him because he tends to favour the Palestinians over the jews in the minority top trumps game).
That’s why in the end the only solution will probably be for a new party to arise on the left that represents working class Americans honestly, to ultimately either displace the Democrats or force them to change in the way Trump has to some extent forced the Republicans to at least consider changing.
The EU has been the driver for secessionist movements in Europe, once we leave the EU it will kill Scottish independence dead.
The only a third quote is often attributed to John Adams and goes something like this. “One third of the American people were opposed to the Revolution, one third were enthusiastic supporters, and one third were lukewarm or neutral.”
The problem with that particular quote is that it’s based on a letter that John Adams wrote in 1815 to Massachusetts Senator James Lloyd where Adams is specifically talking about the French Revolution.
“I should say that full one third were averse to the revolution…. An opposite third… gave themselves up to an enthusiastic gratitude to France. The middle third,… always averse to war, were rather lukewarm both to England and France….” 1
The truth is that we don’t know how many people were Loyalists or how many people fully supported the war. As with most wars the number of people who were enthusiastic supporters and those who were lukewarm or opposed changed over time.
There are several factors that impacted whether or not a person ended up a Loyalist or a Whig (as those who supported separation were generally called), and it wasn’t necessarily just their ideas about liberty or freedom. These factors included geography, religion, occupation, pre-war conflicts, and ethnicity.
In addition there was a fair amount of side switching that happened too. People would fight for a Loyalist militia unit and then become discouraged or disillusioned and join with a Whig militia unit for awhile, and then rejoin a Loyalist unit, or vice versa. Sometimes people would switch sides and desert the British forces and join the American army and keep fighting or vice versa.
As for the break down of who was Loyalists, at the outbreak of the conflict, it’s probably safe to say that the majority of Americans supported the war efforts. In New England that majority was probably over 85%, and in Massachusetts the majority was so strong that they’d been able to drive all royal authority from the province (except for Boston) during the summer and fall of 1774.
In the middle colonies there was more opposition, with significant groups of opposition in New Jersey and New York. In Pennyslvania the opposition came from the Quakers who mostly controlled the government of the colony. As pacifists they opposed any violence. However there was a very strong radical movement in Philadelphia and there’s some thought that this radical movement helped spur Congress into declaring independence.
South Carolina lacked a strong Loyalist presence until later in the war–early on the Whig forces seized control early, though they were never as numerous there as in the north. This also held true for North Carolina.
Virginia was mostly Whig–or at least the Whigs dominated the government and took control of the governing apparatus early on.
Trump was only one factor. As the German right-wing newspaper Junge Freiheit pointed out, there were several factors that hurt Hofer during the last elections like how the media successfully sold the FPÖ as anti-EU party, not enough support from the center-right ÖVP or the unpopularity of another election round.
This is a posthumous portrait. Lifetime portrait (the artist is the same Nikitin)
https://imgur.com/a/BrvvU
Young Peter:
http://zoozel.ru/gallery/images/1440868_petr-1-kartinki-karandashom.jpg
Quite ordinary “Northern Slav” brunette
Yes, that’s actually what bothers me about parts of the pro-Brexit campaign in Britain…I can understand wanting to get out of the EU (“United States of Europe”…what a nightmare vision) and there probably was too much immigration by Poles and other East Europeans…but then they have all that sentimental politically correct nonsense about increased ties to the Commonwealth and how wonderful subcontinental and African immigrants are, despite all the evidence to the contrary. But maybe a more honest discussion about those issues just isn’t possible under present conditions.
Had to do something to limit the size of the overwhelming anti Brexit ethnic minority vote. Mere rhetoric though.
As for the economic issue, the cost of immigration must be emphasised, that is how you square the right left issue.
Has it really though?
I mean I understand the theory – that the Euro-elite mostly want a Europe of the regions and that breaking up the larger states helps shift power to the Eurocrat wing of the Euro-elite. But that very division inside the Euro-elite between the EU Eurocrats and the branch of the Euro-elite that still has its powerbase in the national governments makes it difficult for them to act on it directly.
And looking at modern Scottish nationalism, it long predates the EU and hasn’t shown consistent growth in the EU years. The SNP came to prominence in the 1960s and reached its first peak at 30% of the Scottish vote in 1974, just as the UK entered the EEC. It fell back in the Thatcher years and bumbled along at 10-20% of the vote until the spectacular collapse of the Labour Party in the 2015 election.
Maybe, though it’s by no means guaranteed we will meaningfully leave the EU as far as I can see.
But one of the big problems for the SNP was always precisely that a victory for secession would mean exit from the EU with no guarantee they could get back in quickly (Scotland voted 62% for Remain). With the UK already out, that no longer applies and it’s easy to foresee the Euro-crats offering favourable terms for Scottish entry just to make trouble for the UK. That way the Spanish and Italian governments who have their own problems with secessionism would no longer need to veto such action, because it would be a different situation from that of their own regions, which would still be seceding from within the EU.
Correct. First-past-the-post basically requires a 2 party system, and thus isn’t terribly democratic.
Well, you aptly describe the uproar by Ukraine’s neighboring governments as being ‘histrionic’*. Ukraine’s only perfectly mimicking the language policies regarding minorities already put into place by its concerned neighbors. What’s ‘good for the goose should be good enough for the gander’ eh, Anatoly? 🙂
*melodramatic, theatrical, dramatic, exaggerated, stagy, actorly, showy, affected, artificial, overacted, overdone;
Yet the dominant parties in such systems can and do change. The Labour Party in the UK, the SNP in Scotland, the Republicans in the US – all of these were once excluded by a two party system under first past the post.
Indeed. There are officially 51,000 Ukrainians in Romania but not a single Ukrainian school (Ukrainian is taught as a subject in a few schools). Hungary’s 5,000 Ukrainians get some public funding for Ukrainian classes on Sundays – but no full time schools. There are no Ukrainian secondary schools in Russia, which has millions of ethnic Ukrainians. I haven’t read the new Ukrainian law, but are they implementing a Romanian approach (a minority-language class in a Ukrainian-language school)? That would seem to be reasonable.
Yes, but this requires the collapse of one of the two parties – something that happens once in several generations and hasn’t happened in the USA since the 19th century.
I think that the big Bogeyman behind the uproar is that hard ass Hungarians feel that they’ll lose some of their own to a ‘forced Ukrainianization’. In reality, learning the official state language only helps minorities take a fuller involvement in the political life of their areas. Many of the local Hungarian (Romanian, etc;) yahoos are consigned to living a life with limited opportunities within their own ethnic ghettos, or moving to the country of their origins.
The EU provides the benefits of federalism that Madrid or London provided, the EU made them redundant. There is no value that Madrid adds for the Catalans.
Scotland would still need England in the EU, the EU offered the possibility of ‘independence’ whilst retaining all the requirements of fiscal aid, freedom of movement, one market etc. to make Scottish independence feasible.
The kind of collapse that can occur, for instance, if a party hierarchy persists in ignoring, for ideological and corrupt reasons, the issues that really concern its base?
Overdue for one or two of them, then.
The rise in nationalist resistance to globalism will either continue or stagnate/fade away. If it stagnates or fades away it we are all screwed anyway. If it lasts, then eventually the establishment globalist parties of the old “right” and “left” must eventually either represent it or make way for parties that will do so.
But it has been made clear repeatedly that a region seceding from an EU country is not an EU member by default and must join the queue for new members. That wouldn’t be a problem if the Eurocrats had free rein to usher them in quickly, as they would like to, but the governments threatened by secession (UK, Spain, Italy, primarily) have repeatedly vetoed that option, for obvious reasons.
In a few countries (Austria and Denmark, and New Zealand though they’re not in Europe) there’s also been a trend of establishment parties trying to outmaneuver the ethnic nationalists by going tough on immigration to co-opt their agenda.
As I noted above:
Some of the establishment parties around the world are obviously either more perceptive, more cynical or more honest than others, and have moved more quickly.
You are not using the word posthumous correctly. The portraits were drawn by the artist (much better in his craft than in his earlier romanticized effort, as shown by the near photographic quality of his paintings) at Peter the Great’s bed during his final illness. Those paintings show him as he really looked.
It is remarkable that neither Russia’s greatest Czar nor it’s greatest literary genius (the part-Ethiopian Pushkin) looked anything like the typical russian…
And as a typical Russian look like?
Pushkin was 1/8 Ethiopian of course he looked atypical.
Peter (as seen from numerous portraits) was ordinary looking dark-haired Russian (blue-eyed blondes are the norm only in Northern Russia)
However for complete objectivity – that is a bronze casting from a wax mask taken from the face of Peter the Great (after death).
https://imgur.com/a/8VVzE
Add dark hair to this face . What is unusual about that?.
Murder your family first and then comment on the historical necessity of other peoples’ families being murdered.
Sorry about causing emotional trauma, but you know, for the future: this website has “commenters to ignore” functionality.
Why should I ignore you? I look forward to reading the catalogue of the bourgeois moralities you have fearlessly overturned. Onward into the future, comrade!
I don’t remember commenting on bourgeois morality; it doesn’t interest me. All I said was that the Red Guard didn’t come from Mars, but came to be by the natural chain of events. With seems rather uncontroversial.
I appreciate your encouragement, but are you planning to continue lecturing me on bourgeois morality?
You realize, do you not, that this is a comment?